Heinlein Reader’s Discussion Group Thursday 11-09-2000 9:00 P.M. EST Women In Heinlein

Heinlein Reader’s Discussion Group

Thursday 11-09-2000 9:00 P.M. EST

Women In Heinlein

Click Here to Return to Index

Here Begin The A.F.H. postings

Subject: RAH-AIM Notice of Mtngs, 11/9 & 11/11/00–“Women in Heinlein”

Date: 11/03/2000

Author: AGplusone

The Robert A. Heinlein Reading Group

Notice of Meetings

http://members.aol.com/agplusone/rahmain.htm

Date: Thursday, November 9, 9 PM to midnight, ET, and

Saturday, November 11, 2000, 5 to 8 PM, ET.

Topic: “Women in Heinlein.”

Chat Cohosts:

Jane Davitt (),

Randi Pattersen (),

and Stephanie Vickers ().

As noted in my last post before the chats for last Thursday and Saturday [see our archives at http://www.alltel.net/~dwrighsr/heinlein.html] the topic for our next meetings is “Women in Heinlein” and we have three volunteer co-hosts, one of whom, however, may be prevented from participating by a happy event, the birth of her second daughter. Although Jane (arrival of baby permitting) and Randi may have some diametrically opposed viewpoints to express, another frequent participant, Stephanie (Filly) has agreed to help keep thermomnuclear war from breaking out. If you’ve followed the recent “Women in Heinlein” thread, some 160 posts last time I checked, you may have a glimmer of what I’m writing about.

I’ve a suggestion the co-hosts may wish to consider to organize the chat and premeeting readings and posts within manageable bounds.

There are many ways to work this: the best I’ve found in the past with theme topics is for *each* cohost to name one work (novel, novella, or shortstory) containing one character (or characters) that best exemplifies the qualities you’d discuss, i.e., were I a host since I’d wish to discuss qualities I find admirable, I’d name the novel _To Sail Beyond The Sunset_ and the character Maureen Johnson, and then name another (or the same) work and another character that least exemplifies those qualities, i.e., I’d name the novella _Methuselah’s Children_ [contained in the collection _The Past Through Tomorrow_] and the character Eleanor Johnson (a close second to point the way I’d be going would be John Thomas Stuart’s mother in the ‘juvenile’ novel _The Star Beast_). That will bring the reading within some likelihood that readers of this newsgroup, especially new ones, will be able to keep up.

Jane and Randi and Stephanie will, of course, have their own nominations and thoughts. [If anyone wishes to step in to substitute in the event Jane is indeed absent–and I think she’s going to be, judging from the absence of her posts these last couple days, write Randi and Stephanie, and copy me, please. You need not have diametrically opposed viewpoints to Randi’s.] Please put your leadoff and subsequent posts in this thread so Dave Wright doesn’t go crazy chasing all over the AFH board to find them.

Please remember to help the cohosts out by your thoughts in posts before the meetings. As always, there is more than just the ‘story’ to talk about.

For information on how to participate in the chats, download AIM software from http://www.aol.com/aim/home.html and read the directions on David Wright’s website: http://www.alltel.net/~dwrighsr/heinlein.html/ If that doesn’t work, drop me ( or ) [I use a Macintosh] or Dave Wright () [he uses one of the other thingies that run DOS and Windoze] an e mail and we’ll try to help further.

Finally, I’d note that our meetings straddle a day of some significance to some in our newsgroup, November 10, 1775, which is the birthday of the U.S.M.C. Happy Birthday and ‘Semper Fi, Mac,’ to OJ and Wiz, and others of you who were “Once a Marine … Always a Marine.”

November 11 is also, of course, Armistice Day. To those and the memory of those who served,

“Here’s mud in your eye!”

Until next Thursday and Saturday, or unless I see you on this thread, good reading, good eating, good living and good loving … all possible if you make time enough.

David M. Silver

“I expect your names to shine!”

—————————————————————————————

Subject: Re: RAH-AIM Notice of Mtngs,11/9 & 11/00–“Women in Heinlein”

Date: 11/02/2000

Author: ddavitt

 

AGplusone wrote:

>

> There are many ways to work this: the best I’ve found in the past with theme

> topics is for *each* cohost to name one work (novel, novella, or shortstory)

> containing one character (or characters) that best exemplifies the qualities

> you’d discuss, i.e., were I a host since I’d wish to discuss qualities I find

> admirable, I’d name the novel _To Sail Beyond The Sunset_ and the character

> Maureen Johnson, and then name another (or the same) work and another character

> that least exemplifies those qualities,snip

>

>

I’m still here! My doctor will induce any time after November 12 if the baby is still determined to hang on in there so I’ll have to see how it goes. I’ve waited this long what’s a few more days? (As any mums on the group will realise, this is a rhetorical question, meant to show what a good sport I’m being and not meant to be taken seriously :-)))

There are a lot of interesting female characters in Heinlein and I agree that contrasting two ( or more) is a good way of provoking some discussion. It’s just difficult to pick and choose….

It’s possible to identify types; there are the very young girls; Freddy from Door, Peewee from HSSWT, Peggy from Farmer perhaps. Then we move onto the teenagers; Puddin, Poddy, Betty, Ellie, Holly ( hey, why do lots of these names end in ‘y’?!). Next come the young matrons; lots in GHOE, Cynthia from Hoag, Maureen as a new wife and mother. Finally we have the older women who can be either power hungry, manipulative or stupid, John Thomas’s mother, Mrs Grew, Mrs Tarbutton, Grace, Mrs Harriman….or be surprisingly nice; Martha from Jerry was A Man has always been one of my favourites.

There are lots who don’t quite fit of course…and lots I haven’t mentioned. One avenue that might be intriguing is comparing Hilda and Deety; both going through the same experiences but reacting in very different ways sometimes and very similar ways other times. How is this triggered? Is it simply a matter of age and experience? How affected is Hilda by her height and the way Jake treats her? How does her character evolve from fluffhead hostess to Captain Hilda who can take on Lazarus and win? Does Deety change as much? Or at all? Or how about two career women? Grace from We Also Walk Dogs and Cynthia from Hoag; both working with their husbands, both successful at what they do. If that’s related to the time of writing, was Heinlein being quite daring? Were they allowed to fulfill their potential?

We may get back to the well worn tracks of asking if the women are realistic or super women, sexually akin to blow up dolls or believably motivated…..but it would be nice to step away from that and look at it from a different POV too. Why are young females in the stories always very bright and older women mostly bitches? Who would Peewee have been like when she grew up? Poddy? Don’t think so….

All this is very jumbled but if I can think of anything a bit more coherent I’ll post it 🙂

Jane

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 1

Subject: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/21/2000

Author: Stephanie Vickers

I started NOTB yesterday, after crying and laughing my way through TEFL. And, as I was reading Hilda’s first POV chapter, I found myself reminded of As Good As It Gets, with Jack Nicholson. I know there has been some criticism of RAH’s portrayal of women. But, I think that would be the one question I had; how did he write his women, get inside their heads, and write in their voice? Sounds like an ignorant question, and if I got Nicholson’s reply back, I’d grin. Pretending at being a writer, I know how hard it can be (not is) to write believable genders. As unbelievably adept as his ladies are, RAH captured some of the more colorful nuances of the mentality, IMHO.

Filly

“You can’t depend on your eyes when your imagination is out of focus.”

–Mark Twain

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 2

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/21/2000

Author: BPRAL22169

A lot of people don’t believe that type of woman exists at all, but she/they does/do.

It’s my impression that Heinlein genuinely liked women and talked with (and actually listened to) many different kinds of women all through his life. I know it’s routine to say of men that they “like” women, but they don’t seem to act like it. R, on the other hand, chose to spend day and night with his wife for 40 years. Bill

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 3

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/21/2000

Author: Randi

BPRAL22169 () arranged the electrons thusly…

> A lot of people don’t believe that type of woman exists at all, but she/they

> does/do.

>

> It’s my impression that Heinlein genuinely liked women and talked with (and

> actually listened to) many different kinds of women all through his life. I

> know it’s routine to say of men that they “like” women, but they don’t seem to

> act like it. R, on the other hand, chose to spend day and night with his wife

> for 40 years.

> Bill

You mean the wife he didn’t divorce, right? He chose to do quite the opposite with his first wife. 🙂

I feel it important enough to point out that being open minded does not imply that a person is free of biases. I’m certain the guards at Auschwitz and Bergen-Belsen liked, and talked with, and actually listened to many different kinds of Jews as they herded them all into the showers.

Many of Heinlein’s female protagonists seem to be poured from the same Nietzschean mold: Stalwart, ravishing beauties who shoot straight even when pregnant, and always get dinner on the table on time. Friday is arguably Heinlein’s most realistic and sympathetic female character. She is sexy, vulnerable, compassionate, loyal, confused — in short, quite like any real woman. By making her an artifact of an engineering process, Heinlein is implying that women like Friday don’t exist in nature. Feel free to disagree, but if you do, please explain why Friday is such a deviation from Heinlein’s standard uberbabe.

-Randi

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 4

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/21/2000

Author: BPRAL22169

This “analysis” is unforgiveably superficial, your reasoning is sloppy and does not follow — and gratuitously nasty to boot.

Robert and Leslyn Heinlein did live together very closely for fifteen years. People remarked at the time that they would complete each others’ sentences. Marriages fall apart for a wide variety of reasons; since RAH did live with Virginia on terms of considerable intimacy, it is not logically possible to conclude, as you apparently have, that there is some kind of hypocrisy involved.

Friday is one of Heinlein’s rare studies of a woman who is emotionally crippled — like Dr. Mary Jane Martin in “‘Let There Be Light.'” Friday is engaged in a process of self-healing. She is neither more nor less “realistically” portrayed than Maureen Johnson or Hilda Jacobs or Holly Jones or any of a host of Heinlein characters.

In the middle of this century, there was an emotionally crippled character type infesting litcrit who that could only see crippled characters as “real.” The rest of the world has moved on, leaving these emotional dinosaurs behind.

Heinlein never bought into those standards and never wrote to them. He did write about characters he was interested in. He was interested in how one lives as an independent, self-actualizing human being in a social context. That was the issue that consumed Nietzsche, so perhaps in that sense some of his characters may be said to be “Nietzschean.” Remember, in Nietzsche, the “over”man is one who “over”comes himself, and the “will to power” means the drive to be self-actualizing.

You have not logically argued your thesis; you have simply asserted it. Going from “many of Heinlein’s female protagonists” to “Heinlein’s standard uberbabe.” is logical sleight of hand, nothing more.

Bill

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 5

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/21/2000

Author: James Gifford

BPRAL22169 wrote:

> This “analysis” is unforgiveably superficial, your reasoning is sloppy

> and does not follow — and gratuitously nasty to boot.

I dunno, Bill. You still seem to have trouble expressing yourself. Tell us what you *really* think.

🙂

| James Gifford – Nitrosyncretic Press – |

| See http://www.nitrosyncretic.com for the Heinlein FAQ & more |

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 6

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/21/2000

Author: Joel Rosenberg

That said, there’s some truth there: most Heinlein protagonists, male and female, aren’t haunted by fear of incompetence and inadequacy. Friday’s unusual in that respect, as is Thorby, and, in a quirky way, Scar Gordon.

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 7

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/21/2000

Author: BPRAL22169

>most Heinlein protagonists, male

>and female, aren’t haunted by fear of incompetence and inadequacy.

Most people I know aren’t “haunted by fear of incompetence and inadequacy,” either. This is a literary convention, not a descriptor of reality.

Bill

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 8

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/21/2000

Author: Joel Rosenberg

(BPRAL22169) writes:

> >most Heinlein protagonists, male

> >and female, aren’t haunted by fear of incompetence and inadequacy.

>

>

> Most people I know aren’t “haunted by fear of incompetence and inadequacy,”

> either. This is a literary convention, not a descriptor of reality.

> Bill

Different folks’ reality differs. I certainly am, and many (not, by any means, all) of my protagonists are.

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 9

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/22/2000

Author: BPRAL22169

>Different folks’ reality differs.

Exactly. The “fear of inadequacy” certainly is a real human feeling, and there are some individuals who do, indeed, build their psyche around that. But the idea that it is a dominating concern of any significant amount of the population is a literary convention, not a sociological proposition. That is, it is a device of art that represents something that most of the readers have in greater or lesser degree and own or disown in greater or lesser degree. Someone who is accustomed to his own adequacy may wonder and be uncertain about being able to pull off a project that depends on an undeveloped skill. That’s enough to resonate to a degree, if that’s all that is required.

Bill

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 10

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/23/2000

Author: reillocnl

In article,

(BPRAL22169) wrote:

> >Different folks’ reality differs.

>

> Exactly. The “fear of inadequacy” certainly is a real human feeling, and there

> are some individuals who do, indeed, build their psyche around that. But the

> idea that it is a dominating concern of any significant amount of the

> population is a literary convention, not a sociological proposition. That is,

> it is a device of art that represents something that most of the readers have

> in greater or lesser degree and own or disown in greater or lesser degree.

> Someone who is accustomed to his own adequacy may wonder and be uncertain about

> being able to pull off a project that depends on an undeveloped skill. That’s

> enough to resonate to a degree, if that’s all that is required.

> Bill

>

Bah. Major equivocation blanket in verbal surplussage. Just tell the boy he might be right and you don’t really know. You strongly support that he is by allowing that “most of the readers” have it. That there sentence that begins, “[S]omeone who is accustomed to…” What the hell’s that mean? Someone who knows he’s not competent may doubt being able to do something he doesn’t know how to do? Yeah. Hard to disagree with it.

Cool. Got any more?

LNC

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 11

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/24/2000

Author: BPRAL22169

>You strongly support

>that he is by allowing…

*blink* Actually, I was suggesting he was mistaking his own local and parochial experience for a law of nature — and setting up an attack on the theory that Naturalism is “reality as she is wrote.” This is almost 180 degrees from your interpretation.

Bill

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 12

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/24/2000

Author: reillocnl

In article,

(BPRAL22169) wrote:

> >You strongly support

> >that he is by allowing…

>

Now, that’s a confusing citation. I had to go back and see what I said.

> *blink* Actually, I was suggesting he was mistaking his own local and

> parochial experience for a law of nature — and setting up an attack on the

> theory that Naturalism is “reality as she is wrote.” This is almost 180

> degrees from your interpretation.

>

> Bill

Oh, yeah. No, that’s not what you said. You said most people have such natural feelings of insecurity. I don’t know what the rest of what you’re saying here means. Sounds like a deep game in a shallow pool going for a prize of doubtful worth.

LNC

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 13

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/23/2000

Author: reillocnl

In article,

(BPRAL22169) wrote:

> >most Heinlein protagonists, male

> >and female, aren’t haunted by fear of incompetence and inadequacy.

>

> Most people I know aren’t “haunted by fear of incompetence and inadequacy,”

> either. This is a literary convention, not a descriptor of reality.

> Bill

>

Just plain crap. If you don’t think that’s quiet desperation you’re living why don’t we see you on the news more often? All the people I know are afraid they’ll lose it someday. All the people I know are afraid that their best won’t be good enough, someday. Some of the people I know are even physicians. Most of the rest are a bunch of damn lawyers.

LNC

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 14

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/23/2000

Author: ddavitt

 

wrote:

> All the people I

> know are afraid they’ll lose it someday. All the people I know are

> afraid that their best won’t be good enough, someday. Some of the

> people I know are even physicians. Most of the rest are a bunch of damn

> lawyers.

>

>

You know some unfortunate people then. I can’t imagine living with fear like that, day in and day out. Well, I can imagine it but I’ve never gone through it. I have moments of feeling inadequate or thinking that I’m wasting my life…I would think most of us do, but haunted? Unable to function? I don’t think so……and I don’t know anyone who feels that way. They could be hiding it of course but most of my family and friends seem to be relatively happy, coping well with the slings and arrows and refreshingly free of angst.

I’m not being insensitive; I’m just pointing out that there are lots of people who actually enjoy life and don’t have hang ups. Really.

Jane

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 15

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/24/2000

Author: BPRAL22169

>You know some unfortunate people then.

These are rational fears to have — in the sense that they are possible and some of them even probable, and they have to be dealt with by everyone. We get lots of reminders of our mortality all the time.

But Collier is using the term “afraid” in a bizarre sense. He means “paralyzed with terror,” which is not what I mean by the term at all. His statements are not true given the special definitions he is using, though they sound true-ish in consensus language.

Bill

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 16

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/24/2000

Author: reillocnl

In article,

(BPRAL22169) wrote:

> >You know some unfortunate people then.

>

> These are rational fears to have — in the sense that they are possible and

> some of them even probable, and they have to be dealt with by everyone. We get

> lots of reminders of our mortality all the time.

>

> But Collier is using the term “afraid” in a bizarre sense. He means “paralyzed

> with terror,” which is not what I mean by the term at all. His statements are

> not true given the special definitions he is using, though they sound true-ish

> in consensus language.

> Bill

>

Bullshit, of course. It’s a high school debating trick, replete with pimples and pocket protector, to take out of context and distort. “Haunted” was never my terminology; however, in the spirit of Halloween approaching, I’ll ratify and defend it.

There’s haunting and then there’s possession. Mind you, I use neither of these as terms of art but rather as descriptive of the degree to which a reasonable person might be reminded and bothered by some recollection or concern.

I may be haunted by the fear that my representation of a client, for example, will fall short of the standard I’ve previously set for myself. On the other hand, a person may be completely consumed by the notion that something he contends might not be accepted as absolute gospel. There’s a big difference between these two sentiments.

If, when you see the ordinary word “afraid” and read “paralyzed with terror,” I can see how you would not be familiar with the lesser degree of the phenomenon.

I hope this clears that up.

LNC

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 17

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/24/2000

Author: BPRAL22169

>Just plain crap.

At last, something we can agree on.

Sorry, but I don’t have time to live a life of quiet desperation. What vast storehouse of personal knowledge about me led you to make this absurd statement?

And I want to know why you cannot seem to tell the difference between a literary convention and a sociological proposition. I do, from time to time, run into people who seem to have a desperate need to be caricatures, but I have never understood it. Enlighten me, if you would.

Bill

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 18

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/24/2000

Author: reillocnl

In article,

(BPRAL22169) wrote:

> >Just plain crap.

>

> At last, something we can agree on.

>

> Sorry, but I don’t have time to live a life of quiet desperation. What vast

> storehouse of personal knowledge about me led you to make this absurd

> statement?

>

It’s an impression I obtained from the curt reply you made earlier. Not a guy with time to waste on nonsense. The fool was obviously wrong and insolent to boot. No time for desperation and no time for dissent.

> And I want to know why you cannot seem to tell the difference between a

> literary convention and a sociological proposition.

Now, dude, you’re the one who says it’s a literary convention, not me, and I want to tell you that it’s not one in either the craft sense or the get-together-of-lampshade-wearing-authors possible meaning. Whichever one you meant. I’m trying to cover all the bases; you’re busy.

I don’t put it forward, either, as a sociological theory. At most, I’ll go this far with you: since the subject feeling is well-known to most mature adults who respond normally to prose stimuli of that character, it’s a marketing angle based on a phenomenological appreciation of human behavior. They call it having a sympathetic protagonist and it catches more flies than vinegar.

> I do, from time to time,

> run into people who seem to have a desperate need to be caricatures, but I have

> never understood it. Enlighten me, if you would.

> Bill

>

Glad to. Works like this. They live and breathe somewhere in the real world. They have doubts and fears, laugh and cry, and aren’t always right–but they’d rather you didn’t think about them that way because it’s bad enough for their associates and family to know without bring a group of strangers in on the truth. They build up personas which exclude physical details and become caricatures of what they’d really like to be. Have you noticed how many of them are in so-called cyberspace?

Me, for example. I’m really an anorectic octogenarian woman with 57 cats and a T-1 living alone in Butte. Drop by.

LNC

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 19

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/23/2000

Author: William Dennis

wrote:

>

> In article,

> (BPRAL22169) wrote:

> > >most Heinlein protagonists, male

> > >and female, aren’t haunted by fear of incompetence and inadequacy.

> >

> > Most people I know aren’t “haunted by fear of incompetence and

> inadequacy,”

> > either. This is a literary convention, not a descriptor of reality.

> > Bill

> >

> Just plain crap.

Name calling in place of reasoning is about what i have come to expect from you.

> If you don’t think that’s quiet desperation you’re

> living why don’t we see you on the news more often? All the people I

> know are afraid they’ll lose it someday.

How very sad for the people you know.

> All the people I know are

> afraid that their best won’t be good enough, someday. Some of the

> people I know are even physicians.

Physicians are without a doubt the most arrogant, self-centered, confident people I know. Those physicians YOU know, however, must kill a lot of their patients.

> Most of the rest are a bunch of damn

> lawyers.

>

Would you hire a lawyer who exuded a LACK of self confidence?

William Dennis II

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 20

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/24/2000

Author: reillocnl

In article,

William Denniswrote:

> wrote:

> >

> > In article,

> > (BPRAL22169) wrote:

> > > >most Heinlein protagonists, male

> > > >and female, aren’t haunted by fear of incompetence and

inadequacy.

> > >

> > > Most people I know aren’t “haunted by fear of incompetence and inadequacy,”

> > > either. This is a literary convention, not a descriptor of reality.

> > > Bill

> > >

> > Just plain crap.

>

> Name calling in place of reasoning is about what i have come to expect

> from you.

>

Nanny, nanny, boo, boo.

> > If you don’t think that’s quiet desperation you’re

> > living why don’t we see you on the news more often? All the people I

> > know are afraid they’ll lose it someday.

>

> How very sad for the people you know.

>

I’ll introduce you sometime. “Meet WDII, folks. He knows he’ll only get better and that age won’t slow him down.” They could use a good laugh.

> > All the people I know are

> > afraid that their best won’t be good enough, someday. Some of the

> > people I know are even physicians.

>

> Physicians are without a doubt the most arrogant, self-centered,

> confident people I know. Those physicians YOU know, however, must

> kill a lot of their patients.

Not a lot. Some. Even they can tell you stories about mistakes they wish they’d been able to bury.

>

> > Most of the rest are a bunch of damn

> > lawyers.

> >

>

> Would you hire a lawyer who exuded a LACK of self confidence?

>

Hell no! I’d go get one of those law talkin’ guys who didn’t need to know a damn thing about the law to persuade a jury to ignore the facts, too. Know anybody like that?

> —

> William Dennis II

LNC

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 21

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/24/2000

Author: wurds_myth

On 21 Oct 2000 21:07:52 GMT, (BPRAL22169) wrote:

>>most Heinlein protagonists, male

>>and female, aren’t haunted by fear of incompetence and inadequacy.

>

>

>Most people I know aren’t “haunted by fear of incompetence and inadequacy,”

>either. This is a literary convention, not a descriptor of reality.

>Bill

But by Deity, Looking at the results of somethings, a “fear of incompetence and inadequacy” should be one of the major worries facing Humanity!

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 22

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/21/2000

Author: AGplusone

Joel Rosenberg weighs in at the beginning of what promises to be a “hellish good” debate concerning a one of the better theme topics in Heinlein’s:

>That said, there’s some truth there: most Heinlein protagonists, male

>and female, aren’t haunted by fear of incompetence and inadequacy.

>Friday’s unusual in that respect, as is Thorby, and, in a quirky way,

>Scar Gordon.

I’ve been looking at a proposal for our upcoming schedule that I’ve been holding back on posting; and I wonder whether we ought not include a theme chat on Heinlein’s women. Jane Davitt proposed several chats centering around that theme, but with her baby’s birth imminent, I’m looking for a volunteer to take some of the load off her as cohost. Interested, Randi?

David M. Silver

“I expect your names to shine!”

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 23

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/23/2000

Author: reillocnl

In article,

(AGplusone) wrote:

> Joel Rosenberg weighs in at the beginning of what promises to be a “hellish

> good” debate concerning a one of the better theme topics in Heinlein’s:

>

> >That said, there’s some truth there: most Heinlein protagonists, male

> >and female, aren’t haunted by fear of incompetence and inadequacy.

> >Friday’s unusual in that respect, as is Thorby, and, in a quirky way,

> >Scar Gordon.

>

> I’ve been looking at a proposal for our upcoming schedule that I’ve been

> holding back on posting; and I wonder whether we ought not include a theme chat

> on Heinlein’s women. Jane Davitt proposed several chats centering around that

> theme, but with her baby’s birth imminent, I’m looking for a volunteer to take

> some of the load off her as cohost. Interested, Randi?

>

> —

> David M. Silver

>

> “I expect your names to shine!”

You responded to Joel and addressed Randi. Which one do you want?

LNC

>

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 24

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/23/2000

Author: ddavitt

 

wrote:

> I

>

> You responded to Joel and addressed Randi. Which one do you want?

>

> LNC

> >

>

>

The post seemed clear to me….David mentioned Joel; he wasn’t talking directly to him. So what anyway? Btw, from one of your other posts I got the impression you think Randi is male…she’s not.

Jane

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 25

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/24/2000

Author: reillocnl

In article,

ddavitt

wrote:

> wrote:

>

> > I

> >

> > You responded to Joel and addressed Randi. Which one do you want?

> >

> > LNC

> > >

> >

> >

>

> The post seemed clear to me….David mentioned Joel; he wasn’t talking

> directly to him. So what anyway? Btw, from one of your other posts I got the

> impression you think Randi is male…she’s not.

>

> Jane

>

So what anyway is I read replies to my posts but I’m a busy old lady or something and sometime can’t get to ever pearl cast before me that doesn’t have my name on it.

As for Randi’s sex, thanks. This makes the second time in three days I’ve done that on usenet. The other was a 250 pound weight-lifting politically liberal propulsion engineer from Chicago I address as “Ms.”

LNC

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 26

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/24/2000

Author: AGplusone

LNC:

>You responded to Joel and addressed Randi. Which one do you want?

I know they each figured it out. What in your life of quiet desperation makes it important enough for you to ask–apart from your recent self-appointment as arbiter of all that is known?

David M. Silver

“I expect your names to shine!”

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 27

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/24/2000

Author: reillocnl

In article,

(AGplusone) wrote:

> LNC:

>

> >You responded to Joel and addressed Randi. Which one do you want?

>

> I know they each figured it out. What in your life of quiet desperation makes

> it important enough for you to ask–apart from your recent self-appointment as

> arbiter of all that is known?

> —

> David M. Silver

>

> “I expect your names to shine!”

See my response to ddavit–unless you’ve read it already. If you mean clarifier of some that is not plain, somebody has to do it.

LNC

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 28

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/22/2000

Author: Will

In article,

Joel Rosenbergwrote:

> That said, there’s some truth there: most Heinlein protagonists, male

> and female, aren’t haunted by fear of incompetence and inadequacy.

> Friday’s unusual in that respect, as is Thorby, and, in a quirky way,

> Scar Gordon.

>

Scar is just overmatched. Star was too much for him. She would be too much for any ordinary human. However, in a sense she too is one of the rare emotionally haunted Heinlein characters.

Will

“He was born with the gift of laughter and the knowledge that the world was mad.”

_Scaramouche_

Raphael Sabatini

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 29

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/22/2000

Author: Joel Rosenberg

Willwrites:

> In article,

> Joel Rosenbergwrote:

> > That said, there’s some truth there: most Heinlein protagonists, male

> > and female, aren’t haunted by fear of incompetence and inadequacy.

> > Friday’s unusual in that respect, as is Thorby, and, in a quirky way,

> > Scar Gordon.

> >

>

> Scar is just overmatched. Star was too much for him. She would be too

> much for any ordinary human. However, in a sense she too is one of the

> rare emotionally haunted Heinlein characters.

>

True. I don’t find her terribly empathetic, but I can’t take as long a view as Her Wisdom has to.

> —

> Will

>

> “He was born with the gift of laughter and the knowledge that the world

> was mad.”

> _Scaramouche_

> Raphael Sabatini

>

Best opening line in fiction, far as I’m concerned.

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 30

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/22/2000

Author: Will

In article,

Joel Rosenbergwrote:

> Willwrites:

>

> > In article,

> > Joel Rosenbergwrote:

> > > That said, there’s some truth there: most Heinlein protagonists, male

> > > and female, aren’t haunted by fear of incompetence and inadequacy.

> > > Friday’s unusual in that respect, as is Thorby, and, in a quirky way,

> > > Scar Gordon.

> > >

> >

> > Scar is just overmatched. Star was too much for him. She would be too

> > much for any ordinary human. However, in a sense she too is one of the

> > rare emotionally haunted Heinlein characters.

> >

>

> True. I don’t find her terribly empathetic, but I can’t take as long

> a view as Her Wisdom has to.

>

> > —

> > Will

> >

> > “He was born with the gift of laughter and the knowledge that the world

> > was mad.”

> > _Scaramouche_

> > Raphael Sabatini

> >

>

> Best opening line in fiction, far as I’m concerned.

>

One of my favorites also. And I like the book very much. By the way, it wasn’t an opening line for a book but I always enjoyed scenes that began “The dream was always the same.”

Will

The Yankees Win

THUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU YANKEEES WIN

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 31

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/22/2000

Author: AGplusone

I used Joel’s comment to springboard a request, but it deserves a response as well. Here ’tis:

>That said, there’s some truth there: most Heinlein protagonists, male

>and female, aren’t haunted by fear of incompetence and inadequacy.

>Friday’s unusual in that respect, as is Thorby, and, in a quirky way,

>Scar Gordon.

I think I agree two ways here, Joel. Of all Heinlein’s heroes, the three you mention most intiminate me because of what you point out–their inadequacy–Thorby was the boy I most admired in the juveniles, when I read them as a juvenile and now, mainly because of his overcoming the most difficult of situations; and he needed a Colonel Baslim to overcome them. Majorie Baldwin was the heroine I most admired for essentially the same reason, she was a slave, unloved and lacking self-love; and she needed that tough old cripple Hartley Baldwin.

Of all the heroes, Evelyn Cyril Gordon most intimidated me, because he was real, those inadequacies and fears of incompetence made him dangerous in a very real way to me–someone to watch really carefully.

I throw Hugh Farnham in with these, too. And maybe twin Tom Bartlett from Time For the Stars and Bill Jones from Farmer in the Sky. Most of the other first line heroes and heroines are examples to emulate to me, but not the true characterization of real people to as great an extent. I enjoy the Sam Andersons and Fasto Konskis and Hugh Pinero as characterizations to a greater extent, for the same reasons that I enjoy Friday, Thorby and Scar — they have clay feet as do I.

David M. Silver

“I expect your names to shine!”

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 32

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/22/2000

Author: AGplusone

>most *intiminate* me

should be “intimidate” of course (that’ll teach me to run spell-check!) —

David M. Silver

“I expect your names to shine!”

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 33

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/22/2000

Author: Kirk

In article, says…

> That said, there’s some truth there: most Heinlein protagonists, male

> and female, aren’t haunted by fear of incompetence and inadequacy.

> Friday’s unusual in that respect, as is Thorby, and, in a quirky way,

> Scar Gordon.

>

Scar Gordon was no different from Clifford Russell, the protagonist of Tunnel in the Sky (whose name I can’t recall offhand), or Juan Rico. A good many of his characters have their mix of doubt in some areas and certainty in others–which is true of most people.

Not that many people are “haunted by fear of incompetence and inadequacy,” whatever that really means, and I’m not sure I’d bother reading SF about those who are.

Woody Allen does a creditable job of doing that shtick in comedy, but it’s not a common line in SF.

Kirk

“Contrary to popular opinion, evolution is *not* teleological” KRD

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 34

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/23/2000

Author: reillocnl

In article,

(BPRAL22169) wrote:

> This “analysis” is unforgiveably superficial, your reasoning is sloppy and does

> not follow — and gratuitously nasty to boot.

Reasoning? What reasoning’s required here? Gratuitously nasty? Who gives a rat’s ass? Face it, RAH knew about much about women as he did about music, to relate this to another thread regarding whether TEFL’s some kind of masterpiece melding writing and music. The boy had problems in both areas. Look.

Music first. Close your eyes and whistle the tune to TGHOE. Can’d do it? Now, how about a nice, simple, hits-all-the-intervals-in-a-couple- of-basic-major-chords bugle call. C, E, G, C. That was RAH and music. Make it military and make it simple and you’ve got his business.

Women next. You guys (and even you women) met a lot of women in your life who want to sleep with their sons? Daughters who want to do their dads? You met any? You heard of any outside TEFL, NOTB, TSBTS, the local paper’s crime beat and certain internet porno sites? Me either. Rather than asking why that is, since any blamed fool doesn’t have to ask remembering how RAH explained it to his emancipated slave couple in TEFL, ask what he did to pull it off.

Why, it was the easiest thing in the world. All you is make your women just like your men (and your men an idealization of yourself) and turn incest into masturbation. Now, along the way what happened? What did you do to the female character? Why, you brought her to perfection, of course.

That’s perfection in the Heinleinian sense. Not just as good as any man: better. Look at Dr. Hilda Borroughs. Look at Maureen Smith. Those two are the pinnacle of Heinleinian characterization and I defy anyone to dispute it. Hilda’s 1/1000th his age and beats the crap out of LL in every discipline you can imagine: rocketry, astronomy, politics, business, sex, cooking. Hell, I bet she’s a better philatelist than he is even though he’s been an admitted lizard whipper for millenia. His mom, don’t even think about questioning it. The icing on the cakes her instant elevation to his own chronological age by means of time travel.

Okay, now you can ask why. You really want to know? Well, okay, I’ll tell you. Rationalization, embarassment and lack of good judgment.

First, you let your mind roam freely through the possibilities you’ve created in your earlier works with emphasis on what’s sold best. SIAST, that sold best. In considering that work, why it sold and what’s been mentioned to you most often as the thing people liked the most, what was it? Sex. Sex sells.

Next, you’ve hit on a marketing idea and you’ve got a voice and a following, where do you want to take it? Who knows? Let’s see what happens. ISFNA.

Okay, that was interesting but overall it was crap. It reads like Sidney Sheldon and Danielle Steele with a rudimentary knowledge of high school science. But it sold and the thing that sold it? Sex.

So, the formula is take your basic rugged individualist, stock character, superannuate him to the extent that he transcends by outliving conventional morality, give him the company of others who live long also and let’s see what we’ve got. TEFL.

All that’s the rationalization. Somewhere after TEFL the embarassment set in and Friday happened. (Incidentally, it’s amusing you think Friday’s emotionally crippled. You could only conclude that by making a comparison between her and Hilda, Deety, Laz, Lor, Maureen, or any of the other Boondockian women. Turn to your right and compare her to your wife and tell me how she fares. You lack objectivity and it’s because you’re responding from within the fiction rather than responding to it.) Friday was a shot at trying to draw a normal woman. Naturally, he blew it since he was no more in touch with what normal was–certainly by that time–than I’m in touch with Bantu popular music. In addition to that, he’s still constrained by the genre, by the expectations of publishers and by the need for an on-going revenue stream. TCWWTW.

Finally, we come to lack of good judgment. Actually, I can’t really fault him that much here. The evil days were about to come. He’d written long and well. He really did deserve an indulgence or two: NOTB, TSBTS and JACOE. (Job’s proof that there aren’t any atheists in foxholes. In circumspection, considering all the foxes about whom he’d written over the preceding 10 years and their orifices, comes Job. It’s an abberation but a necessary public statement or they’d change the signs in Butler.) If he’d had and known he had 10 more productive years, the publication of Job would have been delayed significantly as well as the text and several, mature works would have followed TSBTS. I really doubt whether he would have preferred to have ended his career on that particular note. It leaves the distinct impression that the body of his work was about alternative sexuality and, if you believe that it was, you oppose what I contend here.

>

> You have not logically argued your thesis; you have simply asserted it. Going

> from “many of Heinlein’s female protagonists” to “Heinlein’s standard

> uberbabe.” is logical sleight of hand, nothing more.

> Bill

>

Now, as for logical sleight of hand, neat job, yours. His was correct. Heinlein didn’t know a thing about women. (I know, that wasn’t his; it’s mine.) All he seemed to know was that there are good “gals” and bad “gals” and “here’s what my ideal gal is.” Strong, healthy, smart, witty, educated, ready, willing and able. You think that’s not uberbabedom? Get real.

LNC

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 35

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/23/2000

Author: lal_truckee

In article,

wrote:

> Look at Dr. Hilda Borroughs. Look at Maureen Smith. Those

> two are the pinnacle of Heinleinian characterization and I defy anyone

> to dispute it. Hilda’s 1/1000th his age and beats the crap out of LL in

> every discipline you can imagine: rocketry, astronomy, politics,

> business, sex, cooking. Hell, I bet she’s a better philatelist than he

> is even though he’s been an admitted lizard whipper for millenia.

I don’t think Lazarus Long was ever a stamp collector. Particularly not in such a speciality as stamps depicting exotic tropical lizards…

Goodbye

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 36

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/24/2000

Author: Neal Bridges

lal_truckee wrote in message

news:8t2d6u$p34$

> In article,

> wrote:

>

> > Look at Dr. Hilda Borroughs. Look at Maureen Smith. Those

> > two are the pinnacle of Heinleinian characterization and I defy anyone

> > to dispute it. Hilda’s 1/1000th his age and beats the crap out of LL in

> > every discipline you can imagine: rocketry, astronomy, politics,

> > business, sex, cooking. Hell, I bet she’s a better philatelist than he

> > is even though he’s been an admitted lizard whipper for millenia.

>

> I don’t think Lazarus Long was ever a stamp collector. Particularly not

> in such a speciality as stamps depicting exotic tropical lizards…

Hee hee hee!

Neal Bridges

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 37

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/23/2000

Author: JenOMalley

>All he seemed to know was that there are good “gals” and

>bad “gals” and “here’s what my ideal gal is.” Strong, healthy, smart,

>witty, educated, ready, willing and able. You think that’s not

>uberbabedom? Get real.

So I’m an uberbabe because I’m strong, healthy, smart, witty, educated and have light heels? Gimme a break.

JenO.

Queen of Tarts

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 38

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/23/2000

Author: William Dennis

JenOMalley wrote:

>

> >All he seemed to know was that there are good “gals” and

> >bad “gals” and “here’s what my ideal gal is.” Strong, healthy, smart,

> >witty, educated, ready, willing and able. You think that’s not

> >uberbabedom? Get real.

>

> So I’m an uberbabe because I’m strong, healthy, smart, witty, educated and have

> light heels? Gimme a break.

>

> JenO.

> Queen of Tarts

Jen … I knew you were an uberbabe from the moment I read your first post …

😉

Can I buy you a drink at the bar?

William Dennis II

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 39

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/24/2000

Author: JenOMalley

>> So I’m an uberbabe because I’m strong, healthy, smart, witty, educated and

>have

>> light heels? Gimme a break.

>>

>> JenO.

>> Queen of Tarts

>

>Jen … I knew you were an uberbabe from the moment I read your first

>post …

>;-)

>

>Can I buy you a drink at the bar?

>–

>William Dennis II

I never turn down a drink with a clever man…make mine a Singapore Sling, please….

JenO.

I’ll tell you to bite me, but I’d like it….

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 40

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/23/2000

Author: William Dennis

JenOMalley wrote:

>

> >> So I’m an uberbabe because I’m strong, healthy, smart, witty, educated and

> >have

> >> light heels? Gimme a break.

> >>

> >> JenO.

> >> Queen of Tarts

> >

> >Jen … I knew you were an uberbabe from the moment I read your first

> >post …

> >;-)

> >

> >Can I buy you a drink at the bar?

> >–

> >William Dennis II

>

> I never turn down a drink with a clever man…make mine a Singapore Sling,

> please….

>

> JenO.

> I’ll tell you to bite me, but I’d like it….

Barkeep, make that TWO Singapore slings …

William Dennis II

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 41

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/24/2000

Author: Chris Croughton

On 23 Oct 2000 22:53:23 GMT, JenOMalley

wrote:

>So I’m an uberbabe because I’m strong, healthy, smart, witty, educated

>and have light heels? Gimme a break.

You mean you’re not? Now I’m disappointed…

Chris C

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 42

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/25/2000

Author: JenOMalley

>>So I’m an uberbabe because I’m strong, healthy, smart, witty, educated

>>and have light heels? Gimme a break.

>

>You mean you’re not? Now I’m disappointed…

>

>Chris C

Oh, but by those definations, I am….I’m strong, healthy, smart, witty, educated and have light heels….makes me an uberbabe, by the standards evinced by some here…

JenO.

Queen of Tarts

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 43

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/26/2000

Author: Chris Croughton

On 25 Oct 2000 00:45:17 GMT, JenOMalley

wrote:

>Oh, but by those definations, I am….I’m strong, healthy, smart,

>witty, educated and have light heels….makes me an uberbabe, by the

>standards evinced by some here…

You forgot “beautiful but doesn’t believe it of herself”.

But are you a stacked redhead? That would turn you from just any uberbabe into a Heinlein Uberbabe…

Chris C

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 44

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/27/2000

Author: JenOMalley

>>Oh, but by those definations, I am….I’m strong, healthy, smart,

>>witty, educated and have light heels….makes me an uberbabe, by the

>>standards evinced by some here…

>

>You forgot “beautiful but doesn’t believe it of herself”.

>

>But are you a stacked redhead? That would turn you from just any

>uberbabe into a Heinlein Uberbabe…

>

>Chris C

From what I have been told, I am beautiful, but I’m not sure that I am…I try, very hard, to be, but am still working on it…However, I do have the stacked red-head part down…

JenO.

Soldier Grrlâ„¢ of the flaming red hair….

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 45

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/27/2000

Author: Nollaig MacKenzie

On 27 Oct 2000 14:17:29 GMT, the estimable

JenOMalleywrote:

 

>

> From what I have been told, I am beautiful, but I’m not sure that I am…I try,

> very hard, to be, but am still working on it…However, I do have the stacked

> red-head part down…

>

> JenO.

> Soldier Grrl? of the flaming red hair….

>

>

Oh my! If the USA invades Canada, will you bring your grandma …?

N.

Nollaig MacKenzie

http://www.amhuinnsuidhe.cx/rahfan/

Oppose renaming Mt Logan!! http://www.savemtlogan.com

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 46

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/28/2000

Author: JenOMalley

>> JenO.

>> Soldier Grrl? of the flaming red hair….

>>

>>

>Oh my! If the USA invades Canada, will you bring your grandma …?

>

>N.

LOL…Sure, but she’s prolly try to feed you…

JenO.

Soldier Grrrlâ„¢

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 47

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/31/2000

Author: Chris Croughton

On 27 Oct 2000 14:17:29 GMT, JenOMalley

wrote:

>From what I have been told, I am beautiful, but I’m not sure that I

>am…I try, very hard, to be, but am still working on it…However, I

>do have the stacked red-head part down…

Now all we have to do is work out which of his characters you are. Possibly one of Gretchen’s team…

Chris C

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 48

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 11/01/2000

Author: JenOMalley

>>From what I have been told, I am beautiful, but I’m not sure that I

>>am…I try, very hard, to be, but am still working on it…However, I

>>do have the stacked red-head part down…

>

>Now all we have to do is work out which of his characters you are.

>Possibly one of Gretchen’s team…

>

>Chris C

LOL…sounds good to me…I’ll be just about anybody…

JenO.

Soldier Grrrlâ„¢

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 49

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/25/2000

Author: AGplusone

Chris replying to Jen:

>>So I’m an uberbabe because I’m strong, healthy, smart, witty, educated

>>and have light heels? Gimme a break.

>

>You mean you’re not? Now I’m disappointed…

My problem when someone uses the term “uberbabe” in any discussion is I immediately mentally limit it to a vision of a blonde, scantily clad in leather and a German WW II officer’s brimmed hat, smoking a cigar, and astride, with riding crop — all others need not apply.

Its use as a label, without further discrete and detailed specification, to wholly describe the attributes of characteristics asserted objectionable in Heinlein’s heroines higher up in this thread caused me to have mental symptoms akin to a freeze crash. On the first occasion, I thereafter rebooted, ran TechTool to repair the disk and software I was using, wrote a subroutine to ignore posts containing only the otherwise undescriptive label, and went on to better reasoned and defined discussion. YMMV, but I’ve more constructive things to do than to try to imagine exactly what the poster really is talking about when using emotionally loaded buzzwords upon which definition none of us have agreed or attempted to specify.

Don’t misunderstand: I’ve nothing against a discussion about the perceived inadequacies of the females created by Heinlein when someone takes the trouble to truly specify what he or she finds wrong beyond trite generalities. —

David M. Silver

“I expect your names to shine!”

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 50

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/25/2000

Author: pheb

AGplusone wrote:

> My problem when someone uses the term “uberbabe” in any discussion is I

> immediately mentally limit it to a vision of a blonde, scantily clad in leather

> and a German WW II officer’s brimmed hat, smoking a cigar, and astride, with

> riding crop — all others need not apply.

>

Ha! You’re right. I wasn’t comfortable with using that term, but didn’t analyze why. That’s why. That aspect of sex, at least, Heinlein didn’t get into. I don’t think.

Phebe

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 51

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/26/2000

Author: Randi

AGplusone () arranged the electrons thusly…

> Chris replying to Jen:

>

> >>So I’m an uberbabe because I’m strong, healthy, smart, witty, educated

> >>and have light heels? Gimme a break.

> >

> >You mean you’re not? Now I’m disappointed…

>

> My problem when someone uses the term “uberbabe” in any discussion is I

> immediately mentally limit it to a vision of a blonde, scantily clad in leather

> and a German WW II officer’s brimmed hat, smoking a cigar, and astride, with

> riding crop — all others need not apply.

Barbie in a thong with an HK MP5 in in one hand, a copy of “Ladies’ Home Journal” in the other, and a baby in a sling at a generously endowed breast was closer to what I had in mind when I coined the term, David. In retaliation for this infamous attack on my new term, I’ve decided to dress up as *your* image of an uberbabe for our H’ween masque at the rocket ranch. Do you know where I can get a genuine sturmbannfuehrer’s hat? /Randi smiles sweetly, flicking ash from her panatela and tapping her riding crop softly against her scantily clad thigh.

> Its use as a label, without further discrete and detailed specification, to

> wholly describe the attributes of characteristics asserted objectionable in

> Heinlein’s heroines higher up in this thread caused me to have mental symptoms

> akin to a freeze crash. On the first occasion, I thereafter rebooted, ran

> TechTool to repair the disk and software I was using, wrote a subroutine to

> ignore posts containing only the otherwise undescriptive label, and went on to

> better reasoned and defined discussion. YMMV, but I’ve more constructive things

> to do than to try to imagine exactly what the poster really is talking about

> when using emotionally loaded buzzwords upon which definition none of us have

> agreed or attempted to specify.

Arggggg. I think I’ve just been hoisted on my own petard. I used the term because, at the time, I thought it summed up neatly Heinlein’s sometimes unrealistic characterizations of his female protagonists. I’m a lazy writer, David; “uberbabe” captured what I would have otherwise spent several hours trying to describe. For the record, I didn’t attach to it the Nazi imagery that you did; Nieztsche had some really interesting ideas about directed evolution that were corrupted almost beyond recognition by a bunch of sociopathic fascist thugs. N.’s concept of the superman echoes through Heinlein’s work like the Death motif in Beethoven’s fifth symphony, or if you prefer something not so closely connected with things Austrian, the Fate motif in Tchaikovsky’s fourth. 🙂 I acknowledge that it was not very well received, and I apologize for the disruption it is causing, and hope people will let it fade away.

> Don’t misunderstand: I’ve nothing against a discussion about the perceived

> inadequacies of the females created by Heinlein when someone takes the trouble

> to truly specify what he or she finds wrong beyond trite generalities.

Trite, my (scantily clad) ass. Yes, it was a generalization, but I thought it a useful one. Given the subsequent employment of the term by people *other than me* in a way consistent with my internal representation of it, it was not trite at all…somebody thought it had utility.

-Randi

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 52

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/26/2000

Author: William Dennis

Randi backpedalled :

>

>

>

> Trite, my (scantily clad) ass. Yes, it was a

> generalization, but I thought it a useful one. Given the

> subsequent employment of the term by people *other than me* in a

> way consistent with my internal representation of it, it was not

> trite at all…somebody thought it had utility.

>

>

hmmm … me ears are burning. I wonder why.

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 53

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/26/2000

Author: reillocnl

In article,

William Denniswrote:

> Randi backpedalled :

> >

> >

> >

> > Trite, my (scantily clad) ass. Yes, it was a

> > generalization, but I thought it a useful one. Given the

> > subsequent employment of the term by people *other than me* in a

> > way consistent with my internal representation of it, it was not

> > trite at all…somebody thought it had utility.

> >

> >

>

> hmmm … me ears are burning. I wonder why.

>

Your rug’s on fire.

LNC

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 54

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/26/2000

Author: Chris Croughton

On 25 Oct 2000 09:37:03 GMT, AGplusone

wrote:

>My problem when someone uses the term “uberbabe” in any discussion is I

>immediately mentally limit it to a vision of a blonde, scantily clad in

>leather and a German WW II officer’s brimmed hat, smoking a cigar, and

>astride, with riding crop — all others need not apply.

I hadn’t picked up on that particular image. I know exactly the type you mean, though.

>YMMV, but I’ve more constructive things to do than to try to imagine

>exactly what the poster really is talking about when using emotionally

>loaded buzzwords upon which definition none of us have agreed or

>attempted to specify.

I thought that Randi’s use of the term defined it rather well, in the context of RAH’s female characters. It seemed to me that others were using it in the same sense.

>Don’t misunderstand: I’ve nothing against a discussion about the

>perceived inadequacies of the females created by Heinlein when someone

>takes the trouble to truly specify what he or she finds wrong beyond

>trite generalities.

For the record, I find that sort of character rather attractive. Not that I’d ever be able to keep up with them, either physically or intellectually, except in fantasy.

Chris C

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 55

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/23/2000

Author: Mac

I’m not sure the basis of your tirade but will try to address one or two comments and leave the rest to others in

the Newsgroup. . .

================

wrote in message

In article,

(BPRAL22169) wrote:

> This “analysis” is unforgiveably superficial, your reasoning is sloppy and does not follow

> — and gratuitously nasty to boot.

REILLOCNL:

Reasoning? What reasoning’s required here? Gratuitously nasty? Who gives a rat’s ass? Face it, RAH knew about much about women as he did about music, to relate this to another thread regarding whether TEFL’s some kind of masterpiece melding writing and music. The boy had problems in both areas. Look.

MAC:

I would suspect that RAH knew quite a few capable humans who just happened to be female. As others, I’ve known some people who I will make an effort to avoid, male and female, who wallow in being negative, in being critical of anyone successful, or whose highlight is watching television. . . etc. HOWEVER, I don’t know where your circle of acquaintances hail from but I guess I’ve been lucky in that I’ve known many people who strive to meet challenges, who manage to thrive, and accomplish a lot of tasks, including working full-time. And these are both male and female.

I’ve known women quite capable of besting me on the firing line and conning a ship better than I. Yet, still dress in a manner to be quite attractive. And carry on a conversation that did not relate to the latest articles in the GLOBE or the ENQUIRER or refer to SURVIVOR and managed to avoid literary criticism of those successful in writing. They were able to talk about politics or science. . . etc. Something very akin to the capable women Heinlein has written about —- and frankly, reading some of the messages from some of the women on this Newsgroup, I would venture to say that there are quite a few of them able to match, if not excel the “Heinlein women” in outlook and abilities. —- ——

REILLOCNL:

Women next. You guys (and even you women) met a lot of women in your life who want to sleep with their sons?

MAC:

Yes, I have: in Boulder, Colorado and a couple of other places. Not only wanted to, but did. So what ?

REILLOCNL:

Daughters who want to do their dads? You met any? You heard of any outside TEFL, NOTB, TSBTS, the local paper’s crime beat and certain internet porno sites? Me either.

MAC:

Again, yes. Places back East (( U.S. )), and California. Again, other places. Some patients —- gaining insight; others, simply getting on with life. HOWEVER, in the Universe Heinlein depicted, please consider, as others have indicated, that there was a viable science of genetics and biology which allevated many of the potential problems of any potential inbreeding —vs., sex as a manner of enjoyment between consenting adults.

—– —–

SNIP SNIP

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 56

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/24/2000

Author: BPRAL22169

>Reasoning? What reasoning’s required here…

Mr. Collier. Thank you for providing an excellent insight into the way YOU look at writing. It bears not the faintest resemblance to anything Heinlein might have done, I’m afraid.

Since you seem impervious to fact, and unable to reason inductively at all, I see no reason to continue this.

Bill

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 57

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/24/2000

Author: reillocnl

In article,

(BPRAL22169) wrote:

> >Reasoning? What reasoning’s required here…

>

> Mr. Collier. Thank you for providing an excellent insight into the way YOU

> look at writing. It bears not the faintest resemblance to anything Heinlein

> might have done, I’m afraid.

>

> Since you seem impervious to fact, and unable to reason inductively at all, I

> see no reason to continue this.

>

> Bill

>

Mr. Bill,

Mr. Sluggo said you’d do this. Take one person to task for failing to do any more than opine conclusions and then pull the same trick yourself. I told Mr. Sluggo Mr. Bill would never do that. Mr. Sluggo said Mr. Bill’s a busy guy, although he’s never written a word of fiction much less tried to sell any in his life, he’ll do it if he has to. I hate it when Mr. Sluggo’s right but, of course, I’ve got him.

“How?” Mr. Sluggo says, incredulously.

“Preponderance, Slugman,” I quip back. “It’s out there, no rebuttal, no attempt, just default.”

“Rats,” Mr. Sluggo hisses. “Rats and double rats.” Then he squints those beady eyes at me and snickers, “Try to execute on your little default judgment, Mr. Lastnamebackwards.”

“Cake,” I dismiss him. “Relax and watch the substantive opinions roll in.” He doesn’t get me. “Read, Mr. Sluggo. See who says what that makes any sense in contravention.”

Clayboy trudged off to his to his room while I read on…

LNC

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 58

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/21/2000

Author: jaxi

In article , Randi

wrote:

> BPRAL22169 () arranged the electrons thusly…

> > A lot of people don’t believe that type of woman exists at all, but she/they

> > does/do.

> >

> > It’s my impression that Heinlein genuinely liked women and talked with (and

> > actually listened to) many different kinds of women all through his life. I

> > know it’s routine to say of men that they “like” women, but they don’t seem to

> > act like it. R, on the other hand, chose to spend day and night with his wife

> > for 40 years.

> > Bill

>

> You mean the wife he didn’t divorce, right? He chose to do

> quite the opposite with his first wife. 🙂

>

> I feel it important enough to point out that being open

> minded does not imply that a person is free of biases. I’m

> certain the guards at Auschwitz and Bergen-Belsen liked, and

> talked with, and actually listened to many different kinds of

> Jews as they herded them all into the showers.

>

> Many of Heinlein’s female protagonists seem to be poured

> from the same Nietzschean mold: Stalwart, ravishing beauties who

> shoot straight even when pregnant, and always get dinner on the

> table on time. Friday is arguably Heinlein’s most realistic and

> sympathetic female character. She is sexy, vulnerable,

> compassionate, loyal, confused — in short, quite like any real

> woman. By making her an artifact of an engineering process,

> Heinlein is implying that women like Friday don’t exist in

> nature. Feel free to disagree, but if you do, please explain why

> Friday is such a deviation from Heinlein’s standard uberbabe.

>

> -Randi

Didn’t Heinlein also had one of the character argue that Friday is just as human as anyone? I think that’s said it all.

Jaxi

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 59

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/21/2000

Author: ddavitt

 

Randi wrote:

> I feel it important enough to point out that being open

> minded does not imply that a person is free of biases. I’m

> certain the guards at Auschwitz and Bergen-Belsen liked, and

> talked with, and actually listened to many different kinds of

> Jews as they herded them all into the showers.

This is a very bizarre comparison to use when discussing a man who is supposed to have respected and admired women so much that his portrayals of them in his books is sometimes deemed unrealistic. Your rather doubtful example deals with people doing dreadful things to groups of people they liked as individuals. Depicting women as superior hardly qualifies as dreadful. I don’t think it’s accurate myself but I don’t think it’s on a par with genocide!

Your first sentence is certainly true; I doubt any one of us is free of bias in one form or another. Your following thoughts are, IMO, there for shock effect rather than part of a cohesive train of thought.

>

>

> Friday is arguably Heinlein’s most realistic and

> sympathetic female character. She is sexy, vulnerable,

> compassionate, loyal, confused — in short, quite like any real

> woman. By making her an artifact of an engineering process,

> Heinlein is implying that women like Friday don’t exist in

> nature.

That’s a real woman? Beg to differ. That’s ONE SORT of real woman, no more. If you start to say that one type of woman is more ‘real’ than another then you are on dangerous ground. Is a woman who likes doing housework and ironing her husband’s shirts not real from a feminist POV? Who decides?

Plus, to get away from the general and down to the specifics, nothing in Friday’s _character_ was defined in a laboratory. Her own personality and life experiences did that, as they do to us all. Heinlein made her strong and clever; more so than most humans but still within the boundaries of what a human could be. She _was_ human, not artificial, and learning to accept and believe that was what the book was all about. She wasn’t half robot or bionic or something; she was simply created with all the physical weaknesses left out. Your contention that Heinlein was saying such a paragon can’t exist in nature just doesn’t work because none of the qualities you admire were artificially induced.

If i were to list the females in Heinlein that I admired or liked they would include the Hazel from Rolling Stones (note the limitation), Caroline from Tunnel and Puddin. None of them are even remotely ‘uberbabes’ (which is an awful term IMO) but all are competent, intelligent, likeable and real to me. Another reader might disagree; as I say on another post, it’s all subjective. Judging whether or not a character is realistic may require an objectivity that is beyond most of us.

Jane

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 60

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/21/2000

Author: William Dennis

ddavitt wrote:

>

> Randi wrote:

>

> > I feel it important enough to point out that being open

> > minded does not imply that a person is free of biases. I’m

> > certain the guards at Auschwitz and Bergen-Belsen liked, and

> > talked with, and actually listened to many different kinds of

> > Jews as they herded them all into the showers.

>

> This is a very bizarre comparison to use when discussing a man who is supposed to

> have respected and admired women so much that his portrayals of them in his books is

> sometimes deemed unrealistic. Your rather doubtful example deals with people doing

> dreadful things to groups of people they liked as individuals. Depicting women as

> superior hardly qualifies as dreadful. I don’t think it’s accurate myself but I

> don’t think it’s on a par with genocide!

> Your first sentence is certainly true; I doubt any one of us is free of bias in one

> form or another. Your following thoughts are, IMO, there for shock effect rather

> than part of a cohesive train of thought.

>

> >

> >

> > Friday is arguably Heinlein’s most realistic and

> > sympathetic female character. She is sexy, vulnerable,

> > compassionate, loyal, confused — in short, quite like any real

> > woman. By making her an artifact of an engineering process,

> > Heinlein is implying that women like Friday don’t exist in

> > nature.

>

> That’s a real woman? Beg to differ. That’s ONE SORT of real woman, no more. If you

> start to say that one type of woman is more ‘real’ than another then you are on

> dangerous ground. Is a woman who likes doing housework and ironing her husband’s

> shirts not real from a feminist POV? Who decides?

>

> Plus, to get away from the general and down to the specifics, nothing in Friday’s

> _character_ was defined in a laboratory. Her own personality and life experiences

> did that, as they do to us all. Heinlein made her strong and clever; more so than

> most humans but still within the boundaries of what a human could be. She _was_

> human, not artificial, and learning to accept and believe that was what the book was

> all about. She wasn’t half robot or bionic or something; she was simply created with

> all the physical weaknesses left out. Your contention that Heinlein was saying such

> a paragon can’t exist in nature just doesn’t work because none of the qualities you

> admire were artificially induced.

>

> If i were to list the females in Heinlein that I admired or liked they would include

> the Hazel from Rolling Stones ( note the limitation), Caroline from Tunnel and

> Puddin. None of them are even remotely ‘uberbabes’ (which is an awful term IMO) but

> all are competent, intelligent, likeable and real to me. Another reader might

> disagree; as I say on another post, it’s all subjective. Judging whether or not a

> character is realistic may require an objectivity that is beyond most of us.

>

> Jane

I think Randi is missing the point entirely. Heinlein had no interest in writing about anybody — male or female — who he would consider were stupid, week and anti-social. The subject just didn’t interest him, and such characters don’t interest me, either. Heinlein took his cue on this from E.E. “Doc” Smith, who populated his books with heroic characters.

Since when is it a requirement that characters be “realistic?” In the context of fiction, they only have to be consistent.

William Dennis II

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 61

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/22/2000

Author: ddavitt

 

William Dennis wrote:

>

>

> Since when is it a requirement that characters be “realistic?” In the

> context of fiction, they only have to be consistent.

> —

>

I don’t even think that….I’m fairly certain I react inconsistently at times so it wouldn’t bother me to read about a character who did likewise. “Realistic” in this context seems to me to be shorthand for a character the reader can believe in. Not necessarily like or approve of….but concede their validity. SF can stretch it a bit by inventing aliens with weird motivations but Heinlein rarely did that.

I’m trying hard to think of a character I could dismiss because they didn’t qualify under my definition. Maybe there is no such thing…..I remember getting hugely irritated by a mystery novel in which the heroine ( who is on her tenth murder scene by this point in the series) finds a body in the box that should have her daughter’s wedding dress in it and moves it so that the wedding can go ahead thus destroying fingerprints, clues etc. However, having organised my own wedding, I can testify that things get a little fraught as the day approaches so I suppose I could accept the possibility of someone doing such a stupid and selfish thing without thinking that the whole book had been compromised by an “unrealistic” action. Again, I’m using my own experiences to judge though….

Jane

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 62

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/22/2000

Author: William Dennis

ddavitt wrote:

>

> William Dennis wrote:

>

> >

> >

> > Since when is it a requirement that characters be “realistic?” In the

> > context of fiction, they only have to be consistent.

> > —

> >

>

> I don’t even think that….I’m fairly certain I react inconsistently at times so it

> wouldn’t bother me to read about a character who did likewise. “Realistic” in this context

> seems to me to be shorthand for a character the reader can believe in. Not necessarily

> like or approve of….but concede their validity. SF can stretch it a bit by inventing

> aliens with weird motivations but Heinlein rarely did that.

>

> I’m trying hard to think of a character I could dismiss because they didn’t qualify under

> my definition. Maybe there is no such thing…..I remember getting hugely irritated by a

> mystery novel in which the heroine ( who is on her tenth murder scene by this point in the

> series) finds a body in the box that should have her daughter’s wedding dress in it and

> moves it so that the wedding can go ahead thus destroying fingerprints, clues etc.

> However, having organised my own wedding, I can testify that things get a little fraught

> as the day approaches so I suppose I could accept the possibility of someone doing such a

> stupid and selfish thing without thinking that the whole book had been compromised by an

> “unrealistic” action. Again, I’m using my own experiences to judge though….

>

> Jane

Jane, we are on the same wavelength here. In fiction and in science fiction in particular, there has to be a certain suspension of disbelief. I can accept for the purposes of the story that the USS Enterprise travels faster faster than light speed and has a half-human, half-Vulcan first officer. Faster than light is almost certainly impossible, as would be any sort of interspecies/interplanetary breeding. What I could not accept is a scene showing the captain embracing his pretty yeoman to comfort her during a tense moment on the bridge of his ship. Therefore, I can accept Heinlein’s so-called “uberbabe” female characters, who were all smart, beautiful, funny and devoted (in their own way) to their families. I accept this because this is how Heinlein envisioned them and because they behaved consistently, or if not, their inconsistency was explained.

William Dennis II

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 63

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/22/2000

Author: ddavitt

 

William Dennis wrote:

>

> Jane, we are on the same wavelength here.

> snip

> Therefore, I can accept Heinlein’s so-called “uberbabe” female

> characters, who were all smart, beautiful, funny and devoted (in their

> own way) to their families. I accept this because this is how Heinlein

> envisioned them and because they behaved consistently, or if not, their

> inconsistency was explained.

>

> —

> William Dennis II

>

That sounds fine to me…..I am a bit puzzled about the people who complain about the female characters. Do they _want_ to read about incompetent losers _all_ the time?. It reminds me of a comment someone makes in an L M Montgomery book about pine forests being as real as pig sties and a lot nicer to read about.

Jane

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 64

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/22/2000

Author: Joel Rosenberg

ddavitt

writes:

> William Dennis wrote:

>

> >

> > Jane, we are on the same wavelength here.

> > snip

> > Therefore, I can accept Heinlein’s so-called “uberbabe” female

> > characters, who were all smart, beautiful, funny and devoted (in their

> > own way) to their families. I accept this because this is how Heinlein

> > envisioned them and because they behaved consistently, or if not, their

> > inconsistency was explained.

> >

> > —

> > William Dennis II

> >

>

> That sounds fine to me…..I am a bit puzzled about the people who complain about the female

> characters. Do they _want_ to read about incompetent losers _all_ the time?.

> It reminds me of a comment someone makes in an L M Montgomery book about pine forests being as

> real as pig sties and a lot nicer to read about.

>

> Jane

I think there’s a wide range between the extreme of “incompetent losers” and the “uberbabes” that critics of Heinlein complain about, and also think that many — most? — of Heinlein’s characters occupy a part of that range.

————————————————————————————-

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/22/2000

Author: William Dennis

Joel Rosenberg wrote:

>

> ddavitt

writes:

>

> > William Dennis wrote:

> >

> > >

> > > Jane, we are on the same wavelength here.

> > > snip

> > > Therefore, I can accept Heinlein’s so-called “uberbabe” female

> > > characters, who were all smart, beautiful, funny and devoted (in their

> > > own way) to their families. I accept this because this is how Heinlein

> > > envisioned them and because they behaved consistently, or if not, their

> > > inconsistency was explained.

> > >

> > > —

> > > William Dennis II

> > >

> >

> > That sounds fine to me…..I am a bit puzzled about the people who complain about the female

> > characters. Do they _want_ to read about incompetent losers _all_ the time?.

> > It reminds me of a comment someone makes in an L M Montgomery book about pine forests being as

> > real as pig sties and a lot nicer to read about.

> >

> > Jane

>

> I think there’s a wide range between the extreme of “incompetent

> losers” and the “uberbabes” that critics of Heinlein complain about,

> and also think that many — most? — of Heinlein’s characters occupy a

> part of that range.

They are far closer to the “uberbabe” (I hate that phrase) extreme than they are to the other. Again, Heinlein had no interest in anti-heroes as protagonists.

William Dennis II

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 66

Subject: Anti-heroes

Date: 10/23/2000

Author: pheb

William Dennis wrote:

>

> Again, Heinlein had no interest in anti-heroes as protagonists.

>

>

Ummmmm, what about the protag in Tunnel in the Sky? He had a lot of flaws and doubts. Job was a frankly unpleasant man, a far right-wing religious conservative who landed a lot of people in basically the Inquisition in his world. Most of Heinlein’s protags were indeed “heroes,” I would agree, however, so I wonder why? After all, Gibson and many others have shown that anti-heroes (people with flaws who have to overcome them to get through the plot alive) can be very appealing.

Phebe

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 67

Subject: Re: Anti-heroes

Date: 10/23/2000

Author: ddavitt

 

wrote:

>

> Ummmmm, what about the protag in Tunnel in the Sky? He had a lot of flaws and doubts. Job was a

> frankly unpleasant man, a far right-wing religious conservative who landed a lot of people in

> basically the Inquisition in his world.

>

I agree that Alex from Job could qualify as an anti hero, at least at some stages of the book. He’s never been one of my favourite characters. Heinlein does a good job of camouflage though; it took me a couple of reads to really appreciate the sly way Alex’s racist, chauvinistic opinions are portrayed.

But Rod from Tunnel? I don’t think so; he is a little too reliant on his own brand of “logic” but other than that he’s a nice enough guy. What do you find so objectionable about him? Qualifying for anti hero status has to involve more than the general character flaws of youth IMO. Grant was more irritating, Jock actively nasty but neither of those were lead characters.

Jane

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 68

Subject: Re: Anti-heroes

Date: 10/23/2000

Author: pheb

ddavitt wrote:

> But Rod from Tunnel? I don’t think so; he is a little too reliant on his own brand of “logic” but other

> than that he’s a nice enough guy. What do you find so objectionable about him? Qualifying for anti hero

> status has to involve more than the general character flaws of youth IMO.

It’s not that I found anything objectionable about him. Usually anti-heroes are NOT objectionable; just flawed. Like Case in Neuromancer, or the brother with the terrible diseases in Sterling’s Heavy Weather. I really liked him, but he was a mess.

Rod changed a lot; he became a politician, because that what what survival called for. He never mated in any sense and was single at the end despite a couple women after him. He had lots of doubts and worries, especially at the end, and really, some of the others were more interesting! But they died. That was to me one of Heinlein’s most interesting books. However, flaws intrinsic to youth might in fact be a fair way to describe that; I have long thought that was the point of the book, in fact, that the job of adolescence is to take assistance from admittedly horrible adults long enough to survive and prosper as an adult oneself. It wasn’t nearly as hard for Rod to function as an adult as it was for him to function as an oppressed teenager once he got back. His mentor shows up in time to remind him that survival is about ALL conditions — including parental repression!

I really love that book.

Phebe

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 69

Subject: Re: Anti-heroes

Date: 10/24/2000

Author: Nyx

On Mon, 23 Oct 2000 19:46:19 GMT, wrote:

>

>It’s not that I found anything objectionable about him. Usually anti-heroes are NOT objectionable; just

>flawed. Like Case in Neuromancer, or the brother with the terrible diseases in Sterling’s Heavy Weather. I

>really liked him, but he was a mess.

Case was really just tragic. Not a bad person, but I think the whole point was to create a sort of Macbeth character. Someone who’s flaws made them act the way they do.

Or maybe he was supposed to be like the old drunk who used to be the sheriff in all those old westerns, but sees the light in the end.

Nyx

AIM: nyx2323 Yahoo: nyxxxx ICQ: 9744630

“So please, please, please, let me, let me let me, get

what I want this time….Lord knows it would be the first time.” The Smiths

————————————————————————————- >> Message 70

Subject: Re: Anti-heroes

Date: 10/23/2000

Author: reillocnl

In article,

ddavitt

wrote:

>

> But Rod from Tunnel? I don’t think so; he is a little too reliant on his own brand of “logic” but other

> than that he’s a nice enough guy. What do you find so objectionable about him? Qualifying for anti hero

> status has to involve more than the general character flaws of youth IMO. Grant was more irritating, Jock

> actively nasty but neither of those were lead characters.

>

> Jane

>

You guys in the discussion group already done Tunnel? I’d like an excuse to re-read it.

Rod’s no bigger than life and if it’s your contention that heros routinely get the crap beat out of them, that’s a new one on me. Now, Grant. I’d forgotten that name and that character and reading it now, after all these years and experiences, makes me think about him a lot differently than I used to. My gut reaction at this instant is that it was petty and mean-spirited of old Bob to write the guy that way. In fact, it’s a slap in the face of the rule of law and when the stobor get him it’s a message that you can take your man-made rules, roll them up real small and poke them at the nearest carnivore for all the good it’ll do you. I can remember feeling like he was a good man but wrong, somehow, in some way I couldn’t quite put my finger on–back in junior high, the last time I read it.

What’s got to be objectionable about Rod to make him anti instead of full-blown hero? You mean why’s he not king of the jungle? I think that’s obvious.

LNC

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 71

Subject: Re: Anti-heroes

Date: 10/23/2000

Author: ddavitt

 

wrote:

>

> You guys in the discussion group already done Tunnel? I’d like an

> excuse to re-read it.

We did it along with all the other juveniles in December 1999.

>

> Rod’s no bigger than life and if it’s your contention that heros

> routinely get the crap beat out of them, that’s a new one on me. Now,

> Grant. I’d forgotten that name and that character and reading it now,

> after all these years and experiences, makes me think about him a lot

> differently than I used to. My gut reaction at this instant is that it

> was petty and mean-spirited of old Bob to write the guy that way. In

> fact, it’s a slap in the face of the rule of law and when the stobor

> get him it’s a message that you can take your man-made rules, roll them

> up real small and poke them at the nearest carnivore for all the good

> it’ll do you. I can remember feeling like he was a good man but wrong,

> somehow, in some way I couldn’t quite put my finger on–back in junior

> high, the last time I read it.

>

> What’s got to be objectionable about Rod to make him anti instead of

> full-blown hero? You mean why’s he not king of the jungle? I think

> that’s obvious.

>

>

>

I’m not sure what you mean by anti hero. When I talk about the hero of the book, I don’t necessarily mean that he’s a hero in the Hercules vein of hero; maybe lead character is a better term. To me an anti hero would be Marc DuQuesne for instance. Rod is fairly normal; he has the ability to inspire loyalty and the fact that he winds up in charge shows he has leadership abilities but he doesn’t stand out from the rest of the colonists in an obvious way. The subtleties of the story show that he is different in some ways mind you and that qualifies him for hero not anti hero status in my view. YMMV.

Grant wasn’t an anti hero either but he was pompous, well meaning and convinced he knew best. Fatal combination…..he just had to go.

Jane

————————————————————————————-

Subject: Re: Anti-heroes

Date: 10/24/2000

Author: reillocnl

In article,

ddavitt

wrote:

>

> I’m not sure what you mean by anti hero. When I talk about the hero

>of the

> book, I don’t necessarily mean that he’s a hero in the Hercules vein

>of

> hero; maybe lead character is a better term. To me an anti hero

>would be

> Marc DuQuesne for instance. Rod is fairly normal; he has the ability

>to

> inspire loyalty and the fact that he winds up in charge shows he has

> leadership abilities but he doesn’t stand out from the rest of the

> colonists in an obvious way. The subtleties of the story show that he

>is

> different in some ways mind you and that qualifies him for hero not

>anti

> hero status in my view. YMMV.

>

> Grant wasn’t an anti hero either but he was pompous, well meaning and

> convinced he knew best. Fatal combination…..he just had to go.

>

> Jane

Fatal Heinlein combination: somebody written just to get in the way of his protagonist and formulaically doomed to bite the dust. Pompous, well-meaning and convinced he knew best? Jubal? Lazarus? Any of the others just like that who never taste dirt in the mouth?

Any opinion why the main Heinlein character of choice after SIASL wasn’t the Mike Smith type? You’ve got to admit a protagonist with those abilities would beat the hell out of Woody Smith in a “fair fight.” I’ve got an opinion, of course.

Anti-hero, again, wasn’t my terminology. I perpetuated it in the thread. We’re talking progagonists, main characters, the guy the story’s about. By way of direct comparison facilitated by identity of name, compare: Dejah Thoris and Dejah Thoris and John Carter and John Carter, Burrough-Heinlein. That’s heroine/anti-heroine, hero/anti-hero. Face it, the guy wrote, maybe, one hero: Jubal and by the time we get to see him, he’s got the anti-hero baggage out of the way. In any event, he’s not the protagonist in any work in which he appears.

An anti-hero’s still a hero. He wins. In Heinlein, he always wins everything. Elsewhere, he settles for moral victories that are often pyrric. Hell, some of them die. Here’s some classic literature for you: read Mickey Spillane. The books always start in the dark, in the rain and always end with Mike Hammer bleeding on the floor and the real evil guy dying on the last page. A more impure, purer anti-hero you’d never want to see. RAH gets close at the end of TEFL.

LNC

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 73

Subject: Re: Anti-heroes

Date: 10/23/2000

Author: James Gifford

wrote:

> William Dennis wrote:

>> Again, Heinlein had no interest in anti-heroes as protagonists.

Hugh Farnham. Manuel O’Kelly Davis. Clark Fries and (moreso) his parents. Oscar Gordon. While “antihero” might be a little strong, none of these characters are traditional heros, Heinleinian or otherwise. I’ve characterized them in the past as examples of incompetence, or at least the Peter Principle in action. For a period– 1962-66, at least, Heinlein did seem fascinated by a form of incompetence completely at odds with the rest of his writing.

> Ummmmm, what about the protag in Tunnel in the Sky? He had a lot of flaws and doubts.

But he ultimately pulls the right stuff out of a loincloth, with the help of his plucky friends.

> Job was a frankly unpleasant man, a far right-wing religious conservative who landed

> a lot of people in basically the Inquisition in his world.

But a third of the way into the novel, excepting minor slips, he had morphed into a reg’lar Heinlein Hero.

> Most of Heinlein’s protags were indeed “heroes,” I would agree, however, so I wonder

> why? After all, Gibson and many others have shown that anti-heroes (people with

> flaws who have to overcome them to get through the plot alive) can be very appealing.

Heinlein admired competence and ability. His characters reflect that. I wouldn’t cite Gibson in that venue (of course, I wouldn’t cite Gibson in much of any case), but writers such as Philip K Dick certainly explored the opposite end of things masterfully– nearly all of PKD’s characters are talented but hopeless wretches, too miserable and unhappy to pull themselves up out of their own pile of waste. No less fascinating than RAH’s ubermenschen, but diametrically opposed.

| James Gifford – Nitrosyncretic Press – |

| See http://www.nitrosyncretic.com for the Heinlein FAQ & more |

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 74

Subject: Re: Anti-heroes

Date: 10/23/2000

Author: pheb

James Gifford wrote:

> wrote:

>

> > Ummmmm, what about the protag in Tunnel in the Sky? He had a lot of flaws and doubts.

>

> But he ultimately pulls the right stuff out of a loincloth, with the

> help of his plucky friends.

>

No, actually that — pulling the right stuff out of a loincloth — is exactly what he does NOT do, again and again in that story. It’s quite frustrating, in fact, because the leader is constantly expecting a liaison with first one beauty, then with the black Zulu warrior woman. But in the end, he rides off as a grown up through the Tunnel (on a pinto, if I recall right) — alone again! Personally, I suspect Rod was gay and in the closet.

Phebe

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 75

Subject: Re: Anti-heroes

Date: 10/23/2000

Author: reillocnl

In article,

wrote:

> No, actually that — pulling the right stuff out of a loincloth — is exactly what he

> does NOT do, again and again in that story. It’s quite frustrating, in fact, because the

> leader is constantly expecting a liaison with first one beauty, then with the black Zulu

> warrior woman. But in the end, he rides off as a grown up through the Tunnel (on a pinto,

> if I recall right) — alone again! Personally, I suspect Rod was gay and in the closet.

>

> Phebe

>

And I thought I was a damned-to-hell blasphemer here. You’re on your own, kid.

LNC

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 76

Subject: Re: Anti-heroes

Date: 10/24/2000

Author: AGplusone

“LNC” aka reillocnl replies to Phebe:

>>Personally, I suspect Rod was gay

>>and in the closet.

>>

>And I thought I was a damned-to-hell blasphemer here. You’re on your

>own, kid.

… [tucking pointed and forked tongue firmly into cheek behind worn fangs] …

Actually, I’m waiting for someone to suggest that the ‘real’ motivation behind Roy’s breaking that leg was so that he and Rod could let the watch fire go out, so to speak, and assault the anus of mother pig with their puny little sticks. Afterwards they could put her head up on the stick and cavort around it until the flies got too heavy to stand, then they could break the conch shell, paint themselves, dance around the fire and go kill the kid with glasses–what was his name, Arthur? the one who was making the iron foundry, or was that the other story? Confusing, isn’t it?

Ready when you guys are. Been there, done that, wore out the tee-shirt.

David M. Silver

“I expect your names to shine!”

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 77

Subject: Re: Anti-heroes

Date: 10/31/2000

Author: Glover, Roger

AGplusone wrote:

> Actually, I’m waiting for someone to suggest that the ‘real’ motivation behind

> Roy’s breaking that leg was so that he and Rod could let the watch fire go out,

> so to speak, and assault the anus of mother pig with their puny little sticks.

> Afterwards they could put her head up on the stick and cavort around it until

> the flies got too heavy to stand, then they could break the conch shell, paint

> themselves, dance around the fire and go kill the kid with glasses–what was

> his name, Arthur? the one who was making the iron foundry, or was that the

> other story? Confusing, isn’t it?

Actually, I’m amazed at how *infrequently* _Tunnel in the Sky_ is compared/contrasted with _Lord of the Flies_ . There is a strong natural thematic synergy.

Same thing with the movies “The Maltese Falcon” and “Blade Runner” (original release, not director’s cut).

— Roger

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 78

Subject: Re: Anti-heroes

Date: 11/01/2000

Author: Major oz

>Actually, I’m amazed at how *infrequently* _Tunnel in the Sky_ is

>compared/contrasted with _Lord of the Flies_ . There is a strong

>natural thematic synergy.

>

Golding had an agenda, Heinlein had a mortgage.

cheers

oz, looking for adjustable wrenches to tweak his thematic synergy

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 79

Subject: Re: Anti-heroes

Date: 11/01/2000

Author: Glover, Roger

Major oz wrote:

>

> >Actually, I’m amazed at how *infrequently* _Tunnel in the Sky_ is

> >compared/contrasted with _Lord of the Flies_ . There is a strong

> >natural thematic synergy.

> >

>

> Golding had an agenda, Heinlein had a mortgage.

I very seriously doubt that Golding in 1954, a minor playwright, a schoolteacher, a son of middle class parents, had neither desire nor need to make money on his first novel.

On the other hand, I cannot take Heinlein’s self-avowed mercenary intentions at face value and still respect him at all. Oh, perhaps Heinlein believed that he was *only* paying the mortgage and buying the groceries, and I could respect him in spite of his self-delusion. But I seriously doubt self-delusion was involved.

Heinlein wrote and said the sorts of things that would tend to make him a focal point many a person’s pet cause. The man was not well, and he was no idiot. It would not have been hard for such well-intended fools to bleed him dry. He must have discouraged them any way he could that would not jeopardize his success. By claiming to be interested only in the money and not in the ideas, he could prevent at least some of them from bugging him in a way that was consistent with his body of work. Any comments for or against this impression are welcome.

Besides, by 1955, after a very successful 15-year career, surely Heinlein’s mortgage was worst a minor consideration and at best a distant memory.

— Roger

“And another thing…”: Until I started looking up times and dates for this message, I never realized that the two books were published so closely together (LOTF: 1954, TITS: 1955). Nor had I realized that Heinlein and Golding were such close contemporaries (Heinlein: b.1907, Golding: b.1911).

I used to wonder if Heinlein was influenced by LOTF. Now it seems much more likely to me that Heinlein had never heard of it when he was writing TITS; LOTF was rather slow to find its audience.

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 80

Subject: Re: Anti-heroes

Date: 11/05/2000

Author: Tian Harter

Glover, Roger wrote:

>Until I started looking up times and dates for this

>message, I never realized that the two books were

>published so closely together (LOTF: 1954, TITS: 1955).

>Nor had I realized that Heinlein and Golding were

>such close contemporaries (Heinlein: b.1907,

>Golding: b.1911).

What are the chances that they were both inspired by the same stimulus to write those books?

Tian Harter

http://members.aol.com/tnharter

This is a must read story:

http://abcnews.go.com/onair/Nightline/nl001023_incumbents_feature.html

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 81

Subject: Re: Anti-heroes

Date: 11/05/2000

Author: Jerry Brown

On 05 Nov 2000 08:10:51 GMT, 147DISH (Tian Harter) wrote:

>Glover, Roger wrote:

>

>>Until I started looking up times and dates for this

>>message, I never realized that the two books were

>>published so closely together (LOTF: 1954, TITS: 1955).

>>Nor had I realized that Heinlein and Golding were

>>such close contemporaries (Heinlein: b.1907,

>>Golding: b.1911).

>

>What are the chances that they were both inspired by

>the same stimulus to write those books?

This stimulus possibly being R M Ballantyne’s ‘The Coral Island’. I’ve not read it, but as far as I can tell from a brief skim, some boys get shipwrecked on a desert island, have a few adventures, and get home safely, without making any fundamental discoveries about human nature.

LotF actually has its Ralph mention the similarity of the situation, although I’m a bit surprised that he didn’t recall that two of TCIs characters are also called Ralph and Jack.

Jerry Brown

A cat may look at a king

(but probably won’t bother)

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 82

Subject: Re: Anti-heroes

Date: 11/06/2000

Author: Nollaig MacKenzie

On Sun, 05 Nov 2000 11:15:36 +0000, the estimable

Jerry Brown wrote:

> On 05 Nov 2000 08:10:51 GMT, 147DISH (Tian Harter)

> wrote:

>

> >Glover, Roger wrote:

> >

> >> [stuff about (LOTF: 1954, TITS: 1955)]

> >

> >What are the chances that they were both inspired by

> >the same stimulus to write those books?

>

> This stimulus possibly being R M Ballantyne’s ‘The Coral Island’. I’ve

> not read it, but as far as I can tell from a brief skim, some boys get

> shipwrecked on a desert island, have a few adventures, and get home

> safely, without making any fundamental discoveries about human nature.

>

I must have been 7 or 8 when I read Coral Island, and remember hardly anything about the plot (except that, like Crusoe, it’s wrecked by entry of other human beings), but I have an intense visual image of sunshine coming down through clear green water, and a sensation of completely untroubled contentment.

> LotF actually has its Ralph mention the similarity of the situation,

> although I’m a bit surprised that he didn’t recall that two of TCIs

> characters are also called Ralph and Jack.

>

And a younger one (called Peterkin Gay, but let’s let that pass) that the older boys look after and protect.

Cheers, N.

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 84

Subject: Re: Anti-heroes

Date: 11/06/2000

Author: Glover, Roger

Chris and Elisabeth Zakes wrote:

>

> On Wed, 01 Nov 2000 11:38:42 -0600, an orbiting mind-control laser

> caused “Glover, Roger” to write:

>

> >Major oz wrote:

> >>

> >> >Actually, I’m amazed at how *infrequently* _Tunnel in the Sky_ is

> >> >compared/contrasted with _Lord of the Flies_ . There is a strong

> >> >natural thematic synergy.

> >> >

> >>

> >> Golding had an agenda, Heinlein had a mortgage.

> >

> >I very seriously doubt that Golding in 1954, a minor playwright, a

> >schoolteacher, a son of middle class parents, had neither desire nor

> >need to make money on his first novel.

> >

> >On the other hand, I cannot take Heinlein’s self-avowed mercenary

> >intentions at face value and still respect him at all. Oh, perhaps

> >Heinlein believed that he was *only* paying the mortgage and buying the

> >groceries, and I could respect him in spite of his self-delusion. But I

> >seriously doubt self-delusion was involved.

>

> Um… go read “Grumbles From the Grave” and “Expanded Universe”.

> Heinlein says several times that his primary purpose is to make enough

> money to live comfortably. To do so he must write stories that are

> *entertaining* first-and-foremost, and any other purpose (such as

> moral uplifting, political persuasion, etc.) must be secondary.

I have read both, I just don’t believe them at face value, at least not by the mid-50’s.

> >Heinlein wrote and said the sorts of things that would tend to make him

> >a focal point many a person’s pet cause. The man was not well, and he

> >was no idiot. It would not have been hard for such well-intended fools

> >to bleed him dry. He must have discouraged them any way he could that

> >would not jeopardize his success. By claiming to be interested only in

> >the money and not in the ideas, he could prevent at least some of them

> >from bugging him in a way that was consistent with his body of work.

>

> On the other hand, I don’t think he was particularly seen as a “focal

> point of many a person’s pet cause” until after the publication of

> “Stranger in a Strange Land”. Up until then, his writing was either

> “children’s books” or “that weird science fiction stuff”.

>

> It wasn’t until he started getting total strangers showing up on his

> doorstep wanting to “share water” or spend several hours discussing

> various philosophical elements from “Stranger” that it became a

> problem.

It may not have been a problem until the 60’s, but have you read much of his 50’s (and late 40’s) nonfiction? If I were Heinlein I would be at least a little concerned that, having espoused such strong, urgent, and (by some viewpoints) extreme ideas, like-minded people would be expecting me to spearhead related causes. That the problem did not materialize changes not one wit the need to prepare for it.

Am I wrong? (Hey, it’s an open shot. Enjoy! ;^)

— Roger

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 83

Subject: Re: Anti-heroes

Date: 11/06/2000

Author: Chris and Elisabeth Zakes

On Wed, 01 Nov 2000 11:38:42 -0600, an orbiting mind-control laser

caused “Glover, Roger” to write:

>Major oz wrote:

>>

>> >Actually, I’m amazed at how *infrequently* _Tunnel in the Sky_ is

>> >compared/contrasted with _Lord of the Flies_ . There is a strong

>> >natural thematic synergy.

>> >

>>

>> Golding had an agenda, Heinlein had a mortgage.

>

>I very seriously doubt that Golding in 1954, a minor playwright, a

>schoolteacher, a son of middle class parents, had neither desire nor

>need to make money on his first novel.

>

>On the other hand, I cannot take Heinlein’s self-avowed mercenary

>intentions at face value and still respect him at all. Oh, perhaps

>Heinlein believed that he was *only* paying the mortgage and buying the

>groceries, and I could respect him in spite of his self-delusion. But I

>seriously doubt self-delusion was involved.

Um… go read “Grumbles From the Grave” and “Expanded Universe”. Heinlein says several times that his primary purpose is to make enough money to live comfortably. To do so he must write stories that are *entertaining* first-and-foremost, and any other purpose (such as moral uplifting, political persuasion, etc.) must be secondary.

>Heinlein wrote and said the sorts of things that would tend to make him

>a focal point many a person’s pet cause. The man was not well, and he

>was no idiot. It would not have been hard for such well-intended fools

>to bleed him dry. He must have discouraged them any way he could that

>would not jeopardize his success. By claiming to be interested only in

>the money and not in the ideas, he could prevent at least some of them

>from bugging him in a way that was consistent with his body of work.

On the other hand, I don’t think he was particularly seen as a “focal point of many a person’s pet cause” until after the publication of “Stranger in a Strange Land”. Up until then, his writing was either “children’s books” or “that weird science fiction stuff”.

It wasn’t until he started getting total strangers showing up on his doorstep wanting to “share water” or spend several hours discussing various philosophical elements from “Stranger” that it became a problem.

-Chris Zakes

Texas

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 84

Subject: Re: Anti-heroes

Date: 11/01/2000

Author: Glover, Roger

Major oz wrote:

————–>: snip

> > natural thematic synergy

————–>: snip

> oz, looking for adjustable wrenches to tweak his thematic synergy

I doubt that will help. “Wrenching” is generally more applicable to plot than theme. But you are welcome to give it a twist. Let me know how it all comes out.

— Roger

whose thematic synergy is fully organic and harvested fresh daily

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 85

Subject: Re: Anti-heroes

Date: 11/01/2000

Author: Chris Croughton

On Wed, 01 Nov 2000 11:48:10 -0600, Glover, Roger

wrote:

>Major oz wrote:

>

>————–>: snip

>> > natural thematic synergy

>————–>: snip

>

>> oz, looking for adjustable wrenches to tweak his thematic synergy

>

>I doubt that will help. “Wrenching” is generally more applicable to

>plot than theme. But you are welcome to give it a twist. Let me know

>how it all comes out.

I read it as ‘wenches’ and ‘wenching’. Gave it a whole different meaning…

Chris C

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 86

Subject: Re: Anti-heroes

Date: 11/01/2000

Author: Glover, Roger

Chris Croughton wrote:

>

> On Wed, 01 Nov 2000 11:48:10 -0600, Glover, Roger

> wrote:

>

> >Major oz wrote:

> >

> >————–>: snip

> >> > natural thematic synergy

> >————–>: snip

> >

> >> oz, looking for adjustable wrenches to tweak his thematic synergy

> >

> >I doubt that will help. “Wrenching” is generally more applicable to

> >plot than theme. But you are welcome to give it a twist. Let me know

> >how it all comes out.

>

> I read it as ‘wenches’ and ‘wenching’. Gave it a whole different

> meaning…

I can see why! Aside from the obvious redundancy (all winches are adjustable), winching is clearly irrelevant to both plot and theme. Winches are at best relevant to setting and characterization, where the real “heavy lifting” is required!

— Roger

http://www.webster.com/mw/art/winch.htm

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 87

Subject: Re: Anti-heroes

Date: 11/01/2000

Author: pheb

Major oz wrote:

> >Actually, I’m amazed at how *infrequently* _Tunnel in the Sky_ is

> >compared/contrasted with _Lord of the Flies_ . There is a strong

> >natural thematic synergy.

> >

>

> Golding had an agenda, Heinlein had a mortgage.

>

> cheers

>

> oz, looking for adjustable wrenches to tweak his thematic synergy

Good point, Tunnel is a lot easier recreational reading than Lord of the Flies. Not counting high school texts, it probably sold better. Course, that’s a LOT of high school texts.

Phebe

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 88

Subject: Re: Anti-heroes

Date: 11/03/2000

Author: Kirk

In article,

says…

> Good point, Tunnel is a lot easier recreational reading than Lord of

> the Flies. Not counting high school texts, it probably sold better.

> Course, that’s a LOT of high school texts.

>

It problem still sold better. Schools recycle their books from year to year.

Kirk

“Contrary to popular opinion, evolution is *not* teleological” KRD

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 89

Subject: Re: Anti-heroes

Date: 11/03/2000

Author: Kirk

In article,

says…

> >Actually, I’m amazed at how *infrequently* _Tunnel in the Sky_ is

> >compared/contrasted with _Lord of the Flies_ . There is a strong

> >natural thematic synergy.

> >

>

> Golding had an agenda, Heinlein had a mortgage.

>

Heinlein also had an agenda at the time. However, there is one comparison to be made: Heinlein’s characters had been trained how to be civilized, and having been taught, it stuck with most of them. Golding’s characters had never been trained–“they jest growed.”

It seems to me that the important ax Heinlein was grinding (he who said never grind axes in fiction) is blunted *unless* it’s compared to _Lord of the Flies_.

Kirk

“Contrary to popular opinion, evolution is *not* teleological” KRD

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 91

Subject: Re: Anti-heroes

Date: 11/06/2000

Author: Glover, Roger

Kirk wrote:

>

> In article,

> says…

> > >Actually, I’m amazed at how *infrequently* _Tunnel in the Sky_ is

> > >compared/contrasted with _Lord of the Flies_ . There is a strong

> > >natural thematic synergy.

> > >

> >

> > Golding had an agenda, Heinlein had a mortgage.

> >

>

> Heinlein also had an agenda at the time. However, there is one

> comparison to be made: Heinlein’s characters had been trained how to

> be civilized, and having been taught, it stuck with most of them.

> Golding’s characters had never been trained–“they jest growed.”

>

> It seems to me that the important ax Heinlein was grinding (he who

> said never grind axes in fiction) is blunted *unless* it’s compared to

> _Lord of the Flies_.

Thanks Kirk. I don’t think I could have said it better. What is that Boy Scout motto? “Be prepared,” right?

— Roger

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 90

Subject: Re: Anti-heroes

Date: 11/01/2000

Author: Gaeltach

“Glover, Roger” wrote:

> Actually, I’m amazed at how *infrequently* _Tunnel in the Sky_ is

> compared/contrasted with _Lord of the Flies_ . There is a strong

> natural thematic synergy.

>

> Same thing with the movies “The Maltese Falcon” and “Blade Runner”

> (original release, not director’s cut).

I’m just trying to think of *any* comparisons/contrasts involving “The Maltese Falcon” and “Blade Runner”. I admit, I saw “The Maltese Falcon” last a few years ago but now I am wondering. What am I missing?

Sean

***************

…. and now for something completely different:

Roger…. “Egor”

***************

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 91

Subject: Runner/Falcon (was Re: Anti-heros

Date: 11/01/2000

Author: Glover, Roger

Gaeltach wrote:

>

> “Glover, Roger” wrote:

——————>: snip

> > strong

> > natural thematic synergy.

> >

> > Same thing with the movies “The Maltese Falcon” and “Blade Runner”

> > (original release, not director’s cut).

>

> I’m just trying to think of *any* comparisons/contrasts involving “The Maltese

> Falcon” and “Blade Runner”. I admit, I saw “The Maltese Falcon” last a few years ago

> but now I am wondering. What am I missing?

Think about the endings and see if something does not occur to you.

Similar actors (Humphrey Bogart and Harrison Ford) playing similar anti-heros (Sam Spade and Rick Deckard) faced with a similar dilemma

P

A

R

T

I

A

L

S

P

O

I

L

E

R

(turn her in or run away with her) make utterly different choices. Why? 😕

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 92

Subject: Re: Runner/Falcon (was Re: Anti-heros

Date: 11/02/2000

Author: Gaeltach

“Glover, Roger” wrote:

 

> (turn her in or run away with her) make utterly different choices.

> Why?

Ok, thanks Roger. I was trying to fit together Sam Spade searching for a gold statuette with Deckard hunting down and killing replicants. I see the parallel at the end of both movies, sure. But I’m not sure if there is much else to write a thesis on? But there are some other interesting similarities/coincidences with Ford and Bogart. Ford’s spacecraft while playing Han Solo is of course the _Millenium Falcon_. Both actors played the same character in the different versions of _Sabrina_, and one would have to consider Ford’s role in _Six Days, Seven Nights_ as very Bogartesque. To bring this barely on-topic, someone (I think it was Steve) once suggested Bogart as a suitable Jubal. Somehow I don’t think Ford would be as appropriate.

Sean

***************

…. and now for something completely different:

On topic I pot. No?

***************

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 93

Subject: Re: Runner/Falcon (was Re: Anti-heros

Date: 11/03/2000

Author: FREEMAN

 

>To bring this barely on-topic,

> someone (I think it was Steve) once suggested Bogart as a suitable Jubal.

>Somehow I don’t think Ford would be as appropriate.

I dunno. From what I hear, Ole’ Harry is an incurable alchy and likely to consider six raw eggs in a glass filled with brandy a suitable breakfast. Now that I mention it, that does sound kinda good.

Adam

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 94

Subject: Re: Runner/Falcon (was Re: Anti-heros

Date: 11/04/2000

Author: PrinceOfBaja

>I dunno. From what I hear, Ole’ Harry is an incurable alchy and likely to

>consider six raw eggs in a glass filled with brandy a suitable breakfast.

>Now that I mention it, that does sound kinda good.

>

>Adam

All acoholics are incurable; some just choose to stay sober.

Steve

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 95

Subject: Re: Runner/Falcon (was Re: Anti-heros

Date: 11/03/2000

Author: Kirk

In article, says…

> and one would have to consider Ford’s

> role in _Six Days, Seven Nights_ as very Bogartesque.

>

“African Queen” comes to mind.

Kirk

“Contrary to popular opinion, evolution is *not* teleological” KRD

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 96

Subject: Re: Anti-heroes

Date: 10/23/2000

Author: James Gifford

wrote:

> James Gifford wrote:

>> But he ultimately pulls the right stuff out of a loincloth, with the

>> help of his plucky friends.

> No, actually that — pulling the right stuff out of a loincloth — is exactly what

> he does NOT do, again and again in that story. It’s quite frustrating, in fact,

> because the leader is constantly expecting a liaison with first one beauty, then with

> the black Zulu warrior woman. But in the end, he rides off as a grown up through the

> Tunnel (on a pinto, if I recall right) — alone again!

Err… that’s not what I meant. I was trying to put a “primitive” spin on “out of a hat.” Didn’t mean Willie, Mr. Happy, etc.

> Personally, I suspect Rod was gay and in the closet.

Nah. All of Heinlein’s juvenile protagonists are hilariously blind to the females of the species. It’s usually attributed to the wishes of the publisher to have anything even remotely sexual eliminated or minimized in these works, but some consider Heinlein to have carried it to absurd lengths as a (not-so-)private joke.

| James Gifford – Nitrosyncretic Press – |

| See http://www.nitrosyncretic.com for the Heinlein FAQ & more |

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 97

Subject: Re: Anti-heroes

Date: 10/24/2000

Author: BPRAL22169

>It’s usually attributed to the wishes of the

>publisher to have anything even remotely sexual eliminated or minimized

I think Heinlein wanted to treat the sexual awakening as a special instance of bildung and he made a practice of not dealing with it at all in his juveniles because his readership wasn’t ready to think about it in the same serious terms as he approached everything else. Americans have always had a problem talking about sex, and teenagers are just too damned defensive about the subject.

He did take an opportunity to make one treatment of the sexual awakening — John Lyle, in the pool (with the monkey wrench — no, wait, wrong game) (and DON’T bother telling me to get a Clue!). Written: 1953.

Bill

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 98

Subject: Re: Anti-heroes

Date: 10/24/2000

Author: reillocnl

In article,

(BPRAL22169) wrote:

> >It’s usually attributed to the wishes of the

> >publisher to have anything even remotely sexual eliminated or

minimized

>

> I think Heinlein wanted to treat the sexual awakening as a special instance of

> bildung and he made a practice of not dealing with it at all in his juveniles

> because his readership wasn’t ready to think about it in the same serious terms

> as he approached everything else. Americans have always had a problem talking

> about sex, and teenagers are just too damned defensive about the subject.

>

> He did take an opportunity to make one treatment of the sexual awakening —

> John Lyle, in the pool (with the monkey wrench — no, wait, wrong game) (and

> DON’T bother telling me to get a Clue!). Written: 1953.

> Bill

>

>

Poppycock. Bildung, yeah. Dung, Bill. It was sales, Bill, like the man said. There wasn’t any grander design than “don’t say that or we won’t print it.”

As for Americans’ problems talking about anything, evidence? Defensive teenagers: evidence? Here’s some: my 12-year-old son made this up two years ago: Colonel Mustard, in the bathroom, with the magazine. This isn’t ’53, either.

LNC

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 99

Subject: Re: Anti-heroes

Date: 10/25/2000

Author: pheb

James Gifford wrote:

> wrote:

>

> > Personally, I suspect Rod was gay and in the closet.

>

> Nah. All of Heinlein’s juvenile protagonists are hilariously blind to

> the females of the species. It’s usually attributed to the wishes of the

> publisher to have anything even remotely sexual eliminated or minimized

> in these works, but some consider Heinlein to have carried it to absurd

> lengths as a (not-so-)private joke.

>

> —

>

> | James Gifford –

Yes, I agree, I was joking. Though I could definitely back that up with textual analysis! Rod hangs out with men throughout and can’t even discern female gender when he sees people. He never takes a female mate no matter how avidly they throw themselves at him — but he goes off for months exploring alone with this one guy. And what is with this older “mentor” guy relationship?

All this just shows the futility of textual analysis of only one part of an author’s work.

Heinlein was of course at least mildly homophobic — see Stranger in a Strange Land — and only finally fetched male homosexuality out as part of the polyamory shock collection rather half-heartedly once, one of the Lazarus Long recyclings, if I recall right. It was a sex scene that had nothing of the oomph of his incest, spanking, and other heterosexual shock scenes. But hey, he made the effort to be inclusive.

HOWEVER, I don’t think the girl doesn’t get the guy in the young adult novels because the guys were gay OR because his publishers were puritan. After all, getting the guy and ending up married was what the 50s were about. No, Heinlein did this hands off stuff on purpose.

Remember Max in Starman Jones? Escaped Ellie throughout the novel, though if they had been stuck in the lost galaxy we can assume he would have nobly done his duty by the human race. But in the end he zoomed off as an astrogator, feeling rather sorry for her reestablished fiance Putzie. What’s going on here, I’d say, in all these novels is that Heinlein is advising teenage boys, “Wait!! Have some adventures first! DON’T get trapped into love and marriage and family too young before anything interesting happens!”

Later of course he found a way for his characters to be free and have lots of sex anyway, but then, the whole society thought we had, also. In the early novels it was marriage or dishonor if sex was indulged. Heinlein was telling kids to abstain.

Phebe

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 100

Subject: Re: Anti-heroes

Date: 10/25/2000

Author: AGplusone

Phebe:

>Later of course he found a way for his characters to be free and have lots

>of sex anyway,

>but then, the whole society thought we had, also. In the early novels it

>was marriage or

>dishonor if sex was indulged. Heinlein was telling kids to abstain.

Later, going back to the past, as in the episode concerning Woodie and Gramps he relates early on in TEFL, and as in the episode concerning Maureen at age fourteen in To Sail, he urged the use of condoms, if youth were to engage in sex. I agree with you that he never did so in the juveniles written for Scribners so urge premarital sex. I don’t think however Margaret Sanger or Robert Heinlein would agree with you that it took the society until the pill of the 1960s to be free and have lots of sex anyway. Come to think of it, in the fifties I wouldn’t have agreed — not that I had “lots” of sex then, but … some of us had managed to discover the pharmacy’s uses other than for hot fudge sundaes.

I think Heinlein, had he been permitted in a juvenile to do so, would have issued a warning about ‘safe contraceptive sex, marriage or dishonor’ rather than the limits you suggest. Please note the episodes involving John Lyle and Sister Magdalene. Lyle is one of the immature adults I classify along with Poddy, Oscar, and the Great Lorenzo. Compare Lyle’s buddy Zeb, who undoubtedly not only had teenage sex but probably broke one of the Prophet’s felony laws to obtain condoms to do so, if I read his character correctly.

David M. Silver

“I expect your names to shine!”

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 101

Subject: Re: Anti-heroes

Date: 10/25/2000

Author: ddavitt

 

wrote:

>

>

> All this just shows the futility of textual analysis of only one part of an author’s work.

>

> Heinlein was of course at least mildly homophobic — see Stranger in a Strange Land —

> and only finally fetched male homosexuality out as part of the polyamory shock collection

> rather half-heartedly once, one of the Lazarus Long recyclings, if I recall right. It was

> a sex scene that had nothing of the oomph of his incest, spanking, and other heterosexual

> shock scenes. But hey, he made the effort to be inclusive.

>

>

If you mean that tiny part where a still prudish Gillian refers to homosexual men as “poor in betweeners” then I think it’s stretching it a bit to infer from this that Heinlein was of that opinion. She was thinking to herself and deciding that that was how Mike would see them…..later events would seem to indicate that she was wrong and that she changed her mind but no one ever seems to mention that.

I’m also surprised that people rarely use one of the Notebook quotations to “prove” Heinlein was homophobic. It still wouldn’t be a justifiable assumption but more people equate Heinlein with Lazarus than they do with Gillian. It’s a long quotation but this is the relevant bit;

“The saddest feature about homosexuality is not that it is “wrong” or “sinful” or even that it can’t lead to progeny – but that it is more difficult to reach through it this spiritual union. Not impossible – but the cards are stacked against it.”

There is more than one reference too; Colin, Jake, Maureen, Justin…..though to be fair, they’re all bisexual rather than homosexual. A logical development from Joan Eunice’s belief that if you’re really into sex the partner can be male or female; gender is irrelevant.

Personally, I think your first sentence in the quoted bit above sums it up nicely.

Jane

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 102

Subject: Re: Anti-heroes

Date: 10/23/2000

Author: reillocnl

In article,

wrote:

>

> > Job was a frankly unpleasant man, a far right-wing religious conservative who landed

> > a lot of people in basically the Inquisition in his world.

>

> But a third of the way into the novel, excepting minor slips, he had

> morphed into a reg’lar Heinlein Hero.

>

>

> | James Gifford – Nitrosyncretic Press – |

> | See http://www.nitrosyncretic.com for the Heinlein FAQ & more |

>

And I can remember feeling the click when it happened, while they were in Mexico, washing dishes, as he calculated the height of the total pile and how long it would take to buy their way north, and how to make time to make time with Gretchen. Put off the character’s gelling any longer than that and only the diehards would read the book.

LNC

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 103

Subject: Re: Anti-heroes

Date: 10/23/2000

Author: ddavitt

 

wrote:

>

> wrote:

> >

> >

> > But a third of the way into the novel, excepting minor slips, he had

> > morphed into a reg’lar Heinlein Hero.

> >

>

> And I can remember feeling the click when it happened, while they were

> in Mexico, washing dishes, as he calculated the height of the total

> pile and how long it would take to buy their way north, and how to make

> time to make time with Gretchen. Put off the character’s gelling any

> longer than that and only the diehards would read the book.

>

>

For my money he stayed objectionable long after that…what about the tantrum he had when Margrethe ( Gretchen was in Farmer) wore short shorts? Or the way he slept with Pat and tried to make out he was doing it to improve his sex life with Margrethe? Yeah, right…..how noble and self sacrificing!

 

Jane

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 104

Subject: Re: Anti-heroes

Date: 10/23/2000

Author: William Dennis

I wrote:

> >> Again, Heinlein had no interest in anti-heroes as protagonists.

>

to which James Gifford responded.

> Hugh Farnham. Manuel O’Kelly Davis. Clark Fries and (moreso) his

> parents. Oscar Gordon. While “antihero” might be a little strong, none

> of these characters are traditional heros, …

Oscar Gordon was not the stereotypical hero, but he was farther away than a “little” from being an anti-hero, IMHO. He was a classic sword and sorcery hero, ala John Carter of Mars, with a little 1960s sensibility thrown in. Oscar Gordon always reminded me a little of the type of hero Philip Jose Farmer specialized in: a little anti-establishment, but still heroic.

William Dennis II

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 105

Subject: Re: Anti-heroes

Date: 10/23/2000

Author: Gordon G. Sollars

In article, James Gifford writes…

> wrote:

>

> > William Dennis wrote:

> >> Again, Heinlein had no interest in anti-heroes as protagonists.

>

> Hugh Farnham. Manuel O’Kelly Davis. Clark Fries and (moreso) his

> parents. Oscar Gordon. While “antihero” might be a little strong, none

> of these characters are traditional heros, Heinleinian or otherwise.

> I’ve characterized them in the past as examples of incompetence, or at

> least the Peter Principle in action. For a period– 1962-66, at least,

> Heinlein did seem fascinated by a form of incompetence completely at

> odds with the rest of his writing.

Sorry, James, but I don’t buy it. Take Mannie. Sure, he apologizes for not being a good revolutionary commander, but we have plenty of evidence of his overall competence. You might want to claim that Mannie is /unsuited/ for his Great Task, but, even so, in the end, it’s Mannie who closes the deal at Little David’s Sling.

Farnham, too, shows plenty of moxie, at least as a survivalist. Sometimes large scale events, like, say, revolutions or nuclear wars, show up a flaw or two, even in a Heinlein Hero. 😉 And, Clark is hardly “incompetent”, but then you indicate that it is his parents who really get the badge. They are arguably incompetent /as parents/, but then they have Clark to raise, and that might test any parent’s competence.

As to Oscar Gordon, he is picked by the Empress of the Twenty Universes out of billions of candidates for a crucial challenge at which he succeeds.

But, I’m sure you must have something in mind here, so, what “form” of incompetence am I missing?

Gordon Sollars

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 106

Subject: Re: Anti-heroes

Date: 10/23/2000

Author: AGplusone

Phebe:

>Ummmmm, what about the protag in Tunnel in the Sky? He had a lot of flaws

>and doubts. Job was a

>frankly unpleasant man, a far right-wing religious conservative who landed

>a lot of people in

>basically the Inquisition in his world.

>Most of Heinlein’s protags were indeed “heroes,” I would agree, however,

>so I wonder why? After all,

>Gibson and many others have shown that anti-heroes (people with flaws who

>have to overcome them to get

>through the plot alive) can be very appealing.

The thing about both the two you mention (Rod Walker in Tunnel in the Sky and Alex Hergensheimer/Alec Graham in Job:ACOJ) was each (and almost all of Heinlein’s other protagonists) experience character development through the course of the novels that changes the flaws in their characters. That’s the point of the story, always, for Heinlein. He wrote several essays (and presented them to seminars, etc.) concerning his own writing and focused upon that character development point, even going so far as to define the different types of character development in his novels. A little bit of that can be found in “Ray Guns & Rocket Ships” which is Extended Universe, but he developed those thoughts further both before and afterwards.

Who’s this Gibson you’re talking about? Back in the 1960s we didn’t hear about a Gibson of any prominence in English lit university major courses,

IIRC.

You might find it interesting, btw, to read Northrup Frye on types of heroes. —

David M. Silver

“I expect your names to shine!”

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 107

Subject: Re: Anti-heroes

Date: 10/23/2000

Author: pheb

AGplusone wrote:

> Who’s this Gibson you’re talking about? Back in the 1960s we didn’t hear about

> a Gibson of any prominence in English lit university major courses, IIRC.

>

You—–re joking, right? No, it’s more subtle: you are saying that there didn’t used to be much of an anti-hero movement in scifi in the 50s and 60s. Well, that’s true, so why should I have expected Heinlein to have invented one. And Gibson’s characters do develop too, of course.

Early Heinlein heroes were exemplary, intended for the good moral instruction of young people, and I personally found them very inspiring. That was something he did on purpose.

Later on, well, I see your point about Hugh Farnham! It’s not too clear to me what he was doing later on, but it was very different.

Phebe

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 108

Subject: Re: Anti-heroes

Date: 10/23/2000

Author: reillocnl

In article,

(AGplusone) wrote:

.

> That’s the

> point of the story, always, for Heinlein. He wrote several essays (and

> presented them to seminars, etc.) concerning his own writing and focused upon

> that character development point, even going so far as to define the different

> types of character development in his novels. A little bit of that can be found

> in “Ray Guns & Rocket Ships” which is Extended Universe, but he developed those

> thoughts further both before and afterwards.

I’ll dig out my copy of Universe and re-read that piece. The papers you mention his presenting at seminars, are they available anywhere?

> —

> David M. Silver

>

> “I expect your names to shine!”

>

LNC

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 109

Subject: Re: Anti-heroes

Date: 10/24/2000

Author: AGplusone

reillocn asks:

>The papers you

>mention his presenting at seminars, are they available anywhere?

The two major ones are these:

In July 1941, Heinlein was invited to be the Guest of Honor at the third World Science Fiction conference in Denver. His speech, entitled “The Discovery of the Future,” was recorded under circumstances described in James Gifford’s RAH:ARC, at 231, concerning the item labeled by Gifford as G.031. The item was thereafter published in Vertex #1 in 1973; and you may find a slightly edited version in Kondo’s _Requiem, etc.,_.

The essay “On The Writing of Speculative Fiction,” labeled by Gifford as G.063, was published in _Of Worlds Beyond_ (Fantasy Press: Reading PA, 1947 (Lloyd A Eshbach, ed.), but never republished. It is a substantial expansion and reworking of the thought in the Denvention speech, IMO, and was presented as the lead-off piece at a seminar of five IIRC noted writers.

Gifford lists several smaller essays delivered to specialized audiences, librarians, trade book buyers, etc., see: _Robert A. Heinlein: A Reader’s Companion (Nitrosyncretic Press: Sacramento CA, 2000,

http://www.nitrosyncretic.com )

David M. Silver

“I expect your names to shine!”

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 110

Subject: Re: Anti-heroes

Date: 10/24/2000

Author: reillocnl

In article,

(AGplusone) wrote:

> reillocn asks:

>

> >The papers you

> >mention his presenting at seminars, are they available anywhere?

>

> The two major ones are these:

>

> In July 1941, Heinlein was invited to be the Guest of Honor at the third World

> Science Fiction conference in Denver. His speech, entitled “The Discovery of

> the Future,” was recorded under circumstances described in James Gifford’s

> RAH:ARC, at 231, concerning the item labeled by Gifford as G.031. The item was

> thereafter published in Vertex #1 in 1973; and you may find a slightly edited

> version in Kondo’s _Requiem, etc.,_.

>

> The essay “On The Writing of Speculative Fiction,” labeled by Gifford as G.063,

> was published in _Of Worlds Beyond_ (Fantasy Press: Reading PA, 1947 (Lloyd A

> Eshbach, ed.), but never republished. It is a substantial expansion and

> reworking of the thought in the Denvention speech, IMO, and was presented as

> the lead-off piece at a seminar of five IIRC noted writers.

>

> Gifford lists several smaller essays delivered to specialized audiences,

> librarians, trade book buyers, etc., see: _Robert A. Heinlein: A Reader’s

> Companion (Nitrosyncretic Press: Sacramento CA, 2000,

> http://www.nitrosyncretic.com )

> —

> David M. Silver

>

> “I expect your names to shine!”

>

Thank you. I’ll try to locate and read these pieces.

Regards,

LNC

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 111

Subject: Re: Anti-heroes

Date: 10/23/2000

Author: William Dennis

wrote:

>

>

> Ummmmm, what about the protag in Tunnel in the Sky? He had a lot of flaws and doubts. Job was a

> frankly unpleasant man, a far right-wing religious conservative who landed a lot of people in

> basically the Inquisition in his world.

>

The protagonist in “Job” gave up heaven itself to descend into Hell to be with the woman he loved. In classical literature, this is the very definition of Hero.

William Dennis II

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 112

Subject: Re: Anti-heroes

Date: 10/25/2000

Author: pheb

William Dennis wrote:

>

> The protagonist in “Job” gave up heaven itself to descend into Hell to

> be with the woman he loved.

> In classical literature, this is the very definition of Hero.

> —

> William Dennis II

>

Actually, I believe that was Orpheus. Hero just watched Leander swim the Hellespont.

Phebe

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 113

Subject: Re: Anti-heroes

Date: 10/24/2000

Author: William Dennis

wrote:

>

> William Dennis wrote:

>

> >

> > The protagonist in “Job” gave up heaven itself to descend into Hell to

> > be with the woman he loved.

> > In classical literature, this is the very definition of Hero.

> > —

> > William Dennis II

> >

>

> Actually, I believe that was Orpheus. Hero just watched Leander swim the Hellespont.

>

> Phebe

The willing journey into Hell for a noble purpose is a theme repeated throughout myth and literature. Hercules did it, as I recall. Frodo and Samwise did it. Heck, even Bill and Ted had a big adventure there, as I recall.

William Dennis II

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 114

Subject: Re: Anti-heroes

Date: 10/25/2000

Author: pheb

William Dennis wrote:

>

> The willing journey into Hell for a noble purpose is a theme repeated

> throughout myth and literature. Hercules did it, as I recall. Frodo and

> Samwise did it. Heck, even Bill and Ted had a big adventure there, as I

> recall.

> —

> William Dennis II

>

Well, if you are going to cite one of my very favorite movies, Bill and Ted’s Bogus Adventure (one of the rare American theological comedies, in which Our Heroes challenge Death with teenage games), then you win.

[:-)

Phebe

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 115

Subject: Re: Anti-heroes

Date: 10/25/2000

Author: William Dennis

wrote:

>

> William Dennis wrote:

>

> >

> > The willing journey into Hell for a noble purpose is a theme repeated

> > throughout myth and literature. Hercules did it, as I recall. Frodo and

> > Samwise did it. Heck, even Bill and Ted had a big adventure there, as I

> > recall.

> > —

> > William Dennis II

> >

>

> Well, if you are going to cite one of my very favorite movies, Bill and Ted’s Bogus

> Adventure (one of the rare American theological comedies, in which Our Heroes challenge

> Death with teenage games), then you win.

>

> [:-)

>

> Phebe

Perhaps you didn’t realize … I won this argument a long time ago.

😉

William Dennis II

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 116

Subject: Re: Anti-heroes

Date: 10/25/2000

Author: AGplusone

>Actually, I believe that was Orpheus. Hero just watched Leander swim the

>Hellespont.

LOL. Two bonus points for Phebe. I usually think first of Dante, but that’s another little “c” ‘classical’ period called the Rennaissance. So two points for William too.

David M. Silver

“I expect your names to shine!”

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 117

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/23/2000

Author: reillocnl

In article,

William Denniswrote:

> Joel Rosenberg wrote:

> >

> >

> > I think there’s a wide range between the extreme of “incompetent

> > losers” and the “uberbabes” that critics of Heinlein complain about,

> > and also think that many — most? — of Heinlein’s characters occupy a

> > part of that range.

>

> They are far closer to the “uberbabe” (I hate that phrase) extreme than

> they are to the other.

> Again, Heinlein had no interest in anti-heroes as protagonists.

> —

> William Dennis II

There aren’t enough hours in the day to reply to all this nonsense. Look, Dennis. Hero = Tarzan, Lone Ranger. Antihero = Mike Smith, Larazrus Long. Hero always wins; antihero wins but puts up with a lot of crap and setbacks to get there. Hero: stong. Antihero: outlives the other side.

Then we come to the dreaded–can’t say uberbabe anymore–ultravixen. Nah, that’s worse and lacks the classical underpinning. Them womens he likes a lot, you know the ones. They’re your heros and hollow ones they are. First they accumulate all the wealth in the universe and wall themselves away from genetic imperfection. Then they outlive everyone while making more wonderwomen and getting richer. It must have been a relief not to have to write about them anymore. Of course, the fans…they miss lifestyles of the rich and famous.

LNC

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 118

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/23/2000

Author: William Dennis

wrote:

>

> In article,

> William Denniswrote:

> > Joel Rosenberg wrote:

> > >

> > >

> > > I think there’s a wide range between the extreme of “incompetent

> > > losers” and the “uberbabes” that critics of Heinlein complain about,

> > > and also think that many — most? — of Heinlein’s characters

> occupy a

> > > part of that range.

> >

> > They are far closer to the “uberbabe” (I hate that phrase) extreme

> than

> > they are to the other.

> > Again, Heinlein had no interest in anti-heroes as protagonists.

> > —

> > William Dennis II

>

> There aren’t enough hours in the day to reply to all this nonsense.

> Look, Dennis. Hero = Tarzan, Lone Ranger. Antihero = Mike Smith,

> Larazrus Long. Hero always wins; antihero wins but puts up with a lot

> of crap and setbacks to get there. Hero: stong. Antihero: outlives the

> other side.

>

> Then we come to the dreaded–can’t say uberbabe anymore–ultravixen.

> Nah, that’s worse and lacks the classical underpinning. Them womens he

> likes a lot, you know the ones. They’re your heros and hollow ones they

> are. First they accumulate all the wealth in the universe and wall

> themselves away from genetic imperfection. Then they outlive everyone

> while making more wonderwomen and getting richer. It must have been a

> relief not to have to write about them anymore. Of course, the

> fans…they miss lifestyles of the rich and famous.

>

You really do exude ignorance, you know that? First: Consider Tarzan. I know it is a hard concept to grasp, considering that Tarzan has been the subject of movies, TV series, comic books, lunch boxes and Saturday morning cartoons. As Edgar Rice Burroughs wrote him, he was not the stalwart God_Save_The_Queen type of hero. He had nothing but contempt for civilization. At a moment’s notice, he would rip off his clothes and run into the jungle and live as a wild animal. If he fought in a war, it was only because of his own personal stake in it, such as revenge against the Germans. He was contemptuous of civilians who needed the protection of police, etc. etc. In other words, he sounds a lot like the heroes in Heinlein novels. He had no neurotic love of money, but he was capable of taking great steps to ensuring his family’s wealth. Therefore, if Tarzan fits your definition of hero, so do L.L., Mike Smith, Manny, etc. …

Second: It’s bad enough that you pontificate about Heinlein’s works without having read then. Try reading some ERB.

Kree-gaaaah!

William Dennis II

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 119

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/24/2000

Author: reillocnl

In article,

William Denniswrote:

>

> You really do exude ignorance, you know that?

> First: Consider Tarzan. I know it is a hard concept to grasp,

> considering that Tarzan has been the subject of movies, TV series, comic

> books, lunch boxes and Saturday morning cartoons. As Edgar Rice

> Burroughs wrote him, he was not the stalwart God_Save_The_Queen type of

> hero. He had nothing but contempt for civilization. At a moment’s

> notice, he would rip off his clothes and run into the jungle and live as

> a wild animal. If he fought in a war, it was only because of his own

> personal stake in it, such as revenge against the Germans. He was

> contemptuous of civilians who needed the protection of police, etc. etc.

> In other words, he sounds a lot like the heroes in Heinlein novels. He

> had no neurotic love of money, but he was capable of taking great steps

> to ensuring his family’s wealth.

> Therefore, if Tarzan fits your definition of hero, so do L.L., Mike

> Smith, Manny, etc. …

>

> Second: It’s bad enough that you pontificate about Heinlein’s works

> without having read then. Try reading some ERB.

>

> Kree-gaaaah!

>

> —

> William Dennis II

Young Person,

As you are such, I shall not address you as tarmangi brain but rather properly and invite you to re-read your own premises, above. If what you say Lord Greystoke was capable of doing is accurate (and, to some degree it is) then he’s all hero without an ounce of anti- in him. That he was titled but maintained his alliegance to a personal code he learned matriculating in the Congo doesn’t go to his hero status, dude. He was bigger than life and twice as natural. Ever seen Lararus Long kill an adult lion with a knife and his bare hands?

At some time prior to the incidence of your birth, I completed reading all the Tarzan and Mars novels and all the Heinlein published to that date. During your lengthy childhood, I have re-read them all.

Thank you for your interest.

LNC

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 120

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/24/2000

Author: lal_truckee

In article,

wrote:

> At some time prior to the incidence of your birth, I completed reading

> all the Tarzan and Mars novels and all the Heinlein published to that

> date. During your lengthy childhood, I have re-read them all.

Funny – I would have concluded that you were in your first decades judging just from the content of you recent posts.

I must side with your current antagonist in this discussion – LL and Tarzan are much the same – super-human competence coupled with a deliberate independance of action and reliance on personal judgement ignoring the body politic.

Equally heros by definition IMAO.

Signed: Another Old Timer. I read several of the Tarzan books in first editions, if we need to carry on that sort of foolishness…

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 121

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/24/2000

Author: William Dennis

wrote:

>

> In article,

> William Denniswrote:

> >

> > You really do exude ignorance, you know that?

> > First: Consider Tarzan. I know it is a hard concept to grasp,

> > considering that Tarzan has been the subject of movies, TV series,comic

> > books, lunch boxes and Saturday morning cartoons. As Edgar Rice

> > Burroughs wrote him, he was not the stalwart God_Save_The_Queen type of

> > hero. He had nothing but contempt for civilization. At a moment’s

> > notice, he would rip off his clothes and run into the jungle and live as

> > a wild animal. If he fought in a war, it was only because of his own

> > personal stake in it, such as revenge against the Germans. He was

> > contemptuous of civilians who needed the protection of police, etc. etc.

> > In other words, he sounds a lot like the heroes in Heinlein novels. He

> > had no neurotic love of money, but he was capable of taking great steps

> > to ensuring his family’s wealth.

> > Therefore, if Tarzan fits your definition of hero, so do L.L., Mike

> > Smith, Manny, etc. …

> >

> > Second: It’s bad enough that you pontificate about Heinlein’s works

> > without having read then. Try reading some ERB.

> >

> > Kree-gaaaah!

> >

> > —

> > William Dennis II

>

> Young Person,

>

> As you are such, I shall not address you as tarmangi brain but rather

> properly and invite you to re-read your own premises, above. If what

> you say Lord Greystoke was capable of doing is accurate (and, to some

> degree it is) then he’s all hero without an ounce of anti- in him. That

> he was titled but maintained his alliegance to a personal code he

> learned matriculating in the Congo doesn’t go to his hero status, dude.

> He was bigger than life and twice as natural. Ever seen Lararus Long

> kill an adult lion with a knife and his bare hands?

>

> At some time prior to the incidence of your birth, I completed reading

> all the Tarzan and Mars novels and all the Heinlein published to that

> date. During your lengthy childhood, I have re-read them all.

>

> Thank you for your interest.

Once again, you completely fail to understand my point. Heinlein’s heroes showed many of the same personal characteristics you concede are also Tarzan’s. Yet you insist to insist Tarzan is a classical hero while L.L. falls short of that mark. Since when do great feats of strength alone make one a hero? Tarzan is a “superhero” to be sure, but then there have been great anti-hero superheroes: Spider-Man, Wolverine, etc.

BTW: Your advanced age makes you no wiser than anyone else in this room. There is no fool like an old fool.

William Dennis II

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 122

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/24/2000

Author: FREEMAN

wrote in message news:8t44e6$3cb$

> In article,

> William Denniswrote:

> >

> > You really do exude ignorance, you know that?

> > First: Consider Tarzan. I know it is a hard concept to grasp,

> > considering that Tarzan has been the subject of movies, TV series, comic

> > books, lunch boxes and Saturday morning cartoons. As Edgar Rice

> > Burroughs wrote him, he was not the stalwart God_Save_The_Queen type of

> > hero. He had nothing but contempt for civilization. At a moment’s

> > notice, he would rip off his clothes and run into the jungle and live as

> > a wild animal. If he fought in a war, it was only because of his own

> > personal stake in it, such as revenge against the Germans. He was

> > contemptuous of civilians who needed the protection of police, etc. etc.

> > In other words, he sounds a lot like the heroes in Heinlein novels. He

> > had no neurotic love of money, but he was capable of taking great steps

> > to ensuring his family’s wealth.

> > Therefore, if Tarzan fits your definition of hero, so do L.L., Mike

> > Smith, Manny, etc. …

> >

> > Second: It’s bad enough that you pontificate about Heinlein’s works

> > without having read then. Try reading some ERB.

> >

> > Kree-gaaaah!

> >

> > —

> > William Dennis II

>

> Young Person,

>

> As you are such, I shall not address you as tarmangi brain but rather

> properly and invite you to re-read your own premises, above. If what

> you say Lord Greystoke was capable of doing is accurate (and, to some

> degree it is) then he’s all hero without an ounce of anti- in him. That

> he was titled but maintained his alliegance to a personal code he

> learned matriculating in the Congo doesn’t go to his hero status, dude.

> He was bigger than life and twice as natural. Ever seen Lararus Long

> kill an adult lion with a knife and his bare hands?

>

> At some time prior to the incidence of your birth, I completed reading

> all the Tarzan and Mars novels and all the Heinlein published to that

> date. During your lengthy childhood, I have re-read them all.

>

> Thank you for your interest.

>

> LNC

WOW! You really are a bitter old bag, ain’t ya?

Adam

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 123

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/22/2000

Author: ddavitt

 

Joel Rosenberg wrote:

>

>

> I think there’s a wide range between the extreme of “incompetent

> losers” and the “uberbabes” that critics of Heinlein complain about,

> and also think that many — most? — of Heinlein’s characters occupy a

> part of that range.

I think so too…personally ( and it all comes down to that when one is judging a book) I am more interested in reading about a character with some frailties and uncertainties, or one who develops during the course of the story, than one who starts out supremely confident, never gets a knock and ends the book in the same state of mind. OTOH, I don’t want to read an entire book with a lead character who does nothing but whinge or get picked on.

To my mind most Heinlein leads have enough flaws to make them attractive but ( and I’m belabouring this point to death I know!) it all depends on the standards one sets.

Jane

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 124

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/23/2000

Author: Chris Croughton

On Sun, 22 Oct 2000 18:17:58 -0400, ddavitt

wrote:

>I think so too…personally ( and it all comes down to that when one is

>judging a book) I am more interested in reading about a character with

>some frailties and uncertainties, or one who develops during the course

>of the story,

This latter point is to me the one which makes a character ‘real’, whether they develop. A character who is a ‘hero’ all the way through (as in some of the “Boys’ Own” type stories) isn’t real to me. At the other extreme, an anti-hero who never develops will annoy me (Thomas Covenant, for example, through most of the first trilogy).

>than one who starts out supremely confident, never gets a

>knock and ends the book in the same state of mind. OTOH, I don’t want

>to read an entire book with a lead character who does nothing but

>whinge or get picked on.

Exactly. Real people change, and not necessarily for the better. I could for instance believe in a perfect paladin who was brought down to earth by his experiences.

>To my mind most Heinlein leads have enough flaws to make them

>attractive but ( and I’m belabouring this point to death I know!) it

>all depends on the standards one sets.

I do find that there are many (possibly most) of his characters with whom I can’t identify because they are too ‘good’ in some sense (big, strong males like Zeb or ‘Oscar’, for instance; I don’t share their attributes enough to identify with them), but there are many others with whom I do identify. Mannie, for instance (and even Prof at the same time).

(Thinking about it, I suspect that MiaHM has my favourite characters of all the books. I can identify with almost all of the major characters in the book, which is unusual. Time for (yet another!) reread…)

Chris C

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 125

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/23/2000

Author: reillocnl

In article,

ddavitt

wrote:

>

> That sounds fine to me…..I am a bit puzzled about the people who

>complain about the female

> characters. Do they _want_ to read about incompetent losers _all_ the time?

>

> Jane

>

Now, that’s kind of interesting. Not very zen but what can you expect. Who do the uberbabes best? Populate a universe with only uberbabes and tell me how much fun it is to read. You know, after a while, if you had to reside on Boondock, you’d get really bored being surrounded by all that perfection willing to copulate with you at the drop of a kilt. The closest you’d ever come to conflict is within some made-up historical stage drama the 75-year-old kids put on for the adults. Guys, this is boring stuff that’s only made half-way tolerable by all the goddess’s having to find new ways around LL’s early-20th-Century neuroses (not that I am saying that there are such things). Mark my word, if RAH had lived long enough you’d have seen LL out of there in the blink of an eye and exploring the afterlife with the crew hot on his heels because they suddenly realized they don’t have anything to do.

Yeah, give me human any day over pin-headed angels dancing around something called communal solipsism.

LNC

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 126

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/23/2000

Author: ddavitt

 

wrote:

> You know, after a while, if you had

> to reside on Boondock, you’d get really bored being surrounded by all

> that perfection willing to copulate with you at the drop of a kilt. The

> closest you’d ever come to conflict is within some made-up historical

> stage drama the 75-year-old kids put on for the adults.

I agree with you that the Boondock setting was too lotus eating to be exciting; they were supposed to be really busy running the rejuvenation clinic but it never seemed to be a full time job. That aspect of long life; the tedium, never really got addressed. It may have been one of the reasons Lazarus wanted to die at the start of TEFL; the ultimate “been there, done that, got the T shirt” feeling but it got resolved too soon by handing him two babies to look after and a time machine to play with.

Jane

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 127

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/23/2000

Author: JenOMalley

>Therefore, I can accept Heinlein’s so-called “uberbabe” female

>characters, who were all smart, beautiful, funny and devoted (in their

>own way) to their families. I accept this because this is how Heinlein

>envisioned them and because they behaved consistently, or if not, their

>inconsistency was explained.

I can and so accept them for what they are….fictional people, with quirks, strengths and weaknesses. However, I’d have to say that most of the females portrayed in SF are a refreshing change from female role-models offered in the “Real World”. Heinleins females were capable, first and foremost, with looks or sexiness coming in second place.

JenO.

“I came, I saw, she conquered.” (The original Latin seems to have been garbled.)

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 128

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/22/2000

Author: William Dennis

JenOMalley wrote:

>

> >Therefore, I can accept Heinlein’s so-called “uberbabe” female

> >characters, who were all smart, beautiful, funny and devoted (in their

> >own way) to their families. I accept this because this is how Heinlein

> >envisioned them and because they behaved consistently, or if not, their

> >inconsistency was explained.

>

> I can and so accept them for what they are….fictional people, with quirks,

> strengths and weaknesses. However, I’d have to say that most of the females

> portrayed in SF are a refreshing change from female role-models offered in the

> “Real World”. Heinleins females were capable, first and foremost, with looks

> or sexiness coming in second place.

>

> JenO.

> “I came, I saw, she conquered.” (The original Latin seems to have been

> garbled.)

You are absolutely right, Jen.

We have discussed that topic type and again: Heinlein rarely gave detailed descriptions of his characters. He did this for several reasons. He wanted readers to form their own opinions of these characters, that way they would be more memorable to readers. He also wanted to be sneaky. He often wanted readers to admire the characters on their own intangible merits, rather than on their race or physical beauty.

“Uberbabes” my ass.

William Dennis II

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 129

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/23/2000

Author: JenOMalley

>He also wanted to be sneaky. He often wanted readers to admire the

>characters on their own intangible merits, rather than on their race or

>physical beauty.

>

>”Uberbabes” my ass.

I try to live up to most of what I see in both Friday and Maureen, things that I’d like to see in myself. I think that the term uberbabe is idiotic, so I’d have to agree with that last statement….

JenO.

Danger Girl Extrordinaire….

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 130

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/23/2000

Author: pheb

JenOMalley wrote:

> However, I’d have to say that most of the females

> portrayed in SF are a refreshing change from female role-models offered in the

> “Real World”. Heinleins females were capable, first and foremost, with looks

> or sexiness coming in second place.

>

I’d put it the other way around: basically, he could have written for Charlie’s Angels —- that was a cast full of Heinlein women. Sexy first, kick ass second, smart third.

Phebe

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 131

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/23/2000

Author: ddavitt

 

wrote:

> JenOMalley wrote:

>

> > However, I’d have to say that most of the females

> > portrayed in SF are a refreshing change from female role-models offered in the

> > “Real World”. Heinleins females were capable, first and foremost, with looks

> > or sexiness coming in second place.

> >

>

> I’d put it the other way around: basically, he could have written for Charlie’s

> Angels —- that was a cast full of Heinlein women. Sexy first, kick ass second,

> smart third.

>

> Phebe

I think your three adjectives are valid but I don’t think that the way you rank them is correct; I see those female characters with those characteristics as having them all in equal measure; sort of like a Venn diagram, where the three rings overlap and in the centre is the whole person. If that makes sense…..

If Deety weren’t smart, would she still be sexy _to Zeb_? I don’t think so…Deety’s impressive cleavage might have got her dates on Earth but it would never have been sufficient to get her into the Long Family. Zeb might spend the first few pages of NOTB drooling over her attributes but at the same time he’s carrying on a witty conversation with someone who is obviously far from a brainless bimbo. If she had been a BB I think once the dance ended he would have faded into the background.

Jane

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 132

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/23/2000

Author: pheb

ddavitt wrote:

> If Deety weren’t smart, would she still be sexy _to Zeb_? I don’t think so…Deety’s

> impressive cleavage might have got her dates on Earth but it would never have been

> sufficient to get her into the Long Family. Zeb might spend the first few pages of

> NOTB drooling over her attributes but at the same time he’s carrying on a witty

> conversation with someone who is obviously far from a brainless bimbo. If she had

> been a BB I think once the dance ended he would have faded into the background.

>

> Jane

Sure, but —- basically Charlie’s Angels owes a LOT to Stranger in a Strange Land. Charlie and the Angels are basically the setup beside the pool with Jubal. They have to be smart, they have to be incredibly well-endowed, they have to be female action figures. Oh, well, I suppose we should be pleased the new shows and games and so on put a few other characteristics in with the central one.

There isn’t anything one can do about this; Heinlein was no different from the men who wrote Charlie’s Angels or who write Dark Angel. As long as they keep casting Michael Douglas or Harrison Ford as Presidents, I don’t care.

Phebe

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 133

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/23/2000

Author: ddavitt

 

wrote:

>

>

> Sure, but —- basically Charlie’s Angels owes a LOT to Stranger in a Strange Land.

> Charlie and the Angels are basically the setup beside the pool with Jubal. They have to

> be smart, they have to be incredibly well-endowed, they have to be female action

> figures. Oh, well, I suppose we should be pleased the new shows and games and so on put

> a few other characteristics in with the central one.

>

>

But wasn’t the Jubal set up based in reality? ISTR reading that it was modelled on a real SF writer with several female secretaries but the name escapes me….anyone? Not that it changes anything but it’s interesting because if it’s true Heinlein can’t be said to have invented a fantasy type set up. Also, Jubal did have Larry and Duke around as well as Anne, Dorcas and Miriam. Not to mention the fact that the three women aren’t ever shown doing anything that involves fighting; they are there to provide Jubal with feedback on his writing and help around the house.

I’ve always seen them as being like daughters rather than girlfriends.

Jane

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 134

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/23/2000

Author: AGplusone

Jane asked:

>But wasn’t the Jubal set up based in reality? ISTR reading that it was modelled

>on a real

>SF writer with several female secretaries but the name escapes me….anyone?

>Not that it

>changes anything but it’s interesting because if it’s true Heinlein can’t

>be said to have

>invented a fantasy type set up.

Heinlein’s notes on Stranger indicate he modeled some aspects of the character of Jubal on Erle Stanley Gardner, who had three live-in secretaries (including his own wife) at his home in Palm Springs. Gardner wrote crime mysteries under his own name and others, including “A.A. Fair.”

David M. Silver

“I expect your names to shine!”

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 135

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/24/2000

Author: pheb

AGplusone wrote:

> Jane asked:

>

> >But wasn’t the Jubal set up based in reality? ISTR reading that it was

> modelled

> >on a real

> >SF writer with several female secretaries but the name escapes me….anyone?

> >Not that it

> >changes anything but it’s interesting because if it’s true Heinlein can’t

> >be said to have

> >invented a fantasy type set up.

>

> Heinlein’s notes on Stranger indicate he modeled some aspects of the character

> of Jubal on Erle Stanley Gardner, who had three live-in secretaries (including

> his own wife) at his home in Palm Springs. Gardner wrote crime mysteries under

> his own name and others, including “A.A. Fair.”

>

> —

> David M. Silver

>

Oh, wonderful. Thank you David Silver. That is really fun.

Phebe

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 136

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/25/2000

Author: AGplusone

Phebe:

>Oh, wonderful. Thank you David Silver. That is really fun

Thank you for the thanks, but it’s unmerited. IIRC Phillip Owensby (I keep spelling that name wrong, can’t yet remember off the top of my head where or whether the “s” fits in) [] discovered the notes while researching his Ph.D and passed the information on to various people and eventually it came to reside in my tired cranium. Phil, btw, has recently accepted an offer to head The Heinlein Society’s Education/Research Committee and certainly could use help from anyone interested. See:

http://www.heinleinsociety.com

David M. Silver

“I expect your names to shine!”

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 137

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/24/2000

Author: BPRAL22169

>ISTR reading that it was modelled on a real

>SF writer with several female secretaries but the name escapes me….anyone?

Erle Stanley Gardner had a similar setup in I think it was Palm Springs. One of his 3 secretaries was his wife. I also think there is a bit of Mark Twain in Jubal — toward the end of his life he dictated everything to a succession of secretaries.

Since the subject has come up, I wanted to trot out a realization I had recently about Jubal’s household — it’s an anticipation or prefiguring of Mike’s nest. This helps explain why the secretaries are so interchangeably characterized in Jubal’s home, but gain individual characterization in Mike’s nest, just as the other converts are losing their individual characterization (becoming more alike) in joy. It’s a mirror-complement, like the other big mirror complement set of images in the book, the carnival and the monkey house. Bill

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 138

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/24/2000

Author: AGplusone

>I also think there is a bit of Mark Twain

>in Jubal — toward the end of his life he dictated everything to a succession

>of secretaries.

So too did Milton, because of his blindness, and the three (IIR the number C) were his daughters.

David M. Silver

“I expect your names to shine!”

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 139

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/24/2000

Author: Chris Croughton

On Mon, 23 Oct 2000 13:49:15 -0400, ddavitt

wrote:

>I think your three adjectives are valid but I don’t think that the way

>you rank them is correct; I see those female characters with those

>characteristics as having them all in equal measure; sort of like a

>Venn diagram, where the three rings overlap and in the centre is the

>whole person. If that makes sense…..

That’s a pretty middle-of-the-road idea. FWIW, I agree with you, it’s the combination of the attributes which makes the characters interesting. Oh, an excess of some can make up for a lack in others, expecting a person to be totally balanced is not realistic.

>If Deety weren’t smart, would she still be sexy _to Zeb_? I don’t think

>so…Deety’s impressive cleavage might have got her dates on Earth but

>it would never have been sufficient to get her into the Long Family.

True, all they’re interested in is how long her parents lived. LL says that perhaps they should have bred for intelligence rather than age…

>Zeb might spend the first few pages of NOTB drooling over her

>attributes but at the same time he’s carrying on a witty conversation

>with someone who is obviously far from a brainless bimbo. If she had

>been a BB I think once the dance ended he would have faded into the

>background.

No argument there. He might have taken her for a roll in the hay but he would have run several miles at the thought of marriage. It’s the conversation right at the start which captures him, he starts off indeed thinking that she’s a BB and isn’t really interested until he finds out that she can match his repartee (and that she’s read SF comics).

“He’s a Mad Scientist and I’m his Beautiful Daughter” – that would certainly get my attention! Or even get it out of the gutter…

Chris C

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 140

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/28/2000

Author: charles krin

On 24 Oct 2000 18:43:19 GMT, (Chris Croughton) wrote:

>

>>If Deety weren’t smart, would she still be sexy _to Zeb_? I don’t think

>>so…Deety’s impressive cleavage might have got her dates on Earth but

>>it would never have been sufficient to get her into the Long Family.

>

>True, all they’re interested in is how long her parents lived. LL

>says that perhaps they should have bred for intelligence rather than

>age…

Actually, about how long her *grand parents* lived…and if they had any dread diseases….

ck

Charles S. Krin, DO FAAFP,Member,PGBFH,KC5EVN

Email address dump file for spam: reply to ckrin at Iamerica dot net

F*S=k (Freedom times Security equals a constant: the more

security you have, the less freedom! Niven’s Fourth Law)

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 141

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/23/2000

Author: reillocnl

In article,

William Denniswrote:

>

> Jane, we are on the same wavelength here.

> In fiction and in science fiction in particular, there has to be a

> certain suspension of disbelief. I can accept for the purposes of the

> story that the USS Enterprise travels faster faster than light speed and

> has a half-human, half-Vulcan first officer. Faster than light is almost

> certainly impossible, as would be any sort of

> interspecies/interplanetary breeding.

> What I could not accept is a scene showing the captain embracing his

> pretty yeoman to comfort her during a tense moment on the bridge of his

> ship.

Give me he-man escapism or give me death. Uhura, return to your post and open a hailing frequency to Star Fleet, attention Admiral Freud.

> —

> William Dennis II

>

LNC

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 142

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/23/2000

Author: William Dennis

wrote:

>

> In article,

> William Denniswrote:

> >

> > Jane, we are on the same wavelength here.

> > In fiction and in science fiction in particular, there has to be a

> > certain suspension of disbelief. I can accept for the purposes of the

> > story that the USS Enterprise travels faster faster than light speed and

> > has a half-human, half-Vulcan first officer. Faster than light is almost

> > certainly impossible, as would be any sort of

> > interspecies/interplanetary breeding.

> > What I could not accept is a scene showing the captain embracing his

> > pretty yeoman to comfort her during a tense moment on the bridge of his

> > ship.

>

> Give me he-man escapism or give me death. Uhura, return to your post

> and open a hailing frequency to Star Fleet, attention Admiral Freud.

> > —

And your point, if you are capable of making one, is exactly what?

William Dennis II

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 143

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/24/2000

Author: reillocnl

In article,

William Denniswrote:

> wrote:

> >

> > In article,

> > William Denniswrote:

> > > What I could not accept is a scene showing the captain embracing his

> > > pretty yeoman to comfort her during a tense moment on the bridge his

> > > ship.

> >

> > Give me he-man escapism or give me death. Uhura, return to your post

> > and open a hailing frequency to Star Fleet, attention Admiral Freud.

> > > —

>

> And your point, if you are capable of making one, is exactly what?

>

> —

> William Dennis II

There, I cut everything out but the very strange admission that you think giving comfort’s incredible. Yeah, I know you’re going to say it’s right in the middle of the big mean Klingon attack and that the future of the Federation’s hanging on whether Kirk gives the command to raise the shields in time and he can’t waste it on groping. Buddy boy, not everybody hates seeing a little sex. Speaking of a little sex, what do you think of that Maureen and the way old LL didn’t flinch about changing the history of a couple of universes just to boff her? A little more squandering than the oxygen it takes to say, “Red Alert!” Sure, the Grey Lensman would never do it but that’s another ng, dude.

LNC

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 144

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/24/2000

Author: William Dennis

wrote:

>

> In article,

> William Denniswrote:

> > wrote:

> > >

> > > In article,

> > > William Denniswrote:

>

> > > > What I could not accept is a scene showing the captain embracing his

> > > > pretty yeoman to comfort her during a tense moment on the bridgehis

> > > > ship.

> > >

> > > Give me he-man escapism or give me death. Uhura, return to your post

> > > and open a hailing frequency to Star Fleet, attention Admiral Freud.

> > > > —

> >

> > And your point, if you are capable of making one, is exactly what?

> >

> > —

> > William Dennis II

>

> There, I cut everything out but the very strange admission that you

> think giving comfort’s incredible. Yeah, I know you’re going to say

> it’s right in the middle of the big mean Klingon attack and that the

> future of the Federation’s hanging on whether Kirk gives the command to

> raise the shields in time and he can’t waste it on groping. Buddy boy,

> not everybody hates seeing a little sex. Speaking of a little sex, what

> do you think of that Maureen and the way old LL didn’t flinch about

> changing the history of a couple of universes just to boff her? A

> little more squandering than the oxygen it takes to say, “Red Alert!”

> Sure, the Grey Lensman would never do it but that’s another ng, dude.

>

Again, you miss my point entirely.

I have no objections to getting a hug from a pretty yeoman. I have no objection to human beings showing compassion and trying to comfort each other. What I object to is the captain of a ship hugging a crewman on the bridge right in the middle of a crisis instead of performing his duties. That scene was a howler and it was not repeated.

William Dennis II

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 145

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/24/2000

Author: reillocnl

In article,

William Denniswrote:

> wrote:

> >

> > In article,

> > William Denniswrote:

> > > wrote:

> > > >

> > > > In article,

> > > > William Denniswrote:

> >

> > > > > What I could not accept is a scene showing the captain embracing his

> > > > > pretty yeoman to comfort her during a tense moment on the bridgehis

> > > > > ship.

> > > >

> > > > Give me he-man escapism or give me death. Uhura, return to your post

> > > > and open a hailing frequency to Star Fleet, attention Admiral Freud.

> > > > > —

> > >

> > > And your point, if you are capable of making one, is exactly what?

> > >

> > > —

> > > William Dennis II

> >

> > There, I cut everything out but the very strange admission that you

> > think giving comfort’s incredible. Yeah, I know you’re going to say

> > it’s right in the middle of the big mean Klingon attack and that the

> > future of the Federation’s hanging on whether Kirk gives the command to

> > raise the shields in time and he can’t waste it on groping. Buddy boy,

> > not everybody hates seeing a little sex. Speaking of a little sex,what

> > do you think of that Maureen and the way old LL didn’t flinch about

> > changing the history of a couple of universes just to boff her? A

> > little more squandering than the oxygen it takes to say, “Red Alert!”

> > Sure, the Grey Lensman would never do it but that’s another ng, dude.

> >

>

> Again, you miss my point entirely.

> I have no objections to getting a hug from a pretty yeoman. I have no

> objection to human beings showing compassion and trying to comfort each

> other. What I object to is the captain of a ship hugging a crewman on

> the bridge right in the middle of a crisis instead of performing his

> duties. That scene was a howler and it was not repeated.

> —

> William Dennis II

You point’s quite visible, young person. Careful hairstyling will successfully obscure it to the extent that your continuing to opine will be allowed and I agree, LL would never do such a thing. He’d strip naked, bang both his daughters while the black hats were attacking and then go back in time to avoid defeat. When duty calls, he’s the first to recognize it and say, “howdy, duty.”

It’s been awhile since I commanded a spacecraft, tell me, who’d the judge of what’s to be done, when, while the vessel’s underway? Now I remember: the screenwriter.

LNC

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 146

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/24/2000

Author: William Dennis

wrote:

>

> In article,

> William Denniswrote:

> > wrote:

> > >

> > > In article,

> > > William Denniswrote:

> > > > wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > In article,

> > > > > William Denniswrote:

> > >

> > > > > > What I could not accept is a scene showing the captain embracing his

> > > > > > pretty yeoman to comfort her during a tense moment on the bridge his

> > > > > > ship.

> > > > >

> > > > > Give me he-man escapism or give me death. Uhura, return to your post

> > > > > and open a hailing frequency to Star Fleet, attention Admiral Freud.

> > > > > > —

> > > >

> > > > And your point, if you are capable of making one, is exactly what?

> > > >

> > > > —

> > > > William Dennis II

> > >

> > > There, I cut everything out but the very strange admission that you

> > > think giving comfort’s incredible. Yeah, I know you’re going to say

> > > it’s right in the middle of the big mean Klingon attack and that the

> > > future of the Federation’s hanging on whether Kirk gives the command to

> > > raise the shields in time and he can’t waste it on groping. Buddy boy,

> > > not everybody hates seeing a little sex. Speaking of a little sex, what

> > > do you think of that Maureen and the way old LL didn’t flinch about

> > > changing the history of a couple of universes just to boff her? A

> > > little more squandering than the oxygen it takes to say, “Red Alert!”

> > > Sure, the Grey Lensman would never do it but that’s another ng, dude.

> > >

> >

> > Again, you miss my point entirely.

> > I have no objections to getting a hug from a pretty yeoman. I have no

> > objection to human beings showing compassion and trying to comfort each

> > other. What I object to is the captain of a ship hugging a crewman on

> > the bridge right in the middle of a crisis instead of performing his

> > duties. That scene was a howler and it was not repeated.

> > —

> > William Dennis II

>

> You point’s quite visible, young person. Careful hairstyling will

> successfully obscure it ….

I will be the first to admit that my head comes to a point. I also suggest that whatever point I have atop my head in much sharper than your wit. to the extent that your continuing to opine

> will be allowed and I agree, LL would never do such a thing. He’d strip

> naked, bang both his daughters while the black hats were attacking and

> then go back in time to avoid defeat. When duty calls, he’s the first

> to recognize it and say, “howdy, duty.”

>

> It’s been awhile since I commanded a spacecraft, tell me, who’d the

> judge of what’s to be done, when, while the vessel’s underway? Now I

> remember: the screenwriter.

Perhaps Heinlein would be a decent judge, as would anyone with experience with naval traditions. The whole premise of the show as that Starfleet was essentially the Navy. Imagine the captain of the real U.S. Enterprise (or admiral, I am not sure what rank is involved here) embracing a female junior officer during a tense moment on the bridge. It is inconceivable to anyone except perhaps a Hollywood screenwriter looking to inject sex into a scene. It if that THAT reason I found the episode a clunker.

> LNC

>

William Dennis II

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 147

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/24/2000

Author: Nollaig MacKenzie

On Tue, 24 Oct 2000 07:31:54 -0500, the estimable

William Denniswrote:

 

> I have no objections to getting a hug from a pretty yeoman…

> … What I object to is the captain of a ship hugging a crewman on

> the bridge right in the middle of a crisis instead of performing his

> duties.

Right. Each ship should have a Compassionate Older Gentleman for this duty.

N, Apprentice COG 1st Class

Nollaig MacKenzie

http://www.amhuinnsuidhe.cx/rahfan/

Oppose renaming Mt Logan!! http://www.savemtlogan.com

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 148

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/24/2000

Author: JenOMalley

>Speaking of a little sex, what

>do you think of that Maureen and the way old LL didn’t flinch about

>changing the history of a couple of universes just to boff her?

I never thought of it as just “boffing” her… somehow I never did just get that out of it…I do get the fact that they were *very* sexually attracted to each other, and then that developed into some thing more…and *that’s* why they went and got Mau…

JenO.

Proproietress of the first Haetaera Academy….applications now being accepted!

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 149

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/22/2000

Author: Randi

ddavitt () arranged the electrons thusly…

> Randi wrote:

> > I feel it important enough to point out that being open

> > minded does not imply that a person is free of biases. I’m

> > certain the guards at Auschwitz and Bergen-Belsen liked, and

> > talked with, and actually listened to many different kinds of

> > Jews as they herded them all into the showers.

>

> This is a very bizarre comparison to use when discussing a man who is supposed to

> have respected and admired women so much that his portrayals of them in his books is

> sometimes deemed unrealistic. Your rather doubtful example deals with people doing

> dreadful things to groups of people they liked as individuals. Depicting women as

> superior hardly qualifies as dreadful. I don’t think it’s accurate myself but I

> don’t think it’s on a par with genocide!

> Your first sentence is certainly true; I doubt any one of us is free of bias in one

> form or another. Your following thoughts are, IMO, there for shock effect rather

> than part of a cohesive train of thought.

I was attacking the assertion that open-mindedness implies lack of bias. This is a false implication that I think needs to be pointed out and vigorously attacked whenever possible. I’m sorry if my attack was too vigorous for you; I’m pleased that you seem to agree anyway, and I’m glad for the opportunity to have made my position on it clearer.

> > Friday is arguably Heinlein’s most realistic and

> > sympathetic female character. She is sexy, vulnerable,

> > compassionate, loyal, confused — in short, quite like any real

> > woman. By making her an artifact of an engineering process,

> > Heinlein is implying that women like Friday don’t exist in

> > nature.

> That’s a real woman? Beg to differ. That’s ONE SORT of real woman, no more. If you

> start to say that one type of woman is more ‘real’ than another then you are on

> dangerous ground. Is a woman who likes doing housework and ironing her husband’s

> shirts not real from a feminist POV? Who decides?

Well, I decide, for one. And so do you, if you would let yourself. That’s the problem with having intelligence, Jane. Among other things, it means that one may sometimes be required to choose among equally offensive options. For me, a woman who likes doing housework and ironing her husband’s shirts has a problem that needs to be corrected. Since I am intelligent, I recognize that many women may not accept the existence of this woman’s problem, so I will no doubt annoy some women with this assertion, and alienate others. So be it /shrug.

But note I said “quite like,” which implies there exists a definition of “woman” of which the qualities I indicated are simply a proper subset. I think there is a definition of “woman” that can be agreed on that minimizes the contradictions. Further, I submit that Heinlein’s definition is somewhat short of the feminist ideal, as can be directly inferred from his characterizations of women in his work. I am a feminist, and am therefore certainly biased. But I think non-feminists women and most reasonable males could agree that Heinlein’s characterizations of women display a methodical gender bias. That I am having difficulty articulating Heinlein’s gender bias to some people in this ng in no way compromises its existence.

> Plus, to get away from the general and down to the specifics, nothing in Friday’s

> _character_ was defined in a laboratory. Her own personality and life experiences

> did that, as they do to us all. Heinlein made her strong and clever; more so than

> most humans but still within the boundaries of what a human could be. She _was_

> human, not artificial, and learning to accept and believe that was what the book was

> all about. She wasn’t half robot or bionic or something; she was simply created with

> all the physical weaknesses left out. Your contention that Heinlein was saying such

> a paragon can’t exist in nature just doesn’t work because none of the qualities you

> admire were artificially induced.

Your first statement is false Jane, and all the points you make based on that statement are thus weakened. *Everything* is defined in our physical makeup, Jane, *everything*. There is no ghost in the machine. Everything that is Friday was created in a lab, including all the traits that we are or could be arguing about. To suggest otherwise is irrational.

Heinlein could have made Friday into one of his uberbabes, but chose not to. Why? I hypothesize that he wanted to make a point about women in a specific way. I have yet to hear a convincing argument against this hypothesis. The closest thing I’ve heard to a refutation was from Jani, who said Heinlein may simply have been pressured by his female readers to create a more believable heroine. Even if this were true, I still say he managed to have the last laugh by implying that such women were made, not born.

> If i were to list the females in Heinlein that I admired or liked they would include

> the Hazel from Rolling Stones ( note the limitation), Caroline from Tunnel and

> Puddin. None of them are even remotely ‘uberbabes’ (which is an awful term IMO) but

> all are competent, intelligent, likeable and real to me. Another reader might

> disagree; as I say on another post, it’s all subjective. Judging whether or not a

> character is realistic may require an objectivity that is beyond most of us.

If all we were doing is judging whether a character is realistic, then yes, I would tend to agree with you. But we are also judging two other things:

1) whether or not the proposition “open-mindedness implies a lack of bias” has any truth value. I claim it does not. Remember, I only brought it up because I happen to think Heinlein displays a gender bias, and when the original poster used that proposition to deny that bias, I felt it necessary to attack it with vigor.

2) whether or not the proposition “Friday was Heinlein’s way of saying that smart, sexy, females don’t exist in nature” has any truth value. I claim it

does, because I question Heinlein’s

motives for creating Friday in the first place.

As far as I can tell Jane, you and I agree on 1) but will never be able to agree on 2) so let’s both declare victory and drop it, ok?

-Randi

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 150

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/22/2000

Author: ddavitt

 

Randi wrote:

>

>

> Further, I submit that Heinlein’s definition is somewhat short of

> the feminist ideal, as can be directly inferred from his

> characterizations of women in his work. I am a feminist, and am

> therefore certainly biased. But I think non-feminists women and

> most reasonable males could agree that Heinlein’s

> characterizations of women display a methodical gender bias.

> That I am having difficulty articulating Heinlein’s gender bias

> to some people in this ng in no way compromises its existence.

He had a gender bias in that he seemed to present a case for women being superior in some of his books. I personally can’t accept that as being valid for several reasons but it doesn’t mean that I think he should have written solely about incompetent females or tried to make the sexes exactly equal. He wrote about the world and women as he saw them. That said, read his descriptions of political women in “Take Back” for an alternative POV…….also his stories include some truly nasty women which tends to get overlooked. He was certainly capable of discussing the ignoble side of woman as well as lauding her earth mother capablitities. That he preferred to draw his heroines from the latter group is not all that surprising if you think about it.

>

>

> > Plus, to get away from the general and down to the specifics, nothing in Friday’s

> > _character_ was defined in a laboratory. Her own personality and life experiences

> > did that, as they do to us all. Heinlein made her strong and clever; more so than

> > most humans but still within the boundaries of what a human could be. She _was_

> > human, not artificial, and learning to accept and believe that was what the book was

> > all about.

>

> Your first statement is false Jane, and all the points you

> make based on that statement are thus weakened. *Everything* is

> defined in our physical makeup, Jane, *everything*. There is no

> ghost in the machine. Everything that is Friday was created in a

> lab, including all the traits that we are or could be arguing

> about. To suggest otherwise is irrational.

>

>

Then colour me irrational……. I am firmly convinced of the truth of that first statement. You are also side stepping the point that she was in no way artificial. Your post said that Heinlein cheated; he gave us a heroine who was full of admirable qualities but made her artificial, thus implying that she could not exist in nature. I say you are wrong because Friday came from the same origins as any other baby. Your assertion that she was formed in a laboratory and that her character was likewise formed seems to me to be too simplistic.

However, ISTR a really long thread sometime back about nature v nurture which got very heated so maybe this is a good place to stop 🙂 I think that life and your own actions/choices form you; you think you’re born that way with no choice or options. Fair enough. No way of proving either; it’s a matter of which option appeals.

Jane

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 151

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/23/2000

Author: JenOMalley

>For me, a woman who

>likes doing housework and ironing her husband’s shirts has a

>problem that needs to be corrected. Since I am intelligent, I

>recognize that many women may not accept the existence of this

>woman’s problem, so I will no doubt annoy some women with this

>assertion, and alienate others

To me that’s annoying, not as a woman who likes to iron my husband’s uniform, or mine for that matter, but as someone who knows women who *are* happy doing that, and would *hate* being forced to work outside the home….

>Your first statement is false Jane, and all the points you

>make based on that statement are thus weakened. *Everything* is

>defined in our physical makeup, Jane, *everything*.

What? I don’t get this. My character is no more based on my physical characteristics than my house is. Explain please?

JenO.

Our lager who art in heaven….

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 152

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/23/2000

Author: Major oz

>>Your first statement is false Jane, and all the points you

>>make based on that statement are thus weakened. *Everything* is

>>defined in our physical makeup, Jane, *everything*.

>

>What? I don’t get this. My character is no more based on my physical

>characteristics than my house is. Explain please?

>

……yes; please ‘splain this. Perhaps with an eye toward Stephen Hawking or by examining the view of women expressed by the “Blind Singer of the Spaceways”

cheers

————————————————————————————-

> Message 153

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/23/2000

Author: Randi

JenOMalley () arranged the electrons thusly…

> >For me, a woman who

> >likes doing housework and ironing her husband’s shirts has a

> >problem that needs to be corrected. Since I am intelligent, I

> >recognize that many women may not accept the existence of this

> >woman’s problem, so I will no doubt annoy some women with this

> >assertion, and alienate others

>

> To me that’s annoying, not as a woman who likes to iron my husband’s uniform,

> or mine for that matter, but as someone who knows women who *are* happy doing

> that, and would *hate* being forced to work outside the home….

…and that’s why it is a problem. Thanks for the reinforcement.

> >Your first statement is false Jane, and all the points you

> >make based on that statement are thus weakened. *Everything* is

> >defined in our physical makeup, Jane, *everything*.

> What? I don’t get this. My character is no more based on my physical

> characteristics than my house is. Explain please?

I said “physical make up.” I should have been more precise. Jane implied that there was something beyond, or outside of, or not attached to Friday’s physical body. Label it the “self” for lack of a better word. I don’t disagree with the existence of a self; I think we are self-aware to a very great extent. I do disagree with the idea that this self is separate from the physical processes that we define as life, as she seemed to imply. I just wanted to make sure Jane understood that dualism is dead….

Now, as to your character being no more based on your physical characteristics than your house is…I don’t know what you look like, but try to imagine yourself as unattractive. Give yourself a hunchback, some really prominent warts or moles on your face, maybe a flat chest and big fat thighs, and say, a hundred and fifty extra pounds of obesity. Just be ugly. Now imagine growing up that way. You imply that you wear a uniform on a regular basis. I’m going to guess that you are either a cop or some kind of soldier. Now, do you really think you’d have the same outlook on life as you do now, if you you were unable to wear that uniform, because you didn’t meet physical standards? Would you still have a husband to iron for? Would any man (or woman, for that matter) look twice at you? Do you really think your character wouldn’t be distorted beyond recognition from being forced to deal with a society that values image over substance?

-Randi

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 154

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/23/2000

Author: JenOMalley

>…and that’s why it is a problem. Thanks for

>the reinforcement.

Okay…still don’t get it, but okay…..

>Now, as to your character being no more based on your

>physical characteristics than your house is…I don’t know what

>you look like, but try to imagine yourself as unattractive. Give

>yourself a hunchback, some really prominent warts or moles on

>your face, maybe a flat chest and big fat thighs, and say, a

>hundred and fifty extra pounds of obesity. Just be ugly. Now

>imagine growing up that way. You imply that you wear a uniform

>on a regular basis. I’m going to guess that you are either a cop

>or some kind of soldier. Now, do you really think you’d have the

>same outlook on life as you do now, if you you were unable to

>wear that uniform, because you didn’t meet physical standards?

>Would you still have a husband to iron for? Would any man (or

>woman, for that matter) look twice at you? Do you really think

>your character wouldn’t be distorted beyond recognition from

>being forced to deal with a society that values image over

>substance?

>

>-Randi

Ummm…this is way more info than you want to know, but I have an 18 inch long scar that runs from just below my sternum, to just above my pubic bone. I’ve been on both ends of the apectrum, from too thin, to too heavy, with the amount of dates concurrent with each….however, I found that once I got out of HS and into college, that mattered less….and the one thing in my life that I wanted to do so badly that it consumed me, I couldn’t (fly for the Navy, so I went into the Army….), so I restructured my ideals, goals and whatnot, but I don’t know how much of my character stems from those factors….I also am not sure how this plays out in families with siblings who aren’t defective in any way, but still have amazingly varied personality types and characters…hell I see it with my brother and me all the time…he’s much more conservative, tends to be more rigid within certain societal mores, ect, but we both have the same relative physical makeup. The only real difference is that he lacks the scar from the birth defect that I do, and was markedly more attractive in HS….so I still don’t get it, and you all know more about me than you wished….

JenO.

Was I the only one who thought scar contests as kids were cool?

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 155

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/24/2000

Author: PrinceOfBaja

>JenO.

>Was I the only one who thought scar contests as kids were cool?

Not at al! I have a doozy of a scar on my right arm, from a childhood accident. You can’t imagine (well, YOU prolly can, Jen) the scope of stories that can be fabricated to impress gullible folks, when you have a really outstanding scar!

Steve

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 156

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/24/2000

Author: JenOMalley

>Not at al! I have a doozy of a scar on my right arm, from a childhood accident.

>You can’t imagine (well, YOU prolly can, Jen) the scope of stories that can be

>fabricated to impress gullible folks, when you have a really outstanding scar!

>

>Steve

Hee hee….”No, really, I *was* abducted by aliens…and then…oh never mind…you wouldn’t understand…”

JenO.

26″ inches of scar tissue….cool huh?

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 157

Subject: ReName: ((Scar Tissue))

Date: 10/23/2000

Author: Mac

JenOMalley wrote in message

>Not at al! I have a doozy of a scar on my right arm, from a childhood accident.

>You can’t imagine (well, YOU prolly can, Jen) the scope of stories that can

>be fabricated to impress gullible folks, when you have a really outstanding scar!

>Steve

———

Hee hee….”No, really, I *was* abducted by aliens…and then…oh never mind…you wouldn’t understand…”

JenO.

26″ inches of scar tissue….cool huh?

*********************

Hmmm, if having a contest does the scar tissue have to be all on one scar and can several be additive for a total? Have a good 14-inch on one arm and several on both legs and face. . . might well total 26+”. Next time I will remember NOT to volunteer as a Medic. And I never did think of using the alien story.

A friend of mine used the Cancer story and later, how he went to a Tent Revival and was cured. . .

—Mac

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 158

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/23/2000

Author: StanMann

Randi wrote:

>

> JenOMalley () arranged the electrons thusly…

> > >For me, a woman who

> > >likes doing housework and ironing her husband’s shirts has a

> > >problem that needs to be corrected. Since I am intelligent, I

> > >recognize that many women may not accept the existence of this

> > >woman’s problem, so I will no doubt annoy some women with this

> > >assertion, and alienate others

> >

> > To me that’s annoying, not as a woman who likes to iron my husband’s uniform,

> > or mine for that matter, but as someone who knows women who *are* happy doing

> > that, and would *hate* being forced to work outside the home….

>

> …and that’s why it is a problem. Thanks for

> the reinforcement.

>

I meant to respond to this earlier, but circumstances prevented me. I am tryin to determine what this problem that needs to be corrected is. Is it 1. That a person enjoys the work that they have chosen to do? 2. That a person enjoys ironing, cleaning, etc, i.e. managing a household? 3. Or is it that a person(who happens to be female) enjoys managing a household for the person that she loves(who happens to be male)? Furthermore, why is this a problem, and how should this problem be corrected?

Thank you

StanMann

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 159

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/23/2000

Author: ddavitt

 

Randi wrote:

>

> > To me that’s annoying, not as a woman who likes to iron my husband’s uniform,

> > or mine for that matter, but as someone who knows women who *are* happy doing

> > that, and would *hate* being forced to work outside the home….

>

> …and that’s why it is a problem. Thanks for

> the reinforcement.

The arrogance of feminists who take it upon themselves to define for a woman what she should get satisfaction from doing never ceases to annoy me. It’s far more irritating than a man who insists that a woman’s place is in the home.

>

>

> I said “physical make up.” I should have been more precise.

> Jane implied that there was something beyond, or outside of, or

> not attached to Friday’s physical body. Label it the “self” for

> lack of a better word. I don’t disagree with the existence of a

> self; I think we are self-aware to a very great extent. I do

> disagree with the idea that this self is separate from the

> physical processes that we define as life, as she seemed to

> imply. I just wanted to make sure Jane understood that dualism

> is dead….

>

>

Randi, consider this quotation from Number of the Beast;

” The spirit of a good woman cannot be coded by nucleic acids arranged in a double helix, and only an over educated fool could think so. I could prove that mathematically, save that mathematics can never prove anything.”

I looked up dualism to make sure the definition that leapt to mind was correct. Do you mean this part of the definition,

” A view of human beings as constituted of two irreducible elements (as matter and spirit)” ?

This POV was apparently born in 1794 but there was no date of death….maybe you should let the dictionary know so they can amend the entry. After all, you don’t agree with it, so it has to be wrong, you being the ultimate authority and all…….

Jane

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 160

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/24/2000

Author: Randi

ddavitt () arranged the electrons thusly…

> Randi wrote:

>

> >

> > > To me that’s annoying, not as a woman who likes to iron my husband’s uniform,

> > > or mine for that matter, but as someone who knows women who *are* happy doing

> > > that, and would *hate* being forced to work outside the home….

> >

> > …and that’s why it is a problem. Thanks for

> > the reinforcement.

>

> The arrogance of feminists who take it upon themselves to define for a woman what

> she should get satisfaction from doing never ceases to annoy me. It’s far more

> irritating than a man who insists that a woman’s place is in the home.

Hey, I’m just trying to raise the awareness factor a little. Can you think of a better forum for feminism than a newsgroup frequented by fans of an author celebrated in large part for his tendency to tip sacred cows every time he put pen to paper?

> > I said “physical make up.” I should have been more precise.

> > Jane implied that there was something beyond, or outside of, or

> > not attached to Friday’s physical body. Label it the “self” for

> > lack of a better word. I don’t disagree with the existence of a

> > self; I think we are self-aware to a very great extent. I do

> > disagree with the idea that this self is separate from the

> > physical processes that we define as life, as she seemed to

> > imply. I just wanted to make sure Jane understood that dualism

> > is dead….

> Randi, consider this quotation from Number of the Beast;

>

> ” The spirit of a good woman cannot be coded by nucleic acids arranged in a double

> helix, and only an over educated fool could think so. I could prove that

> mathematically, save that mathematics can never prove anything.”

Ok. I’ve considered it. It supports your position very well. Eloquently, even. Given its source, this is not surprising. I drank a Carlsberg and considered it again. It still supports your position. I even searched it out in the book and read the chapter to get it in context. Hey, it still supports your position. But Jane, it is also just a restatement of your premise which, I labor to point out, was what I was challenging in the first place. It also has some weird implications about education and mathematics that have little to do with the topic at hand, so I’m ignoring them for now.

> I looked up dualism to make sure the definition that leapt to mind was correct. Do

> you mean this part of the definition,

> ” A view of human beings as constituted of two irreducible elements (as matter and

> spirit)” ?

Yep, that’ll do. You cite Heinlein to good effect. I wish I could summon up quotes the way you do. Instead, I’m going to have to throw whole texts at you, and hope you find the time and inclination to read them. I’ll give you three scientists whose work in philosophy, psychology, neurobiology, physics, and mathematics have raised grave doubts about the dualist program in philosophy. Descartes’ magnificent bit of solipsistic legerdemain, the Cogito, upon which the modern program in dualism is largely based, has been reduced to a philosophical dead-end in the face of advances in quantum theory and neuroscience.

The first is Paul Churchland, whose 1984 book, _Matter and Consciousness_ is a great introduction for the layman to current programs of research in the philosophy of mind. I recommend the 1992 revised edition. He surveys existing theories of self- awareness, and describes their successes and failures in an objective and very accessible way.

The second is Daniel Dennett, who argues very successfuly against what he calls the “Cartesian Theater” in his book _Consciousness Explained._ He has another book, _The Mind’s I_, co-authored with Douglas Hofstadter, that helps expose the basic fallacies in dualism that Descartes himself was aware of and tried to gloss over.

The third is Roger Penrose, who sketches a theory of quantum consciousness in his books _The Emperor’s New Mind_ and _Shadows of the Mind_ that has *everybody* from diehard Cartesians to the most sophisticated materialists rethinking what consciousness is. The AI community, with which I maintain contact out of professional curiosity (I am a computer scientist, after all) has had to all but scrap fifty years of research because Penrose demonstrated they’ve probably been barking up the wrong tree all along.

> This POV was apparently born in 1794 but there was no date of death….maybe you

> should let the dictionary know so they can amend the entry. After all, you don’t

> agree with it, so it has to be wrong, you being the ultimate authority and

> all…….

Oh, puhleeze. I’m trying not to be disagreeable. I haven’t plonked anybody who has disagreed with me in over a month now, and I’m not going to start here. In fact, I’m trying to argue my postition and give you the necessary information so that you can understand my argument and provide a counter-argument that I will respect. Uh, don’t take that as arrogant or elitist. I can’t make my point to you unless you share some of my understanding, and I’m trying my best to make it available to you. The individuals I cite above are all working scientists — Churchland at UCSD, Dennett at Harvard, and Penrose at Oxford, where he’s the Rouse Ball Professor of Mathematics. They all have world-class reputations in their fields and they all seem to agree that dualism is dead. Read them and find out why. I like Heinlein, but even the Master himself would defer to the experts in a case like this. I think you should, too; dictionaries have been known to be revised as new knowledge is created, you know!

-Randi

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 161

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/24/2000

Author: ddavitt

 

Randi wrote:

>

> I said

> > The arrogance of feminists who take it upon themselves to define for a woman what

> > she should get satisfaction from doing never ceases to annoy me. It’s far more

> > irritating than a man who insists that a woman’s place is in the home.

>

> Hey, I’m just trying to raise the awareness factor a little.

> Can you think of a better forum for feminism than a newsgroup

> frequented by fans of an author celebrated in large part for his

> tendency to tip sacred cows every time he put pen to paper?

Huh? _Raise_ it by restricting women to traditionally male paths of higher education and unlimited career choices whilst at the same time making traditionally female occupations of housewife and mother seem inferior? That’s not raising anything, it’s buying into the belief ( fostered by men in the past) that being a woman and doing so called womanly things ( and enjoying them) is inferior. How old fashioned!

Me, I want more than you’re offering thank you. I want to be able to take as much pride in my clean, comfortable, welcoming home, well cooked meals and home made raspberry jam as I used to in hitting and exceeding every target I was given at work. And you know what? I intend to do just that. When my children are in full time education I’ll be going back to work; until then I’m getting satisfaction out of the part of my life that I’ve voluntarily dedicated to being a stay at home mum.

Oh and I’m also happy to extend the same rights to men; if a man wants to keep house rather than going out to work he shouldn’t be branded as less of a man; freedom to choose is what’s important, for both sexes. You want to restrict that freedom and dare to call it raising awareness. Piffle…..

Jane

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 162

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/24/2000

Author: lal_truckee

In article,

ddavitt

wrote:

> Oh and I’m also happy to extend the same rights to men; if a man wants to keep house

> rather than going out to work he shouldn’t be branded as less of a man; freedom to

> choose is what’s important, for both sexes. You want to restrict that freedom and dare

> to call it raising awareness. Piffle…..

You’d might (maybe not?) be surprised at how people react IRL to a genuine househusband. A woman who used to work for me (and for whom I now work) has a full time homemaker husband. When it comes up in conversation those who didn’t previously know seem to sputter a lot, both male and female…

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 163

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/24/2000

Author: Randi

ddavitt () arranged the electrons thusly…

> Randi wrote:

>

> >

> > I said

> > > The arrogance of feminists who take it upon themselves to define for a woman what

> > > she should get satisfaction from doing never ceases to annoy me. It’s far more

> > > irritating than a man who insists that a woman’s place is in the home.

> >

> > Hey, I’m just trying to raise the awareness factor a little.

> > Can you think of a better forum for feminism than a newsgroup

> > frequented by fans of an author celebrated in large part for his

> > tendency to tip sacred cows every time he put pen to paper?

>

> Huh? _Raise_ it by restricting women to traditionally male paths of higher education and

> unlimited career choices whilst at the same time making traditionally female occupations

> of housewife and mother seem inferior? That’s not raising anything, it’s buying into the

> belief ( fostered by men in the past) that being a woman and doing so called womanly

> things ( and enjoying them) is inferior. How old fashioned!

Ok. I surrender, Jane. It is wrong of me to try to move people out of their comfort zone, and even more wrong to assume that my vision of how a situation needs to be improved is shared by everybody. I can’t fix it if I can’t convince you it’s broke. The failure is in me, though, not in my vision.

> Me, I want more than you’re offering thank you. I want to be able to take as much pride

> in my clean, comfortable, welcoming home, well cooked meals and home made raspberry jam

> as I used to in hitting and exceeding every target I was given at work. And you know

> what? I intend to do just that. When my children are in full time education I’ll be

> going back to work; until then I’m getting satisfaction out of the part of my life that

> I’ve voluntarily dedicated to being a stay at home mum.

> Oh and I’m also happy to extend the same rights to men; if a man wants to keep house

> rather than going out to work he shouldn’t be branded as less of a man; freedom to

> choose is what’s important, for both sexes. You want to restrict that freedom and dare

> to call it raising awareness. Piffle…..

Ahhh hell. Jane, there are two types of women…those who have rationalized the way their gender has been treated by men, and are comfortable in their roles, like you, and those who have chosen to create a new model for gender roles, like me. We literally have nothing in common, so I am going to concede the debate to you. I never should have started it anyway.

God, I hate this.

-Randi, wishing for the first time in a long time she’d never

brought the subject up.

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 164

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/25/2000

Author: JenOMalley

>

> Ahhh hell. Jane, there are two types of women…those who

>have rationalized the way their gender has been treated by men,

>and are comfortable in their roles, like you, and those who have

>chosen to create a new model for gender roles, like me.

So, women *have* to accept the idea that they can’t be SAH mom’s, or they’ve blindly accepted the role that’s been assigned them? That’s like saying that I *have* to accept that I’m a dyke (and I’m not) because I’m in the Army and loving it…simply because some people think it’s so…The only thing wrong with your vision is that it’s one-size-doesn’t-fit-all, and is no better than belittling women who want to work outside the home…

JenO.

Why, yes, I do wear makeup with this uniform…and it’s not all green and brown.

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 165

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/25/2000

Author: ddavitt

 

Randi wrote:

>

> Ahhh hell. Jane, there are two types of women…those who

> have rationalized the way their gender has been treated by men,

> and are comfortable in their roles, like you, and those who have

> chosen to create a new model for gender roles, like me. We

> literally have nothing in common, so I am going to concede the

> debate to you. I never should have started it anyway.

>

> God, I hate this.

>

> -Randi, wishing for the first time in a long time she’d never

> brought the subject up.

>

Randi, I don’t want you to feel that you can’t express your POV without getting trampled on. OTOH, expecting me to nod and smile sweetly when you blithely tell me that a decision I made was the result of brainwashing just isn’t going to happen. Only two types of woman hmm? Those who think like Randi and those who are wrong?

Your way of thinking is like the man in mythology with the bed for travellers; if they didn’t fit it he chopped bits off until they did. You can only see one road to the promised land for women and if you spot an alternate route you’d put up road blocks. Me, I’d hand out maps…..

Keep your blinkers and I’ll keep my five years with Eleanor. You would have taken them away from me i suppose, forced me back to work, for below minimum wage as most of my salary would have gone to the child minder….all to satisfy your vision of what a woman should want from life. Well, I’m doing both thank you; a decade of a career, five years with Eleanor and hopefully another five with baby 2 ( when she shows up!) and then back to work. My choice, all down the line…..

OK, I’m done too, sorry to have wandered off track folks but I’m allergic to labels; they bring me out in a rash…..

Jane

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 166

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/26/2000

Author: PrinceOfBaja

Jane said:

 

>OK, I’m done too, sorry to have wandered off track folks but I’m allergic to

>labels; they

>bring me out in a rash….

Jane, I hardly think standing up for yourself and defending a well-thought-out decision you made could be off-topic for a Heinlein group.

Steve

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 167

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/24/2000

Author: ddavitt

 

Randi wrote:

> Instead, I’m going to

> have to throw whole texts at you, and hope you find the time and

> inclination to read them. I’ll give you three scientists whose

> work in philosophy, psychology, neurobiology, physics, and

> mathematics have raised grave doubts about the dualist program in

> philosophy. Descartes’ magnificent bit of solipsistic

> legerdemain, the Cogito, upon which the modern program in dualism

> is largely based, has been reduced to a philosophical dead-end in

> the face of advances in quantum theory and neuroscience.

> snip

> In fact, I’m trying to argue my

> postition and give you the necessary information so that you can

> understand my argument and provide a counter-argument that I will

> respect. Uh, don’t take that as arrogant or elitist. I can’t

> make my point to you unless you share some of my understanding,

> and I’m trying my best to make it available to you.

Randi, I am too busy at present but thank you for the information. I acquit you of intentional arrogance but I have to say that I’m not going to make the effort to track down, read and inwardly digest three books on a subject that doesn’t interest me that much merely to bring my uninformed views to a level that you’ll respect. No offence 🙂

As it happens I studied philosophy in my first year at university; enough to get a grasp on the basic concepts and major players ( got a good grade on a Rousseau essay IIRC) and enough to decide it wasn’t for me. Here’s another Heinlein quote that sums up my feelings on the subject ( mini triv; who said it?).

“There really isn’t anything to philosophy. Did you ever eat that cotton candy they sell at fairs? Well, philosophy is like that – it looks as if it were really something, and it’s awfully pretty, and it tastes sweet, but when you go to bite it you can’t get your teeth into it, and when you try to swallow, there isn’t anything there. Philosophy is word-chasing, as significant as a puppy chasing its tail.”

That’s why I’m sceptical about you saying that a philosophical POV has been “proven” wrong. It hasn’t; opinions have just moved on. Maybe in the fullness of time they’ll circle round again. Who knows.

Jane

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 168

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/24/2000

Author: reillocnl

In article,

ddavitt

wrote:

> Randi wrote:

>

> >

> > > To me that’s annoying, not as a woman who likes to iron my husband’s uniform,

> > > or mine for that matter, but as someone who knows women who *are* happy doing

> > > that, and would *hate* being forced to work outside the home….

> >

> > …and that’s why it is a problem. Thanks for the reinforcement.

>

> The arrogance of feminists who take it upon themselves to define for a woman what

> she should get satisfaction from doing never ceases to annoy me. It’s far more

> irritating than a man who insists that a woman’s place is in the home.

>

It is? Really? Then fetch my slippers and listen up. There’s nothing more aggravating than one of them damn black preachers telling their simple-minded congregations what they ought to be doing, how they’ve been discriminated against and what they can have if they work at it now, when I know damn good and well that I haven’t discriminated against anyone. I know better than the whole lot of them and don’t have to be black to know it. Where’s my pipe?

> >

> >

> > I said “physical make up.” I should have been more precise.

> > Jane implied that there was something beyond, or outside of, or

> > not attached to Friday’s physical body. Label it the “self” for

> > lack of a better word. I don’t disagree with the existence of a

> > self; I think we are self-aware to a very great extent. I do

> > disagree with the idea that this self is separate from the

> > physical processes that we define as life, as she seemed to

> > imply. I just wanted to make sure Jane understood that dualism

> > is dead….

> >

> >

>

> Randi, consider this quotation from Number of the Beast;

>

> ” The spirit of a good woman cannot be coded by nucleic acids arranged in a double

> helix, and only an over educated fool could think so. I could prove that

> mathematically, save that mathematics can never prove anything.”

Hell, you can knock this over with a feather. It’s just another glittering generality from the pen of Glib Master Bob. See: “spirit” and “good woman.” Without taking exception at this point to whether the preponderant influence is genetic or learned, the boy sets up his platitude badly. First, “spirit” is condescending. He’d never put it that way to apply to a man. He doesn’t mean spirit in the intangible personality component manner; he means “she’s a spunky little thing with a lot of sass, for a woman, but she’s still got her place.” Then he tells you what her place is: “good woman.”

Go ahead, make only the one substitution, man for woman, read it and see if it still means the same to you. Completely different isn’t it? It takes on a religious meaning, nearly, as it would if he’d said “person.”

Finally, what’s this “good” woman crap anyway? Is it only the “spirits” of “good” women that can’t be coded in the genes? While you might think that this point isn’t one and is only peripheral to the topic, I think it’s integral. Bob grew up during a time when it was as natural as breathing in this country to be a sexist and a racist. He was left, after a lifetime of experience, with some fundamental beliefs that he could never shake. Among those were that people have a basic nature; I don’t need mathematics, only citation, to prove that. See, the entirety of “The Notebooks of Lazarus Long.” He was left with the belief that that basic nature could be overcome, through effort, and that women and people of color could become “good.” It’s my contention that the way that they could go about doing that was, well, in just the way he showed it happening: make them into that paradigm of virtue itself, RAH/LL. The old cheat refused to take Friday there. He showed her the promised land and wouldn’t let her cross over. What’s that make Friday: something this side of baseline but not perfect, not a “good” woman.

>

> I looked up dualism to make sure the definition that leapt to mind was correct. Do

> you mean this part of the definition,

>

> ” A view of human beings as constituted of two irreducible elements (as matter and

> spirit)” ?

>

> This POV was apparently born in 1794 but there was no date of death….maybe you

> should let the dictionary know so they can amend the entry. After all, you don’t

> agree with it, so it has to be wrong, you being the ultimate authority and

> all…….

>

I remember late-term pregnancy, pressure on the bladder, impaired circulation and the emotions accompanying it making my ex-wife more than a little testy. She’d say thing she’d never have otherwise said– like putting forward unnamed authority in support of a proposition with which she fundamentally disagreed herself–and the acid dripped.

> Jane

>

>

LNC

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 169

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/24/2000

Author: ddavitt

 

wrote:

> I said,

> > The arrogance of feminists who take it upon themselves to define for a woman what

> > she should get satisfaction from doing never ceases to annoy me. It’s far more

> > irritating than a man who insists that a woman’s place is in the home.

> >

>

> It is? Really? Then fetch my slippers and listen up. There’s nothing

> more aggravating than one of them damn black preachers telling their

> simple-minded congregations what they ought to be doing, how they’ve

> been discriminated against and what they can have if they work at it

> now, when I know damn good and well that I haven’t discriminated

> against anyone. I know better than the whole lot of them and don’t have

> to be black to know it. Where’s my pipe?

> > >

>

What _are_ you wittering on about? Your reply has as much relevance as Randi’s concentration camp example, i.e. not a lot. Either make your points comprehensible or don’t bother.

(This is me being testy because I’m pregnant of course; nine months ago I wouldn’t have reacted this way, oh no.) Listen, I don’t like my options being limited and my choices derided. If I want to be a housewife, I’ll be one and feel not a shred of guilt. It’s my choice. Suffragettes died to give me the right to choose, not to be bludgeoned into a pigeonhole fashioned by anyone, chauvinist or feminist.

Jane

————————————————————————

>> Message 170

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/24/2000

Author: PrinceOfBaja

Randi said:

>JenOMalley () arranged the electrons thusly…

>> To me that’s annoying, not as a woman who likes to iron my husband’s uniform,

>> or mine for that matter, but as someone who knows women who *are* happy doing

>> that, and would *hate* being forced to work outside the home….

> …and that’s why it is a problem. Thanks for the reinforcement.

Why is it a problem? Is it decreed in some book of rules to which only you are privy that all women must seek employment outside the home; or all men, for that matter? If anyone, male or female, wishes to be “domestic” rather than pursue a career outside the home, why is that automatically a problem? If you are addressing this from the standpoint of intellectual development, your argument is weakened even more. There is a plethora of activities “stay-at-homes” can benefit from to keep their minds sharp and stay abreast of the events of the world. To label someone as somehow dysfunctional, simply for not having an outside career, is not only ignorant, it smacks of virulent elitism and hyper-inflated ego. As many have said before me, there is good in any type of work, when it serves a useful purpose and is done to the best of one’s ability.

Steve

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 171

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/23/2000

Author: William Dennis

PrinceOfBaja wrote:

>

> Randi said:

>

> >JenOMalley () arranged the electrons thusly…

>

> >> To me that’s annoying, not as a woman who likes to iron my husband’s uniform,

> >> or mine for that matter, but as someone who knows women who *are* happy doing

> >> that, and would *hate* being forced to work outside the home….

> > …and that’s why it is a problem. Thanks for the reinforcement.

>

> Why is it a problem? Is it decreed in some book of rules to which only you are

> privy that all women must seek employment outside the home; or all men, for

> that matter? If anyone, male or female, wishes to be “domestic” rather than

> pursue a career outside the home, why is that automatically a problem? If you

> are addressing this from the standpoint of intellectual development, your

> argument is weakened even more. There is a plethora of activities

> “stay-at-homes” can benefit from to keep their minds sharp and stay abreast of

> the events of the world. To label someone as somehow dysfunctional, simply for

> not having an outside career, is not only ignorant, it smacks of virulent

> elitism and hyper-inflated ego. As many have said before me, there is good in

> any type of work, when it serves a useful purpose and is done to the best of

> one’s ability.

>

> Steve

Don’t waste your breath, Steve.

It is obvious this Randicreature has decided that in the name of women’s equality, any woman who decides to NOT work outside the home and instead raise babies and cook dinners, etc., is a traitor to her sex, and furthermore and portrayal of the same is a serious character flaw and a “wrongness” in any work of fiction that must be exposed and criticized, lest any other writer dare do the same.

William Dennis II

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 172

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/24/2000

Author: JenOMalley

>To label someone as somehow dysfunctional, simply for

>not having an outside career, is not only ignorant, it smacks of virulent

>elitism and hyper-inflated ego. As many have said before me, there is good in

>any type of work, when it serves a useful purpose and is done to the best of

>one’s ability.

>

>Steve

> Message 173

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/25/2000

Author: Ogden Johnson III

(JenOMalley) wrote:

>Hmmm…how many grunts *can* we get into the back of a 5 ton??

It’s invariably *too* many.

However, that brought on a flashback to a book by that noted SF writer John D. McDonald, who, in “The Girl, the Gold Watch, and Everything”, had the female antagonist stuffed nude into a PC [personnel carrier for the military-challenged among you] carrying six {eight? – it’s been a *long* time} hard-core Navy POs {I always envisioned them as BM1s}. Her character in the book was such that she would, and did, take maximum advantage of the opportunity presented.

OJ III

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 174

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/25/2000

Author: AGplusone

OJIII:

>Her character in the book was such that she would, and did,

>take maximum advantage of the opportunity presented.

I remember it well. I also imagined the shambles to careers of the BM 1s when they next reported, broke, AWOL, and physically wrecked on board their ships. Now, OJ, had it had been gunnery sergeants … even MacDonald, a wartime doggie, IIRC, and I could imagine a different outcome, i.e., her spiritual rehabilitation and, as a penance of her sins, establishment by her of a place of refuge for poor lost souls known as something like “Mom’s Globe and Anchor” with sawdust on the floor, faded photos and souvenirs from “ev’ry clime and place” on the walls, and the pervasive odor of brew and goulash from the pot brewing behind the bar.

David M. Silver

“I expect your names to shine!”

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 175

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/25/2000

Author: JenOMalley

>>Hmmm…how many grunts *can* we get into the back of a 5 ton??

>

>It’s invariably *too* many.

>

>However, that brought on a flashback to a book by that noted SF writer

>John D. McDonald, who, in “The Girl, the Gold Watch, and Everything”,

>had the female antagonist stuffed nude into a PC [personnel carrier

>for the military-challenged among you] carrying six {eight? – it’s

>been a *long* time} hard-core Navy POs {I always envisioned them as

>BM1s}. Her character in the book was such that she would, and did,

>take maximum advantage of the opportunity presented.

>

>OJ III

ROFL! I’d have to see about that…depends on how long they’d been out in the field for me….

JenO.

Queen of Tartsâ„¢

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 176

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/24/2000

Author: PrinceOfBaja

Randi said:

> Now, as to your character being no more based on your

>physical characteristics than your house is…I don’t know what

>you look like, but try to imagine yourself as unattractive. Give

>yourself a hunchback, some really prominent warts or moles on

>your face, maybe a flat chest and big fat thighs, and say, a

>hundred and fifty extra pounds of obesity. Just be ugly. Now

>imagine growing up that way. You imply that you wear a uniform

>on a regular basis. I’m going to guess that you are either a cop

>or some kind of soldier. Now, do you really think you’d have the

>same outlook on life as you do now, if you you were unable to

>wear that uniform, because you didn’t meet physical standards?

>Would you still have a husband to iron for? Would any man (or

>woman, for that matter) look twice at you? Do you really think your character

wouldn’t be distorted beyond recognition from

>being forced to deal with a society that values image over

>substance?

>

Granted, our society does value appearance over just about everything else; however, there are many successful, happy people in the world who are not overly attractive, not in the finest condition physically, etc. Another shocker: multitudes of them are in relationships! Many of the most successful businessmen in the history of this country were not worth a second glance, if you base your opinion solely on physical appearance; it didn’t stop them from becoming some of the most influential people of their time.Aristotle Onassis was truly a “butt-ugly” individual; he also won the hand of Jackie Kennedy. Do you actually believe he agonized over his looks?

Steve

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 177

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/23/2000

Author: pheb

Randi wrote:

>Heinlein’s

> characterizations of women display a methodical gender bias.

> That I am having difficulty articulating Heinlein’s gender bias

> to some people in this ng in no way compromises its existence.

>

No indeed, it’s a famous and universal issue debated on this list forever and on any scifi list I’ve been on. Like gun control for politics lists, the Heinlein newsgroup will debate those big-busted superbabes forever. Now, why would they be so interesting? Hmmmmm, let me think; just can’t seem to come up with a reason……

Anyway, the Heinlein woman who really interests me is Podkayne. She is a Southern woman, (as in Georgia, not Mars — Heinlein was of course from Virginia and was used to Southern women) and in my opinion is well portrayed as such.

Phebe

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 178

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/23/2000

Author: ddavitt

 

wrote:

>

> Anyway, the Heinlein woman who really interests me is Podkayne. She is a Southern woman,

> (as in Georgia, not Mars — Heinlein was of course from Virginia and was used to Southern

> women) and in my opinion is well portrayed as such.

>

> Phebe

Well he was _married _ to Virginia but he came from Butler, Missouri and grew up in Kansas City…..quite a long way from Virginia. I always thought of Kansas and Missouri as being in the middle rather than the South ( although I think Missouri did try to secede but the vote failed?)

Jane

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 179

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/23/2000

Author: pheb

ddavitt wrote:

> wrote:

>

> >

> > Anyway, the Heinlein woman who really interests me is Podkayne. She is a Southern woman,

> > (as in Georgia, not Mars — Heinlein was of course from Virginia and was used to Southern

> > women) and in my opinion is well portrayed as such.

> >

> > Phebe

>

> Well he was _married _ to Virginia but he came from Butler, Missouri and grew up in Kansas

> City…..quite a long way from Virginia. I always thought of Kansas and Missouri as being in

> the middle rather than the South ( although I think Missouri did try to secede but the vote

> failed?)

>

> Jane

[:-) Okay, am I wrong about his having lived in the South for some time? I thought they did. I know Virginia was his second wife, but I thought the state got in there too. I am not as good with the details as some of you, I know.

Phebe

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 180

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/23/2000

Author: AGplusone

Phebe:

>Okay, am I wrong about his having lived in the South for some time? I thought

>they did.

He, Robert, was born in Butler, Missouri, and the family moved to Kansas City, Missouri a few years later. Missouri is considered a border state (mixed northern and southern influences). They (Robert and Leslyn MacDonald Heinlein) spent the war years living just outside the District of Columbia after Robert was hired an assigned to the Naval Air Research facility as an engineer. Robert, as a midshipman, went to school at Annapolis, Maryland, for four years when he wasn’t on summer cruises with the Navy or home on leave. Other than that, no, ‘they’ didn’t live in the ‘south.’

> I

>know Virginia was his second wife, but I thought the state got in there

>too. I am not as good

>with the details as some of you, I know

Virginia: for your store of information, Phebe, was born in Brooklyn, NY; Leslyn MacDonald Heinlein was a Los Angeles girl; and the ‘first wife’ that details are gradually emerging concerning was from a state I’ll let Bill and a fellow named James tell you about in an article they are co-writing for an upcoming issue of the Heinlein Journal, but it wasn’t the “south” as I think of it either.

When they weren’t in Washington, D.C. Robert and Leslyn lived in Los Angeles; and Robert and Ginny (Virginia) lived in southern California and Colorado, then returned to what I think of as northern California (Santa Cruz and Carmel) for the remaining years of his life, except for the extensive trips they took together around the world.

Robert, when stationed in the Navy, before his marriage to Leslyn, was stationed on the USS Lexington and the USS Roper; and the Lady Lex, in those days, was based in NYC during part of Robert’s tenure. It may have been based elsewhere as well, including the West Coast, out of Long Beach, California. When diagnosed with tuberculosis, he was sent for treatment to a hospital near Denver, Colorado, by the Navy, and later took and paid for his own treatment in Los Angeles.

David M. Silver

“I expect your names to shine!”

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 181

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/24/2000

Author: BPRAL22169

>They (Robert and Leslyn MacDonald Heinlein)

>spent the war years living just outside the District of Columbia after

I think you meant Philadelphia. The NAES was in a suburb of Philadelphia.

I think Leslyn grew up in California, but I vaguely recall hearing she was born in Connecticut. Still not the south, though.

Bill

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 182

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/23/2000

Author: Ward Griffiths

On Mon, 23 Oct 2000, wrote:

>Anyway, the Heinlein woman who really interests me is Podkayne. She is a Southern woman,

>(as in Georgia, not Mars — Heinlein was of course from Virginia and was used to Southern

>women) and in my opinion is well portrayed as such.

What? Where do you get the idea that a resident on Mars of mixed-racial heritage is “Southern, as in Georgia”? And RAH was born and grew up in Missouri according to every known source of information including his own words. And Missouri is one of those states that was rather split in its sympathies during the War of Southern Independence — it’s not “southern” in the sense that Georgia and Alabama are.

Ward Griffiths http://members.home.net/wdg3rd/

When the man said alcohol, tobacco and firearms, I just naturally

assumed he was making a delivery. (.sig stolen from a guy in rec.nude)

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 183

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/23/2000

Author: Will

In article,

wrote:

> Randi wrote:

>

> >Heinlein’s

> > characterizations of women display a methodical gender bias.

> > That I am having difficulty articulating Heinlein’s gender bias

> > to some people in this ng in no way compromises its existence.

> >

>

> No indeed, it’s a famous and universal issue debated on this list forever and on any scifi

> list I’ve been on. Like gun control for politics lists, the Heinlein newsgroup will debate

> those big-busted superbabes forever. Now, why would they be so interesting? Hmmmmm, let me

> think; just can’t seem to come up with a reason……

>

> Anyway, the Heinlein woman who really interests me is Podkayne. She is a Southern woman,

> (as in Georgia, not Mars — Heinlein was of course from Virginia and was used to Southern

> women) and in my opinion is well portrayed as such.

>

> Phebe

>

Rah was from Missouri, not Virginia. That is a good long distance away. While both are considered Southern, Missouri never seceded from the Union in the Late Unpleasentness and has many midwestern characteristics. I think RAH was much more at home in the midlands than the south and his stories show it, although not obviously. On the other hand, I do find some characteristics of the traditional Southern woman in some of his characters.

Will

Dum Vivamus, Vivimus

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 184

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/24/2000

Author: Randi

()

arranged the electrons thusly…

> Randi wrote:

>

> >Heinlein’s

> > characterizations of women display a methodical gender bias.

> > That I am having difficulty articulating Heinlein’s gender bias

> > to some people in this ng in no way compromises its existence.

> >

>

> No indeed, it’s a famous and universal issue debated on this list forever and on any scifi

> list I’ve been on. Like gun control for politics lists, the Heinlein newsgroup will debate

> those big-busted superbabes forever. Now, why would they be so interesting? Hmmmmm, let me

> think; just can’t seem to come up with a reason……

I could give you *two*, but then, I’d be restating the obvious, eh? And please, from now on, when referring to “those big busted superbabes” just use “uberbabes.” It has that “classical underpinning” so prized of certain lurkers in this ng.

> Anyway, the Heinlein woman who really interests me is Podkayne. She is a Southern woman,

> (as in Georgia, not Mars — Heinlein was of course from Virginia and was used to Southern

> women) and in my opinion is well portrayed as such.

Heinlein was from Missouri…Butler, I do believe. Friday is my favorite, despite my misgivings about her raison d’tre.

-Randi

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 185

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/23/2000

Author: William Dennis

wrote:

>

> No indeed, it’s a famous and universal issue debated on this list forever and on any scifi

> list I’ve been on. Like gun control for politics lists, the Heinlein newsgroup will debate

> those big-busted superbabes forever. Now, why would they be so interesting? Hmmmmm, let me

> think; just can’t seem to come up with a reason……

I can think of TWO reasons …. 😉

BTW: RAH married Virginia, he was not born there.

William Dennis II

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 186

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/23/2000

Author: reillocnl

In article,

ddavitt

wrote:

> Randi wrote:

>

> > I feel it important enough to point out that being open

> > minded does not imply that a person is free of biases. I’m

> > certain the guards at Auschwitz and Bergen-Belsen liked, and

> > talked with, and actually listened to many different kinds of

> > Jews as they herded them all into the showers.

>

> This is a very bizarre comparison to use when discussing a man who is supposed to

> have respected and admired women so much that his portrayals of them in his books is

> sometimes deemed unrealistic.

Respect? Admire? Sometimes? Look, the closest he ever got to describing a real female was Podkane and that’s only because she was a child. Then he killed her because she knew too much. No, seriously, why he killed her aside she was the only one.

Let’s just consider some non-Boondockian, other time line, female characters for a minute and see what they look like. Off the top of my head:

The women in TMFE. Okay, it’s a short story and available time for character development is comparatively lessened. What are they, though? Girls, by and large. Not women. Interestingly, I think this story was the genesis of his beginning to explore what could be done with a female character; however, they’re stereotyped ’50’s teenage girls on the moon, with wings, flouncing and cat fighting.

Any female character in SIASL. Name one. Your choice. Grown up girls and overage, manipulating girls. He still couldn’t do women (and for my money, he never could/did). Gillian? You better pick her; she’s as close as you’re going to get in this one. Anne, Dorcas and Miriam are a sheet, willing and able, respectively, and nothing more. Gillian’s a nurse, independent, savvy, adventurous and, when the chips are down, helpless. Who’s gotta bail her out? Bob in his Jubal costume (which is an old Twain costume with the seams let out). (Note to myself: rewrite Huckleberry Finn and set it on Venus in 2020 in time for Haley’s Comet to reappear.)

> Your rather doubtful example deals with people doing

> dreadful things to groups of people they liked as individuals. Depicting women as

> superior hardly qualifies as dreadful. I don’t think it’s accurate myself but I

> don’t think it’s on a par with genocide!

> Your first sentence is certainly true; I doubt any one of us is free of bias in one

> form or another. Your following thoughts are, IMO, there for shock effect rather

> than part of a cohesive train of thought.

>

> >

> >

> > Friday is arguably Heinlein’s most realistic and

> > sympathetic female character. She is sexy, vulnerable,

> > compassionate, loyal, confused — in short, quite like any real

> > woman. By making her an artifact of an engineering process,

> > Heinlein is implying that women like Friday don’t exist in

> > nature.

>

> That’s a real woman? Beg to differ. That’s ONE SORT of real woman, no more. If you

> start to say that one type of woman is more ‘real’ than another then you are on

> dangerous ground. Is a woman who likes doing housework and ironing her husband’s

> shirts not real from a feminist POV? Who decides?

Can’t disagree here, really. My idea of a real woman is one with money who’s compassionate, loyal, intelligent, funny and sexy. I don’t know what vulnerable means so I never go looking for it. Others would add to or subtract from this list.

>

> Plus, to get away from the general and down to the specifics, nothing in Friday’s

> _character_ was defined in a laboratory. Her own personality and life experiences

> did that, as they do to us all. Heinlein made her strong and clever; more so than

> most humans but still within the boundaries of what a human could be. She _was_

> human, not artificial, and learning to accept and believe that was what the book was

> all about. She wasn’t half robot or bionic or something; she was simply created with

> all the physical weaknesses left out. Your contention that Heinlein was saying such

> a paragon can’t exist in nature just doesn’t work because none of the qualities you

> admire were artificially induced.

Can sure disagree here unless you’ve got the secret for separating mind and body. Aristotle wants to see you if that’s the case. Friday was bound to be what she wound up being on that first in vitro day. Take away any of that and you have a different character. This is not to say that what happened after she hatched doesn’t matter and it’s not to say, either, that I’m advocating “nature” over “nuture.” It’s only to say that you seem to be and that’s as wrong as placing the emphasis in the other place.

>

> If i were to list the females in Heinlein that I admired or liked they would include

> the Hazel from Rolling Stones ( note the limitation), Caroline from Tunnel and

> Puddin. None of them are even remotely ‘uberbabes’ (which is an awful term IMO) but

> all are competent, intelligent, likeable and real to me. Another reader might

> disagree; as I say on another post, it’s all subjective. Judging whether or not a

> character is realistic may require an objectivity that is beyond most of us.

>

> Jane

>

Hazel was an ubermom in Rolling Stones; Caroline was an Amazon and relegated to the background where she acted like Rod’s physical conscience; who’s Puddin.?

LNC

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 187

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/23/2000

Author: ddavitt

 

wrote:

> Look, the closest he ever got to describing

> a real female was Podkane and that’s only because she was a child. Then

> he killed her because she knew too much. No, seriously, why he killed

> her aside she was the only one.

Poddy; you’re kidding right? I find her to be overly sweet and I’m not sure she qualifies as a child. What about Betty Sorenson? Or Eldreth? Why are they less real than Poddy?

> Friday was

> bound to be what she wound up being on that first in vitro day. Take

> away any of that and you have a different character. This is not to say

> that what happened after she hatched doesn’t matter and it’s not to

> say, either, that I’m advocating “nature” over “nuture.” It’s only to

> say that you seem to be and that’s as wrong as placing the emphasis in

> the other place.

No, actually there’s no need to even open the nature/nurture can of worms. Randi said Friday was great, lots of good qualities…but that she was artificial so Heinlein wasn’t describing a real woman and therefore was being insulting in a subtle way. My contention was that it doesn’t matter how she ended up how she was; born that way or shaped by life, she was still human and therefore Heinlein wasn’t cheating. Friday was essentially an advanced test tube baby; 100% human.

>

> Hazel was an ubermom in Rolling Stones; Caroline was an Amazon and

> relegated to the background where she acted like Rod’s physical

> conscience; who’s Puddin.?

>

>

Who’s Puddin!! Well Heinlein said that she was a prototype Poddy but I disagree; she’s got far more about her than Poddy. She is the heroine of three short stories, one in Expanded Universe, two in Requiem. They are set on a campus in 1950’s America; not SF. I like them, others don’t . Plus, Hazel was a rather eccentric grandmother rather than a super mum and Caroline not only narrates part of the book (and very amusing that bit is too) but is Rod’s deputy and manages to remain true to her chosen career rather than going for the obvious plot twist of marrying Rod and getting pregnant.

Jane

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 188

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/24/2000

Author: reillocnl

In article,

ddavitt

wrote:

> wrote:

>

> > Look, the closest he ever got to describing

> > a real female was Podkane and that’s only because she was a child. Then

> > he killed her because she knew too much. No, seriously, why he killed

> > her aside she was the only one.

>

> Poddy; you’re kidding right? I find her to be overly sweet and I’m not sure

> she qualifies as a child. What about Betty Sorenson? Or Eldreth? Why are

> they less real than Poddy?

>

She’s described as a child, naturally she has twice Einstein’s IQ and the audacity of a terrorist or she wouldn’t be a Heinlein heroine but she’s a kid. Overly sweet? You mean she’s got some innocence left? I don’t find that a thing about which to lament. Later, when he takes the innocense away from all the heros they’re jaded gods and would be really manipulative people to have to be around.

> > Friday was

> > bound to be what she wound up being on that first in vitro day. Take

> > away any of that and you have a different character. This is not to say

> > that what happened after she hatched doesn’t matter and it’s not to

> > say, either, that I’m advocating “nature” over “nuture.” It’s only to

> > say that you seem to be and that’s as wrong as placing the emphasis in

> > the other place.

>

> No, actually there’s no need to even open the nature/nurture can of worms.

> Randi said Friday was great, lots of good qualities…but that she was

> artificial so Heinlein wasn’t describing a real woman and therefore was

> being insulting in a subtle way. My contention was that it doesn’t matter

> how she ended up how she was; born that way or shaped by life, she was

> still human and therefore Heinlein wasn’t cheating. Friday was essentially

> an advanced test tube baby; 100% human.

>

Nah, the old fart cheated her. He never made her one of them. I can’t complain about that, though. That’s authorial perogative. It’s his story, not mine. So, he wound up making her, maybe, my favorite Heinlein woman.

I’m not one who goes looking to find a lot of deep meaning or grand design in any one book or the whole lot of them. After all, we’re not talking about high art here. This is plain and simple pop fiction and relegated to a genre at that. I don’t discount that either when he sat down to start one or somewhere before he let the final go, he had an overall premise in mind for the piece. In the case of Friday, if it’s anything it’s that the circumstances surrounding her conception and the product of her genetic makeup notwithstanding, she was more human than “humans.” If she was 100% then the in uteros were some lesser percentage, unable to experience and appreciate being human to its fullest extent.

> >

> > Hazel was an ubermom in Rolling Stones; Caroline was an Amazon and

> > relegated to the background where she acted like Rod’s physical

> > conscience; who’s Puddin.?

> >

> >

>

> Who’s Puddin!! Well Heinlein said that she was a prototype Poddy but I

> disagree; she’s got far more about her than Poddy. She is the heroine of

> three short stories, one in Expanded Universe, two in Requiem. They are set

> on a campus in 1950’s America; not SF. I like them, others don’t .

Name them, please. I’ll read them again.

> Plus, Hazel was a rather eccentric grandmother rather than a super mum and

> Caroline not only narrates part of the book (and very amusing that bit is

> too) but is Rod’s deputy and manages to remain true to her chosen career

> rather than going for the obvious plot twist of marrying Rod and getting

> pregnant.

>

Now here’s a touchy subject. Remember when Shatner kissed Nichols on national TV in about 1966? Interracial marriage was never a plot twist available in Tunnel. It sits well with you that Caroline’s just about as physically and emotionally and intellectually self-sufficient as she can get and gets to be the secretary for the colony? That’s the part she “narrates.” Yeah, it’s amusing when she calls Grant “hizzoner.” She’s a happy Negro the way he writes her. “Gosh, Roddy! Ted’s such a know bumbler he’s bound to break his leg on the expedition but you know best.” Right.

> Jane

>

LNC

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 189

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/24/2000

Author: ddavitt

 

wrote:

>

> She is the heroine of

> > three short stories, one in Expanded Universe, two in Requiem.

>

> Name them, please. I’ll read them again.

>

> > Plus, Hazel was a rather eccentric grandmother rather than a super mum and

> > Caroline not only narrates part of the book (and very amusing that bit is

> > too) but is Rod’s deputy and manages to remain true to her chosen career

> > rather than going for the obvious plot twist of marrying Rod and getting

> > pregnant.

> >

> Now here’s a touchy subject. Remember when Shatner kissed Nichols on

> national TV in about 1966? Interracial marriage was never a plot twist

> available in Tunnel. It sits well with you that Caroline’s just about

> as physically and emotionally and intellectually self-sufficient as she

> can get and gets to be the secretary for the colony? That’s the part

> she “narrates.” Yeah, it’s amusing when she calls Grant “hizzoner.”

> She’s a happy Negro the way he writes her. “Gosh, Roddy! Ted’s such a

> know bumbler he’s bound to break his leg on the expedition but you know

> best.” Right.

>

> > Jane

> >

>

Cliff and The Calories in EU, The Bulletin Board and Poor Daddy in Requiem. Who’s Ted? I think you mean Roy. He wasn’t a bumbler by any means. “Interracial marriage” is a toughie because it’s emerged that Heinlein wrote Rod as black. The clues are easily missed ( and I’m on record as being unconvinced but that’s another story) but they are there. Whether this makes the story stronger from an anti racist POV ( having a black lead character was quite daring for the times) or weaker (marrying Caroline would not have been interracial) is a point we’ve debated here before. However, there’s no real spark between Rod and Caroline; he’s got his sights fixed on other goals and he’s still young to be thinking about settling down. Jimmy and Jackie seem to be more mature in many ways; maybe if there had been no rescue Rod would have found someone but as it stands he preferred being Mayor to being married. Fair enough.

Caroline is the historian of the group under Grant’s rule. He tended to give the juicy jobs to his pals from Teller U remember. Under Rod she’s the Deputy Mayor. I don’t recall any racism in the book at all nor any suggestion that Caroline is treated as different because of her Zulu heritage.

Jane

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 190

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/25/2000

Author: Debbie Cusick

ddavitt wrote:

>

>”Interracial marriage” is a toughie because it’s emerged that Heinlein wrote

> Rod as black. The clues are easily missed ( and I’m on record as being

> unconvinced but that’s another story) but they are there. Whether this makes

> the story stronger from an anti racist POV ( having a black lead character

> was quite daring for the times) or weaker (marrying Caroline would not have

> been interracial) is a point we’ve debated here before.

Right, I remember noting those clues almost from the first reading. Again I still feel it could be taken either way, but there are definite strong indications that would let one assume Rod to be black, and I felt it was something Heinlein was trying to insert as a back-handed way of getting past the censors who would probably never have allowed the main protagonist to be black back in those days – although he got away with strong secondary characters like Caroline, and Mr. Kiku from The Star Beast (who I find the most interesting character in that book).

However, as you say, it is subtle. If you want to think Rod is black you can certainly support your argument, but if you want to believe he is not there is really no problem with that either.

Debbie

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 191

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/25/2000

Author: pheb

Debbie Cusick wrote:

> ddavitt wrote:

> >

> >”Interracial marriage” is a toughie because it’s emerged that Heinlein wrote

> > Rod as black. The clues are easily missed ( and I’m on record as being

> > unconvinced but that’s another story) but they are there.

>

 

>

> However, as you say, it is subtle. If you want to think Rod is black

> you can certainly support your argument, but if you want to believe he

> is not there is really no problem with that either.

> —

> Debbie

I’m sure not and the reason is simple: Rod’s parents were scandalized and forbidding at the idea of Caroline being his girlfriend when he returned. She was black. That convinces me Rod was white.

Phebe

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 192

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/25/2000

Author: ddavitt

 

wrote:

>

>

> I’m sure not and the reason is simple: Rod’s parents were scandalized and

> forbidding at the idea of Caroline being his girlfriend when he returned. She was

> black. That convinces me Rod was white.

>

> Phebe

Well, that’s one interpretation I suppose but it always struck me that his parents who were religious and came across as being very ‘peaceful’ people were more bothered by Rod’s describing her to Helen as, ‘ a big girl, even bigger than you are – and she looks a bit like you. She is smart like you, too, around genius, and always good-natured and willing – but strong and fast and incredibly violent when you need it….sudden death in all directions.’

Rod never describes her as black ( unless the fact that she looks like Helen is such a description; which would invalidate your point anyway); his parents ask if he was involved with her and he puts his foot in it even more by saying,

‘Me? Gosh, no! She was more like a big sister. Oh, Carol was sweet on half a dozen fellows, one time or another, but it never lasted.’ One can hardly blame his parents for replying, ‘I am very glad to hear that you are not seriously interested in her. She does not sound like desirable companionship for a young boy.’ 🙂

The point seems to be that they still think of Rod as a child, due to the time in stasis and he’s described Caroline as a violent flirt…..not what they want for their baby boy. I don’t see any way that it could be disapproval on the grounds of her race because they simply don’t know it.

Jane

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 193

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/26/2000

Author: pheb

ddavitt wrote:

>

> The point seems to be that they still think of Rod as a child, due to the time in

> stasis and he’s described Caroline as a violent flirt…..not what they want for

> their baby boy. I don’t see any way that it could be disapproval on the grounds of

> her race because they simply don’t know it.

>

They must have known it; the novel makes it clear that the recovery of that group was big news, covered widely on TV.

Phebe

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 194

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/25/2000

Author: ddavitt

 

wrote:

> ddavitt wrote:

>

> > I don’t see any way that it could be disapproval on the grounds of

> > her race because they simply don’t know it.

> >

>

> They must have known it; the novel makes it clear that the recovery of that group was big

> news, covered widely on TV.

>

> Phebe

No they didn’t; when Helen and Matson visit Rod they tell him that his parents left stasis a week ago and his father left the hospital that day. Rod goes home to find “Aunt Nora” there with his parents. This interfering old bag mentions the TV pictures and says, ‘You must have seen it” to Rod’s father. He replies

“I must have missed it. As you know, I -”

He is then interrupted by Nora but gets chance to say,

” As you know, I returned from hospital just this morning, Nora. Rod, there was no picture of you on the news services, surely?”

I really don’t see how you can work this into his parents seeing the news, recognising Carol and linking her to the girl Rod describes ( and the real clincher is that he never mentions her by name until after a lot of discussion). It seems clear that they didn’t see the news and just don’t like the sound of her.

Jane

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 195

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/26/2000

Author: pheb

ddavitt wrote:

> wrote:

>

> > ddavitt wrote:

> >

> > > I don’t see any way that it could be disapproval on the grounds of

> > > her race because they simply don’t know it.

> > >

> >

> > They must have known it; the novel makes it clear that the recovery of that group was big

> > news, covered widely on TV.

> >

> > Phebe

>

> No they didn’t; when Helen and Matson visit Rod they tell him that his parents left stasis a

> week ago and his father left the hospital that day. Rod goes home to find “Aunt Nora” there

> with his parents. This interfering old bag mentions the TV pictures and says, ‘You must have

> seen it” to Rod’s father. He replies

>

> “I must have missed it. As you know, I -”

> He is then interrupted by Nora but gets chance to say,

> ” As you know, I returned from hospital just this morning, Nora. Rod, there was no picture of

> you on the news services, surely?”

>

> I really don’t see how you can work this into his parents seeing the news, recognising Carol

> and linking her to the girl Rod describes ( and the real clincher is that he never mentions

> her by name until after a lot of discussion). It seems clear that they didn’t see the news

> and just don’t like the sound of her.

>

> Jane

Okay, drat, sounds like I’m wrong there. Where I am coming from (with poor textual references, evidently) is that when I read this first as a teenager I saw this as quite a taboo-breaker, even the HINT that a black girl might get involved with a white boy, even lost as they were on another world unfindable from Earth. I need hardly tell you that this has been a while. Heinlein was breaking taboos even with his young adult novels, of course. He definitely shook up my mind at the time. I read everything he wrote, avidly, and thought about the ideas —– and the possibilities thus exposed.

Phebe

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 196

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/26/2000

Author: Nuclear Waste

wrote in message

news:

> ddavitt wrote:

>

> >

> > The point seems to be that they still think of Rod as a child, due to the time in

> > stasis and he’s described Caroline as a violent flirt…..not what they want for

> > their baby boy. I don’t see any way that it could be disapproval on the grounds of

> > her race because they simply don’t know it.

> >

>

> They must have known it; the novel makes it clear that the recovery of that group was big

> news, covered widely on TV.

Yet coverage including Rod himself was not seen, and when told about it they did not believe it…

NW

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 197

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/25/2000

Author: dwrighsr

In article,

wrote:

> ddavitt wrote:

> >

> >”Interracial marriage” is a toughie because it’s emerged that Heinlein wrote

> > Rod as black. The clues are easily missed ( and I’m on record as being

> > unconvinced but that’s another story) but they are there.

I too am unconvinced, at least emotionally, and I have it on the highest authority that I am wrong.

My problem is that this book had a tremendous impact on me. I was born and raised in the South and within a year or two before reading this book had lived and subsequently moved out of a neighborhood which went from all white to all black. My family was among the last to move, I recall a number of angry neighborhood meetings where the mood of the times was ‘those …. aren’t going to take over our neighborhood’ Needless to say, I now see myself as having been very racist at that age. This book, because I really thought a lot of Robert Heinlein, and I saw him writing about a relationship between a ‘white boy’ and a ‘black girl’ that totally contradicted what I had been brought up to believe, I began the process of re-evaluating what I believed.

(snip)

> Right, I remember noting those clues almost from the first reading.

> Again I still feel it could be taken either way, but there are

> definite strong indications that would let one assume Rod to be black,

Heinlein is and has always been a master at leaving much to the imagination of the reader and letting the reader rely on his/her own unconscious assumptions.

The only real clue that I see to his being black, in the book that is, is the reference to Rod’s saying that Caroline looked like his sister Helen (or reminded him of her, I’m not sure of the exact quote). I have never considered this to be strong evidence at all, since I consider that many people can look like others regardless of their race. If one considers that to be evidence that he is black, then what do you do with the description of him at the end of the book where he has a ‘Wild Bill Cody’ look?

> and I felt it was something Heinlein was trying to insert as a

> back-handed way of getting past the censors who would probably never

> have allowed the main protagonist to be black back in those days –

> although he got away with strong secondary characters like Caroline,

> and Mr. Kiku from The Star Beast (who I find the most interesting

> character in that book).

Mr. Kiku was another step along the way for me as was Dr. Worthington in ‘Waldo and Magic’.

>

> However, as you say, it is subtle. If you want to think Rod is black

> you can certainly support your argument, but if you want to believe he

> is not there is really no problem with that either.

> —

> Debbie

David Wright

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 198

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/26/2000

Author: pheb

wrote:

> what do you do with

> the description of him at the end of the book where [Rod] has a ‘Wild Bill

>

> Cody’ look?

>

Right, long blond hair and a cowboy hat.

Phebe

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 199

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/26/2000

Author: Debbie Cusick

wrote:

>

> wrote:

>

> > what do you do with

> > the description of him at the end of the book where [Rod] has a ‘Wild Bill

> >

> > Cody’ look?

>

> Right, long blond hair and a cowboy hat.

Well, all I can say then is that you must have a *very* different edition of the book than I have, which describes Rod in this scene as having curly black hair. 🙂

Debbie

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 200

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/26/2000

Author: ddavitt

 

Debbie Cusick wrote:

> wrote:

> >

> > wrote:

> >

> > > what do you do with

> > > the description of him at the end of the book where [Rod] has a ‘Wild Bill

> > >

> > > Cody’ look?

> >

> > Right, long blond hair and a cowboy hat.

>

> Well, all I can say then is that you must have a *very* different

> edition of the book than I have, which describes Rod in this scene as

> having curly black hair. 🙂

>

> —

> Debbie

No it doesn’t! How many editions _are_ there? :-))) It says he’s,

‘a lean, homely young man with deep lines in his face, from sun and laughing and perhaps some from worry. [….] He was dressed in fringed buckskin, in imitation of a very old style; he wore a Bill Cody beard and rather long hair.”

That’s it…..no suggestion that his hair was the same colour as Cody’s ( whatever that was), just that he had a similar shaped beard. I would put money on there being no description at all of his hair colour in the whole book.

Jane

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 201

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/26/2000

Author: Debbie Cusick

ddavitt wrote:

>

> No it doesn’t! How many editions _are_ there? :-))) It says he’s,

>

> ‘a lean, homely young man with deep lines in his face, from sun and laughing and

> perhaps some from worry. [….] He was dressed in fringed buckskin, in imitation

> of a very old style; he wore a Bill Cody beard and rather long hair.”

Well, that’s what I get for trusting my memory. After all these years I should have learned better than to do that. 🙂 But I *knew* it didn’t say he had blond hair!

Debbie

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 202

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/27/2000

Author: dwrighsr

In article,

ddavitt

wrote:

> Debbie Cusick wrote:

>

> > wrote:

>

(snip)

> No it doesn’t! How many editions _are_ there? :-))) It says he’s,

>

> ‘a lean, homely young man with deep lines in his face, from sun and laughing and

> perhaps some from worry. [….] He was dressed in fringed buckskin, in imitation

> of a very old style; he wore a Bill Cody beard and rather long hair.”

>

> That’s it…..no suggestion that his hair was the same colour as Cody’s ( whatever

> that was), just that he had a similar shaped beard. I would put money on there

> being no description at all of his hair colour in the whole book.

>

> Jane

>

>

Jane, as usual, you are right. But this is precisely the type of thing that I was talking about on the discussion about ‘Sam Beaux’ in TCWWTW. Heinlein doesn’t spell it out, just gives you hints that make you *think* unconsciously one way or the other. Just as Rod could be black, (much as I find it difficult to admit it), Sam Beaux could be ‘white’ and therefore Colin is too, not black as many assume. With Heinlein, you simply can’t depend on possibly misleading descriptions and emotionally loaded names.

David

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 203

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/28/2000

Author: AGplusone

Dave Wright:

>Jane, as usual, you are right. But this is precisely the type of thing

>that I was talking about on the discussion about ‘Sam Beaux’ in TCWWTW.

>Heinlein doesn’t spell it out, just gives you hints that make you

>*think* unconsciously one way or the other. Just as Rod could be black,

>(much as I find it difficult to admit it), Sam Beaux could be ‘white’

>and therefore Colin is too, not black as many assume. With Heinlein,

>you simply can’t depend on possibly misleading descriptions and

>emotionally loaded names.

Another good example of this deliberate ambiguity is the name he chose for his lead in Stranger in a Strange Land:

Michael Valentine Smith

“Michael” can be a reference to St. Michael the Archangel, leader of the Heavenly Host, and perhaps, even, the foundation of religious orthodoxy.

“Valentine” can be a reference to the first St. Valentinus (who was transformed into a bland patron of idealized romance, about the time the Church started transforming Roman customs into Christian ones), but who really was the first major heretic, canonized before it became a heresy, a gnostic who nearly became Pope, losing an election to an orthodox bishop who set the Church on a course that resulted a couple centuries later eventually in the gnostics being declared heretic and expelled by the orthodox under the label Manichaeism. [Note: for a time the working title of SiaSL was “The Heretic”].

“Smith,” perhaps of course, stems from his comment to librarians, along the lines of “Imagine a Martian named Smith …” but also is the commonest surname in English, and leads to an inference of Everyman, IMO.

David M. Silver

“I expect your names to shine!”

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 204

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/26/2000

Author: pheb

Debbie Cusick wrote:

> wrote:

> >

> > wrote:

> >

> > > what do you do with

> > > the description of him at the end of the book where [Rod] has a ‘Wild Bill

> > >

> > > Cody’ look?

> >

> > Right, long blond hair and a cowboy hat.

>

> Well, all I can say then is that you must have a *very* different

> edition of the book than I have, which describes Rod in this scene as

> having curly black hair. 🙂

>

> —

> Debbie

I looked this up, and if it’s Wild Bill Hickock, I don’t know; but if it’s Buffalo Bill, he was a white man with long black curls, from a photo on the cover of a biography I have (I have it because his sister was a midwife and delivered my grandmother, a twin, in a sod house in Kansas).

“So who am I thinking of with the long blond hair?” I asked my husband, who knows everything. “Custer.” he said.

[:-)

Phebe

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 205

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/26/2000

Author: ddavitt

 

wrote:

>

>

> I looked this up, and if it’s Wild Bill Hickock, I don’t know; but if it’s Buffalo

> Bill, he was a white man with long black curls, from a photo on the cover of a

> biography I have (I have it because his sister was a midwife and delivered my

> grandmother, a twin, in a sod house in Kansas).

>

> “So who am I thinking of with the long blond hair?” I asked my husband, who knows

> everything. “Custer.” he said.

>

> [:-)

>

> Phebe

Here’s a link to a picture of the man himself….William Cody aka Buffalo Bill that is. http://www.buffalobill.org/history.htm

and

http://www.pbs.org/weta/thewest/wpages/wpgs400/w403_cod.htm

Very interesting about your grandmother!

Jane

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 206

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/28/2000

Author: Ogden Johnson III

wrote:

[Ditching the rest of the attributions, it’s messy enough as is]

>> > > what do you do with

>> > > the description of him at the end of the book where [Rod] has a ‘Wild Bill

>> > > Cody’ look?

>> > Right, long blond hair and a cowboy hat.

>> Well, all I can say then is that you must have a *very* different

>> edition of the book than I have, which describes Rod in this scene as

>> having curly black hair. 🙂

>I looked this up, and if it’s Wild Bill Hickock, I don’t know; but if it’s Buffalo

>Bill, he was a white man with long black curls, from a photo on the cover of a

>biography I have (I have it because his sister was a midwife and delivered my

>grandmother, a twin, in a sod house in Kansas).

>

>”So who am I thinking of with the long blond hair?” I asked my husband, who knows

>everything. “Custer.” he said.

>

>[:-)

In his later years, the Wild West Show days, Buffalo Bill – a tad older now, was always pictured with flowing white hair. It’s been years since I read anything about Wild Bill Hickock, but black hair pops into my mind – probably from one of the bios I read when the TV series with Guy Williams {?} was on. I did a *lot* of bio and history reading off ’50s TV. ;->

OJ III

[Well, heck, we had that wonderful HS library {thanks to Miss Dektor}, and the McLean branch of the Fairfax County public library had just been opened near Preston Drug Store, one of our “hangouts” in the pre-Mickey Ds, pre-Mall days.]

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 207

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/27/2000

Author: William Hughes

On Thu, 26 Oct 2000 15:05:09 -0400, in alt.fan.heinlein Debbie Cusick

wrote:

>

>

> wrote:

> >

> > wrote:

> >

> > > what do you do with

> > > the description of him at the end of the book where [Rod] has a ‘Wild Bill

> > >

> > > Cody’ look?

> >

> > Right, long blond hair and a cowboy hat.

>

> Well, all I can say then is that you must have a *very* different

> edition of the book than I have, which describes Rod in this scene as

> having curly black hair. 🙂

My copy doesn’t mention hair color, or a hat, for that matter:

“Their professional captain was with them, a lean, homely young man with deep lines in his face, from sun and laughing and perhaps some from worry… He was dressed in fringed buckskin, in imitation of a very old style; he wore a Bill Cody beard and rather long hair.”

Ace paperback #82660, 95c, no printing history.

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 208

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/26/2000

Author: Debbie Cusick

wrote:

>

> The only real clue that I see to his being black, in the book that is,

> is the reference to Rod’s saying that Caroline looked like his sister

> Helen (or reminded him of her, I’m not sure of the exact quote). I have

> never considered this to be strong evidence at all, since I consider

> that many people can look like others regardless of their race.

>

>then what do you do with

>the description of him at the end of the book where he has a ‘Wild Bill

>Cody’ look?

Indeed which is why the evidence is subtle and can be taken in more than one way. There is also a point where Caroline, thinking Rod to be dead, writes that he reminds her a lot of her little brother.

So you have a cross linking here. Caroline (definitely black), looks somewhat like Rod’s sister, and Caroline’s brother (also presumably black) looks somewhat like Rod. Because of these two statements one can believe Rod to be black, but need not.

I don’t have the book handy, but even in the part at the end where he is described as looking like Wild Bill I seem to recall he is also described as having curly black hair – which again could be taken as a black trait, but need not be.

Debbie

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 209

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/27/2000

Author: dwrighsr

In article,

wrote:

>

>

> wrote:

(snip)

> So you have a cross linking here. Caroline (definitely black), looks

> somewhat like Rod’s sister, and Caroline’s brother (also presumably

> black) looks somewhat like Rod. Because of these two statements one

> can believe Rod to be black, but need not.

>

(snip)

Debbie. The two phrases ‘reminds me’ and ‘looks like’ are not necessarily synonymous. And even ‘looks like’ does not *have* to include color.

I think that this is a definite *trick* of Heinlein’s. He uses such phrases to *make* things ambiguous, so that the *reader* puts his/her own input into the story. I rather like it, personally.

David

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 210

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/29/2000

Author: Debbie Cusick

wrote:

>

> Debbie. The two phrases ‘reminds me’ and ‘looks like’ are not

> necessarily synonymous. And even ‘looks like’ does not *have* to include

> color.

Oh I agree, which is why I say that the reader can believe whichever choice they prefer to believe. I like that too.

Debbie

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 211

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/22/2000

Author: Will

In article ,

Randiwrote:

> BPRAL22169 () arranged the electrons thusly…

> > A lot of people don’t believe that type of woman exists at all, but she/they

> > does/do.

> >

> > It’s my impression that Heinlein genuinely liked women and talked with (and

> > actually listened to) many different kinds of women all through his life. I

> > know it’s routine to say of men that they “like” women, but they don’t seem to

> > act like it. R, on the other hand, chose to spend day and night with his wife

> > for 40 years.

> > Bill

>

> You mean the wife he didn’t divorce, right? He chose to do

> quite the opposite with his first wife. 🙂

>

> I feel it important enough to point out that being open

> minded does not imply that a person is free of biases. I’m

> certain the guards at Auschwitz and Bergen-Belsen liked, and

> talked with, and actually listened to many different kinds of

> Jews as they herded them all into the showers.

>

> Many of Heinlein’s female protagonists seem to be poured

> from the same Nietzschean mold: Stalwart, ravishing beauties who

> shoot straight even when pregnant, and always get dinner on the

> table on time. Friday is arguably Heinlein’s most realistic and

> sympathetic female character. She is sexy, vulnerable,

> compassionate, loyal, confused — in short, quite like any real

> woman. By making her an artifact of an engineering process,

> Heinlein is implying that women like Friday don’t exist in

> nature. Feel free to disagree, but if you do, please explain why

> Friday is such a deviation from Heinlein’s standard uberbabe.

>

> -Randi

Feel free to disagree if you want to get the famous Randi ‘plonk.’ I really admire the moderation and reasonableness of the analogy with the Nazi concentration camp guards. I don’t talk with idiots so I will leave it at that.

Will

Dum Vivamus, Vivimus

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 212

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/22/2000

Author: Mac

I’ve inserted a couple of comments about Randi’s statements.

. .

Randi wrote in message …

BPRAL22169 () arranged the electrons

thusly…

> A lot of people don’t believe that type of woman exists at all, but she/they

> does/do.

>

> It’s my impression that Heinlein genuinely liked women and talked with (and

> actually listened to) many different kinds of women all through his life. I

> know it’s routine to say of men that they “like” women, but they don’t seem to

> act like it. R, on the other hand, chose to spend day and night with his wife

> for 40 years.

> Bill

RANDI:

You mean the wife he didn’t divorce, right? He chose to do quite the opposite with his first wife. 🙂

MAC:

How long was he with this woman? And, was there a condition which greatly exacerbated the relationship and mutated it into something more destructive than constructive?

======

RANDI:

I feel it important enough to point out that being open minded does not imply that a person is free of biases. I’m certain the guards at Auschwitz and Bergen-Belsen liked, and talked with, and actually listened to many different kinds of Jews as they herded them all into the showers.

MAC:

I’ve really confused as to how the Nazi guards, many of whom bought into the hate and the “unter-mensch” theory to justify the killing of more than 11-Million people in concentration camps can be said to have “liked” their prisoners. . . etc., etc., etc. Pardon me, but I fail to see the conection with the Nazi guards and a writter as Heinlein and the character he depicts, the people with whom he meets and listens to, if they display elemntary courtesy.

RANDI:

Many of Heinlein’s female protagonists seem to be poured from the same Nietzschean mold: Stalwart, ravishing beauties who shoot straight even when pregnant, and always get dinner on the table on time. Friday is arguably Heinlein’s most realistic and sympathetic female character. She is sexy, vulnerable, compassionate, loyal, confused — in short, quite like any real woman. By making her an artifact of an engineering process, Heinlein is implying that women like Friday don’t exist in nature. Feel free to disagree, but if you do, please explain why Friday is such a deviation from Heinlein’s standard uberbabe.

MAC:

Well, I’ve known women in the military and working in hospitals whom I would classify as beautiful — they were pretty but their intelligence and ability made them beautiful. And, to a woman, one would take risks to cross them. On the other hand, I have known women who are not even pretty and who choose to be victims; and far too many who chose to indulge in drugs, and too many who died and others whose choices landed them in psych-wards, jails, or trailer parks. . .

I’ve known women who work and work hard and still manage a household and share the chores of cooking and laundry and either party (( depending upon the day )) gets the dinner on the table on time and the house cleanned. . So what? That’s humanity.

Frankly, I’m glad that there is an author willing to write and celebrate competence, willing to write about a human (male or female)) willing to accept challenges. And, after having read Heinlein, as a kid, I had no interest in the southern California beach girls who could surf but couldn’t do quadratic equations and had no interest in challenging themselves. . .

—Mac

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 213

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/23/2000

Author: pheb

Mac wrote:

> And, after having read Heinlein, as a kid, I had no interest

> in the southern California beach girls who could surf but

> couldn’t do quadratic equations and had no interest in

> challenging themselves. . .

>

‘Course, they may well not have been throwing themselves at you, either.

I agreed with Randi’s points.

Phebe

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 214

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/23/2000

Author: Mac

wrote in message

Mac wrote:

> And, after having read Heinlein, as a kid, I had no interest

> in the southern California beach girls who could surf but

> couldn’t do quadratic equations and had no interest in

> challenging themselves. . .

======= ========

‘Course, they may well not have been throwing themselves at you, either. I agreed with Randi’s points.

Phebe

========

Not all of them, but enough.

Of course, that was in San Diego and in the ’60’s; before I went into the military. The women whose company I enjoyed studied Egyptology, or Astronomy, instead of surfing. And I am glad for you that you agree with Randi’s points. I don’t.

—Mac

(( Whose idea of an “exciting evening” now is sitting reading while watching the Redhead and the fire. . . and making a lap for two cats and standing ready to help the kids with homework))

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 215

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/23/2000

Author: pheb

Mac wrote:

> (( Whose idea of an “exciting evening” now is sitting

> reading while watching the Redhead and the fire. . . and

> making a lap for two cats and standing ready to help the

> kids with homework))

You sound like a good husband and father (rara avis) and are therefore totally forgiven.

[:-)

Phebe

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 216

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/21/2000

Author: ddavitt

 

Stephanie Vickers wrote:

> I know there has been some criticism of RAH’s

> portrayal of women. But, I think that would be the one question I had; how did

> he write his women, get inside their heads, and write in their voice? Sounds

> like an ignorant question, and if I got Nicholson’s reply back, I’d grin.

> Pretending at being a writer, I know how hard it can be (not is) to write

> believable genders. As unbelievably adept as his ladies are, RAH captured some

> of the more colorful nuances of the mentality, IMHO.

>

I don’t know Filly…. to me it all comes down to the question, is there a typical woman ( or man)? If there isn’t then an author can write about any character in any way and never be accused of depicting an unrealistic man or woman. Out of all the millions and millions of humans alive and dead, a few at least will be exact matches for any fictional human ever created and so the charge can never be made.

OTOH, I think that, within cultures, there are certain attitudes and reactions that occur frequently enough within a sex to be allowably ( if cautiously) used as a label. An author can use these universal beliefs and stereotypes to get swift identification with a character. It can be an easy and safe way of appealing to a reader. It can also mean that by going out on a limb and creating a character who steps outside the lines they alienate some readers in search of artistic integrity.

If you think Heinlein wrote believable women then perhaps it’s because either they appeal to you, you recognise yourself in them or you know someone similar. If you think he wrote about impossible role models then maybe it’s just that you don’t know anyone like that rather than Heinlein being overly imaginative ( when I say ‘you’, I mean a reader in general btw).

Jane

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 217

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/23/2000

Author: Degten

>Stephanie Vickers wrote:

>

>> I know there has been some criticism of RAH’s

>> portrayal of women. But, I think that would be the one question I had; how did

>> he write his women, get inside their heads, and write in their voice? Sounds

>> like an ignorant question, and if I got Nicholson’s reply back, I’d grin.

>> Pretending at being a writer, I know how hard it can be (not is) to write

>> believable genders. As unbelievably adept as his ladies are, RAH captured some

>> of the more colorful nuances of the mentality, IMHO.

>>

>

>I don’t know Filly…. to me it all comes down to the question, is there a typical

>woman ( or man)? If there isn’t then an author can write about any character in any

>way and never be accused of depicting an unrealistic man or woman. Out of all the

>millions and millions of humans alive and dead, a few at least will be exact

>matches for any fictional human ever created and so the charge can never be made.

>

>OTOH, I think that, within cultures, there are certain attitudes and reactions that

>occur frequently enough within a sex to be allowably ( if cautiously) used as a

>label. An author can use these universal beliefs and stereotypes to get swift

>identification with a character. It can be an easy and safe way of appealing to a

>reader. It can also mean that by going out on a limb and creating a character who

>steps outside the lines they alienate some readers in search of artistic integrity.

>

>If you think Heinlein wrote believable women then perhaps it’s because either they

>appeal to you, you recognise yourself in them or you know someone similar. If you

>think he wrote about impossible role models then maybe it’s just that you don’t

>know anyone like that rather than Heinlein being overly imaginative ( when I say

>’you’, I mean a reader in general btw).

>

>Jane

>

Perhaps reasonable women based on his experience at the time. Personally, I find many of his portrayals of women dated and annoying. Thats the fun about SF. It says more about the social mores of the time at which it is written than the future it portrays. I don’t see much of myself in the characters.

That being said, I have read and enjoyed the large majority of Heinlein’s work. I tend to ignore the stereotypical women. Save those “baby-chewed breasts”. Yeuch. I would love to hear what other female Heinlein fans think about the women.

DeDe

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 218

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/23/2000

Author: JenOMalley

>That being said, I have read and enjoyed the large majority of

>Heinlein’s work. I tend to ignore the stereotypical women.

>Save those “baby-chewed breasts”. Yeuch. I would love to hear what

>other female Heinlein fans think about the women.

>

>DeDe

For the most part, I like them…there are some exceptions…I think of them later, but at least most of the females aren’t neurotic about “baby-chewed” breasts, or the fact that they do get older….now whether or not that’s because some, like Mau, can look forward to rejuve, is up for debate also. It’s a nice change from the Barbie ideal….

JenO.

Give me chocolate, and no one gets hurt.

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 219

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/23/2000

Author: jeanette wolf

I hate the term “baby-chewed” breasts. It sounds painful. For anybody who doesn’t know, if a nursing baby is “hooked up” correctly, it is impossible for the baby to bite. The recommendation is to remove the baby from the breast when it stops sucking. In my experience it only takes one bite to remember this.

I am about halfway through Time Enough FL (after several years) and am again irritated that even though there are strong female characters, it is mainly the men who go off and have the adventures. It seems most of the women need to get married and start having babies as soon as they are mature. (Except for those providing services to men.)

Jeanette–who is very much for breast feeding and nursed both children long after they had teeth.

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 220

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/23/2000

Author: William Dennis

jeanette wolf wrote:

>

> I hate the term “baby-chewed” breasts. It sounds painful. For anybody

> who doesn’t know, if a nursing baby is “hooked up” correctly, it is

> impossible for the baby to bite. The recommendation is to remove the

> baby from the breast when it stops sucking. In my experience it only

> takes one bite to remember this.

>

> I am about halfway through Time Enough FL (after several years) and am

> again irritated that even though there are strong female characters, it

> is mainly the men who go off and have the adventures. It seems most of

> the women need to get married and start having babies as soon as they

> are mature. (Except for those providing services to men.)

>

> Jeanette–who is very much for breast feeding and nursed both children

> long after they had teeth.

Heinlein was just being realistic *gasp* in the use of the term “baby-chewed breasts.” His intention was to make the point that beauty cannot be defined by external appearance. Mama Maureen was loved and was beautiful, regardless of her appearance, because of intangible qualities.

If Heinlein’s female characters were all “uberbabes” somebody forgot to tell Maureen.

William Dennis II

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 221

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/25/2000

Author: pheb

jeanette wolf wrote:

>

> I am about halfway through Time Enough FL (after several years) and am

> again irritated that even though there are strong female characters, it

> is mainly the men who go off and have the adventures. It seems most of

> the women need to get married and start having babies as soon as they

> are mature. (Except for those providing services to men.)

>

> Jeanette–who is very much for breast feeding and nursed both children

> long after they had teeth.

Well, there you are; didn’t you prefer to have the baby experience to having male adventures? You could have done either. Most of us make your choice, I suspect. Having adventures in Kosovo or the next galaxy is much overrated, in my considered opinion. They only do it because they don’t know how to have babies.

Phebe

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 222

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/25/2000

Author: JenOMalley

> Having adventures in Kosovo or the next galaxy is much

>overrated, in my considered opinion. They only do it because they don’t

>know how to have babies.

>

>Phebe

Excuse me? I am sincerely hoping that the crack about Kosovo was sarcasm, or something other than serious, because I start train-up for the KFOR/Bosnia deployment in Feb. Making babies isn’t necessarily the only occupation, nor is the assumption that those of us who want to go out and do other things *just don’t know what we’re missing* is as irritating as Randi’s position that women who *want* to do that have a problem.

JenO.

I hate guard duty.

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 223

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/25/2000

Author: pheb

JenOMalley wrote:

> Excuse me? I am sincerely hoping that the crack about Kosovo was sarcasm, or

> something other than serious, because I start train-up for the KFOR/Bosnia

> deployment in Feb. Making babies isn’t necessarily the only occupation, nor is

> the assumption that those of us who want to go out and do other things *just

> don’t know what we’re missing* is as irritating as Randi’s position that women

> who *want* to do that have a problem.

>

Well, don’t bother to be irritated, because you’ll need to limit distractions over there. Yes, Kosovo was simply the first example I could think of, because we discuss it on my War and Politics list so much. I know a guy who served in Bosnia and Macedonia, and he got hazardous duty pay just for being there, and deserved it, too.

Of course having babies isn’t the only occupation possible for women, and you should certainly suit yourself.

Phebe

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 224

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/25/2000

Author: JenOMalley

>

>Well, don’t bother to be irritated, because you’ll need to limit distractions over

>there.

Pardon? I should still be able to access this ng over there. There are land lines and laptops, and I’ll be working four days on and three off…

> I know a guy who served in Bosnia

>and Macedonia, and he got hazardous duty pay just for being there, and

>deserved it,

>too.

>

Okay, got that….I’ll get Haz Duty, and Family Separation and per diem too, but that doesn’t apply to the comment that you made about men wanting to go off and have grand adventures in the next galaxy because they can’t have babies.

>

>Of course having babies isn’t the only occupation possible for women, and you

>should certainly suit yourself.

>

>Phebe

Okay.

JenO.

Soldier Grrrl â„¢

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 225

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/25/2000

Author: jeanette wolf

Phebe–While I personally am happy that I have been able stay home and raise children, I don’t think it is the “adventure” for everybody. I also need to point out that I have been able to do this because someone else has been supportive both emotionally and economically.

Speaking for myself again, I did not have my first child until I was 28. I had “experienced the world” a little bit and knew that getting up and going to work everyday is not all that glamorous.

I used the word “irritated” in the post because I know RAH was not being sexist on purpose. I had just finished reading about the twins who weren’t and about LL’s domestic life on Landfall. Things that bothered me: His wife was pretty and good company but he wasn’t too upset when she found someone else. (Although he seemed to take pleasure in thinking that the new husband was disappointed that she didn’t have more than her wedding dower plus appreciation. In fairness, wouldn’t she have been entitled to half of the assets gained during their marriage?)

In a couple places he implies that the man makes the money and has to be careful that the wife doesn’t spend too much (on clothes). He is not really surprised that Llita is the more practical one of the pair–but in the other situations, it is the man who must be in charge.

He left quite a bit of value to the two older children but for the others–the boys were off-planet and the girls were all married (presumably with a wedding dower). His own marriage seemed kind of disposable, but didn’t he think his children (and grandchildren) would miss him? I guess that it is the “disposable family” that bothers me. Did he encourage any of his daughters to do anything other than marry–what if their husbands got bored with them?

It was very important that the girls not be stuck with a defective child. He didn’t seem too concerned that they might be stuck with a perfect child and no education or partner to help them. I don’t know–it seemed like experimenting with sex as soon as the kids were interested was just fine as long as the girl couldn’t get pregnant. It seems to me that adolescents have enough problems with who is calling who after school this week. I don’t have experience–but in high school age “free love (sex)” situations is the emotional attachment able to be avoided (and is this a good thing)?

I know it would have stopped the book if he had stayed and all short-lived grandfathers eventually leave. His domestic situation was not what the story was about–but, as he was able to dismiss it so easily, it bothered me.

Jeanette

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 226

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/25/2000

Author: pheb

jeanette wolf wrote:

> Although he seemed to take pleasure in

> thinking that the new husband was disappointed that she didn’t have more

> than her wedding dower plus appreciation. In fairness, wouldn’t she

> have been entitled to half of the assets gained during their marriage?

Interesting! I never thought of that. A signal that Heinlein did not approve of current American divorce laws, I would bet. A lot of men don’t think a woman is entitled to half, of course. Your next passage probably sheds light on why he limited what a woman could take from a marriage.

> In a couple places he implies that the man makes the money and has to be

> careful that the wife doesn’t spend too much (on clothes). He is not

> really surprised that Llita is the more practical one of the pair–but

> in the other situations, it is the man who must be in charge.

>

>

> His own marriage seemed kind of

> disposable, but didn’t he think his children (and grandchildren) would

> miss him? I guess that it is the “disposable family” that bothers me.

>

It always bothered me, too; it’s one of the main reasons I don’t like late Heinlein. All very well for his fictional characters: in real life he had a long and loyal marriage, and no children at all! I am convinced that his having no children of his own made the theme of incest possible for him to write. If he had had a daughter, instinct would have kicked in and he couldn’t have written it. Not to mention the scandal there would have been!

>

>

> It was very important that the girls not be stuck with a defective

> child.

Yeah, that’s very important, all right. Just not always what happens.

> He didn’t seem too concerned that they might be stuck with a

> perfect child and no education or partner to help them. I don’t

> know–it seemed like experimenting with sex as soon as the kids were

> interested was just fine as long as the girl couldn’t get pregnant. It

> seems to me that adolescents have enough problems with who is calling

> who after school this week. I don’t have experience–but in high school

> age “free love (sex)” situations is the emotional attachment able to be

> avoided (and is this a good thing)?

Heinlein didn’t have a clue about these matters. He thought — in his late years — that everyone was about hormoned libido, sex on demand, and never mind the idea of relationships. This is total emotional catastrophe for women and girls, often, I agree.

We like the books because they are thought provoking, I suppose, not because they are models of a utopian society.

Phebe

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 227

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/25/2000

Author: PrinceOfBaja

Jeanette and Phebe discussed the social and sexual mores of TEfL at length:

 

What you both need to do is look at the book and the themes therein from the POV of a “Howard,” rather than an “etheral.” Even in our earlier generations, there were divorces and other, less-formalized, means in use when relationships withered. In the context of the book, and the extended life-span of the Howards, what marriage COULD possibly last “Until death do us part?” People who have a life-expectancy of 70 +/- years grow apart often, due to many causes. For a person with a life-expectancy of centuries, NOT changing would be the abnormal, rather than the norm. (Or else you would end up with a lot of stultified, concretized [is that a word?] folks walking around like zombies. Who wants to remain in the same locale for 3-400 years, plying the same trade and engaging in the same recreational activities? I certainly would become bored to hysteria, and I’m sure most everyone on this NG would, as well.

As to the splitting of assets, where did it say that the wife in question didn’t get half the assets garnered during the marriage? It would be insane for anyone to expect half of LL’s total assets, after being married to him for 30-40 years!

In my own impending divorce, I am asking for, and receiving much less than half the assets of my marriage, simply because for the majority of the marriage, my spouse earned quite a bit more than half the household income. I don’t feel I’m entitled to things I didn’t help purchase. No one else should, either.(I know, there are intangibles brought to any relationship; but, let’s face it, total equality in splitting material assets is not really the “fair” decision a lot of times)

As always, that’s just my opinion, of course.

Steve

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 228

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/26/2000

Author: pheb

PrinceOfBaja wrote:

> In the context of the book, and the extended life-span of the

> Howards, what marriage COULD possibly last “Until death do us part?” People who

> have a life-expectancy of 70 +/- years grow apart often, due to many causes.

> For a person with a life-expectancy of centuries, NOT changing would be the

> abnormal, rather than the norm.

Yes, that is the really interesting idea point, I think. What do people do with eternal life? A few authors have dealt with this issue (Egan, notably) but Heinlein puts relationships into the question. I agree it’s a very thought-provoking question —- especially as now when people at least in developed countries actually live to be a healthy 45-55, we see the male mid-life crisis completely destroying the institution of marriage as it was when people didn’t live long enough to get that genetic urge to go out and get a young floozy preggers, quick before it’s too late. How much more would the institution of marriage be changed by immortality.

Phebe

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 229

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/26/2000

Author: Gaeltach

wrote:

> PrinceOfBaja wrote:

>

> > In the context of the book, and the extended life-span of the

> > Howards, what marriage COULD possibly last “Until death do us part?” People who

> > have a life-expectancy of 70 +/- years grow apart often, due to many causes.

> > For a person with a life-expectancy of centuries, NOT changing would be the

> > abnormal, rather than the norm.

>

> Yes, that is the really interesting idea point, I think. What do people do with

> eternal life? A few authors have dealt with this issue (Egan, notably) but Heinlein

> puts relationships into the question. I agree it’s a very thought-provoking

> question —- especially as now when people at least in developed countries

> actually live to be a healthy 45-55, we see the male mid-life crisis completely

> destroying the institution of marriage as it was when people didn’t live long

> enough to get that genetic urge to go out and get a young floozy preggers, quick

> before it’s too late. How much more would the institution of marriage be changed by

> immortality.

While I’m not completely sure if the “male mid-life crisis” is purely a recent phenomenon related to longevity, I would not single it out as the major cause for “destroying the institution of marriage” in this day and age. The statement seems to throw all the blame for broken marriages on unfaithful husbands, which statistics clearly show is not the case. As for the question “How much more would the institution of marriage be changed by immortality?”, we can only guess, and perhaps find reasonable answers in Heinlein’s later works.

Sean

…. and now for something completely different: Ma is a nun, as I am.

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 230

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/26/2000

Author: jeanette wolf

Steve–I don’t know enough about your marriage and finances to comment on your situation and how assets should be divided. I will tell you something about mine.

Between my small savings I had at the time of my marriage and the money I made before we had children (and a short term job a few years ago), I have contributed less that $50,000 in the 26 years. Needless to say, my husband who has been paid for his work has contributed considerably more. He also has been building a retirement plan. I think I have about $2000 in a plan from a job before my marriage.

My being home has allowed him to have children and a relatively unencumbered professional life. He is a good father and does a lot with the children. But, except for emergency situations, he has been available to travel and work the hours he needs to without thinking about who will be responsible for the children. If he had needed to take off work for sick children or appointments that could only be scheduled during the work day, being home at a set time to drive the kids to whatever, or shop and have meals ready when the children needed them, he would not have been as effective in his job and probably would not be making as much money as he does now. That is just part of what he has not had to do.

I agree that if one of us had come into the marriage with a large amount of money, or inherited something in our own name, that should not be subject to division in case of a divorce. I am all for pre-marriage agreements. In my case, neither of us went into the marriage with a lot of assets. I have contributed value to our partnership–just not money. If we were to divorce, money is the concrete thing we have to divide. Believe me, I would have a good lawyer.

In TEFL it is specified that the wife had her marriage dower plus interest. Unless he considered assets gained during the marriage as part of the interest, all she got from those years was room, board, and pretty clothes.

Thinking of the disposable nature of the family–my words. I don’t expect that if you were going to live (and be healthy) for centuries that you would want a ’till death partnership. It just occurred to me that, in most cases LL’s various families were more like a litter of puppies–have fun with them for a while then when they are big enough, let them go and start a new one. After a lot of litters, it becomes just a business and not special. Will have to think on this more.

Jeanette

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 231

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/27/2000

Author: PrinceOfBaja

Jeanette wrote:

 

Jeanette, your situation is nothing like mine. The division of assets in my divorce would be very unfair if it were 50-50. Take my word for it. We both worked, and both took care of the house. She paid for more of the material assets than I did, and I didn’t really want them, anyway, as I wasn’t setting up another house, and she was.

>It just occurred to me

>that, in most cases LL’s various families were more like a litter of

>puppies–have fun with them for a while then when they are big enough,

>let them go and start a new one. After a lot of litters, it becomes

>just a business and not special. Will have to think on this more.

Why are you ascribing this attitude solely to LL? From the books, it is quite obvious that it is the prevailing attitude among Howards. The women in the Howard set are equally as blase about consanguinity and “keeping in touch.”

Steve

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 232

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/28/2000

Author: jeanette wolf

Steve–I had hoped it was clear from my first paragraph that I was not making a judgement on your situation, especially since I knew nothing about it. From what further information you gave, it sounds like you have a reasonable solution and a more satisfactory (if that is an appropriate term) parting than many are able to achieve.

I used myself as an example because I felt the division of paid/unpaid contribution to the marriage was probably similar to the one in the story.

I am still mulling over my serial family as litter idea. My current thinking is “why bother”. I am disturbed by the woman who was idealized for having 100 children in 200 years. All I can think of is “go forth and multiply”. My conditioning is that each child has an individual value. There should be better reasons for having children than just to “ring the cash register” (is the the correct term–haven’t read Sail for a while). I am at the point in TEFL where the “family” is settled on Tertius. The “let’s crank out as many as we can” attitude does not seem to be present and the children that are there seem to me to be more wanted. The adults are finding other things to occupy their time.

Jeanette–wondering how much the Howards contributed to the over-population of the home planet.

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 233

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/29/2000

Author: dwrighsr

In article,

(jeanette wolf) wrote:

(snip)

> Jeanette–wondering how much the Howards contributed to the

> over-population of the home planet.

>

>

I don’t see how they could have contributed much if any. There were roughly a 100,000 of them by the time of the exodus,(a drop in the bucket), and they, apparently, all left.

Even in the later stories, then tended to be minority, except on Secundus and Tertius.

David

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 234

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/29/2000

Author: Nuclear Waste

>

> Jeanette–wondering how much the Howards contributed to the

> over-population of the home planet.

As they all left in one ship and the problem was still therre without them, it would seem that they did not contribute much…

😉

NW

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 235

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/29/2000

Author: William Dennis

Nuclear Waste wrote:

>

> >

> > Jeanette–wondering how much the Howards contributed to the

> > over-population of the home planet.

>

> As they all left in one ship and the problem was still therre without them,

> it would seem that they did not contribute much…

>

> 😉

>

> NW

>

> >

The problem isn’t that the contributed to the population.

Read the TEFL, there is a discussion on how the Howards contributed to the problems of Earth simply by migrating away to other worlds, much in the same way Europe’s problems started by the migration of their best and brightest to the US of A.

William Dennis II

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 236

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/31/2000

Author: pheb

William Dennis wrote:

> Read the TEFL, there is a discussion on how the Howards contributed to

> the problems of Earth simply by migrating away to other worlds, much in

> the same way Europe’s problems started by the migration of their best

> and brightest to the US of A.

Quite right!! That’s what I keep saying on a War and Politics international list, and for some reason, they don’t seem to like it. But it’s true, and it sure works for us!

Phebe

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 237

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 11/01/2000

Author: williamdennis

In article,

wrote:

> William Dennis wrote:

>

> > Read the TEFL, there is a discussion on how the Howards contributed to

> > the problems of Earth simply by migrating away to other worlds, much in

> > the same way Europe’s problems started by the migration of their best

> > and brightest to the US of A.

>

> Quite right!! That’s what I keep saying on a War and Politics international list,

> and for some reason, they don’t seem to like it. But it’s true, and it sure works

> for us!

>

Of course they don’t like it. It is an opinion that conflicts with the silly notion that everyone is equal.

William Dennis

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 238

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/27/2000

Author: reillocnl

In article,

(jeanette wolf) wrote:

>

> I agree that if one of us had come into the marriage with a large amount

> of money, or inherited something in our own name, that should not be

> subject to division in case of a divorce. I am all for pre-marriage

> agreements. In my case, neither of us went into the marriage with a lot

> of assets. I have contributed value to our partnership–just not money.

> If we were to divorce, money is the concrete thing we have to divide.

> Believe me, I would have a good lawyer.

Take a look at Brian’s attitude in TSBTS when he and Maureen divorced and then at her solution. She told him, flat out there was no, bullshit, three-way split and if he didn’t want to divide the assets– all of them–without a lawyer she’d have the best one money could buy. The judgment of the parties to a divorce is clouded by the superabundance of intense emotions attendant. Even if you think you know what’s right and fair you’re a fool not to get an outside opinion on what you have a legal right to reasonably expect.

> Thinking of the disposable nature of the family–my words. I don’t

> expect that if you were going to live (and be healthy) for centuries

> that you would want a ’till death partnership. It just occurred to me

> that, in most cases LL’s various families were more like a litter of

> puppies–have fun with them for a while then when they are big enough,

> let them go and start a new one. After a lot of litters, it becomes

> just a business and not special. Will have to think on this more.

I’m a grandfather. Grandchildren are great for just the reason all the rest of the grandparents say they are: you get to enjoy them and then they go home with their parents. How’s the notion of not just fertility but having a baby at 75 hit you, Jeannette? Even a Howard 75 where you look and feel 30 and you know you’re still, emotionally, beyond and have been through already raising your own babies. I think a lot of this stuff was easy for RAH to say but I’d like to see him do it.

>

> Jeanette

LNC

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 239

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/27/2000

Author: Stephanie Vickers

>I’m a grandfather. Grandchildren are great for just the reason all the

>rest of the grandparents say they are: you get to enjoy them and then

>they go home with their parents. How’s the notion of not just fertility

>but having a baby at 75 hit you, Jeannette? Even a Howard 75 where you

>look and feel 30 and you know you’re still, emotionally, beyond and

>have been through already raising your own babies. I think a lot of

>this stuff was easy for RAH to say but I’d like to see him do it.

>LNC

I don’t know. My biology teacher pointed out that due to our socio-economics, we are more prepared for children late in life, both financially and responsibly. This seems to be reflected through a trend of the 80s/90s, of career women holding off until the last (safe) years to have their babies. I know if I could have had the energy of a thirty year old at a later age, I would have gladly waited to have children. I hate having to debate between giving them the diapers that stop rashes and the cheapies just because money is so tight three dollars or so does really matter.

I don’t want to live forever, but, darn it all, I wish I had that extra century of youth and vitality of a Howard from the twentieth century group.

Filly

“You can’t depend on your eyes when your imagination is out of focus.”

–Mark Twain

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 240

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/27/2000

Author: reillocnl

In article,

kbloc (PrinceOfBaja) wrote:

> Jeanette and Phebe discussed the social and sexual mores of TEfL at

length:

>

>

>

> What you both need to do is look at the book and the themes therein from the

> POV of a “Howard,” rather than an “etheral.”

“ephemeral”

>

> In my own impending divorce, I am asking for, and receiving much less than half

> the assets of my marriage, simply because for the majority of the marriage, my

> spouse earned quite a bit more than half the household income. I don’t feel I’m

> entitled to things I didn’t help purchase. No one else should, either. (I know,

> there are intangibles brought to any relationship; but, let’s face it, total

> equality in splitting material assets is not really the “fair” decision a lot

> of times)

>

> As always, that’s just my opinion, of course.

>

> Steve

You need a better lawyer, Steve.

LNC

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 241

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/27/2000

Author: PrinceOfBaja

LCN sagely corrected me thusly:

>”ephemeral”

Gee, thanks; my life is so much richer now.

then advised:

>You need a better lawyer, Steve.

You’re just full of it, aren’t you? Full of advice, I mean; I would never imply that your eyes are unnaturally brown. If I want legal advice, I’ll consult a legal professional. If I want idiotic statements, I’ll be sure to call you. Fair enough? Or maybe you are a lawyer; that would explain your ignorance of the concept of fairness.

Steve

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 242

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/27/2000

Author: reillocnl

In article,

kbloc (PrinceOfBaja) wrote:

> LCN sagely corrected me thusly:

>

> >”ephemeral”

>

> Gee, thanks; my life is so much richer now.

>

No charge, Steve, your new-found wealth notwithstanding.

> then advised:

>

> >You need a better lawyer, Steve.

>

> You’re just full of it, aren’t you? Full of advice, I mean; I would never imply

> that your eyes are unnaturally brown. If I want legal advice, I’ll consult a

> legal professional. If I want idiotic statements, I’ll be sure to call you.

> Fair enough? Or maybe you are a lawyer; that would explain your ignorance of

> the concept of fairness.

I’m a lawyer, Steve. I do divorces. Fair’s all you can get, Steve, because if you don’t Steve comes back and sues you later for being “fair.” If Steve insists on being fair, Steve gets a letter reminding his it was his decision to be “fair.” Fair enough?

>

> Steve

>

LNC

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 243

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/28/2000

Author: PrinceOfBaja

LCN wrote:

>I’m a lawyer, Steve. I do divorces. Fair’s all you can get, Steve,

>because if you don’t Steve comes back and sues you later for

>being “fair.” If Steve insists on being fair, Steve gets a letter

>reminding his it was his decision to be “fair.” Fair enough?

Why are you bothering me with this? I have already stated that the terms we have agreed to are acceptable to me. You are the one who pontificated that I need a better lawyer. I said I was content with the way things are, and that I didn’t want more than I’m getting. Is it just your nature to tell people what to do, or are you trying to drum up some business?

Steve

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 244

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/28/2000

Author: Mac

PrinceOfBaja wrote in message

LCN wrote:

>I’m a lawyer, Steve. I do divorces. Fair’s all you can get, Steve,

>because if you don’t Steve comes back and sues you later for

>being “fair.” If Steve insists on being fair, Steve gets a letter

>reminding his it was his decision to be “fair.” Fair enough?

===================

Why are you bothering me with this? I have already stated that the terms we have agreed to are acceptable to me. You are the one who pontificated that I need a better lawyer. I said I was content with the way things are, and that I didn’t want more than I’m getting. Is it just your nature to tell people what to do, or are you trying to drum up some business? Steve

*****************

Hmmm, the person admitted to being a lawyer. Explains quite a lot regarding the pontificating and posturing. . . Steve, good for you on quietly deciding what was fair to you and working it out with your former partner. And, Steve, how can someone not know to what “Baja” refers ? Especially if claiming to be literate? If one has read Heinlein and Twain, is there not a reasonable chance one has also read Steinbeck? Anyway, Steve, hope you are settling in there and finding some time in your hectic daily schedule for some fishing. .

.

—Mac

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 245

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/28/2000

Author: Will

In article,

“Mac” wrote:

>

> PrinceOfBaja wrote in message

>…

> LCN wrote:

> >I’m a lawyer, Steve. I do divorces. Fair’s all you can get, Steve,

> >because if you don’t Steve comes back and sues you later for

> >being “fair.” If Steve insists on being fair, Steve gets a letter

> >reminding his it was his decision to be “fair.” Fair enough?

> ===================

> Why are you bothering me with this? I have already stated

> that the terms we

> have agreed to are acceptable to me. You are the one who

> pontificated that I

> need a better lawyer. I said I was content with the way

> things are, and that I

> didn’t want more than I’m getting. Is it just your nature to

> tell people what

> to do, or are you trying to drum up some business?

> Steve

> *****************

> Hmmm, the person admitted to being a lawyer.

> Explains quite a lot regarding the pontificating and

> posturing. . .

> Steve, good for you on quietly deciding what was fair to you

> and working it out with your former partner.

> And, Steve, how can someone not know to what “Baja” refers ?

> Especially if claiming to be literate?

> If one has read Heinlein and Twain, is there not a

> reasonable chance one has also read Steinbeck?

> Anyway, Steve, hope you are settling in there and finding

> some time in your hectic daily schedule for some fishing. .

> .

> —Mac

>

>

Mac, I would envy someone who had not read Steinbeck if they were going to start doing so today. In fact, RAH and Twain fall into the same category.

Baja means “below” in a geographical sense as in the state of Baja Oklahoma, sometimes known as Tejas.

Will

Dum Vivamus, Vivimus

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 246

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/28/2000

Author: Nuclear Waste

“Will”wrote in message news:8teiq6$ir8

> Baja means “below” in a geographical sense as in the state of Baja

> Oklahoma, sometimes known as Tejas.

NOTHING, I repeat, NOTHING, is lower than Oklahoma.

Hook ’em Horns!

NW

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 247

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/28/2000

Author: Ogden Johnson III

“Nuclear Waste”wrote:

>”Will”wrote in message news:8teiq6$ir8

>> Baja means “below” in a geographical sense as in the state of Baja

>> Oklahoma, sometimes known as Tejas.

>NOTHING, I repeat, NOTHING, is lower than Oklahoma.

>

>Hook ’em Horns!

Sooners 31, ‘huskers 14. Nebraska follows Texas into oblivion.

OJ III

[Who spent one summer between 9th/10th grade in summer school at OU’s HS.]

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 248

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/29/2000

Author: Nuclear Waste

“Ogden Johnson III” wrote in message news:

> “Nuclear Waste”wrote:

>

> >”Will”wrote in message news:8teiq6$ir8

>

> >> Baja means “below” in a geographical sense as in the state of Baja

> >> Oklahoma, sometimes known as Tejas.

>

> >NOTHING, I repeat, NOTHING, is lower than Oklahoma.

> >

> >Hook ’em Horns!

>

> Sooners 31, ‘huskers 14. Nebraska follows Texas into oblivion.

>

> OJ III

> [Who spent one summer between 9th/10th grade in summer school at OU’s

> HS.]

You would think after admitting to being a Jarhead, one would be a bit reticent about any Okie admissions…

NW

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 249

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/30/2000

Author: PrinceOfBaja

NW erroneously postured:

>NOTHING, I repeat, NOTHING, is lower than Oklahoma.

Actually, I remember my mother telling me a story about her move to CA, back during the dust bowl. Seems the folks from Arkansas were quite eager to claim to be Okies, rather than admit to being *Arkies*. This amused by Oklahoma-born and bred, “dirty little Indian” to no end. Especially since my Dad’s Arkansas family had belittled her so much before and after they got married.

Steve

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 250

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/31/2000

Author: Nuclear Waste

“PrinceOfBaja”wrote in message

news:

> NW erroneously postured:

>

> >NOTHING, I repeat, NOTHING, is lower than Oklahoma.

>

> Actually, I remember my mother telling me a story about her move to CA, back

> during the dust bowl. Seems the folks from Arkansas were quite eager to claim

> to be Okies, rather than admit to being *Arkies*. This amused by Oklahoma-born

> and bred, “dirty little Indian” to no end. Especially since my Dad’s Arkansas

> family had belittled her so much before and after they got married.

Hmmm, I stand (sit) corrected.

Jim

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 251

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 11/01/2000

Author: FREEMAN

Nuclear Wastewrote in message

news:

>

> “Will”wrote in message news:8teiq6$ir8

>

> > Baja means “below” in a geographical sense as in the state of Baja

> > Oklahoma, sometimes known as Tejas.

>

> NOTHING, I repeat, NOTHING, is lower than Oklahoma.

>

>

> Hook ’em Horns!

>

> NW

Quick OT Joke:

Q: Why doesn’t Texas slide into the Gulf of Mexico?

A: Cause Oklahoma sucks!

Adam

(unrepented Texan)

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 252

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 11/05/2000

Author: charles krin

On Wed, 01 Nov 2000 03:34:45 GMT, “FREEMAN”wrote:

>

>Nuclear Wastewrote in message

>news:

>>

>> “Will”wrote in message news:8teiq6$ir8

>>

>> > Baja means “below” in a geographical sense as in the state of Baja

>> > Oklahoma, sometimes known as Tejas.

>>

>> NOTHING, I repeat, NOTHING, is lower than Oklahoma.

>>

>>

>> Hook ’em Horns!

>>

>> NW

>

>Quick OT Joke:

>Q: Why doesn’t Texas slide into the Gulf of Mexico?

>

>A: Cause Oklahoma sucks!

>

>Adam

>(unrepented Texan)

>

Why is Oklahoma so windy???

Because Texas sucks and Kansas blows….

ck

unrepentant transplanted Corn husker…

Charles S. Krin, DO FAAFP,Member,PGBFH,KC5EVN

Email address dump file for spam: reply to ckrin at Iamerica dot net

F*S=k (Freedom times Security equals a constant: the more

security you have, the less freedom! Niven’s Fourth Law)

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 253

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/26/2000

Author: Randi

()

arranged the electrons thusly…

[snip]

> It always bothered me, too; it’s one of the main reasons I don’t like late

> Heinlein. All very well for his fictional characters: in real life he had a

> long and loyal marriage, and no children at all! I am convinced that his

> having no children of his own made the theme of incest possible for him to

> write. If he had had a daughter, instinct would have kicked in and he

> couldn’t have written it. Not to mention the scandal there would have been!

It must be a very interesting definition of “loyal” you have, that you can use it to characterize his *third* marriage. I guess “until death do us part” and “cleave unto her” doesn’t count the first couple of times, hmm?

FWIW, I think the instinct to copulate can trump any cultural or social taboo, which is how I would characterize what you are characterizing as instinct. NB: I am not suggesting that RAH would have committed incest had he sired children; rather, that there might be more than one instinct in play when *any* father regards his daughter. I spend quite a bit of time and money supporting shelters for battered women and children; the number of daughters raped by their natural fathers in Arizona alone is sickening. Whatever protection children have from their parents, instinctual or otherwise, seems to be overridden on a disgustingly regular basis — perhaps by stronger or more fundamental instincts.

A regular poster here (btw, has anybody seen Jani lately?) once suggested to me that Heinlein’s sterility made him an emotional eunuch. I didn’t really understand what she meant until now. I think that what she meant was that Heinlein had no direct experience of parenthood, of the emotion that flows from parent to child. I think this could account for the stylized intrafamilial relations in his work. I’m thinking particularly of the whole Long family dynamic in _TEfL_. Everybody had a well defined role to play, so there really was no need for emotion to bind that family together. Come to think of it, Corporal Ted Bronson didn’t really fit in until a role (lost cousin) was invented for him by Ira.

-Randi

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 254

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/26/2000

Author: pheb

Randi wrote:

>

> It must be a very interesting definition of “loyal” you

> have, that you can use it to characterize his *third* marriage.

> I guess “until death do us part” and “cleave unto her” doesn’t

> count the first couple of times, hmm?

Waaadaminud! I thought Heinlein only had TWO marriages, the one that broke up early on, and then the one to Virginia??? What was the true situation there, biographers?

>

>

> FWIW, I think the instinct to copulate can trump any

> cultural or social taboo, which is how I would characterize what

> you are characterizing as instinct. NB: I am not suggesting

> that RAH would have committed incest had he sired children;

> rather, that there might be more than one instinct in play when

> *any* father regards his daughter. I spend quite a bit of time

> and money supporting shelters for battered women and children;

> the number of daughters raped by their natural fathers in Arizona

> alone is sickening. Whatever protection children have from their

> parents, instinctual or otherwise, seems to be overridden on a

> disgustingly regular basis — perhaps by stronger or more

> fundamental instincts.

>

Okay. I bow to your experience, and respect your work and charity, which sound very useful.

>

> I think that what she meant was that Heinlein had no

> direct experience of parenthood, of the emotion that flows from

> parent to child. I think this could account for the stylized

> intrafamilial relations in his work.

Well, this is actually what I meant, I realize. Heinlein not being a parent left him more free to fantasize certain relationships than [most] men who have families.

Phebe

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 255

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/26/2000

Author: ddavitt

 

wrote:

> Randi wrote:

>

> >

> > It must be a very interesting definition of “loyal” you

> > have, that you can use it to characterize his *third* marriage.

> > I guess “until death do us part” and “cleave unto her” doesn’t

> > count the first couple of times, hmm?

>

> Waaadaminud! I thought Heinlein only had TWO marriages, the one that broke up

> early on, and then the one to Virginia??? What was the true situation there,

> biographers?

>

>

From an intriguing hint David Silver dropped, it looks as if there may be more information in the next issue of the Heinlein Journal. AFAIK, the issue of a first wife was raised because Heinlein is described as divorced on his marriage certificate to Leslyn. He and Leslyn split up after her chronic alcoholism had rendered their marriage untenable. I think parallels with Grace Farnham are possible. Randi’s digs are based on no knowledge of the situation in the first marriage and a rather harsh judgement of the second IMO.

Jane

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 256

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/27/2000

Author: Randi

ddavitt () arranged the electrons thusly…

> wrote:

>

> > Randi wrote:

> >

> > >

> > > It must be a very interesting definition of “loyal” you

> > > have, that you can use it to characterize his *third* marriage.

> > > I guess “until death do us part” and “cleave unto her” doesn’t

> > > count the first couple of times, hmm?

> >

> > Waaadaminud! I thought Heinlein only had TWO marriages, the one that broke up

> > early on, and then the one to Virginia??? What was the true situation there,

> > biographers?

> From an intriguing hint David Silver dropped, it looks as if there may be more

> information in the next issue of the Heinlein Journal.

> AFAIK, the issue of a first wife was raised because Heinlein is described as

> divorced on his marriage certificate to Leslyn. He and Leslyn split up after her

> chronic alcoholism had rendered their marriage untenable. I think parallels with

> Grace Farnham are possible. Randi’s digs are based on no knowledge of the situation

> in the first marriage and a rather harsh judgement of the second IMO.

>

> Jane

Geesh. What more knowledge did I need, Jane?

-Randi

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 257

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/27/2000

Author: ddavitt

 

Randi wrote:

> . Randi’s digs are based on no knowledge of the situation

> > in the first marriage and a rather harsh judgement of the second IMO.

> >

> > Jane

>

> Geesh. What more knowledge did I need, Jane?

>

> -Randi

>

Umm….you don’t know why the first marriage broke up; she could have found someone else, it could have been a marriage of convenience because she was pregnant and maybe the baby died…I can think of lots of reasons why the marriage didn’t last that wouldn’t be due to disloyalty on Heinlein’s part ( which is what you are implying). Also, I don’t think the “death do us part” bit is included in a non church marriage; how do you know he took those oaths in the first place?

With the second marriage, from all I’ve heard on the subject it had got to the stage where it just wasn’t working. Perhaps you think Heinlein should have stayed with Leslyn and helped her through her alcoholism. That’s a POV certainly but I got the impression he did all he could for many years and then just couldn’t cope any more. It’s not really something an outsider can judge.

I didn’t realise the sanctity of marriage meant so much to you Randi. Personally I find the modern ease of divorce to be a liberating thing for many women who were previously trapped in loveless and abusive marriages in the past…..whilst thinking that way too many people rush into marriage, comfortably aware that it’s not for life anymore. Heinlein’s term marriages which feature in many of his books are a good idea IMO; it would save a lot of trouble if people tried it out for a year before making any final commitments.

Jane

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 258

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/27/2000

Author: Stephanie Vickers

>I didn’t realise the sanctity of marriage meant so much to you Randi.

>Personally I find

>the modern ease of divorce to be a liberating thing for many women who were

>previously

>trapped in loveless and abusive marriages in the past…..whilst thinking

>that way too

>many people rush into marriage, comfortably aware that it’s not for life

>anymore.

>Heinlein’s term marriages which feature in many of his books are a good idea

>IMO; it

>would save a lot of trouble if people tried it out for a year before making

>any final

>commitments.

>

>Jane

Marriage is sacred…so long as there is something there to call marriage. For some people, that means care of the children until they are old enough to fend for themselves. For others, it means that deep, abiding love for your spouse. Some others see marriage as a financial contract.

My own marriage is one of three adults who love each other, want to spend their lives together, and raise our children to be good people. If the situation were to become untenable for any one of us, we would try to work it out. Barring that, I think we would let the unhappy spouse walk away. The only complication would be custody of children, but even that would be worked out between us. It sounds as if I am naive on the issue, I know. But that is what marriage is…understanding one’s spouse (or plural) to the point that even the unexpected actions of one would let you guage their responses. IMHO, anyway.

I don’t need a law passed legalizing our family status. Yes, it would be nice to have laws that provide for taxes, inheritance, etc, but we can do without them. I don’t need a priest, priestess, judge, or magistrate to tell me I’m married. Marriage is in the heart, as it seemed RAH might have felt. Looking at the references to “I divorce you”, I think Heinlein understood that marriages could die, and to linger on was a waste of everone’s time. Again, IMHO.

Filly

“You can’t depend on your eyes when your imagination is out of focus.”

–Mark Twain

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 259

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/26/2000

Author: Nuclear Waste

wrote in message

Snip

> Waaadaminud! I thought Heinlein only had TWO marriages, the one that broke up

> early on, and then the one to Virginia??? What was the true situation there,

> biographers?

IIRC there is some question about a mairiage before his “first” as he listed himself as divorced on the license. FWIW there is some speculation that the story about D Lamb and his mairriage at Annapolis may be autobiographical.

NW

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 260

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/27/2000

Author: Randi

()

arranged the electrons thusly…

> Randi wrote:

>

> >

> > It must be a very interesting definition of “loyal” you

> > have, that you can use it to characterize his *third* marriage.

> > I guess “until death do us part” and “cleave unto her” doesn’t

> > count the first couple of times, hmm?

>

> Waaadaminud! I thought Heinlein only had TWO marriages, the one that broke up

> early on, and then the one to Virginia??? What was the true situation there,

> biographers?

It was suggested (not by me, Jane, so leave me alone) in this newsgroup during a blatant “Heinlein is a mysogynist” troll a way long time ago that his three marriages + lack of children + cartoonish characterizations of women = proof that he disliked women intensely. Nobody blinked an eye at the reference to three marriages. Granted, back then there wasn’t a big thirst for details about Heinlein’s personal life, but that is something I do think would have been questioned had anybody believed it to be untrue, much the same way *everybody* jumped all over the no children thing, pointing out his lack of natural children could simply be the result of his TB. I filed the three marriages bit away as a bit of useful information in case somebody wanted to discuss Heinlein’s treatment of marriage. I did mention his three marriages much later, but I was shouted down so fast and so forcefully I decided that the three marriages thing really had been a troll and that I had fallen for it.

That is where I stood on the three marriages, until David dropped his little bomb yesterday. I hope it is not just another troll. If it is, I fell for it (again) and I’m going to have to get some revenge on Mr. Silver. If it is indeed true, defending Heinlein from criticism of his characterizations of women just by citing his long, successful marriage to Virginia is going to be somewhat more difficult. Way more difficult, actually.

> > FWIW, I think the instinct to copulate can trump any

> > cultural or social taboo, which is how I would characterize what

> > you are characterizing as instinct. NB: I am not suggesting

> > that RAH would have committed incest had he sired children;

> > rather, that there might be more than one instinct in play when

> > *any* father regards his daughter. I spend quite a bit of time

> > and money supporting shelters for battered women and children;

> > the number of daughters raped by their natural fathers in Arizona

> > alone is sickening. Whatever protection children have from their

> > parents, instinctual or otherwise, seems to be overridden on a

> > disgustingly regular basis — perhaps by stronger or more

> > fundamental instincts.

> >

>

> Okay. I bow to your experience, and respect your work and charity, which sound

> very useful.

> > I think that what she meant was that Heinlein had no

> > direct experience of parenthood, of the emotion that flows from

> > parent to child. I think this could account for the stylized

> > intrafamilial relations in his work.

>

> Well, this is actually what I meant, I realize. Heinlein not being a parent left

> him more free to fantasize certain relationships than [most] men who have

> families.

Hmm. I think we are in agreement. To be sure, his preoccupation with incest and masturbation in _TEfL_ could have obscured what was a truly fascinating and orignal concept, and it only shows what a good writer he was that he could still explore and articulate that concept despite his preoccupation.

-Randi

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 261

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/27/2000

Author: pheb

Randi wrote:

> That is where I stood on the three marriages, until David

> dropped his little bomb yesterday. I hope it is not just another

> troll. If it is, I fell for it (again) and I’m going to have to

> get some revenge on Mr. Silver. If it is indeed true, defending

> Heinlein from criticism of his characterizations of women just by

> citing his long, successful marriage to Virginia is going to be

> somewhat more difficult. Way more difficult, actually.

>

I don’t think David trolls, as I recall, so it sounds like some interesting history might be forthcoming. I can tell you that people really hid divorces in the old days — for example the ’30s and ’40s. My mother was divorced then and it was an incredibly taboo subject. *I* did not know until I was 12, and I was the issue of that marriage, believe it or not. It would not surprise me if Heinlein deep-sixed such an early life event. If he managed a long marriage in the end, well, we could perhaps consider he finally managed to succeed in the relationship department, after some early –difficulties.

Phebe

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 262

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/28/2000

Author: AGplusone

Phebe:

>I can tell you that people really hid divorces in the old days

>— for example the ’30s and ’40s. My mother was divorced then and it was an

>incredibly taboo subject. *I* did not know until I was 12, and I was the

>issue of that

>marriage, believe it or not. It would not surprise me if Heinlein deep-sixed

>such an

>early life event. If he managed a long marriage in the end, well, we could

>perhaps

>consider he finally managed to succeed in the relationship department, after

>some

>early –difficulties.

Phebe is quite correct about how taboo the suject of divorce was. I didn’t know my father had two previous marriages, childless I believe, and divorces until my mid-teens when he was dying and told me a little about them, to contrast how good a wife he believed my mother was to him in his lingering last illness with how he felt about their conduct.

A side note germane to the discussion concerning “fairness” in divorce settlements held between Steve, LNC, and others: He had to start over after each divorce because fairness as it was then construed by whomever was doing the construing back then meant they got the house, savings, and everything else and alimony until they remarried, and he got the ‘business,’ i.e., his skill in his trade, coupled with his ability to manage other tradesmen working for him in a small shop which could vanish from existence with one wrong decision on what style or color of hats to produce for next season, which they could hardly take from him, could they?

Lawyers, as Mr. Collier may also tell you, representing the wives of small shop or small business tradesmen in divorces frequently call this “giving the husband the business;” and now you know what the term really means. —

David M. Silver

“I expect your names to shine!”

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 263

Subject: Jani (was Re: Women in Heinlein)

Date: 10/26/2000

Author: Chris Croughton

On Thu, 26 Oct 2000 01:46:16 GMT, Randi

wrote:

> A regular poster here (btw, has anybody seen Jani lately?)

She has had severe connection problems, including losing her ISP account (I don’t know the circumstances). Last I saw a few days ago she was on AOL with limited time for access and was[1] expecting to get a proper account the beginning of November.

[1] ‘is’, ‘will be’? I’m too tired to make that sentence agree in tense with itself..

Chris C

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 264

Subject: Re: Jani (was Re: Women in Heinlein)

Date: 10/26/2000

Author: William Dennis

Chris Croughton wrote:

>

(snip)

Last I saw a few days ago she was on

> AOL with limited time for access and was[1] expecting to get a proper

> account the beginning of November.

>

> [1] ‘is’, ‘will be’? I’m too tired to make that sentence agree in tense

> with itself..

>

The answer is “is” — unless she is no longer expecting. If so, she “was” expecting.

William Dennis II

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 265

Subject: Re: Jani (was Re: Women in Heinlein)

Date: 10/27/2000

Author: PrinceOfBaja

Chris asked:

>> [1] ‘is’, ‘will be’? I’m too tired to make that sentence agree in tense

>> with itself..

>The answer is “is” — unless she is no longer expecting. If so, she

>”was” expecting.

>–

>William Dennis II

Au contraire; the use of “was” is entirely correct if it describes an action in the past, regardless of subsequent actions, or even a continuation of the past action.

Steve

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 266

Subject: Re: Jani (was Re: Women in Heinlein)

Date: 10/27/2000

Author: William Dennis

PrinceOfBaja wrote:

>

> Chris asked:

>

> >> [1] ‘is’, ‘will be’? I’m too tired to make that sentence agree in tense

> >> with itself..

>

> >The answer is “is” — unless she is no longer expecting. If so, she

> >”was” expecting.

> >–

> >William Dennis II

>

> Au contraire; the use of “was” is entirely correct if it describes an action in

> the past, regardless of subsequent actions, or even a continuation of the past

> action.

>

> Steve

Wrong. “Is” is not an action verb. It describes a condition. A condition that currently exists would use the verb is, as in” “Steve is uninformed.” Now that I have corrected you, the correct usage is “Steve was uninformed.”

William Dennis II

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 267

Subject: Re: Jani (was Re: Women in Heinlein)

Date: 10/28/2000

Author: PrinceOfBaja

Bill said:

>Wrong. “Is” is not an action verb. It describes a condition. A condition

>that currently exists would use the verb is, as in” “Steve is

>uninformed.” Now that I have corrected you, the correct usage is “Steve

>was uninformed.”

Yes, it does describe a condition. “Was” describes a condition that existed in the past. Since the speaker hasn’t a clue as to whether or not the condition still exists, the use of the past tense is correct. The sentence referred to a point in time that has passed.

Steve (who thinks we have belabored this point sufficiently to bore even ourselves to tears)

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 268

Subject: Re: Jani (was Re: Women in Heinlein)

Date: 10/27/2000

Author: William Dennis

PrinceOfBaja wrote:

>

>

> Steve (who thinks we have belabored this point sufficiently to bore even

> ourselves to tears)

Since when have you failed to belabor a point?

😉

William Dennis II

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 269

Subject: Re: Jani (was Re: Women in Heinlein)

Date: 10/28/2000

Author: AGplusone

Chris responding to Randi:

>> A regular poster here (btw, has anybody seen Jani lately?)

>

>She has had severe connection problems, including losing her ISP account

>(I don’t know the circumstances). Last I saw a few days ago she was on

>AOL with limited time for access and was[1] expecting to get a proper

>account the beginning of November.

Good news! I’d been a bit worried about the absence of posts and visits from her and her son Stephen too. Be good to see her again, especially if she makes the chat on Women in Heinlein upcoming.

David M. Silver

“I expect your names to shine!”

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 270

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/24/2000

Author: Degten

I never related much to barbie either – and many of Heinlein’s women are as two-dimensional. And if is wasn’t for some of his superior story-telling I couldn’t read his work without wanting to throw some of his books across the room for being crass (especially the older stuff – oh and Podkayne of Mars). I don’t think most women really care one way or another about baby-chewed breasts. That’s my point. It doesn’t figure in most of our lives. I think Heinlein had an idealistic and what seems now dated view of women in spite of the fact that some of his writing must have been slightly risque for his time. I don’t think he would have wanted to have written about situations similar to my own where I am the breadwinner in my family and the relationship I have with my husband where he is the carer. Yet many of my contemporaries and their husbands share this life without secretly wanting to be the homemaker like Friday or feeling guilty. Why does Friday do this? A gifted intellect who has to settle down – why couldn’t she have met a nice young chap (or chappess) and travelled the galaxy on special assignments. No, she gives it all up. That’s the saddest part. Not that there is anything wrong with a women choosing this life but that he could not envision happiness any other way. Heinlein was after all product of his time.

DeDe

>>That being said, I have read and enjoyed the large majority of

>>Heinlein’s work. I tend to ignore the stereotypical women.

>>Save those “baby-chewed breasts”. Yeuch. I would love to hear what

>>other female Heinlein fans think about the women.

>>

>>DeDe

>

>For the most part, I like them…there are some exceptions…I think of them

>later, but at least most of the females aren’t neurotic about “baby-chewed”

>breasts, or the fact that they do get older….now whether or not that’s

>because some, like Mau, can look forward to rejuve, is up for debate also.

>It’s a nice change from the Barbie ideal….

>

>JenO.

>Give me chocolate, and no one gets hurt.

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 271

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/24/2000

Author: ddavitt

 

Degten wrote:

> Heinlein was after all product of his time.

>

> DeDe

>

>

Heinlein was born in 1907; he was about the age of my grandfather. I think this gets overlooked sometimes….a compliment in a way to his writing. I never expected my grandfather to see the world the way I did and when Heinlein writes something which jars on me ( and I don’t like the end of Friday much either) I try and remember that date of birth.

I’m not saying that my POV is better…nor his for that matter but it would be strange if they always matched.

Maybe in a hundred years it will be easier to look at his books and judge them in relation to the time of writing; perhaps we’re still too close. Or maybe it will get harder to appreciate nuances as time goes by. Not sure.

Jane

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 272

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/25/2000

Author: Debbie Cusick

Degten wrote:

>

> Why does Friday do this? A gifted intellect who has to settle down –

> why couldn’t she have met a nice young chap (or chappess) and

> travelled the galaxy on special assignments. No, she gives it all up.

> That’s the saddest part. Not that there is anything wrong with a

> women choosing this life but that he could not envision happiness any

> other way.

That’s one of the things I liked about Friday, that she was able to make a choice that pleased her. Why should she make a choice to travel the galaxy on special assignments? Sure she could have, but I don’t see that that choice would have been any more valid that the choice she did make. There is nothing wrong with being a farmer, a very necessary profession on a frontier planet. It’s a hard and demanding task, and I’m sure that all involved had to pitch in and work *hard* regardless of which gender they belonged to. She didn’t “give it up”, and I’m sure she could have envisioned happiness in many different ways – and this just happens to be the way that she chose.

Though I do admit to a bit of discomfort at Heinlein’s apparent delight in seeing young girls barely past menarche getting pregnant. From a physical standpoint it is not healthy for the girl *or* the baby in most circumstances. I have no problems at all with women chosing motherhood (I’m a mother myself after all), but chosing it at age 13 is still a problem for me.

Debbie

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 273

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/25/2000

Author: ddavitt

 

Debbie Cusick wrote:

>

>

> Though I do admit to a bit of discomfort at Heinlein’s apparent

> delight in seeing young girls barely past menarche getting pregnant.

> From a physical standpoint it is not healthy for the girl *or* the

> baby in most circumstances. I have no problems at all with women

> chosing motherhood (I’m a mother myself after all), but chosing it at

> age 13 is still a problem for me.

> —

> Debbie

Yes, I don’t like that either. Sure, in the past it was common but women have physically evolved past that point…when life expectancy was about 40 it made sense to marry and have children at 14, it doesn’t anymore. I’d be interested in any statistics on whether the average age of first menstruation has altered much over the centuries as life spans have increased.

Just because Friday’s daughter was living on a frontier planet doesn’t mean she had the body of a 15 th century girl….at 14 she does not need a baby to care for, she should still be enjoying her childhood herself. IMO. I remember how we felt at school doing Romeo and Juliet when we worked out that Juliet’s mother was 13 when she had Juliet and it was along the lines of “yuck! No way!” 🙂

Jane

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 274

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/26/2000

Author: Randi

ddavitt () arranged the electrons thusly…

> Debbie Cusick wrote:

>

> >

> >

> > Though I do admit to a bit of discomfort at Heinlein’s apparent

> > delight in seeing young girls barely past menarche getting pregnant.

> > From a physical standpoint it is not healthy for the girl *or* the

> > baby in most circumstances. I have no problems at all with women

> > chosing motherhood (I’m a mother myself after all), but chosing it at

> > age 13 is still a problem for me.

> > —

> > Debbie

>

> Yes, I don’t like that either. Sure, in the past it was common but women

> have physically evolved past that point…when life expectancy was about 40

> it made sense to marry and have children at 14, it doesn’t anymore. I’d be

> interested in any statistics on whether the average age of first

> menstruation has altered much over the centuries as life spans have

> increased.

The harsh conditions argument defending the early child-bearing in some of Heinlein’s novels has been made in this ng before. I even made it myself. However, I recently learned in a physical anthropology class that the onset of menarche is a function of nutrition. The consensus seems to be that healthy, well-fed girls tend to reach menarche before underfed ones. In fact, there is even a demonstrable connection between leptin, an enzyme produced by fat cells, and the onset of puberty. This would be very inconsistent with the idea that early child bearing was the norm when life was hard.

There was a study of 17,000 girls done in the early ’90s by Marcia Herman-Giddens, a pediatrician and public health officer in North Carolina. There were some very interesting findings in her study, one of which answers your question about average ages. It turns out that the average age of menarche has dropped from 17 years in the middle of the 19th century, to just under 13 years in the present (which, I might add, supports the nutrition hypothesis.) Another finding was that secondary sexual characteristics are showing up *much* earlier than that. 15% of the Caucasian and half of the black subjects had breasts and pubic hair by the age of eight. It would seem that, at least in America anyway, girls are not only reaching menarche earlier, they are starting to attract boys at quite a young age.

-Randi

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 275

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/25/2000

Author: Mac

Randi wrote in message …

The harsh conditions argument defending the early child-bearing in some of Heinlein’s novels has been made in this ng before. I even made it myself. However, I recently learned in a physical anthropology class that the onset of menarche is a function of nutrition. The consensus seems to be that healthy, well-fed girls tend to reach menarche before underfed ones. In fact, there is even a demonstrable connection between leptin, an enzyme produced by fat cells, and the onset of puberty. This would be very inconsistent with the idea that early child bearing was the norm when life was hard.

There was a study of 17,000 girls done in the early ’90s by Marcia Herman-Giddens, a pediatrician and public health officer in North Carolina. There were some very interesting findings in her study, one of which answers your question about average ages. It turns out that the average age of menarche has dropped from 17 years in the middle of the 19th century, to just under 13 years in the present (which, I might add, supports the nutrition hypothesis.) Another finding was that secondary sexual characteristics are showing up *much* earlier than that. 15% of the Caucasian and half of the black subjects had breasts and pubic hair by the age of eight. It would seem that, at least in America anyway, girls are not only reaching menarche earlier, they are starting to attract boys at quite a young age.

-Randi

**********************************

I am not sure as to the accuracy but had heard that the amount of “interesting” hormones, etc., put into the feed of many animals has “helped” young girls with some of the secondary characteristics. . .

In most of the stories Heinlein depicted my impression was that, even on the frontier conditions, the family worked hard but ate rather well —- to tie that in with what Randi is saying, then perhaps menarche would come earlier; however, the chance that the animals were used by businesses and force-fed certain additives would be lessened so maybe some other aspects equaled out ?

—Mac

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 276

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/26/2000

Author: PrinceOfBaja

Randi said:

 

>However, I recently learned in a

>physical anthropology class that the onset of menarche is a

>function of nutrition. The consensus seems to be that healthy,

>well-fed girls tend to reach menarche before underfed ones.

It has been well-established that female gymnasts (not sure about other female athletes) are almost always late to reach menarche. The more intense the regimen and training, the later the onset.

Steve

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 277

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/26/2000

Author: PrinceOfBaja

Jane pondered:

 

>I’d be

>interested in any statistics on whether the average age of first

>menstruation has altered much over the centuries as life spans have

>increased.

>

As a matter of fact, a study was just released (don’t know whose study; just caught a bit of the report on CNN whilst in the hospital today), which reported that the age of sexual maturity (physical) has actually dropped in recent years among US females. The ages quoted were as young as 7 (and no, I’m not making this up).

Steve

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 278

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/26/2000

Author: jeanette wolf

If you can get the latest TIME magazine (Oct. 30) the cover story (in the USA) is on Early Puberty. Another poster has said much of what is relevant on earlier average age of first menstruation.

Jeanette

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 279

Subject: Young mothers was Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/26/2000

Author: ddavitt

 

jeanette wolf wrote:

> If you can get the latest TIME magazine (Oct. 30) the cover story (in

> the USA) is on Early Puberty. Another poster has said much of what is

> relevant on earlier average age of first menstruation.

>

> Jeanette

It’s interesting to relate this to the current trend in some countries at least, to delay having your first baby until after 30. A few decades ago this put you in the elderly primagravida range; now it’s quite common. If our bodies are getting ready to have babies earlier but we are delaying it for longer I wonder what the long term effect will be?

I still think later is better; physical readiness for pregnancy isn’t the whole picture. Emotionally and mentally a mother has to be ready to cope with the responsibility and trials of looking after a child and personally I don’t think many young teenagers have that ability. Why should they? Childhood is all too short a time in one’s life; enjoy it while you can. Shouldering adult duties early is to be avoided IMO.

Jane

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 280

Subject: Re: Young mothers was Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/26/2000

Author: AGplusone

Jane:

>I still think later is better; physical readiness for pregnancy isn’t the

>whole picture. Emotionally and mentally a mother has to be ready to cope

>with the responsibility and trials of looking after a child and personally

>I don’t think many young teenagers have that ability. Why should they?

>Childhood is all too short a time in one’s life; enjoy it while you can.

>Shouldering adult duties early is to be avoided IMO.

A point which Heinlein considered in Podkayne, I think, and which he resolved in favor of the Breeze couple IIRC, those two who had just retired in their late thirties to raise their previously-birthed family, but whose order was mixed up in the kitchen, resulting in decanting of the younger siblings of Podkayne and Clark.

David M. Silver

“I expect your names to shine!”

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 281

Subject: Re: Young mothers was Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/26/2000

Author: ddavitt

 

AGplusone wrote:

>

> A point which Heinlein considered in Podkayne, I think, and which he resolved

> in favor of the Breeze couple IIRC, those two who had just retired in their

> late thirties to raise their previously-birthed family, but whose order was

> mixed up in the kitchen, resulting in decanting of the younger siblings of

> Podkayne and Clark.

>

A nifty solution to be sure…….except my mind boggles at the thought of someone whipping Eleanor away at birth and me not getting to see her for a decade or so 🙂 I think this ( like those horrendous nurseries in Poddy) is something that a man can imagine as being a great idea but a mother would dismiss out of hand. Just MO of course…..

Jane

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 282

Subject: Re: Young mothers was Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/26/2000

Author: Mac

ddavitt wrote in message…

jeanette wolf wrote:

> If you can get the latest TIME magazine (Oct. 30) the cover story (in

> the USA) is on Early Puberty. Another poster has said much of what is

> relevant on earlier average age of first menstruation.

>

> Jeanette

It’s interesting to relate this to the current trend in some countries at least, to delay having your first baby until after 30. A few decades ago this put you in the elderly primagravida range; now it’s quite common. If our bodies are getting ready to have babies earlier but we are delaying it for longer I wonder what the long term effect will be? I still think later is better; physical readiness for pregnancy isn’t the whole picture. Emotionally and mentally a mother has to be ready to cope with the responsibility and trials of looking after a child and personally I don’t think many young teenagers have that ability. Why should they? Childhood is all too short a time in one’s life; enjoy it while you can. Shouldering adult duties early is to be avoided IMO.

Jane

***************

Jane, some of what you are saying is accurate. How can one really expect a kid to go through the rigors of birthing a child ? What concerns me is that a girl (( not a woman, a girl )) is still growing. Her body is needing nutrition and support for the changes —just one item would be the calcium for the bones. The girl is changing her body to become a woman in physicial form and that needs a lot of work and takes specific items.

Now, suppose, at the same time, the girl becomes pregnant? Isn’t that baby competing and grabbing some of the stuff the girl needs ? I doubt that such an event can really be healthy or good for either human.

At the same time, I know very few kids (( male OR female )) who are emotionally, mentally ready for the rigors of child-raising and those wonderful bouts of colic and “toothing”. The children having kids are not ready to recognize that a baby places restrictions on one’s life and activities. . . being children themselves they want what they want when they want and probably need some time being children as Jane said, before becoming adults. . .

And having kids is no guarantee that the process is speeded

up.

—Mac

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 283

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/25/2000

Author: Mac

Debbie Cusick wrote in message

Degten wrote:

>

> Why does Friday do this? A gifted intellect who has to settle down –

> why couldn’t she have met a nice young chap (or chappess) and

> travelled the galaxy on special assignments. No, she gives it all up.

> That’s the saddest part. Not that there is anything wrong with a

> women choosing this life but that he could not envision happiness any

> other way.

——-

MAC:

Wasn’t there mention that Friday’s pouch was now known? That might well reduce her effectiveness for especial assignments. Also, the one assignment had a particulary nasty pay-off for her. Surely that particular “government” might well remember her and be looking for her if she was active to present “payment”. And, also, during the time of the Plague infecting not just Earth, but being carried to other planets, with the exception of the planet she was on due to strict enforcement, I wonder what was the period of time before the plague ran it’s course and how many on Earth and elsewhere perished?

Under such circumstances, a frontier planet begins to look to be quite the viable alternative. Just because she settled there does not need to imply she gave up her intellect. There is a lot in a community which could require her skills. First, she belongs. Given her history, and her initial upbringing when Kettle-Belly lost track of her, that has to be a major factor.

Second, she is helping her community. Frankly, I don’t see that she has given it all up

—-

given the circumstances of her pouch being known; the plague; her becoming part of a community where she is welcomed, I think she has gained quite a bit.

====== =====

DEBBIE:

That’s one of the things I liked about Friday, that she was able to make a choice that pleased her. Why should she make a choice to travel the galaxy on special assignments? Sure she could have, but I don’t see that that choice would have been any more valid that the choice she did make. There is nothing wrong with being a farmer, a very necessary profession on a frontier planet. It’s a hard and demanding task, and I’m sure that all involved had to pitch in and work *hard* regardless of which gender they belonged to. She didn’t “give it up”, and I’m sure she could have envisioned happiness in many different ways – and this just happens to be the way that she chose.

Though I do admit to a bit of discomfort at Heinlein’s apparent delight in seeing young girls barely past menarche getting pregnant. From a physical standpoint it is not healthy for the girl *or* the baby in most circumstances. I have no problems at all with women chosing motherhood (I’m a mother myself after all), but chosing it at age 13 is still a problem for me.

Debbie

———-

MAC: Having worked neonatal and see far too many children having babies, I really, really, really have problems with any idea of young girls past menarche becoming pregnant — I agree with you there.

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 284

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/26/2000

Author: AGplusone

Mac replies to Debbie re Friday’s choice to “settle down”

[snip a very insightful dialogue]

Consider this possibility in addition, perhaps: Heinlein is reworking Voltaire’s Candide here. Does that make a difference in how you view the decision?

David M. Silver

“I expect your names to shine!”

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 285

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/26/2000

Author: Chris Croughton

On Wed, 25 Oct 2000 13:37:32 -0700, Mac

wrote:

>Wasn’t there mention that Friday’s pouch was now known?

>That might well reduce her effectiveness for especial

>assignments.

>Also, the one assignment had a particulary nasty pay-off for

>her.

>Surely that particular “government” might well remember her

>and be looking for her if she was active to present

>”payment”.

Another point is that the Boss was going to retire her from those sorts of assignments anyway, he was grooming her for a different role. She was losing confidence in her own judgement.

>And, also, during the time of the Plague infecting not just

>Earth, but being carried to other planets, with the

>exception of the planet she was on due to strict

>enforcement, I wonder what was the period of time before the

>plague ran it’s course and how many on Earth and elsewhere

>perished?

And what happened to the regularity of the space transport? We’re told that at the time of the plague ships were still running, and that none of the colonies were infected, but how long was it before they had regular contact again?

I agree both ways, I felt a little let down that she had gone to be the “farmer’s wife”, but also that it was her choice and the sort of thing she’s been looking for all through the book (a stable ‘family’ where she was wanted).

Chris C

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 286

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/28/2000

Author: charles krin

On Wed, 25 Oct 2000 12:49:38 -0400, Debbie Cusick

wrote:

>

>Though I do admit to a bit of discomfort at Heinlein’s apparent

>delight in seeing young girls barely past menarche getting pregnant.

>From a physical standpoint it is not healthy for the girl *or* the

>baby in most circumstances. I have no problems at all with women

>chosing motherhood (I’m a mother myself after all), but chosing it at

>age 13 is still a problem for me.

OK, I’ll bite…to which book are you referring? if it is Friday, I guess that I will have to go back and re read the last two chapters. Having delivered more than a few babies to babies (the youngest mom I ever delivered was a month past her 13th birthday, and I delivered more than a few 2nd and third babies to 16-19 year olds), I’d like to think that I had noticed “a delight” in seeing young teens pregnant in the books. I will admit that I haven’t gotten around to re reading FF and TMiaHM recently, the first because it is the most ego dystonic of all RAH’s books *for me* and the second because I can’t find the silly thing.

I have watched the average age of menarche drop by 5 years in my memory, and the average age of first intercourse (at least that I am aware of) from older teens to early teens. I am also becoming aware from a variety of sources of a surprising number of folks who at least claim to have been sexually active as pre teens….in our society….which bodes to potentially give RAH a posthumous boost in the prediction department.

Precocious puberty (the developement of secondary sexual characteristics before the age of 10) is no longer something that we chase on a regular basis as long as the child is still growing properly in other fashions…

ck

Charles S. Krin, DO FAAFP,Member,PGBFH,KC5EVN

Email address dump file for spam: reply to ckrin at Iamerica dot net

F*S=k (Freedom times Security equals a constant: the more

security you have, the less freedom! Niven’s Fourth Law)

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 287

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/29/2000

Author: Debbie Cusick

charles krin wrote:

>

> OK, I’ll bite…to which book are you referring? if it is Friday, I

> guess that I will have to go back and re read the last two chapters.

> Having delivered more than a few babies to babies (the youngest mom I

> ever delivered was a month past her 13th birthday, and I delivered

> more than a few 2nd and third babies to 16-19 year olds), I’d like to

> think that I had noticed “a delight” in seeing young teens pregnant in

> the books.

Friday is the book I had in mind since it was under discussion, but I believe I have seen this in other Heinlein books as well though naturally none occur to me right now. I know that in Starman Jones, when Sam is musing about a girl he knew on a frontier planet he says something like “of course she’ll be married now. They marry young there, but she had sisters”. Of course “young” is a relative term and certainly may not be referring to young teens, though I suspect he *does* mean girls in their teens if not necessarily 13.

But he does present the very early pregnancy of Friday’s daughter as a good thing.

Debbie

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 288

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/30/2000

Author: Chris Croughton

On Sun, 29 Oct 2000 12:46:44 -0500, Debbie Cusick

wrote:

>Friday is the book I had in mind since it was under discussion, but I

>believe I have seen this in other Heinlein books as well though

>naturally none occur to me right now. I know that in Starman Jones,

>when Sam is musing about a girl he knew on a frontier planet he says

>something like “of course she’ll be married now. They marry young

>there, but she had sisters”. Of course “young” is a relative term and

>certainly may not be referring to young teens, though I suspect he

>*does* mean girls in their teens if not necessarily 13.

I have a friend who is just 40, and she grew up in an area of England where to be unmarried at 20 made a girl an “old maid”. A farming community, a little more advanced than a “frontier planet” possibly but similar attitudes. When I was at school there were a lot of girls who had had intercourse regularly before they were 15 (a lot fewer boys, or at least fewer boys who would admit to having anything to do with girls; a year or so later and it was almost reversed). Since in Britain the “coming of age” legally has been 18 since before I left school, and the “age of consent” for sex has been 16[1] for even longer, I tend not to regard people marrying in their “teens” with horror.

[1] Except for male homosexual activity which is now 18 and for a long time was 21.

>But he does present the very early pregnancy of Friday’s daughter as a

>good thing.

Also in several other places, Dora’s children for instance. I’ve always understood that such attitudes are common in ‘frontier’ type societies.

Chris C

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 289

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/30/2000

Author: Mike Shear

charles krin () wrote:

: I have watched the average age of menarche drop by 5 years in my

: memory, and the average age of first intercourse (at least that I am

: aware of) from older teens to early teens. I am also becoming aware

: from a variety of sources of a surprising number of folks who at least

: claim to have been sexually active as pre teens….in our

: society….which bodes to potentially give RAH a posthumous boost in

: the prediction department.

:

: Precocious puberty (the developement of secondary sexual

: characteristics before the age of 10) is no longer something that we

: chase on a regular basis as long as the child is still growing

: properly in other fashions…

Time Magazine’s cover story last week was all about this – and it’s online at http://www.time.com/time/magazine/articles/0,3266,58388,00.html

They focused somewhat more on the precocious puberty issue than the earlier sexual activity. It’s a very interesting article.

Mike

Mike Shear

WPI ’02 EE grad student

MA EMT-B N1YQH(tech) WPI NRF Senior Reactor Operator

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 290

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/30/2000

Author: Edward Kitto

In article, says…

>

> Time Magazine’s cover story last week was all about this – and it’s online

> at http://www.time.com/time/magazine/articles/0,3266,58388,00.html

>

> They focused somewhat more on the precocious puberty issue than the

> earlier sexual activity. It’s a very interesting article.

>

Indeed. Some years ago I saw a BBC documentary investigating the phenomenon of human sperm counts dropping worldwide. It identified a flowing agent that is added as a flowing agent to plastics as the “almost certain” cause. The chemical mimics oestrogen which, as we all know, is a female hormone.

Time is a little behind the times. It does mention the plastics angle but we are all assured that the plastics industry doubts any link. Like WOT A SURPRISE!

————————————————————————————-

>> Message 291

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 10/30/2000

Author: William Dennis

Edward Kitto wrote:

>

> In article, says…

> >

> > Time Magazine’s cover story last week was all about this – and it’s online

> > at http://www.time.com/time/magazine/articles/0,3266,58388,00.html

> >

> > They focused somewhat more on the precocious puberty issue than the

> > earlier sexual activity. It’s a very interesting article.

> >

>

> Indeed. Some years ago I saw a BBC documentary investigating the

> phenomenon of human sperm counts dropping worldwide. It identified a

> flowing agent that is added as a flowing agent to plastics as the “almost

> certain” cause. The chemical mimics oestrogen which, as we all know, is a

> female hormone.

>

> Time is a little behind the times. It does mention the plastics angle but

> we are all assured that the plastics industry doubts any link. Like WOT A

> SURPRISE!

All I can add is to be very wary of documentaries that report an “almost certain” cause for any problem. Remember Alar and the silicone breast implant scare? In both cases the media reported the “almost certain” fact that both these things were responsible for certain health problems. Both are now utterly and totally refuted by scientific fact. Lawyers got rich, tho.

William Dennis II

————————————————————————————-

Subject:

Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 11/09/2000

Author: dwrighsr

In article, (jeanette wolf) wrote:

(snip)

>

> In TEFL it is specified that the wife had her marriage dower plus

> interest. Unless he considered assets gained during the marriage as

> part of the interest, all she got from those years was room, board and..

(snip)

I was editing these postings in preparation for adding them to Thursday nights discussion on “Women In Heinlein”, I noticed this particular one. There were several similar which indicated that people were confused over this issue thinking that LL had only given Laura “marriage dower plus interest.”. To set the record straight, the original TEFL said, “…dower plus appreciation, not those thousands of hectares that were mine before I married her…” And there was a mention of Roger not realizing that the property was not community property or that he (LL) would not hold Laura to the pre-marital agreement.

David Wright

See you Thursday on AIM in the Heinlein Readers Group.

David Wright

————————————————————————————-

Subject: Re: Women in Heinlein

Date: 11/09/2000

Author: Tian Harter

jeanette wolf wrtote a week or so ago:

>I am still mulling over my serial family as litter idea.

>My current thinking is “why bother”. I am disturbed

>by the woman who was idealized for having 100 children

>in 200 years. All I can think of is “go forth and multiply”.

Heinlein grew up in a generation where there was still plenty of room. That probably shaped his thinking some.

>My conditioning is that each child has an individual

>value. There should be better reasons for having

>children than just to “ring the cash register”

Can’t argue with that!

Tian Harter

http://members.aol.com/tnharter

DNA (the persons real name aparently) got at

least 5,042 votes in the Chico City Council race.

————————————————————————————-

Go To AFH Postings

Here Begins The Discussion Log

You have just entered room “Heinlein Readers Group chat.”

dwrighsr: Hi Adam. How are things?

MadaNameerf: Good. How bout you?

dwrighsr: Doing fine. Just wanted to check in and see if any is here yet.

Others should be arriving in the next half hour or so.

dwrighsr: Doesn’t officially start until 9:00 EST

MadaNameerf: Yeah. I’m working at my puter and couldn’t remember when it started

MadaNameerf: So, I guess I’m hanging out

MadaNameerf: Who’s maikosh?

dwrighsr: I’ll be in and out until 9.

MadaNameerf: fair enough

dwrighsr: Maikosh is my computer at my office which I am running remotely in order to have a backup of the log.

MadaNameerf: Very nice.

MadaNameerf has left the room.

Major oz has entered the room.

Major oz: ‘evenin, Dave

SAcademy has entered the room.

dwrighsr: Evening Ginny, Oz

SAcademy: Good evening. I was just getting things started

Major oz: Hi, Ginny

SAcademy: How are all of you?

dwrighsr: I just checked in myself a few minutes ago. What’s it like in Florida these days 🙂

SAcademy: Heaard the door open–must be David Silver

dwrighsr: As if the whole world wasn’t watching 🙂

SAcademy: Florida is a mess- haven’t you heard???

dwrighsr: Ain’t that the truth.

SAcademy: Yes, and we do have one of the best electoral systems in the country.

Major oz: But at least there are those there, like Jesse Jackson, who will straighten out all the mess.

MadaNameerf has entered the room.

MadaNameerf: Evenin all

dwrighsr: WB Adam.

Merfilly8 has entered the room.

Merfilly8: my apologies for being tardy

SAcademy: Gore should copy Nixon–remember what he did with Kennedy and Chicago?

dwrighsr: Not late. we just got started.

Dehede011 has entered the room.

dwrighsr: What was that?

Merfilly8: AOL 6.0 would not let me onto AIM

MadaNameerf: But Nixon’s wasn’t this close

Dehede011: Good evening, Foks.

Major oz: I find it terribly ironic that Daley Jr, the Gore campaign manager, was whining about voter fraud — considering that there are probably bags of Nixon votes in the family home.

SAcademy: Oh, yes it was–when Kennedy son?????

Merfilly8: Evening one and all

dwrighsr: Surely, he’s burnt them by now 🙂

MadaNameerf: Maybe my memory is flawed

SAcademy: Kennedy won.

MadaNameerf: By how much?

Major oz: …..supposedly

Dehede011: Major, if you think you find Daley ironic try it from my angle. I live in Cook County, Illinois and voted using the same voting book that he is whining about.

MadaNameerf: 400 votes?

AGplusone has entered the room.

Major oz: less than 200,000 votes in the state

AGplusone: LOL … 253 difference now.

SAcademy: It was nip and tuck and Nixon just backed out–said the country couldn’t stand being in the courts, so he left the race to Kennedy.

Merfilly8: I found it interesting that so many people were unclear about the electoral college procedures…self included

Major oz: …..and the press did the rest…….

SAcademy: Kids don’t learn anything these days.

MadaNameerf: It will be interesing to see if the electoral college survives this

AGplusone: Fun part comes if the electorial vote ties.

dwrighsr: I’m afraid that’s not going to happen this time. I expect that it will be tied up in the courts for weeks. And with half of the states electors *not* bound to vote the way the state went, who can tell what it is going to happen

Major oz: ….annointed K the king and moved on.

SAcademy: Then it goes to the house, David.

SAcademy: But what if that ties, too?

dwrighsr: In Georgia, they are bound, but the only consequence of not voting the majority is a $1,000 fine. Big deal.

Merfilly8: David, is Randi going to be present tonight?

AGplusone: And the vote is by states, not even by representatives.

AGplusone: I hope so …

Major oz: In the house, there is only ONE vote per state.

Major oz: Making Bush a shoo-in

Merfilly8: And the House is Republican, barely

AGplusone: But if she isn’t you get to be the “MAN”

Merfilly8: OOOHHH. I’m shaking now

AGplusone: :::::duck:::::

dwrighsr: You think maybe Jane is busy or something ? 🙂

MadaNameerf: slacker

Major oz: ….or something

Merfilly8: Gee, maybe

AGplusone: Possibly …. 😀

Merfilly8: In that case, if the politics can be benched momentarily 🙂

AGplusone: Anything to avoid passing out virtual cigars!

AGplusone: Okay, all yours Filly.

SAcademy: Cat needs attention.

Merfilly8: We’re discussing women in Heinlein, as prefaced on AFH newsgroup.

Featherz Dad has entered the room.

Merfilly8: My first (maybe only) question is, “What defines a Heinlein heroine?”

SAcademy: We are??? the notice said it was Methuselah.

Merfilly8: IS it?

Merfilly8: Am I ahead of myself, David?

AGplusone: [Hi, Will, just started…. ] Naw, it said reading suggested MC … but Women in Heinlein in the body.

Major oz: I assumed that that was a missprint / holdover from a generic message

Merfilly8: Ebontress says hello

AGplusone: It was … remind me not to send out notices at 2 AM

Merfilly8: David, don’t send notices at 2am

dwrighsr: Don’t send out notices at 2am

Featherz Dad: She is doing OK, then. good ol platelets 🙂

AGplusone: Thank you.

Merfilly8: She’s fine. Holding up well

BPRAL22169 has entered the room.

Major oz: So…”what defines a Heinlein heroine?” She is a babe, likes sex, and thinks like a man.

Merfilly8: Hey Bill.

Featherz Dad: hi, Bill

BPRAL22169: Yo

AGplusone: How do women think?

Merfilly8: We think?!

Major oz: I’m serious

Featherz Dad: ’bout as much as men do.

Merfilly8: I thought we just oozed wisdom and charm

AGplusone: You claim you do … my wife and daughter plot against me all the time.

Merfilly8: 🙂

SAcademy: Same as men. We use our brains

AGplusone: I assume that’s thinking.

Featherz Dad: NO, _I_ just ooze wisdom and charm 😀

MadaNameerf: We use our brains?

AGplusone: A thinking person plots incessantly.

Featherz Dad: and you don’t all use them the same way.

MadaNameerf: I use mine for a doorstop

Merfilly8: Okay, Oz, state the best example, IYO, of a Heinlein Heroine

Major oz: Friday

BPRAL22169: Maureen Johnson

MadaNameerf: Maureen

Featherz Dad: I love it when someone says “don’t stereotype women” and then “women aren’t like THAT.”

Merfilly8: Anyone else have a different woman in mind than Friday or Maureen?

Featherz Dad: Maureen is an archetype or a deity, Friday is a hero

Major oz: Maureen may be a central charecter, but she is not a “heroine”

BPRAL22169: Dora

Merfilly8: I’m using heroine, ambivalent mode for female protagonist

Major oz: Hilda

Featherz Dad: I have all kinds of different women in mind, as usual

MadaNameerf: I hear a definition for heroine coming on…

Featherz Dad: Hazel Stone

Major oz: Heroes or Heroines, IMO, must be “heroic”

AGplusone: What’s wrong with Mrs. Van Vogel.

Merfilly8: Then we’ll use Protagonist

Featherz Dad: Star

MadaNameerf: Dora

Major oz: indeed

Major oz: Not Dora

Merfilly8: My pop would agree on Star

SAcademy: What about Wyoh?

AGplusone: Martha Van Vogel was a hero to an entire race.

BPRAL22169: Why not Dora?

Major oz: She is a minor charecter, used to reflect ideas and attitudes of LL

Merfilly8: Wyoh is one of my personal favorites, nudged out by little Hazel

BPRAL22169: I disagree re Dora.

dwrighsr: IMO, all of RAH’s protagonists are similar in many respects, but different enough to be individuals.

Major oz: hokay

Featherz Dad: She is a major character in the novel that is a part of TeFL

Dehede011: I thought Dr. Martin was his first good heroine.

BPRAL22169: Podkayne?

Featherz Dad: Tale of the Adopted Daughter could be a stand-alone novel

Merfilly8: Why Ron?

MadaNameerf: Or a stand alone short

Dehede011: Just that it was the first one, I believe, that he really rounded out.

BPRAL22169: Helen Fischer in “Elsewhen.”

BPRAL22169: Joan Freeman in “Lost Legacy.”

AGplusone: … or for that matter, Grace Cormier …

Dehede011: Joan Freeman also.

Major oz: Agreed — could be a standalone whatever, but Dora is simply a name and a focus for LL.

dwrighsr: They all broke the stereotype, I think

AGplusone: Who said you had to use a sward (or it’s counterpart) to be a hero?

Major oz: you don’t

Featherz Dad: why I think it was Musashi who said that, David

Dehede011: How about Mary in Puppet Masters

Major oz: The Dutch kid with his finger in the dike was a hero

Merfilly8: I think she evolved later…I see hints of her in later novels

AGplusone: Then what disqualifies folk like Van Vogel or Cormier from being heroic?

dwrighsr: Many of the males expected all women to be bimbos, at least subconsciously, and that was never the case.

Major oz: …..not having read all the juvies, I can’t answer

dwrighsr: Bozhe moi! You still have unread Heinlein’s.

AGplusone: Without Cormier the interplanetary conference goes into the can, without von Vogel the augmented chimps stay sub-human without rights as slaves.

Featherz Dad: some of us just wished, for periods of our youth, that some of the women would be bimbos.

Major oz: Heros do heroic things. I thing we agree on heros but disagree on “things”

Merfilly8: So do I on the unreads

BPRAL22169: I once got in trouble by telling a woman she wasn’t a bimbo.

Featherz Dad: Grace did clever, very important, brilliant things. Heroism involves danger

SAcademy: Can’t imagine why, Bill

Featherz Dad: But heroism isn’t the subject here. What about protagonist or even important character

AGplusone: Why? Grace Cormet (not Cormier) did things to avert serious danger. War was in the offing.

BPRAL22169: True, though — she became my enemy for life and I could never see my friend again while they were going together.

MadaNameerf: brb

Featherz Dad: True, that makes her more important than many heroes. Technical difference, not inferioirity.

BPRAL22169: Among the strangest things I’ve experienced.

Major oz: Bill, when the prez of one of the “Seven Sisters” was an AF officer in the 70’s, stationed where I was, she was caught up in the view of women by women. She said she never wanted to be thought of as a sex object. I assured her she wouldn’t.

BPRAL22169: That was a very nasty thing to say, Oz!

dwrighsr: Just being agreeable, I’d assume 😉

Merfilly8: I’d say it the head of the nail

Featherz Dad: and prolly innacurate. It is AMAZING what some people or animals will find sexy.

Major oz: I’m just a nice guy

BPRAL22169: Of course — that’s the best way to be nasty!

AGplusone: And she didn’t have to be able to use an HK 54 (aka MP5) or even know what the entries on the selector switch meant.

Merfilly8: I’ve seen those kind of women in the Army

MadaNameerf has left the room.

MadaNameerf has entered the room.

Featherz Dad: You don’t have to hurt anybody to be a hero. You do have to be in danger, not always physical danger, or to sacrifice something important.

bisaacz has entered the room.

Merfilly8: What makes Friday so remarkable? Her inhumanity? Or how she points out the humanity around her (and her own, unknowingly at times)?

AGplusone: When Maureen goes into the 1930s Japan mission in the furture as never written, there’s no indication she has to ‘think like a man,’ or do anything involving weapons ….

Merfilly8: Hello Bisaacz

AGplusone: Hi, Bisaacz, Filly’s leading us in a discussion of Heinlein’s Women.

Major oz: Hokay, Bill. I don’t agree that Maureen is a “hero”, making my comment moot.

Major oz: scuse me

Major oz: meant David, not Bill

AGplusone: You would consider Rand’s heroes in Fountainhead, heroes, wouldn’t you?

bisaacz: Hi, all.

Featherz Dad: Hi, bisaacz

AGplusone: (even if you don’t agree with them)

Major oz: shure….

Dehede011: Roark, yes.

AGplusone: Well, then, why isn’t Cormet heroic?

Major oz: who is Cormet?

AGplusone: Or von Vogel from Jerry Was A Man.

Featherz Dad: Why are we talking about hero-hood and not just about Heinlein’s women, heroes and non-

n1yqh a has entered the room.

JoshuaGCrawford has entered the room.

NitroPress has entered the room.

dwrighsr: Hi guys. Welcome

Major oz: Dad, that was just the first question from the moderator.

Merfilly8: Welcome in everyone

AGplusone: Cormet is from We Also Walk Dogs … the woman whose efficiency facilitates the interplanetary conference.

n1yqh a: I forgot this was tonight (again)… I have to run off to work, but I figured I’d say hi first, so “hi!”

Major oz: hokay, she is sooooomewhat heroic

Dehede011: Cormet – not a hero but very admirable

Dehede011: Even an exemplar

n1yqh a has left the room.

AGplusone: Von Vogel is the lady who saves Jerry from elimination and then hires the lawyer who brings the lawsuit declaring them ‘human’

Featherz Dad: Efficiency and energy and actually brilliancy but not really bravery. Again, I don’t care if she is a hero, let’s talk about her.

Featherz Dad: Grace, I was talking about.

Major oz: I never agreed with the premise of JWAM

Major oz: I have a tape recorder that will sing the same song/

NitroPress: Sorry, I’m Floridian today (i.e., not sure if I add up right or not– apologies to the Floridians in the group). What’s the topic tonight?

AGplusone: I imagine Grace gives up a lot to do her job, and I imagine

Martha Von Vogel withstood a lot of criticism.

AGplusone: Women in Heinlein, Jim

Merfilly8: Women in Heinlein

NitroPress: Got it, thanks.

dwrighsr: Just don’t punch twice :0

Merfilly8: I’ve asked for a defintion of a Heinlein Heroine…modified it to Protagonist of the female persuasion.

AGplusone: Imagine: that lady wants our courts to declare that monkeys got as much rights as us!

Merfilly8: And who best exemplifies it.

Featherz Dad: MVV might have gotten worse than criticism under some circumstances.

Major oz: Nobody seems to like the Jack Nickleson definition

AGplusone: Next thing you know they’ll want to let them vote for Gore!

Major oz: …..as modified by me.

JoshuaGCrawford has left the room.

Merfilly8: Oz, Modify away..I’m winging it here!

Major oz: Can a short have a hero(ine)?

NitroPress: Well, within the literary continuum, it’s hard to beat Maureen Johnson Smith Long as the Heinlein Hero-ist woman. IMHO.

Merfilly8: I was supposed to referee Randi and Jane, til Jane up and had the baby 🙂

NitroPress: Boris Vallejo’s illustration helps.

dwrighsr: And no sign of Randi

AGplusone: [I agree Jim, my favorite]

Major oz: Can a character be heroic without a lot of development?

Featherz Dad: Just as well

AGplusone: Sure, Johnnie Dalquist

Featherz Dad: Maureen isn’t a protagonist. Maureen is a deity

Merfilly8: Agreed

NitroPress: Huge amount of development for Dahlquist, given the brevity of the story.

RaShaKaela has entered the room.

Featherz Dad: Johnnie grows up fast and then has to let his life go

AGplusone: True …

Merfilly8: Topic tonight is Women In Heinlein, RaShaKaela

Major oz: Agree, Dad — she is a simple fantasy object…..perhaps the most plastic of all the RAH characters

RaShaKaela: thanks

Merfilly8: welcome aboard

AGplusone: But Konski’s a hero too ….

AGplusone: in short time.

Featherz Dad: Konski is a hero who survives with minor injury. A great position to occupy. And he was on company time 😀

Major oz: hokay…….I’m asking, not asserting.

AGplusone: For that matter, Jock from Double Star does it in a page.

Dehede011: But all my favorite Heinlein Women aren’t heroic in the bravery sense with the possible exception of Dora.

Major oz: the dutch boy story is only a couple pages, but he is a hero.

Major oz: I meant it more in the classic sense (whatever that means)

Merfilly8: Ron, explain about Dora’s braverey, Please

Featherz Dad: Dora isn’t only possibly brave, she is a stone cold fighter at need.

Dehede011: She shoots three or four guys at one point.

Major oz: just one

AGplusone: Yes, Ron, please … brave or heroic in the shooting or something else?

Major oz: LL gets the other two

Dehede011: In the shooting.

Featherz Dad: She is still in a gunfight. Most people do not do that well.

Major oz: ….and when you do what is expected, is it heroic?

AGplusone: Dora was incredibly brave knowing she’d grow old on Laz while he stayed ‘eternally’ young.

Dehede011: As they used to say, “She was a woman to go to Kentucky with.”

dwrighsr: Well, I never thought of any of RAH’s characters as ‘heros’ or ‘heroines’. And I never went into any kind of literary analysis. What I always thought, and was shocked to find that people disagreed with me, was that his characters were *real*. But I guess I was forced to realize that people had different definitions of *real*.

bisaacz has left the room.

Merfilly8: I’d say Llita fits bravery better under that litmus test…when they were robbed, and she kept her cool

Gaeltachta has entered the room.

Merfilly8: It takes a lot of courage to not panic in bad times

Merfilly8: Hi Sean

AGplusone: Hi, Sean.

Merfilly8: Women In Heinlein tonight

Major oz: Agree, Dave……but as years go buy, the dialog gets more dated.

Gaeltachta: Howdy…….

AGplusone: But anyone is capable of bravery for one day, or one moment …

dwrighsr: Not for me, I’m still stuck in those days.

Featherz Dad: Hi, G’tachta

Major oz: Nick and Nora……..????

AGplusone: The right time … some other time, maybe not.

Featherz Dad: The Greeks always said “he was a brave man, that day.”

Gaeltachta: G’day Featherz

AGplusone: Right, Will.

Featherz Dad: Meaning that another day might bring another reaction.

Major oz: brave vs. heroic…….any difference?

Dehede011: What you folks are making me realise is that if we take virtue in the broad sense then RAH’s female and male characters are virtuous.

AGplusone: Let’s go oil our hair and get ready … but maybe not if I don’t have time to get ready or think my comrades will run.

MadaNameerf: I’ve known many brave men I wouldn’t consider brave

Featherz Dad: I woke up several times in the Central Highlands saying “No business, today, lord, please.” And I was considered a fire-eater

MadaNameerf: I menat to end that with “hero”

Dehede011: Yes, and there are different kinds of nerve.

MadaNameerf: meant

Featherz Dad: menat=meant tow=two, internet conventions, very handy

Merfilly8: It took me years to learn hero could mean something other than cool people in spandex and capes

AGplusone: 🙂

Dehede011: Boxing and flying (piloting) took very different kinds of nerve.

Gaeltachta: Hero = the Phantom’s horse.

Major oz: You are brave to take the field of battle (even if nothing happens)

AGplusone: So, all Heinlein’s women are ‘heroic’ in a limited sense, are they?

Major oz: You are heroic if, while there, you DO something heroic.

AGplusone: Or aren’t they?

Merfilly8: Until we get to the other side of the coin. Say, Grace FArnham.

AGplusone: They all surely don’t know how to use an MP5 …

Merfilly8: Or even Harriman’s wife.

Dehede011: If heroic means “bigger than life” then that is for sure.

MadaNameerf: I consider heroic to be the actions of a hero (someone I would emulate)

Featherz Dad: Many people have no opportunity for heroism and some of RAH’s women were not even sympathetic characters.

Major oz: That appears to be circuotous, Mada

MadaNameerf: I’m that kinda guy

AGplusone: Mrs. Keithly, for example is a non-parel evil maniac.

Gaeltachta: Neither were *all* the males.

Major oz: (my keyboard don’t spel gud)

Featherz Dad: quit sniffing your keyboard, Oz

AGplusone: Puddin isn’t heroic except in a very limited sense.

AGplusone: Yet she’s a Heinlein person to emulate.

MadaNameerf: therefore ‘heroic’

AGplusone: She goes out of her way to right a wrong.

Featherz Dad: So, heroism is not a universal trait among Heinlein women.

Major oz: And then there is the REALLY STUPID act that is mistaken for heroism — like going into the fire for an amimal.

Merfilly8: At the cost of her own life even

AGplusone: A little petty wrong, a social wrong.

BPRAL22169: I’m not so sure Heinlein was all that interested in “heroism” in the pulp-sentimental-melodramatic sense; he was very interested in people being people.

BPRAL22169: So he is interested in Puddin’ and her dieting and his interest carries us along.

AGplusone: And when she helps out the girl who is ostracized, she does something to emulate.

Dehede011: Does anyone have a clue as to who Puddin’ might have been in reality?

Dehede011: A person, a composite?

MadaNameerf: One of the girls he had counting words?

Gaeltachta: Poddy and Holly are good examples (or have you discussed them already?) Self-sacrificing for others being the “heroic” point – like the tramp.

AGplusone: What she does, viewed reasonably, is merely ‘kind’ not heroic.

Major oz: Now He (the tramp) was a true hero.

Major oz: ….perhaps the most easily distinguishable of all the characters.

AGplusone: But Puddin doesn’t sacrifice anything … she just rights a petty wrong.

Merfilly8: We haven’t discussed many characters in depth yet 🙂

Major oz: But she doesn’t have to.

Gaeltachta: Thanks Filly.

Major oz: ….so doing so makes her a minor hero.

MadaNameerf: I blame our moderator

AGplusone: That’s right … it’s no skin off her nose one way or the other.

Merfilly8: Any time

Featherz Dad: The tramp was a hero, dying for a stranger he couldn’t save and a person who goes in and gets his;/her pet out of the fire and both survive is stupid?

Merfilly8: Hey, This is my first time 🙂

Dehede011: Where would Star fit into the framework?

Featherz Dad: thats waht they all say filly

MadaNameerf: And your doing fine:-)

Major oz: Yes

Major oz: to both

Merfilly8: Star is duty bound

Dehede011: Heroic?

Major oz: Thte burden of command

AGplusone: Star is probably the most heroic classically of them all. Saves the Galaxy with the help of a bunch of ‘heroes’ all of whom die except the last.

Gaeltachta: Star does what she has to do, to get the job done.

Merfilly8: doing her duty puts her beyond the typical hero definition

Major oz: Star cannot, because she is who she is, be a hero.

AGplusone: Audie Murphy did his duty … standing on that tank destroyer in the smoke and fire.

AGplusone: He was covering the retreat of his men, just doing his duty.

Major oz: The bravest thing Star can do is what she is tasked to do because of her position.

Gaeltachta: Star relies on someone else to be a hero. She cannot do it by herself. So, in a way she is a “user”.

Merfilly8: I believe the medal of Honor certifies “above and beyond”, does it not?

Major oz: ….hence cannot be heroic

Major oz: yes, Gael

Merfilly8: grr…certifies

Featherz Dad: Star is there, taking the same risks. She is heroic.

AGplusone: I wouldn’t disqualify Star because she was merely doing her duty …

Major oz: Exactly, Filly. Simply doing your duty is what you should be doing.

BPRAL22169: I think Heinlein might say that the performance of one’s duty is ipso facto heroic.

Major oz: no way

Featherz Dad: There isn’t anything really BEYOND your duty about standing under fire but the guys who do it are heros

BPRAL22169: There is a reference to the father being eaten away by cancer who works to bring in one lst paycheck — other similar examples.

AGplusone: Particularly when it’s a sacrifice of some sort.

AGplusone: But simply being a responsible parent can be heroic …

Merfilly8: I think it takes sacrifice to qualify, in most cases

AGplusone: Do you think he thought Poddy’s mother was heroic?

Featherz Dad: Not braining the little @%#@ can be quite heroic

Major oz: Why sacrifice?

Major oz: The Dutch boy didn’t sacrifice

Dehede011: BRB

AGplusone: Sure, Ted Bronson and Maureen saved the world by not braining Woody when they sacrificed their monentary pleasure and took him to the park instead.

Featherz Dad: why sacrifice, because the other guys contract is going to MAKE. A joke RAH would have understood.

AGplusone: momentary …

Merfilly8: I’m referring to cases where doing your duty can lead to heroism, Oz…not the classic sense

Major oz: I can’t think of one

Merfilly8: I don’t want to start a dictionary war, so I’ll stand by my earlier attempt to correct and use femal protagonist, or lead character as a nother pointed out

Merfilly8: and my keyboard can’t type either

BPRAL22169: brb

Featherz Dad: yep, let’s leave the definition of heroism to others.

Dehede011: back

Major oz: hokay…..so what is the Q before the assemblage?

AGplusone: So a Heinlein female lead character is what?

Featherz Dad: usually going to get pregnant

Dehede011: Virtuous in the broadest sense

Major oz: Almost always sexual.

Merfilly8: brb

Dehede011: Intellect, etc

Featherz Dad: a virtuous sexy broad who is gonna get pregnant, and smart

Featherz Dad: good summary, if I do say so myself

Merfilly8: she gets smart?

Merfilly8: 🙂

NitroPress has left the room.

AGplusone: Why don’t we take a five-minute pit stop … it’s coming up on the hour. Resume formally at the top of the hour.

Featherz Dad: smartalec

AGplusone: When the big hand is at the twelve.

Major oz: I guess nobody agrees with the “thinks like a man” comment.

Merfilly8: Thanks David…breather

Major oz: ah,,,,,,,,,well

AGplusone: And we can start with Filly’s next lead point then.

Featherz Dad: how do men think? that you can define well enough to even argue the other

Dehede011: I will say goodnight – I worked in a cold rain today and got half soaked. It is sack time.

Merfilly8: G’nite Ron

AGplusone: I dunno, Will … that’s what I never will. Night Ron

Dehede011: Night all.

Dehede011 has left the room.

Featherz Dad: At least one person here would not consider going into a house on fire for his pet. So, he doesn’t think like ME. and we are both men.

BPRAL22169: back

Major oz: ::trying VERY hard not to be partisan, here:: uses what is generally thought of as logic as opposed to emotion in arriving at a conclusion. Not MY concept, but a distillation of much that I have learned. AGplusone: ‘Oz is got the conn. We’re breaking til the top of the hour, Bill.

Major oz: )Necessarily)

Major oz: what, what, what,

Merfilly8: I have gone into a (suspected) fire to clear the pets, so I’m a Stupid in that sense

Major oz: I”M IN CHARGE ???

Merfilly8: YEAH! Oz is in charge!

Merfilly8: I vote for that!

Major oz: That is why I hesitated to define it, Filly

Gaeltachta: Let’s party!

Major oz: My first order: off with the clothes

Gaeltachta: Oi Oi Oi !!! hee hee

Merfilly8: Gee, any Heinlein woman would go for that

Featherz Dad: OK, Feather and I aren’t wearing any clothes and I am only lying about one of us.

Major oz: Actually, all it means is that I greet newcomers. Filly still commands the discussion.

BPRAL22169: This isn’t going to develop into one of those “what are you wearing” conversations, is it?

Merfilly8: At least one person in my house might be naked

Major oz: no

Merfilly8: oh darn

Major oz: next question, Filly?

AGplusone: Filly: are we getting into the ‘sexy’ question?

Merfilly8: Is that a hint? I can take hints..please!

Major oz: David, I must confess: I abused my power.

Featherz Dad: yes, the sexy question is moved and seconded.

AGplusone: Put your clothing back on … please!

SAcademy has left the room.

Major oz: oops

Merfilly8: oops big time 🙁

dwrighsr: I want to announce a policy regarding the log. If anyone has any doubt or question that they may have said something that should be edited out, please e-mail or IM me and I’ll give you the URL to the log before I post it generally and give you a chance to specify what you want edited out.

Major oz: hokay

Merfilly8: David, please remind me about the sexy question. I think I have been missing posts on the NG.

Featherz Dad: If I DO something, I don’t hide it. I just lie about it afterward. 🙂

Merfilly8: “It wasn’t me…it was a one armed man!”

AGplusone: Criticism seems to be that all Heinlein women are unrealistically too sexy …I dunno.

AGplusone: I had a daughter go thru age fourteen once too.

Merfilly8: So, what is the opinion of RAH women? Too sexy, too smart, to unreal?

AGplusone: Perhaps

Featherz Dad: That was a big criticism of TeFL over the years.

Merfilly8: any counter opinions to this?

AGplusone: Are they unrealistically sex-obsessed?

Major oz: Virtually no H character, other than designated bad guys, is closed. I mean he is open about who he is, what he is, etc.

Major oz: In this sense, I speculate that H view of sex is what we all would be like if we were as open as his characters.

Featherz Dad: I don’t think RAH women are too sexy but maybe there isn’t qauite enough variety in their attitudes toward sex, at least not among the women the author finds sympathetic.

AGplusone: Ummm … maybe not the protagonist narrators, Oz, but I think sometimes the other characters are quite devious.

Major oz: …..hense my caveat…..

AGplusone: (Baldwin for example)

Major oz: That is his job

AGplusone: The variety some seek, Will, what exactly are they looking for?

Merfilly8: What about Joan Eunice? how does every one feel about her?

Featherz Dad: Openness and honesty are likely, in my opinion, to lead to a lot more sexiness. I think that some people are just looking for people who won’t make THEM feel undersexed

Major oz: She was part of the boss BEFORE he died.

AGplusone: As Maureen writes … “it became the fashion in the late half of the 20th century to write about [the horrors of childbirth, etc.] … but it wasn’t that way at all for me.”

Merfilly8: I am undersexed even against his minors…and I like it that way.

AGplusone: Is this a form of what they criticize.

AGplusone: ?

Major oz: ?

Major oz: me too

Major oz: ? that is

Merfilly8: I think so…having read many bios on famous women that did go in depth on the horrors of childbirth

Merfilly8: And childrearing, and then the retaliation of celebrity daughters exposing their fraudulent mothers

Featherz Dad: His portraits of childbirth are, I believe, awfully tame and optimistic. Of course, the one REAL perveersion he loves is reproduction.

AGplusone: But then Maureen goes on to write about a friend who died in children birth and what she did to the priest at her funeral ….

Merfilly8: That’s what too many critics want to see in women

AGplusone: “It’s God’s Will” … and a spike in his instep.

Major oz: I seem to have gotten lost.

Merfilly8: I probably led the confusion

Featherz Dad: That is your function, to lead the confusion.

Merfilly8: I’m still blonde, so that is my current excuse

AGplusone: Well, Oz, we’re trying to get a handle on what the criticism is: what’s wrong with the sexy protrayal?

Gaeltachta: Where is the “challenge” to males, in females who always seem ready, willing and able? I dunno, doesn’t the theory of evolution have something to say about this?

Major oz: Yeah, it says we have evolved beyond all that crap.

AGplusone: Do the critics believe that a majority of women are not sexy at some point in their lives …

Merfilly8: but only willing, able and ready to the nobler part of the male species, in most cases

Gaeltachta: Yes…….

Featherz Dad: Well, it does take away from the game of conquest, with its attendant thrills of rape and near-rape and all that courtship stuff and you cut right to the chase, IF the woman in question is willing and able for YOU.

Gaeltachta: Not to the scum-bags…… good point.

Major oz: But it puts us all on the same level.

AGplusone: I’m sure Mrs. Grew probably didn’t seem particularly sexy … nor the two biddies who got their faces dyed.

Major oz: Men / Women different plumbing but same intellect, attitude, etc.

MadaNameerf: Have we yet mentioned that the Boondockers were all physiologically 18? I spent my entire 18th year as a compass.

Gaeltachta: Is it realistic to expect women to go for the “noblest” males in society though?

AGplusone: That’s true.

Merfilly8: I hated 18

MadaNameerf: I hear it’s the same for women

Featherz Dad: Major Oz, isn’t what you just said what some feminists are saying. No biological destiny

MadaNameerf: Me too. Partially because I wasn’t gettin any

Major oz: say, what ????

AGplusone: I really don’t think it’s fair to say that Maureen at sixty isn’t sexy, nor that she’s biologically eighteen.

MadaNameerf: Good point

RaShaKaela: Young women go for the flashy guys, the ones who seem to be alpha males. Older women go for the ones who will stay around when the kids start appearing.

Featherz Dad: Men, women no difference except the plumbing. That is what feminism insisted on until the eighties for ghu’s sake

Gaeltachta: How old is Star? 200?

AGplusone: And Maureen is the only character (correct me if I’m wrong) that is portrayed in a way to let us know what she’s involved in sexually … (right, Star is that old)

AGplusone: … at a biological age of sixty.

Major oz: I agree with the equality people, but not with what is ordinarily known as “feminism”, as it contains too much political theory masquerading as equality.

AGplusone: We don’t really get a lot of fictional portrayals about sixty-year-olds …

BPRAL22169: “feminism” has changed greatly in the last 15-20 years; Heinlein was a feminist of the Sanger-Ellis era.

Featherz Dad: I am just saying that RAH’s take on this was not an isolated thing nor was it regressive. It was what the most progressive thinkers on the subject were saying at the time.

Major oz: In that vein, Ra, I told my daughter to date the quarterback, but marry the nerd.

RaShaKaela: 😀

Featherz Dad: Date LINEBACKERS. Otherwise we have to beat up the QB

AGplusone: But what very few were expressing in fiction, Will.

Merfilly8: My girls have a Dad with a shotgun attitude on boys

AGplusone: And very few have expressed it since.

Reilloc has entered the room.

AGplusone: Although, I hate to say this, TV actually is getting there.

Merfilly8: Hello!

Featherz Dad: My brother wanted Sara to start dating when she turned 35. He remembered US as young men.

AGplusone: Hi, LN

Merfilly8: Women in Heinlein is the topic

Featherz Dad: sometimes we talk about it

Gaeltachta: G’day Reilloc

Major oz: I think that H just makes us all the same, obviating the need for the fluff.

AGplusone: We’re talking about the portrayal of sex, whether age 18 is the norm for Heinlein.

Reilloc: Hi

Major oz: norm?

Major oz: I picture friday as 28-32

AGplusone: All the female characters have been said to be biologically 18 in their drives.

Merfilly8: Look at Friday’s reaction to her rapists…specifically the one she wound up helping in the end

Featherz Dad: he doesn’t make us all the same, he removes gender as a constant divider

RaShaKaela: They certainly start getting interested in it before then (16 in The Menace From Earth, wasn’t it?)

AGplusone: A POV I don’t necessarily share …

Major oz: Not “drive” just relaxing and enjoying what “is”

AGplusone: That’s not an 18 year old’s reaction.

Major oz: …..without the bullshit.

Featherz Dad: Friday was an agent in an environment where they could have killed her with no ill-will. Rape was an added insult but not the same as with a civilian, as it were.

AGplusone: At least not one who hasn’t been doxy-trained

MadaNameerf: I was referring to the idea of the the boodock folk having 18 year old bodies and 200 year old minds

AGplusone: or trained what to expect if a POW

Major oz: Yes, RA, but I don’t think Holly was interested at all in sex — just the interest of a male.

AGplusone: Holly doesn’t tell us. Maureen tells us almost ad nauseum.

Merfilly8: Holly exemplified the “crush” stages to me

Gaeltachta: Give Holly a few more years…… she was still just a kid.

AGplusone: Altho, I’m not certain it was ad nauseum to her.

AGplusone: Imagine PeeWee in a couple years … God help them!

Major oz: I had always envisioned everyone (almost) at Boondock being biologically 35040.

Major oz: 35-40

Major oz: duh

RaShaKaela: heh

Merfilly8: whoa…

Merfilly8: a zipcode age 🙂

MadaNameerf: I just reread cat. Rejuv took you back to 18

Major oz: But cosmetic age

Merfilly8: If done for that purpose

Major oz: hokay, I get the idea.

Featherz Dad: Fine for me

BPRAL22169: I thought you got to choose your cosmetic age.

AGplusone: Or you could have a comestic age appear otherwise, Justin does …

Gaeltachta: If you wanted to. You can choose.

AGplusone: he likes being 45 or whatever.

Merfilly8: they could tuck and tone, take you to a more mature age biologically and physically

Major oz: You do…..that is where I got my 35-40 idea.

AGplusone: Galahad is the one who liked making them appear 18

Merfilly8: I’d like to stay in that range…when I get there

AGplusone: But that’s his thing …

Merfilly8: 35-40

Featherz Dad: I thought that was his idea of art. making people look prettier. job satisfaction.

AGplusone: When Ted first see Maureen at about 35, she looks at first to him like Laz & Lor at 18. Is that realistic?

Featherz Dad: I like being fifty-five because breathing is better than not. But I would TAKE eighteen in a hearbeat.

Merfilly8: Long lifer…doesn’t count

AGplusone: Are there some women who can appear almost 18 at that age?

MadaNameerf: If she is the origin of LL’s gene’s? Hell yeah.

BPRAL22169: People can look very young at 35 — they just don’t look the way they looked when they were young.

AGplusone: Agree … Hollywood has ones like that on screen all the time.

Major oz: My best time (overall) was 35

Merfilly8: I still get a look of disbelief at my age when carded…but I’m only 25

AGplusone: How old was Charlie Sheen all those years?

Featherz Dad: My friend Dave McDonaduck looked twenty-five when he was fifty.

Major oz: National class jock at 20, but best at 35

MadaNameerf: I look fifty at 28

Merfilly8: Ebon passes for a teen still and shes 34

Featherz Dad: Best, hmm. This last Summer but she dumped me.

BPRAL22169: I have a friend I have known for 10 years who is 35, and he constantly is carded at bars, but he looks quite different from the way he did when he was 25.

Featherz Dad: Good point, Bill. He looks young but not the SAME

AGplusone: That can be. I haven’t been able to assess the age of young women accurately for many years.

AGplusone: By appearance alone.

Major oz: oh, sure

Featherz Dad: I can’t guess ANYONE’S age very accurately.

RaShaKaela has left the room.

Merfilly8: Heck, I miss genders on the internet

AGplusone: I do a little better with men, but they have a certain callow look to me at young age.

Major oz: I do very good with whites and AA’s, but not too well otherwise.

AGplusone: The way they carry themselves, etc.

Major oz: THAT is the key, David

AGplusone: So Maureen is carrying herself as young in mind?

Featherz Dad: When Heinlein writes about non-Howard women, does he STILL tend to make them young and sexy for their ages?

Merfilly8: She saw herself as a trim young matron for many years,

MadaNameerf: Or Laz and Lor as mature in mind?

AGplusone: They all seemingly act young in mind … maybe that’s what the critics bitch about …

Major oz: When I want to visualize Maureen, I just think of Hepburn.

Merfilly8: I see MAureen as moving from Maiden to Maturity with Ted’s MIA

dwrighsr: What about Helen Mayberry?

MadaNameerf: “They’re having all the fun..grumble grumble”

AGplusone: Few embittered Jubals sitting around the pool thinking how old they are ….

Featherz Dad: Since the Howards are a different culture, for all practical purposes, I think the critics are foolish to ‘spect them to be like other people

Merfilly8: Helen is my idea of a virtuous matron

MadaNameerf: I see O’hara, Same first name

dwrighsr: Virtuous?

AGplusone: “been there, done that … don’t want to do it ever again”

Merfilly8: one who thinks for herself, and acts accordingly

Featherz Dad: those are virtues

AGplusone: Mayberry was a ‘merry widow’ wasn’t she?

Merfilly8: Using that same broad virtue from earlier,

dwrighsr: One who shared LL’s tastes

AGplusone: Which is what attracted Laz in Dora’s Tale, wasn’t it?

Merfilly8: Yes, but she carried herself with dignity and imbued respect

dwrighsr: agreed

Featherz Dad: Sometimes I think Laz was attracted because she was there. But I have been known to be unkind to Mr. Long.

AGplusone: Just as Maureen is described in TEFL as a vituous young ‘matron’ with children to all outward appearances.

Merfilly8: MAtron implies maturity in that sense, David

Featherz Dad: I will agree that she had the good quailites ascribed to her, just don’t know how much it mattered to LL.

Featherz Dad: the goat

AGplusone: Assume an aspect of gravity, even if you don’t have one? How does that go?

dwrighsr: LL made the comment that Dora wouldn’t bed an oaf and I would suspect that he held himself to the same standards.

Merfilly8: He wouldn’t bed an oaf? 🙂

dwrighsr: oaf-ess 🙂

BPRAL22169: oafess?

BPRAL22169: oaf-ette?

dwrighsr: GMTA

MadaNameerf: That’s how I know I’m an OK guy. My wife married me.

BPRAL22169: oafina?

Featherz Dad: You are correct. he wouldn’t bed an oaf or even an oafess but he wasnlt always real picky either.

Merfilly8: Mine married me over protests about dowry

Merfilly8: so I guess I pass

BPRAL22169: There is that quotation about being able to love that vast majority that are lovable…

dwrighsr: Speaking of dowry. Did y’all see the comment I made about LL giving Laura ‘dower plus appreciation’, not ‘dower plus interest’

MadaNameerf: Laura?

Major oz: yes

Merfilly8: Yes. But I did not see the post that sparked that turn of conversation

Major oz: good point

Merfilly8: Laura was the wife in the Twins story

MadaNameerf: Oh, … right

dwrighsr: His wife on Landfall. There was a lot of discussion that LL had basically shafted her when he divorced her.

Gaeltachta: Long-lifers need to be astute lawyers.

Merfilly8: I don’t think so…besides, I believe in prenups

dwrighsr: or she divorced him…

dwrighsr: He had a pre-nup.

AGplusone: [keep an eye peeled for GCEMS909 … he’s trying to get his AIM working … ]

Major oz: Laura was a Howard, yes?

MadaNameerf: yep

Featherz Dad: I had always assumed that she was a substantial person with large holdings of her own and that she didn’t give him anything either.

Major oz: Then she, as they all, understood “till death us do part” had no meaning.

Featherz Dad: I believe in non-nups

Gaeltachta: Was it even uttered in vows? I don’t think so.

AGplusone: That yellow is tough to see on some screens, Will.

Major oz: your faint script is hard to read, Dad.

Featherz Dad: OK

AGplusone: or orange, whatever it is …

dwrighsr: Try bolding it.

Featherz Dad: is this better?

AGplusone: Yes

MadaNameerf: Mood text

Major oz: …..whatever

BPRAL22169: John is downloading AIM now.

AGplusone: Yes, he just told me.

Merfilly8: What one RAH woman least interests the esteemed members present?

Merfilly8: and why?

Major oz: Maureen

BPRAL22169: Hilda rubs me the wrong way.

AGplusone: How does dower or whatever it’s called go in non-community property states LN?

Major oz: may be prejudicial

Featherz Dad: Of the major women, Maureen

Merfilly8: Even in the shorts too

MadaNameerf: Drawing a blank

Major oz: ……for reasons stated earlier

AGplusone: I.e., did Laz give her exactly what she was entitled to receive?

Featherz Dad: Never saw her in shorts 🙂

Merfilly8: hehehe

Merfilly8: THe wife in Space Jockey irritated me

MadaNameerf: The wife in Farnham’s

Featherz Dad: I figured that she and Laz had not entangled their propery as we do and she was a substantial property-holder herself

Merfilly8: That is what I would think

AGplusone: Grace is a foil set up to do that …

dwrighsr: When I re-read the section about LL and Laura, I was reminded of the accounting that Thorby received when he left Sisu, 1/83rd of the appreciation between Jubbulpore and Hekate.

MadaNameerf: It worked

Gaeltachta: The “single mother” in Zombies did not interest me at all.

Featherz Dad: The wife in “Space Jockey” is supposed to annoy us.

AGplusone: So did I. Figured if he hadn’t comingled under community propery she wasn’t entitled to his land … but an argument could be made she might be entitled to some value for his efforts during the marriage.

AGplusone: If the values resulted in improvements

AGplusone: rather than mere appreciation

Featherz Dad: “annoy” and “not interest” are different.

dwrighsr: But she did get ‘appreciation’

Gaeltachta: Well, she “annoyed” me as well. 🙂

MadaNameerf: Yep. He ‘appreciated’ her all the time

dwrighsr: Doesn’t that mean, something in the ‘increase’ in values, not just ‘thank you, that was nice’

Featherz Dad: Maureen doesn’t annoy me, I just didn’t get very interested in her.

AGplusone: But then if he devoted his efforts equally to her separate property and it improved in value it might be a push …

Major oz: Maureen is a sexual fantasy that takes up 500+ pages

Major oz: …..with no purpose.

AGplusone: I don’t think so, really, Oz.

Major oz: hokay

Major oz: diff of opinion

BPRAL22169: She didn’t strike me as particularly sexy — though quite interesting to know.

AGplusone: I’m known 14 year olds as active as she was … which really wasn’t too active.

Major oz: she had no substance.

AGplusone: I know 50 year olds who are as active as she is today …

Gaeltachta: She smelt nice though.

AGplusone: And rejuvenate me and see what I do at physically 18 again.

BPRAL22169: That’s a very individual thing — I know a woman who married her husband (35 years ago) because he always smelled like almonds to her.

Featherz Dad: RAH annoyed me by spending so much time on her but SHE didn’t annoy me. She might have been an interesting minor character if left minor.

Major oz: SF she ain’t

Major oz: Maureen, that is

AGplusone: No, she’s a narrator and an exemplar and sometimes not a good one.

Major oz: It’s just a story of …………… LL’s fantasy woman.

Major oz: LL is a SF character, but that is the only connection.

Merfilly8: My very least favorite Heinlein woman in a story is Gwen of TCWWTW

Major oz: She may be a narrator, but only as an introduced character.

BPRAL22169: I’m pretty sure To Sail has some structural function in the World As Myth series, but I don’t think there’s enough data to determine exactly what.

AGplusone: The dealing with the two younger children who went with Brian and Marion Hardy … just as confused and screwed up as many parents get.

Featherz Dad: Did you think RAH only wrote SF or do you object to anything that is not SF

Major oz: again,,,,,back to the fantasy object.

Merfilly8: But I have never been able to pinpoint why, other than she had evolved so far from the Hazel I loved

Major oz: Faulty dillema, Dad.

AGplusone: I think he intended To Sail as a broader sociological and historical portrait of the era he gave us in Da Capo … and the early FH series.

Featherz Dad: so, she isn’t SF. Is that the problem?

AGplusone: And more critically socially and historical.

Reilloc: I think I know what the problem is with her

AGplusone: ly

Major oz: And, yes, I know Star Wars is just the Saturday matinee’s of my youth, with spaceships instead of horses.

Merfilly8: Go ahead Reilloc

AGplusone: What?

BPRAL22169: But there’s an interesting parallelism with Friday — only Friday heals herself, whereas Maureen simply expands.

Major oz: But, there should be SOME admission of what the genre is and an attempt to write to it.

Reilloc: It would be like going to bed with RAH+LL and there’s not a guy in here who’d want to do that

AGplusone: In a way …

AGplusone: maybe mentally I would

Gaeltachta: LOL

AGplusone: That’s the problem in a way with Joan Eunice too

Featherz Dad: I don’t think genre definitions are important. YMMV

AGplusone: And why I think some dislike IWFNE

Reilloc: I think you’re wrong

Reilloc: If it’s scifi, it’s scifi

Merfilly8: IWFNE took many,many attempts before I read it….and 12 years

Major oz: If we all liked the same things, not many books would sell.

AGplusone: Getting into be with that old-man, old-lady can be disconcerting in a way.

Reilloc: if it’s self indulgent sex fantasy, it’s not scifi

AGplusone: But it’s a mental sex …

AGplusone: and I don’t know that it’s indulgent … it depends on how your mind works.

dwrighsr: If you mean SF as in Science Fiction, it’s not. If you mean SF as in Speculative Fiction, which Heinlein preferred, I understand, it certainly was.

AGplusone: Some think sex (or love, if you will) works best mentally

Featherz Dad: yup. I had that problem with some of it. However, I flat don’t care whether something is SF. If I like it, I like it. Lots of SF stinks. Lots of other stuff is great.

Gaeltachta: Sex is part of sci-fi, just as eating a meal is. It depends on the setting.

AGplusone: the emotional ‘touching’ of minds isn’t all confined to sensual aspects

Reilloc: The setting seems to pretty much be destined for the bedroom over the last 5 or 6 books, no?

AGplusone: E.g., I’ve been “mind-fucked” enough by other authors.

Major oz: In sum, Maureen is a plastic person who holds no interest for me. I read of her as I am starved for any H work. Had it not 1)his authorship or 2) filled in some VERY minor cracks in the continuum, I would not have bothered with it.

AGplusone: In a sense it can be seen that way … but not in the only sense.

Gaeltachta: Setting = time-travel, space-ships, long-lifers etc.

Reilloc: stage dressing

AGplusone: maybe so MMV

Featherz Dad: I never think about sex more than twelve or fifteen hours a day, I don’t want my fiction any MORE obsessed than I am.

AGplusone: I must think about sex a lot … I never felt it obsessed, even now …

MadaNameerf has left the room.

Merfilly8: I put a story to the side whem

AGplusone: It is certainly directed towards that aspect however.

Merfilly8: when I realize I am using sex as filler

Reilloc: what’s that mean?

Merfilly8: that’s in my own writing

AGplusone: as a filler?

Reilloc: oh

Featherz Dad: Compared to my mind, RAH is as chaste as a mountain breeze.

Merfilly8: So, when Reading, I give it a once through… then ignore the gratutitous sex scenes to get to the meat

Reilloc: no pun intended

Merfilly8: of course not

Merfilly8: 🙂

Reilloc: naturally

AGplusone: In many ways you’re correct in my mind as well. About the only time he surprised me was at the very end of IWFNE when Joan suddenly starts thinking or talking about “Robert” while she’s dying.

Reilloc: what’s gratuitous in RAH and what’s not?

AGplusone: Then I was a little shocked that he’d gone that far.

AGplusone: Because he was usually far more circumspect

Major oz has left the room.

Featherz Dad: Why “gratuitous sex scenes” or “gratuitious violence” but not “gratuitious talk at the dinner table between/among boring academics?”

Reilloc: somebody compared it to meals, we don’t see a lot of meals in his books, do we?

Merfilly8: I skip those too Will

Reilloc: No My Dinner With Laz for you?

AGplusone: The ones at Jubal’s house. My theory was he put himself and Ginny in one at ES Gardner’s in the uncut version.

Reilloc: I think that’d have made an excellant book

Merfilly8: The only dinner scene I read completely is Laz dining with Minerva the computer, I think

Gaeltachta: Cooking and meals are often mentioned…….

AGplusone: It may well have …

Gaeltachta: The twind who weren’t…. for egs.

Gaeltachta: “twins”

AGplusone: The two who are houseguests and at dinner when Jill and Michael arrive.

dwrighsr: The juveniles were full of scenes of food as I recall.

Featherz Dad: Cooking, meals, etc are good to mention but dwelling on them would send me screaming. Except for an occasional scene if brilliantly done.

AGplusone: What we get instead of dinner talk is pillow talk …

Reilloc: Some prefer rare.

AGplusone: a little, anyway.

Gaeltachta: I always wanted a food-fight in Space Cadet!

AGplusone: At Annapolis?

Featherz Dad: That wouldn’t have been appropriate but I thought Space Cadet could have used a bit of levity.

Featherz Dad: and some sex. 🙂

Merfilly8: it’s the end of the second hour…anyone need a break?

Gaeltachta: I need something to eat!

AGplusone: The get-togethers Arunza (sp?) holds are about as close as they come. Yes, let’s be back at 5 past the hour.

Merfilly8: I’ll cook you breakfast 🙂

Gaeltachta: Ta 🙂

AGplusone: Will … you got the conn.

AGplusone: brb

Featherz Dad: OK. Everyone think about sex, NOW

Major oz has entered the room.

Gaeltachta: But it’s after lunch here!

Merfilly8: oi!

Reilloc: oil?

Merfilly8: I got my times wrong, Sean

Featherz Dad: Surely, you can think about sex after lunch.

Major oz: …..sorry, there was snow on the bottles.

Gaeltachta: Never mind.

MadaNameerf has entered the room.

Merfilly8: How ’bout a nice afternoon tea?

Major oz: Are we on break?

Merfilly8: yes, Oz…will said to think about sex, NOW

Featherz Dad: yup

Gaeltachta: I think I got a beer at the back of the fridge actually!

Merfilly8: But it’s only after lunch 🙂

Featherz Dad: BEER, Australian for sex 🙂

Gaeltachta: Even better!

Featherz Dad: Does anyone down under actually drink Foster’s

GCEMS909 has entered the room.

Major oz: Regardless of affiliation, if Bush wins, there will be some good news. Barbara Streisand, Cher, and Alec and Billy Baldwin have promised to leave the country.

Featherz Dad: HI, we are on break.

AGplusone: Hi, John. Welcome back after a while. LTNC

Gaeltachta: Actually I haven’t had a beer foe weeks……… still flat on my back with a disc problem. Some drink Fosters…….. I don’t.

BPRAL22169: Yay! Welcome, John

GCEMS909: finally, only seven downloads to get aim

Merfilly8: Hi, John, we’re on break

Featherz Dad: I want gridlock. So, I am hoping Gore’s folks find more dead voters than Bush’s.

Merfilly8: talking about women in Heinlein’s writings, and various tangents

GCEMS909: ok, i’m actually not teaching a class tonight

Major oz: They are in Missouri………oh, that’s dead candidates………..

Merfilly8: I didn’t know you were injured Sean…belated best wishes for fast recovery!

Featherz Dad: I am temporarily at the helm and we are drifting in circles.

dwrighsr: The saddest part is that no matter who wins eventually, the other

half is going to be claiming that the election was stolen from them.

Major oz: row faster, faster…….

Gaeltachta: Thanks Fill……….. I’m just bored with it now………

AGplusone: Down to a 235 or so difference … one county still counting.

Major oz: Perhaps, Dave, but more in one direction than the other (I’m speaking of the principals, here, not their supporters)

Featherz Dad: The election was stolen from the true majority. Those who don’t want to be bothered.

AGplusone: Are you still teaching paramedic classes John?

Gaeltachta: Out of interest. Which administration would be better for the space program?

Merfilly8: Only 55% turned out to vote from a figure I saw today, nationwide

Major oz: The apathetic deserve what they get.

MadaNameerf: You know I tied with Nader this election? with a 5% differential

Merfilly8: Better than 96, worse than 92

AGplusone: I don’t think either are interested in ‘space’ …

Gaeltachta: Ok…….

AGplusone: Unless we get a bunch of serious ufo’s

Merfilly8: I think Russia is keeping us interested in Space

Featherz Dad: Always a low turnout with a favored incumbent. If one of them would sell off NASA I would vote for him.

Major oz: nah…..it’s Burt Rutan

Featherz Dad: Alien invasion spurs interest in space. Film at eleven

Merfilly8: lol

Major oz: With his brains and Gates’ money, the private sector will have it in ten years.

Merfilly8: We can only hope

AGplusone: Yes! Let’s invade someplace neat …

AGplusone: Okay, Filly, what direction now?

Merfilly8: Time to go back on track.

Major oz: up, I hope

MadaNameerf: Galactiv Overlord, here wecome

Featherz Dad: Gates interest seems to be moving to tournament bridge. If he gets hooked, goodby M’sof

Merfilly8: I’m going to cheat…does anyone have a relevant point we have missed worthy of discussion?

AGplusone: Not cheating …

Major oz: Accuracy of the young girl’s viewpoint as espoused by H

Major oz: Is it REALLY how a youngster would respond?

Merfilly8: Please explain it further, good sir.

Merfilly8: With an example, perhaps

Major oz: Poddy, ferinstance, or Holly

dwrighsr: or Poddy

Merfilly8: Holly, to me, was beleivable

dwrighsr: I meant to say, or Puddin

Major oz: I hear criticism often that he missed the mark with the young girls.

AGplusone: Are the juvenile viewpoints accurate generally … ?

Merfilly8: But I was a tomboy

Major oz: The boys are, but that is all I can speak to.

Merfilly8: I did not understand Poddy. I could not relate.

MadaNameerf: Folks, I have to git. Its been fun semi-lurking.

Merfilly8: Bye Adam

Gaeltachta: I knew girls like Poddy and Holly………. but not many……. They stood out to me.

dwrighsr: At least they were accurate as I recall it, but that was 40-50 years ago.

AGplusone: The boys are, only in the sense that they were what we’d like to be … mostly we may have wasted a lot more time. See ya, Adam.

dwrighsr: Sayonara

Merfilly8: Laz and Lor scared me

MadaNameerf has left the room.

Featherz Dad: I thought that they were compelling portraits of individuals but I don’t expect a fiction writer to produce archetypes.

AGplusone: And I knew a couple really bright girls … and ’tis true, they were scary.

Merfilly8: I was not that rabidly hormonal at all that I remember

AGplusone: But attractive too.

Major oz: With the boys, the stories were what I would have imagined while lying under the tree, looking at the sky and daydreaming.

GCEMS909: beginning of starman jones?

Major oz: I was thoroughly asexual until 16 or so.

Major oz:

AGplusone: I get a different perspective tho, now, than I got then … about how atypical they were.

Gaeltachta: My 12 year old daughter has turned into an alien. Friends tell me to wait a few years and she will eventually come back to this planet.

AGplusone: Yeah, about 30 Sean

Gaeltachta: 🙂 Thanks

Merfilly8: I hit my stride at 16 or so, peaked, and relaxed about it soon after

AGplusone: Kids don’t reveal … to their parents, friends, or anyone else, generally, what is going on in their minds.

Merfilly8: I didn’t

Major oz: None of them do

dwrighsr: “Everyone lies about sex”

Major oz: I wouldn’t have wanted mine to

Merfilly8: Even knowing my dad was not typical, I kept it hidden from him

Featherz Dad: I was thoroughly sexually obsessed from the time I was twelve until, what time is it?.

AGplusone: But they can play at being a character from Louisa May Alcott if they wish.

Major oz: They need their secrecy.

Major oz: this “sharing” stuff is for the birds, in this case.

AGplusone: Maureen played Little Women … I played Little Men

dwrighsr: “They are all raw nerve-ends” or something like that

AGplusone: Or Dick Prescott Goes to West Point …

Gaeltachta: Thanks for the chat. See you Saturday (Sunday morning).

Featherz Dad: Yup and they want to rebel by being just like all their friends.

Merfilly8: Without the normal moral dillema debate about Door Into Summer, can anyone see that happening?

AGplusone: See you, Sean, Sunday.

Major oz: Anyway, back to the Q. Ladies, were H’s insights accurate, when speaking AS a young girl?

Merfilly8: nite Sean

Gaeltachta has left the room.

AGplusone: You mean someone marries the daughter of a contempory after she grows up?>

Merfilly8: I’ll say yeas for Holly

dwrighsr: We’re putting Filly on the spot, she’s the only lady here 🙂

AGplusone: rary

Featherz Dad: Major Oz, I don’t think a fiction writer creates “young girls” he creates a young girl and unless she is just not a believable human being you run with it.

Merfilly8: (Must be using lady loosely….I’m a broad)

Reilloc: Huh?

Featherz Dad: I didn’t know you were overseas

Major oz: yeah…..huh?

Merfilly8: 🙂

Featherz Dad: are you guys huhing me?

Reilloc: Yes

Major oz: yeah\

Reilloc: what the hell did that mean anyway>?

Merfilly8: Actually, chick is the term I use for females, including myself

Major oz: But we can’t

AGplusone: Is it creates a character? or a girl?

dwrighsr: Dixie Chick

Reilloc: Goth Chixx

Major oz: Just as I can’t use the N word, but my AA neighbor can.

Merfilly8: not likely…I detest most country

Featherz Dad: OK. I don’t think you can judge an author by asking “does his character conform to the stereotype I hold for X” You get a human character, you are doing good.

AGplusone: I can try … but I’ll never satisfy anyone and everyone no matter how I write …

Merfilly8: I take no offense to anything except the ‘c’ word…that one makes me take your head with a two by four

Reilloc: Tell that to Kunta Kinte

Major oz: But we never know.

AGplusone: If I want to write someone boring, obsessed, with low self-esteem I can try that …

Featherz Dad: “Believable woman characters” presuposes that the critic knows every damn woman possible.

Merfilly8: True

Major oz: ……till it’s too late.

Merfilly8: Believeable characters is a matter of subjectivity

Major oz: anyway,,,,,I take the girls as “good characters” whether they are believable or not.

Major oz: My

AGplusone: unless I am boring, obsessed, and with low self-esteem, I’ve got no clue whether I’m doing it rightly … I can just research the subject and try.

Merfilly8: I believe Caesar may have been just like Colleen McCullogh writes…but I could be dead wrong

Major oz: Q is: are they representative.

GCEMS909: two weeks? still on thursday evenings? i will try to return then, i finally have a newsgroup servor and can look at alt.fan tatafornow, john

Merfilly8: YEs.

AGplusone: If you’ve read the same books I’ve read maybe you’ll agree I did well, or know the same people I observe, etc.

Merfilly8: nite John

Featherz Dad: And my answer is. I don’t think they are supposed to be representative

GCEMS909 has left the room.

AGplusone: Yes, John.

Reilloc: They’re anomalies

Reilloc: Intentionally?

AGplusone: I think for most of Heinlein they’re intended as exemplars …

AGplusone: or proponents of a position.

Major oz: Maybe so, maybe not. My question still stands. Whether you think it valid or not doesn’t matter.

Reilloc: BPRAL22169: I’m pretty sure To Sail has some structural function in the World As Myth series, but I don’t think there’s enough data to determine exactly what.

Reilloc: What’s that mean?

Featherz Dad: Not so much intentional anomolies as not referencing the typical except by accident. They are, admittedly incomplete, snapshots of individual human beings not types or groups.

Reilloc: Huh?

BPRAL22169: Kind of out of the discussion at the moment.

AGplusone: Going into what he thinks Heinlein may have continued writing had To Sail not been the last, I think.

Reilloc: They’re all in rehersal to be Maureen

Major oz: …..a deconstructionist, mayhap?

Reilloc: Maureen’s intended to be the archetype

Reilloc: That’s where To Sail fits

Major oz: David, break out the shields…………………….

AGplusone: Bill’s read a lot of Cabell … and Cabell managed to finish or nearly finish a linking together of most or all of his works.

Featherz Dad: he isn’t writing to teach you about what young wome are like. He is writing to tell a story about a particular young woman. Maureen IS an archetype. I was talking about Poddy et al

BPRAL22169: Well, the conversation seems to have turned. I think the exsting books feel like about a third of a super-novel comparable to Cabell’s Biography of the Life of manuel

Major oz: …….and the boots.

Merfilly8: But there are several established Archetypes for women

AGplusone: Okay, he’s back …

Reilloc: Only one

Reilloc: There are off brands

Major oz: Read carefully: I KNOW THAT. Now that we have that straight, the Q is before the group.

BPRAL22169: There are some resonant structures among the different novels that look like they might be related. The parallelism of Friday with MJ is one of them. But the main convincer to me is taht they are building to a confrontation with the black hats that hasn’t yet taken place — they are in the stage of accumulating “enemies” without knowing who they are.

Featherz Dad: Nonsense, Reillock. Poddy woulld be sick if she turned out to be Maureen. Hazel Stone has her own line and her own life and is not one whit like Maureen.

Reilloc: I think it’s fairly clear who they are by negative implication

AGplusone: The otherwise nonsense about the Circle …

Reilloc: They’re against free will…

Reilloc: There are no females among them…

Major oz: the black hats?

Reilloc: They have both sexes in the same body and that’s inferior by definition…

AGplusone: Madame whatername in the Committee for Aesthetic Deletion?

Reilloc: The definition is: they can’t copulate with another.

Major oz: Where does this info come from?

Reilloc: NOTB

AGplusone: Yes ….

Featherz Dad: It isn’t clear there, although that is what I thought I read also.

Major oz: …..wasn’t paying attention……..

AGplusone: But it’s not certain it’s all-inclusive that they’ll be all from NOTB

Featherz Dad: If there IS a Black Hat, there cannot be much free will

Reilloc: How’s that?

dwrighsr: “They have both sexes in the same body and that’s inferior by definition…” By whose definition.?

Reilloc: See, above

Major oz: he did…..that’s why he asked

Reilloc: Why is there so much sex?

AGplusone: “Brainy” from NOTB is an example of what LN is saying.

Featherz Dad: I see that it might be considered inferior, not be able to have loving sex. IF they are prevented from that.

Major oz: ….they are released to a higher plane……

AGplusone: The game warden who doesn’t turn on when Deety tries to turn him on …

Reilloc: What’s the conceptual relationship between the blackhats and the little people?

Reilloc: None?

dwrighsr: They were not. It’s clear that they could both ‘pitch and catch’, although probably not at the same time.

Merfilly8: I don’t see one.

AGplusone: There could be some ….

Featherz Dad: Blackhats an little people. Haven’t seen one but there oughta be.

AGplusone: we just aren’t given enough yet …

Reilloc: In both cases the individual was subsumed into a greater communal consciousness.

BPRAL22169: In later books, the Circle has accumulated other antagonists — the Scene Changers and presumably an Author. But they have no intelligence about them.

Featherz Dad: Given the drive to tie things together.

Reilloc: Which didn’t include sex.

AGplusone: Little more than robots is true …

Merfilly8: Little people are “black hats” in that they represent a loss of free will, perhaps?

Featherz Dad: Group con would clearly be inferior to RAH, and to me.

dwrighsr: There is no indication that the ‘black hats’ were in a ‘communal consciousness’

Major oz: never had it.

Major oz: cant lose it

Major oz: qed

Featherz Dad: But I never saw that for the Black Hats

Merfilly8: But there was only one Black Hat in the end.

AGplusone: Or a subordination of the self so far as to become “Bugs” ….

Reilloc: They have no personalities

AGplusone: They play roles …. poorly.

BPRAL22169: There’s also a question as to whether the Panki are the Black Hats — or just tools of the Black hats.

Featherz Dad: Like Presidential candiadates

Reilloc: Just Bush

AGplusone: “Brainy” doesn’t know how to really be a human ….

AGplusone: sexless

Reilloc: or brains

Major oz: Panki..?….refresh me, please

Featherz Dad: I didn’t think the Black Hats worked very well as a concept.

Reilloc: Tell that to Jack Palance

BPRAL22169: The aliens of which Hilda dissected one.

BPRAL22169: N.O. Brain and the park ranger.

Reilloc: who do you think the renegade author was?

dwrighsr: ‘sexless’ as far as humans go, but that says nothing about their sexual activity towards one another.

Major oz: Do you think that H intended to tell us more about them, had he lived to write more?

Reilloc: they don’t have any

BPRAL22169: It was just a suspicion — in Cat, I think.

Featherz Dad:

Reilloc: It’s Twain. RAH was filled with guilt.

Merfilly8: In advancing World as Myth, to have all the Black Hats be the same one playing roles, pushed the concept of the Author being the only good or evil, to me

Reilloc: Just kidding

AGplusone: Poul Anderson has occurred to me ….

AGplusone: His Time Patrol is the *only* reaon I think that ….

Merfilly8: Actually Asimov came to my mind for some bizarre reason

Reilloc: I’d go with Ursula LeGuinn

Reilloc: she’d never ask me

AGplusone: Well, she’s definitely an opposite viewpoint.

Featherz Dad: Maybe when she was younger…

Major oz: Or are the Black Hats simply one consciousness that turns up here and there, like (as the church lady says) SATAN ???

Reilloc: I asked that

Reilloc: I suggested that

Major oz: So that, in Job, we can ferret it out

Reilloc: I think it’s a boring antagonist device

Featherz Dad: I know and my radio went to commercial. couldn’t pass it up.

AGplusone: And her ‘heroes’ are unreal to me!

BPRAL22169: Or are the Black Hats simply the Circle of Ouroboros later in their personal timelines? is the World As Myth recapitulating “All You Zombies”?

AGplusone: Inhuman.

Major oz: hokay, Reilloc, I just didn’t see it plainly.

BPRAL22169: On a vast, Doc-Smithian scale?

Featherz Dad: Well, some of UkLg heroes are supposed to be inhuman.

Reilloc: If that’s the case, it’s even more boring.

Featherz Dad: what UkLg or World as Myth or both

Merfilly8: Here’s one last question concerning the ladies from me…

Reilloc: snakes eating their own tails

Major oz: ga, filly

BPRAL22169: The Perpetual Motion Fur Farm was mentioned at one point, I believe.

Featherz Dad: agree and go for it, fily

Featherz Dad: filly

Merfilly8: Do any other authors have the same problem with critics over their “unrealistically sexy, smart women”?

AGplusone: Depends on how interesting the tail tastes, LN

Reilloc: Danielle Steele

Major oz: James Bond

Major oz: Dirk Pitt

BPRAL22169: And when Colin was waiting for the Circle, he witnessed the same electroinc sampler the agent saw i n “AYZ”

Reilloc: He wasn’t an author

Merfilly8: Hey, Bond is unbelievable…but I still can dream !

Featherz Dad: Danielle Steele has so MANY problems with the critics that this is just a minor one.

Major oz: hokay, Flemming and whatshisname

Reilloc: What electronic sampler? I’m not up on AYZ

Featherz Dad: Bond from the films or Bond from the books, Filly

Merfilly8: Using those cases as perspective, how do RAH women stack up?

Reilloc: Lousy

Merfilly8: (Connery or the books)

Major oz: stack……..????????

Reilloc: They’re all RAH with boobs.

Merfilly8: pun not intended

Major oz: smarter

Major oz: but too chatty

Major oz: some exceptions

Reilloc: too chatty?

Merfilly8: such as?

Major oz: (Friday)

AGplusone: Only in the sense that all the males are RAH, LN

Major oz: yak, yak, yak

Reilloc: What should they do?

Major oz: cutsie-pie dialog

Major oz: from 40′ radio

Featherz Dad: Well, his women are better than any character created by Danielle Steele but that is no contest. They are also better than Hemingway’s women but not because EH created women who were TOO smart or sexy.

Major oz: I know—–I know, that is when they were written

Merfilly8: You mentioned dated dialog earlier, didn’t you?

Major oz: or some of them

Major oz: that’s where H was from

Featherz Dad: They are better than Faulkner’s women because you can finish a page of Heinlein.

BPRAL22169: It would be too long to recapituate — jus tpick up a copy of

Fantasies or Unpleasant Profession. The scene is near the end of “All You Zombies.”

Major oz: I usually do, filly

Reilloc: Will do.

Merfilly8: I am a native Mississippian who can’t stand Faulkner

Major oz: some good, some bad.

Major oz: Barn Burning is great.

Major oz: Most cures Insomnia

Reilloc: Faulkner rules. Somebody ought to write Faulkner scifi

Featherz Dad: They are better than Margret Atwood’s women because they are not ALL jerks.

Merfilly8: My choice in American authors tend to be slim

AGplusone: Be fun to read it …

Reilloc: Pickens or Whitman?

Major oz: slim who?

Major oz:

Merfilly8: lol

Featherz Dad: No Faulkner SF for this boy.

Reilloc: Think of the punctuation you’d save

Featherz Dad: No Faulkner at all any more.

BPRAL22169: Robert Silverberg wrote what I think of FAulknerian sf in the early 70’s.

Merfilly8: I had read most of Twain’s better known stories and a lot of Shakespearean comedies by age 8…so I’m twisted

Reilloc: Not dense enough.

Featherz Dad: I liked some of that Silverberg.

Merfilly8: It set the tone for future reading

Featherz Dad: Oh, your dense enough 🙂

Reilloc: “you’re”

Major oz: Not well read enough of the “good” stuff, to comment.

Featherz Dad: true. However, I was thinking seriously of why I don’t like Faulkner and I think dense has a great deal to do with it.

Reilloc: No commnet

Reilloc: comment

Reilloc: I have commnet but seldom telnet

Merfilly8: I find I have a hard time reading Burroughs now.

Reilloc: William?

Featherz Dad: Too much in the way of the story line. If he were at my campfire, we would shut him up.

Merfilly8: EDgar Rice

Featherz Dad: Reread Cities of the Red Night. Not bad.

Reilloc: Jimmie Carter of Mars was my fav.

Reilloc: Simple farmer who rose to the top of an empire during the moral equivalent of war

Merfilly8: They have peanuts on Mars?

Reilloc: They lust after them in their hearts

Featherz Dad: I explained most of _Ulyses_ to my classmates. If being smart and figuring things out is what you want from a novel, we just disagree. But I like your idea of Jimmie Carter on Mars.

Reilloc: of

Merfilly8: So what is the next topic for us?

AGplusone: They also lust after women who lay eggs. I’m open to suggestions ….

BPRAL22169: Has this group ever done the superman/competentman/elect topic?

AGplusone: Think on it between now and Saturday … Jani was thinking about trying IWFNE …. now that she’s back.

Reilloc: Implicitly

Merfilly8: I’d have to find a copy, but I’m game

Merfilly8: but “I am only an egg”

AGplusone: Anyway, everyone think on it … e mail me between now and then if you wish, and we’ll decide last hour Saturday

Featherz Dad: I will be at the poker table on Sat. See you in two weeks. I have to reread IWFNE sometime so it might as well be in the next two weeks.

Reilloc: Why waste a good two weeks?

Major oz: In “something”woods in Conneticutt?

AGplusone: Maybe it won’t be …

Merfilly8: I’ll try to make that last hour….working me to death on Saturdays

Featherz Dad: Even if it isn’t the topic, I won’t take two weeks to read IWFNE

Reilloc: Why waste 10 minutes with that loser

Featherz Dad: Foxwoods. Come on down. Have a few drinks first

AGplusone: maybe we’ll come out and never read it again …

Major oz: I’m in the Bible belt, no poker playin’ round here.

Reilloc: You’re in Kansas too?

Featherz Dad: I want to figure out if it is as bad as I thought the first time. It did have some good things in it.

Major oz: Ozarks

Merfilly8: I could get a good amateur game going, but it would devolve to strip

Reilloc: Arkansas?

Major oz: MO

Reilloc: Springfield?

Major oz: Land of the dead senator

Reilloc: Mel rules from the grave.

Major oz: 70 mi e or Springtown

Merfilly8: the first ever they say

Major oz: of

dwrighsr: That’s all right. we had a lot of dead voters 😉

Featherz Dad: There is LOTS of poker all around you. I played pot-limit straght stud in a CHURCH in Arkansas.

Reilloc: Rush Limbaugh’s old blubbering grounds.

Major oz: Oh chicago, right?

dwrighsr: It’s not limited to Chicago.

AGplusone: I know there have been some appointed between election and term, after winning election, and some who stood in for the campaign and won, when there was time to get on ballot.

Major oz: Nah, he blubbered in California, he made a bundle in NYC

Reilloc: But he started in the bootheel

Major oz: at 13

AGplusone: VFW halls work

Reilloc: He almost triggered the New Madrid fault when he fell.

Major oz: seen him lately?

Reilloc: No.

Major oz: slim and trim

Reilloc: Regular slim pickens, eh?

Featherz Dad: And rich

AGplusone: And so do the basements of Masonic Temples depending on the lodge

Major oz: VERY rich

Reilloc: You can never be too thin or to fascistic.

Featherz Dad: And not nearly as interested in politics as he seems toe.

Featherz Dad: to be

Major oz: Yes I can.

Merfilly8: Okay, Guys…seems It’s nearly midnight, so I am going to leave, if it is okay for the hostess to withdraw 🙂

Reilloc: That was Sammy Davis

Featherz Dad: Gnight, filly and all.

AGplusone: Absolutely, wonderful job, Filly, and thanks!

Major oz: WELL DONE, FILLY

AGplusone: Our best to Ebon.

Reilloc: Good job, moderator.

Featherz Dad: Definitely. good ol’ platelets and all

Merfilly8: Thanks And I’ll deliver that message.

Merfilly8: nite

Merfilly8 has left the room.

AGplusone: :::::::::: thunderous applause :::::::::::

Reilloc: Night all.

Reilloc has left the room.

AGplusone: G’nite.

Featherz Dad: night, collier

Major oz: see ya sat

Featherz Dad: One of these days I am going to get him to make a point and defend it. oh well

Featherz Dad: see you.

Featherz Dad has left the room.

Major oz has left the room.

AGplusone: We are down to five … a good but not great poker table

AGplusone: Now it’s three. Too few.

AGplusone: Night all. Dave do you have this one?

dwrighsr: That’s what we need, an interactive internet poker game.

dwrighsr: Got it all.

AGplusone: Okay … see ya, both. Bill I don’t know about Saturday morning yet.

AGplusone: Not a lot of time left to set it up.

BPRAL22169: ok

AGplusone: The election sorta screwed a few things up ….

AGplusone: 🙂

BPRAL22169: Yuh think?

BPRAL22169: There’s always next week.

AGplusone: OJ is considering what I asked him to do … JP Ogden is on … why don’t we try for next week.

BPRAL22169: Fine by me.

dwrighsr: I’ll see you guys in two weeks. I’m off to a conference this weekend.

AGplusone: Okay, Dave, thanks again.

BPRAL22169: ciao

BPRAL22169: and g’day.

BPRAL22169 has left the room.

AGplusone: mañana

dwrighsr: Log officially closed at 11:54 P.M. EST

maikoshT has left the room.

BookPotato has entered the room.

BookPotato: Looks like I figured it out.. finally… not meaning to intrude.

dwrighsr: You are a little too late. Everybody’s gone home already.

dwrighsr: give me your e-mail address and I’ll send you a notice of the log when I get it edited

BookPotato: Maybe next time.

BookPotato:

dwrighsr: Thanks. should be up in the morning. Thanks

AGplusone: Glad you made it back from the hospital anyway, dave.

BookPotato: I think I am already on your list.

AGplusone: Another Dave, Dave.

dwrighsr: Bozhe Moi!

AGplusone: Okay, I saved a back up. See you Saturday, Book!

BookPotato: Night

BookPotato has left the room.

AGplusone: Good night David

Final End of Discussion Log

Click Here to Return to Index


This entry was posted in Readers Group. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply