|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
Thursday 02-01-2001 9:00 P.M.
Heinlein's "Villains"
Here Begin The A.F.H. postings
We're going to be looking at the villains in Heinlein; not the foolish or misguided, no, the real, dyed in the wool Black hats :-) Think about who gets your vote for the worst; the perennial favourites like Mrs Grew and Mrs Keithley or can you come up with a new one, a new slant on someone's actions? David Silver might want to vote for Uncle Tom perhaps?
Some points to consider; did Heinlein's villains change as his work matured? Did they vanish even? Did they ever succeed or did good always triumph? Were they believable or comic book, not nasty enough or too nasty?
Looking forward to your thoughts here and your presence on the chats.
Jane
=========================================================================================
>Think about who gets your vote for the worst
Prof N.O.Brain got under my skin the most, I think.
>Did Heinlein's villains change as his work matured?
They were a pretty varied lot throughout, I think. It's hard to see a common type among the Governor in TMiaHM, Nehemiah Scudder, Prof N.O. Brain, the mutineer officer (forgotten his name) who Johnny Dahlquist gloriously defeated, the Boojum in NOTB and the slaver in Citizen of the Galaxy.
>Did they vanish even?
No
>Did they ever succeed or did good always triumph?
I can't think of one who ultimately triumphed, but the Boojum was never ultimately defeated.
>Were they believable or comic book, not nasty enough
>or too nasty?
Pretty believable most of them, imho (h stands for haughty).
Julian Treadwell
=========================================================================================
Julian Treadwell wrote:
>>Think about who gets your vote for the worst
>
>Prof N.O.Brain got under my skin the most, I think.
>
>
You see Neil O'Heret Brain as a villain? Well, as he's a Black Hat/ Heinlein in disguise I suppose he qualifies in a way. What does he actually do that's so bad though? All we see is him arguing with Jake and it would take a saint not to :-)
I had a theory that the villains were circular; at the beginning of his career they were slightly cliched and comic book; legless, faceless horrors in Lost Legacy, Nazis on the moon in RSG. Then, as his writing matured, the villains became more subtle; not the Wormfaces but the Three Galaxies, not John Thomas's mother but McClure...or no villain maybe. Then, at the end, tongue in cheek, he resurrected them all, The Galactic Overlord, himself as the Black Hats and came full circle.
One caveat; at the time of writing ( 1947 ), Nazis would have been a very real evil. Well, they still are but the idea of them hiding out to rise again has been done too many times. There is quite a chilling bit in RSG that contrasts with the rather formulaic Nazis that the boys defeat; when Art's mother tells how Hans, her husband looked when he was released from the concentration camp, to die soon after.
Jane
=========================================================================================
Jane said:
>Then, at the end,
>tongue in cheek, he resurrected them all, The Galactic Overlord, himself as
>the Black Hats and came full circle.
>
....huh ?
That is a POV I haven't encountered (but I am in the wilderness). Himself as the black hats. Could you (or someone) expand on this?
cheers
oz
=========================================================================================
>Heinlein's villains
>Think about who gets your vote for the worst; the perennial
>favourites like Mrs Grew and Mrs Keithley or can you come up with a
>new one, a new slant on someone's actions?
How about Yahweh of Job?
My other computer is a HOLMES FOUR.
=========================================================================================
Major oz wrote:
> Jane said:
>
>>Then, at the end,
>>tongue in cheek, he resurrected them all, The Galactic Overlord, himself as
>>the Black Hats and came full circle.
>>
>
> ....huh ?
>
>That is a POV I haven't encountered (but I am in the wilderness). Himself as
>the black hats. Could you (or someone) expand on this?
>
>cheers
>
>oz
All the Black Hats in the book have names that are anagrams of Heinlein's name, Ginny's name or Heinlein's pseudonyms. In a letter to friends at the time NOTB was published, Heinlein says that he is the Black Hat. I think the idea is that the BH are the impetus that pushes the explorers from one situation to another and generally keeps the pot, sorry, plot, boiling.
This has been mentioned here quite often so I assumed most people would know what I meant; sorry, I wasn't intending to be cryptic! :-)
From the letter;
The first number is the page number in the USA editions; the second number ( in parentheses) refers to the UK editions. 19 (9) Neil O'Heret Brain = Robert A Heinlein
93 (93) Bennie Hibol = Bob Heinlein
176 (177) Morinosky = Simon York (pen name; UNKNOWN et al.)
262 (273) Iver Hird-Jones = John Riverside (pen name: UNKNOWN et al.)
499 (539) The Villains Nine Rig Ruin = Lt Virginia Heinlein USNR
499 (540) Torne, Hernia, Lien and Snob = Robert Anson Heinlein
509 (553) Sir Tenderloinn the Brutal = Lt Robert A Heinlein USN RTD
509 (554) L Ron O'Leemy = Lyle Monroe ( pen name for SF 1939 -46)
510 (555) Mellrooney = Lyle Monroe ( pen name for SF 1939 - 46)
Heinlein then signed the letter R.A "Beast" Heinlein.
Jane
=========================================================================================
Jane wrote:
...
>From the letter;
>The first number is the page number in the USA editions; the second number (in
>parentheses) refers to the UK editions.
>19 (9) Neil O'Heret Brain = Robert A Heinlein
>93 (93) Bennie Hibol = Bob Heinlein
>176 (177) Morinosky = Simon York (pen name; UNKNOWN et al.)
>262 (273) Iver Hird-Jones = John Riverside (pen name: UNKNOWN et al.)
>499 (539) The Villains Nine Rig Ruin = Lt Virginia Heinlein USNR
>499 (540) Torne, Hernia, Lien and Snob = Robert Anson Heinlein
>509 (553) Sir Tenderloinn the Brutal = Lt Robert A Heinlein USN RTD
>509 (554) L Ron O'Leemy = Lyle Monroe ( pen name for SF 1939 -46)
>510 (555) Mellrooney = Lyle Monroe ( pen name for SF 1939 - 46)
>
...
I hadn't realised Morinosky and Hird-Jones were Beasts.
Something new every day...
=========================================================================================
In article <3A71E78B.7DA7F261@netcom.ca>,
ddavitt <ddavitt@netcom.ca> wrote:
>All the Black Hats in the book have names that are anagrams of Heinlein's name,
>Ginny's name or Heinlein's pseudonyms. In a letter to friends at the time NOTB
>was published, Heinlein says that he is the Black Hat. I think the idea is that
>the BH are the impetus that pushes the explorers from one situation to another
>and generally keeps the pot, sorry, plot, boiling.
>This has been mentioned here quite often so I assumed most people would know what
>I meant; sorry, I wasn't intending to be cryptic! :-)
>
>From the letter;
>The first number is the page number in the USA editions; the second number (in
>parentheses) refers to the UK editions.
>19 (9) Neil O’Heret Brain = Robert A Heinlein
>93 (93) Bennie Hibol = Bob Heinlein
>176 (177) Morinosky = Simon York (pen name; UNKNOWN et al.)
>262 (273) Iver Hird-Jones = John Riverside (pen name: UNKNOWN et al.)
>499 (539) The Villains Nine Rig Ruin = Lt Virginia Heinlein USNR
>499 (540) Torne, Hernia, Lien and Snob = Robert Anson Heinlein
>509 (553) Sir Tenderloinn the Brutal = Lt Robert A Heinlein USN RTD
>509 (554) L Ron O’Leemy = Lyle Monroe ( pen name for SF 1939 -46)
>510 (555) Mellrooney = Lyle Monroe ( pen name for SF 1939 - 46)
>
>Heinlein then signed the letter R.A "Beast" Heinlein.
>
>Jane
>
Unbelievable! This is so cool! I had no idea about this anagram relationship with the Black Hat names! This is why I subscribe to this group. NOTB will always be one of my favorite books by anyone...
Scott Hendrick
=========================================================================================
>All the Black Hats in the book have names that are anagrams...
[snip examples]
Thank you so much, Jane.
This is a whole new area for me to digest.
cheers
oz
=========================================================================================
ddavitt wrote:
.SNIP re NotB.
>All the Black Hats in the book have names that are anagrams of Heinlein's name,
>Ginny's name or Heinlein's pseudonyms. In a letter to friends at the time NOTB
>was published, Heinlein says that he is the Black Hat. I think the idea is that
>the BH are the impetus that pushes the explorers from one situation to another
>and generally keeps the pot, sorry, plot, boiling.
>This has been mentioned here quite often so I assumed most people would know what
>I meant; sorry, I wasn't intending to be cryptic! :-)
>
>From the letter;
>The first number is the page number in the USA editions; the second number (in
>parentheses) refers to the UK editions.
>19 (9) Neil O'Heret Brain = Robert A Heinlein
>93 (93) Bennie Hibol = Bob Heinlein
>176 (177) Morinosky = Simon York (pen name; UNKNOWN et al.)
>262 (273) Iver Hird-Jones = John Riverside (pen name: UNKNOWN et al.)
>499 (539) The Villains Nine Rig Ruin = Lt Virginia Heinlein USNR
>499 (540) Torne, Hernia, Lien and Snob = Robert Anson Heinlein
>509 (553) Sir Tenderloinn the Brutal = Lt Robert A Heinlein USN RTD
>509 (554) L Ron O'Leemy = Lyle Monroe ( pen name for SF 1939 -46)
>510 (555) Mellrooney = Lyle Monroe ( pen name for SF 1939 - 46)
>
>Heinlein then signed the letter R.A "Beast" Heinlein.
>
>Jane
>
One name that isn't on the list is Private Hooly - the "wog", or Boojum analogue of a chimpanzee. I know he isn't a villain, but that name looks suspiciously like an anagram to me; I just can't work out a reasonable one. Does anyone have any ideas - it might be another Heinlein pseudonym, a red herring or perhaps he was making a monkey out of another author?
[Simon Jester]
=========================================================================================
>Heinlein's villains
>Think about who gets your vote for the worst; the perennial
>favourites like Mrs Grew and Mrs Keithley or can you come up with a
>new one, a new slant on someone's actions?
How about Yahweh of Job?
My other computer is a HOLMES FOUR.
[LV Poker Player]
=========================================================================================
LV Poker Player wrote:
>>Heinlein's villains
>
>>Think about who gets your vote for the worst; the perennial
>>favourites like Mrs Grew and Mrs Keithley or can you come up with a
>>new one, a new slant on someone's actions?
>
>How about Yahweh of Job?
>
>
>My other computer is a HOLMES FOUR.
Or how about Loki of Job?
Quite possibly the only genuinely evil character in all of Heinlein's "adult" work - all of the others had some sort of redeeming quality, at least in their own eyes.
IIRC, Heinlein mentions in a few of his books that Male witches don't like being referred to as Warlocks - a title meaning Oath-Breaker, derived from Loki (the Norse prince of lies).
[Simon Jester]
=========================================================================================
>From: "Simon Jester"
>Or how about Loki of Job?
Didn't play as big of a role as Yahweh, but still a candidate I would say.
>Quite possibly the only genuinely evil character in all of Heinlein's
>"adult" work - all of the others had some sort of redeeming quality, at
>least in their own eyes.
Yes, and one of my favorite Notebooks entries is "Your enemy is never a villain in his own eyes. Keep this in mind; it may offer a way to make him your friend. If not, you can kill him without hate - and quickly." This is one of my all time favorite notebook entries. Some may have guessed this from the number of times I refer to it.
Let's take a look at, say, Belle and Miles from The Door Into Summer. Miles was hoodwinked by Belle and no doubt actually thought he was doing the best thing for their company and for Dan. I would guess that if pressed, Belle's attitude would have been along the lines of "Well, a gal's got to look out for herself, doesn't she? No one else will. Dan shouldn't have been so trusting. Trust doesn't pay in this world."
My other computer is a HOLMES FOUR.
[LV Poker Player]
=========================================================================================
LV Poker Player wrote:
>
>Let's take a look at, say, Belle and Miles from The Door Into Summer. Miles
>was hoodwinked by Belle and no doubt actually thought he was doing the best
>thing for their company and for Dan. I would guess that if pressed, Belle's
>attitude would have been along the lines of "Well, a gal's got to look out for
>herself, doesn't she? No one else will. Dan shouldn't have been so trusting.
>Trust doesn't pay in this world."
>
>
But doesn't that mean that hardly anyone is a villain? Do they have to agree that they're evil? Who decides?
I think Mrs Grew, torturing children for money, qualifies as one of the worst. The Three Galaxies, rotating entire planets and murdering untold millions come pretty close too.
Jane
=========================================================================================
Jane:
>But doesn't that mean that hardly anyone is a villain? Do they have to agree
>that
>they're evil? Who decides?
>I think Mrs Grew, torturing children for money, qualifies as one of the
>worst. The
>Three Galaxies, rotating entire planets and murdering untold millions come
>pretty
>close too.
I'd discount anything or anyone not a human, e.g., the government of the Three Galaxies, the wormfaces, the deity from Job ...
Taking the order of importance observed by Heinlein and noted in Dave Wright's essay on anarchy of duty towards other humans ... i.e., family, then clan, then tribe (etc.) or whatever the order was (I'll have to look at that essay again) ... I'd theoretically look for the greatest villain as one who betrayed the family group to which he or she belonged. Perhaps Uncle Tom, or Thorby's grandparents, or someone else, depending on the nature of the wrong committed might qualify, here?
--
David M. Silver
AGplusone@aol.com
"I expect your names to shine!"
=========================================================================================
AGplusone wrote:
...
>I'd discount anything or anyone not a human, e.g., the government of the Three
>Galaxies, the wormfaces, the deity from Job ...
...
I'd say any human gods could be included. In SiaSL, Jubal points out that most (all?) gods are basically human beings writ large - I think there's a quote to the effect that they "have the manners and morals of a small child".
Thou shalt honour the 11th commandment and keep it Wholly.
[Simon Jester]
=========================================================================================
AGplusone wrote:.
>
>Taking the order of importance observed by Heinlein and noted in Dave Wright's
>essay on anarchy of duty towards other humans ... i.e., family, then clan, then
>tribe (etc.) or whatever the order was (I'll have to look at that essay again)
>... I'd theoretically look for the greatest villain as one who betrayed the
>family group to which he or she belonged. Perhaps Uncle Tom, or Thorby's
>grandparents, or someone else, depending on the nature of the wrong committed
>might qualify, here?
>--
>
Well, one example that falls under this definition is the renegade who works for the slugs without needing one on his back.
" a thing so outrageous, so damnably disgusting that I hesitate even to mention it, though I feel I must - there were men and women here and there among the slugs, humans ( if you could call them that) without slugs...trusties....renegades. I hate slugs but I would turn from killing a slug to kill one such."
The slugs identify them by riding them, plumbing the murky depths of their minds, then releasing them, knowing that they will obey willingly. These are villains, devoid of all natural feelings of loyalty to one's kind. I always wondered how they functioned in the world before the slugs came. The one Sam kills was a well known amateur sportsman, a 'gentleman' referee whatever that is. It sounds as if he was popular and famous so he must have done a good job of camouflaging his nature.
Jane
=========================================================================================
On Sat, 27 Jan 2001 15:43:54 -0500, ddavitt
>The slugs identify them by riding them, plumbing the murky depths of their minds,
>then releasing them, knowing that they will obey willingly. These are villains,
>devoid of all natural feelings of loyalty to one's kind.
This is EXACTLY my opinion of PETA members -- People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. They betray and harm humans routinely for the benefit of creatures not of their species. In fact, they view a preference for humans as "speciesism." Some scientists have noted that PETA's speciesism could be extended to preferring things that look like people (cocker spaniels) and not being so concerned with the fate of animals that don't, such as lab rats or bacteria.
Phebe
=========================================================================================
>From: ddavitt ddavitt@netcom.ca
>But doesn't that mean that hardly anyone is a villain?
Not in their own eyes.
>Do they have to agree that
>they're evil? Who decides?
No, they don't have to agree. Our prisons would be somewhat empty if we let people decide that one for themselves. As for who decides, well, I have my standards. The government as a whole has standards. Mrs. Grundy has hers. I don't think there can be an overall preferred decision maker on this one.
>I think Mrs Grew, torturing children for money, qualifies as one of the worst.
So do I. But Mrs. Grew herself would probably disagree.
[LV Poker Player]
=========================================================================================
On 27 Jan 2001 11:05:50 GMT, lvpokerplayer@aol.com (LV Poker Player)
wrote:
>>I think Mrs Grew, torturing children for money, qualifies as one of the worst.
>
>So do I. But Mrs. Grew herself would probably disagree.
How do you think she would have justified herself?
Phebe
=========================================================================================
>From: Phebe pheb@bellatlantic.ne
>>>I think Mrs Grew, torturing children for money, qualifies as one of the worst.
>>
>>So do I. But Mrs. Grew herself would probably disagree.
>
>
>How do you think she would have justified herself?
My guess is that she was a totally amoral person, with no feelings or empathy for anyone but herself. If you pointed out that she was torturing children, her reaction probably would have been along the lines of "So what? What difference does that make? No skin off my nose." From what I understand, the most vicious criminals in our prisons are like this, and make no attempt to justify their actions because they need none. They did what they wanted because they wanted to, no further justification needed. Someone who knows more about criminal psychology than I do might want to weigh in here.
To sum up, her attitude would probably be "I don't need to justify myself. You want me to stop, pay me more than my current employers do."
My other computer is a HOLMES FOUR.
[LV Poker Player]
=========================================================================================
On Fri, 26 Jan 2001 21:29:03 -0500, ddavitt
>The
>Three Galaxies, rotating entire planets and murdering untold millions come pretty
>close too.
The Three Galaxies wasn't a villain, it was a court system.
I guess one's opinion of this may depend on one's opinion of capital punishment. The idea of an intelligent species that is just too dangerous to allow to live is common in scifi, books and movies (The Borg, Aliens). It worked for me, and the point ---- that they didn't move their sun along with their planet ---- was, ummmmmmm, chilling, let's say.
Phebe
=========================================================================================
On Fri, 26 Jan 2001 21:29:03 -0500, ddavitt
insisted that the sooth was being spoken here:
>But doesn't that mean that hardly anyone is a villain? Do they have to agree that
>they're evil? Who decides?
>I think Mrs Grew, torturing children for money, qualifies as one of the worst. The
>Three Galaxies, rotating entire planets and murdering untold millions come pretty
>close too.
>
>Jane
I believe that to be a true villain, one must knowingly _choose_ evil. ("Better to reign in hell than serve in heaven", Richard III, Mordred, Fu Manchu, the I.B.I. Lieutenant in Between Planets, the three "vultures" who try to rape Dora.)
But antagonists who are obstacles our hero(ine) must overcome seem to me to have interested Heinlein more. Often they are either unimaginative bumblers like "Stinkey" Burke, or competents who have different value systems (the Martian Dak kills). Both types believe in the rightness of their cause, but only one seems to be worthy of the respect of Heinlein's protagonists.
--
Jon
"if someone gets something out of the story that the author didn't
intend then I'd say they were making too much soup from one oyster."
ddavit
=========================================================================================
jon ogden wrote:
>
>
>But antagonists who are obstacles our hero(ine) must overcome seem to
>me to have interested Heinlein more. Often they are either
>unimaginative bumblers like "Stinkey" Burke, or competents who have
>different value systems (the Martian Dak kills). Both types believe
>in the rightness of their cause, but only one seems to be worthy of
>the respect of Heinlein's protagonists.
>
>
Seems to me then that not all Heinlein books have villains. They all have some irritant or goad that pushes the hero into action, or matures him/her but not necessarily villains.
I'm thinking of Farmer for instance. Bill meets some stupid people, some nasty people, some aggravating people. In learning to deal with them he grows in self control but none of them are evil.
There's an interesting bit in Cat where John Sterling, the fictional character that Roger and Hazel Stone wrote about, leaves a picnic as he can't take time off from fighting his arch nemesis the Galactic Overlord. Jubal says,
"There goes real nobility. When at last he destroys the Overlord, he will be erased. He knows it. It doesn't stop him."
Colin asks why he will be erased and is told,
"...for plot purposes, especially in adventure stories, heroes and villains come in complementary pairs. Each is necessary to the other."
Later Colin realizes that;
"A hero of Sterling's stature must oppose a villain as strong as he is. If we kill off the overlord, then we must dream up Son of Overlord, with just as many balls, teeth just as long, disposition just as vile, and steam coming out of his ears."
So; no Mrs Grew isn't a good thing? Or does the above only work for the comic book villains who aren't really evil, they're just drawn that way ( echoes of Jessica Rabbit :-))
Jane
(nice sig Jon!
=========================================================================================
On Sun, 28 Jan 2001 17:10:09 -0500, ddavitt
insisted that the sooth was being spoken here:
>
>Seems to me then that not all Heinlein books have villains. They all have some irritant
>or goad that pushes the hero into action, or matures him/her but not necessarily
>villains.
I have trouble coming up with "real" villains in his books. His heroes fight for for their survival and for their group's survival against an assortment of greed, stupidity, environmental problems, alien ways of thinking, and -- mostly -- themselves. So many of his stories are about his heroes have to break through the straitjacket of their own thinking that it would seem to be the unifying theme of his fiction.
>I'm thinking of Farmer for instance. Bill meets some stupid people, some nasty people,
>some aggravating people. In learning to deal with them he grows in self control but
>none of them are evil.
Absolutely! And then same thing could be said about M. V. Smith and Waldo.
>There's an interesting bit in Cat where John Sterling, the fictional character that
>Roger and Hazel Stone wrote about, leaves a picnic as he can't take time off from
>fighting his arch nemesis the Galactic Overlord. Jubal says,
>"There goes real nobility. When at last he destroys the Overlord, he will be erased. He
>knows it. It doesn't stop him."
>Colin asks why he will be erased and is told,
>"...for plot purposes, especially in adventure stories, heroes and villains come in
>complementary pairs. Each is necessary to the other."
And, as they are presented here, both equally boring. Superman versus Brainiac is never as interesting as Batman confronting Two-Face.
>Later Colin realizes that;
>"A hero of Sterling's stature must oppose a villain as strong as he is. If we kill off
>the overlord, then we must dream up Son of Overlord, with just as many balls, teeth
>just as long, disposition just as vile, and steam coming out of his ears."
Dungeon Masters have that trouble in their games. After awhile the player-characters become so powerful than only deities can oppose them - that's when the smart DM announces that the character has been elevated directly into heaven and is now a demigod - he can be prayed to, but not played.
>So; no Mrs Grew isn't a good thing?
I don't think she qualifies. Too alien. On the other hand, I think that Job's Jehova may. (Not human, per se, but apparently sharing our value system.)
>Or does the above only work for the comic book
>villains who aren't really evil, they're just drawn that way ( echoes of Jessica Rabbit
Well that's certainly true when Oscar faces Cyrano. (or the Cryano-doppleganger, I'm not sure which, or whether RAH meant there to be a difference.) On the other hand, Laz says that there are some men, you don't bother to waste time on - you just shoot them.
The epitome of non-villains, for me, is Manning in SU. I have often wondered if, in Heinlein's mind, he was able to hold onto enough of his idealism to create a Patrol that would ultimately overthrow him and probably put him on trial for his crimes.
>Jane
>(nice sig Jon!
I like it
--
Jon
"if someone gets something out of the story that the author didn't
intend then I'd say they were making too much soup from one oyster."
ddavit
=========================================================================================
On 26 Jan 2001 22:45:29 GMT, lvpokerplayer@aol.com (LV Poker Player)
wrote:
>Miles
>was hoodwinked by Belle and no doubt actually thought he was doing the best
>thing for their company and for Dan. I would guess that if pressed, Belle's
>attitude would have been along the lines of "Well, a gal's got to look out for
>herself, doesn't she? No one else will. Dan shouldn't have been so trusting.
>Trust doesn't pay in this world."
I doubt Miles thought that. As for Belle, I doubt that she would have used that rationale....I don't know what she would have thought. Because later, when he comes back and she is an alcoholic with her looks ruined, she has forgotten all about her perfidy! She thinks he still ought to love her. A good example of people believing they are always in the right. So she dealt with her actions by simply forgetting them. Anyone else have an opinion on that? After all, they ARE stealing the company and patents outright! Belle is one of my "favorite" villains in the sense that she is complex and believable.
Phebe
=========================================================================================
>From: Phebe pheb@bellatlantic.net
>>Miles
>>was hoodwinked by Belle and no doubt actually thought he was doing the best
>>thing for their company and for Dan. I would guess that if pressed, Belle's
>>attitude would have been along the lines of "Well, a gal's got to look out for
>>herself, doesn't she? No one else will. Dan shouldn't have been so >trusting.
>>Trust doesn't pay in this world."
>
>
>I doubt Miles thought that. As for Belle, I doubt that she would have
>used that rationale....I don't know what she would have thought.
>Because later, when he comes back and she is an alcoholic with her
>looks ruined, she has forgotten all about her perfidy! She thinks he
>still ought to love her. A good example of people believing they are
>always in the right. So she dealt with her actions by simply
>forgetting them. Anyone else have an opinion on that? After all, they
>ARE stealing the company and patents outright! Belle is one of my
>"favorite" villains in the sense that she is complex and believable.
Not really. Remember, he was given a check for his stock and a bonus on top of it. My guess is that Belle had Miles thinking that this was more than sufficient compensation, and that Dan really was standing in the way of progress. They were freeing Dan to go his own way, while paying him, and freeing themselves to turn the company into a major industry. Belle would have been good at this sort of persuasion.
As for Belle, my justification is one of several that would be possible. But I really doubt if she considered herself a villainess.
It's been a while since I read The Door Into Summer, and I think it disappeared in my last move, along with Cat. But I seem to remember when Dan visited her in her fleabag apartment, she did attempt a justification along the lines of Dan was "sick" and they did what they did to "help" him? Am I remembering that right? She would not have seen it that way at the time of the swindle, but that was the way her memory of it turned out, and I think she honestly believed it as she sat there in an alcoholic stupor.
Even if her actual justification at the time of the swindle was different from what I proposed, I still stand by my assertion that very few people are villains in their own eyes, and that Belle was not one who saw herself as a villain.
My other computer is a HOLMES FOUR.
[LV Poker Player]
=========================================================================================
On 27 Jan 2001 21:32:35 GMT, lvpokerplayer@aol.com (LV Poker Player)
wrote:
>Remember, [Dan] was given a check for his stock and a bonus on top of
>it. My guess is that Belle had Miles thinking that this was more than
>sufficient compensation, and that Dan really was standing in the way of
>progress. They were freeing Dan to go his own way, while paying him, and
>freeing themselves to turn the company into a major industry.
>
>As for Belle, my justification is one of several that would be possible. But I
>really doubt if she considered herself a villainess.
>
Good, I think you are right. There's quite a lot like that that actually goes on in the corporate world ---- the inventor, the start-up guy, forced out when his style holds back the sharks that currently have control.
>I seem to remember when Dan visited her
>in her fleabag apartment, she did attempt a justification along the lines of
>Dan was "sick" and they did what they did to "help" him? Am I remembering that
>right? She would not have seen it that way at the time of the swindle, but
>that was the way her memory of it turned out, and I think she honestly believed
>it as she sat there in an alcoholic stupor.
I think so. I thought I had that book memorized, but it's been awhile since last reread, I guess. It is Dan's careful gallantry that I recall. In that scene, that is.
Phebe
=========================================================================================
"AGplusone" <agplusone@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010126225526.07832.00000445@ng-ch1.aol.com...
> Jane:
>
>>But doesn't that mean that hardly anyone is a villain? Do they have to agree that
>>they're evil? Who decides?
>>I think Mrs Grew, torturing children for money, qualifies as one of the worst. The
>>Three Galaxies, rotating entire planets and murdering untold millions come
>>pretty close too.
>
>I'd discount anything or anyone not a human, e.g., the government of the Three
>Galaxies, the wormfaces, the deity from Job ...
>
>Taking the order of importance observed by Heinlein and noted in Dave Wright's
>essay on anarchy of duty towards other humans ... i.e., family, then clan, then
>tribe (etc.) or whatever the order was (I'll have to look at that essay again)
>... I'd theoretically look for the greatest villain as one who betrayed the
>family group to which he or she belonged. Perhaps Uncle Tom, or Thorby's
>grandparents, or someone else, depending on the nature of the wrong
committed
>might qualify, here?
Thanks for taking time to read my essay. [Click here Adv.].
However, I have to disagree, (maybe). And although what I am about to say might sound cold-hearted and unfeeling, I see it is a necessary corollary of my interpretation of Heinlein's (fictionally expressed) 'theory of morals', that I outlined in the essay.
Loyalty to every level can be subjugated to a 'higher' level without its being a 'betrayal' of the lower levels. In this case, Uncle Tom submitted his nephew and niece to possible danger because of a desire to protect and advance the welfare of his country/planet. Just as a person can give up his own life to defend his family, he can also give up the life of his family, or as in this case, put them into a position where they might be subjected to harm, in order to do what he can to protect the life of his nation, or other 'higher' loyalty.
I know that many people would have strong feelings against such a viewpoint. I doubt, frankly, that I could do such a thing myself. Think about it for a moment. Almost no one would object to a person killing a person in their own self-defense. Very few would have objections to a person giving up his own life to protect the life of his family. Somewhat fewer, most likely, would have objections to a person giving up his own life in the defense of his country, even when such a loss would, most likely, cause some harm to his family. Many more would have objections to giving up the life of his family for the protection of their nation. I can't give any examples off the top of my head, but it is my gut feeling that many people, throughout history, have indeed sacrificed their families to some 'higher' loyalty, and that we don't necessarily consider them 'traitors' to their families. At the very least, we rarely call them "villains".
There are obvious exceptions and it happens often that such a 'theory' can be nothing more than a 'rationalization' to commit evil in the name of the 'nation' or the 'race' or whatever group might be appropriate. I doubt that such people would ever consider themselves 'evil' in their own eyes, however.
In some cases, such people would, in reality, be 'amoral' as was pointed out on this thread by someone and would have no idea of 'right and wrong' and have no care for the consequences of their actions with respect to the welfare of others. Some others would *know* that what they were doing was wrong, but, in spite of this, put their own welfare above all others and also care nothing about the consequences. In yet a third case, some would be 'honestly convinced to the rightness of their cause'. The first two cases, IMHO, are definitely 'evil'. The reality is, of course, that they have never acheived 'any loyalty' to anything above their own self-interest. The third, I could not call evil, even though I wouldn't hesitate to condemn the actions of all three cases and do everything in my power to stop them, if they caused harm or suffering to others. (Something to consider. Perhaps that which distinuishes the first two cases from the third, namely pure self-interest versus loyalty to something above self-interest, marks the definition of 'evil'. Even though all three can cause harm to others).
In light of this, I can concede the possiblity,(and this is why I put in the 'maybe' at the beginning), that Uncle Tom was working from what he 'perceived' to be the right thing for his country, when, in fact, his perception was wrong. I definitely don't think that he falls into either of the first two categories, and even if we grant, for the purpose of discussion, that his loyalty to his nation/planet might eventually cause harm to others, I can't call him 'evil' or a 'villain'.
The problem with all of this is that it is quite often impossible to determine the 'motivation' of characters and thus impossible to determine into which category they fall.
David Wright
=========================================================================================
jon ogden wrote:
>
>>So; no Mrs Grew isn't a good thing?
>
>I don't think she qualifies. Too alien. On the other hand, I think
>that Job's Jehova may. (Not human, per se, but apparently sharing our
>value system.)
>
>
That's an interesting POV; why alien? Because harming children is so awful a deed that it's not compatible with being human? I don't quite see how that works; we could never have villains if villains have to be human and evil isn't human. Maybe I'm just reading it wrong; could you expand a bit?
Jane
=========================================================================================
David Wright:
>In this case, Uncle Tom submitted
>his nephew and niece to possible danger because of a desire to protect and
>advance the welfare of his country/planet. Just as a person can give up
>his
>own life to defend his family, he can also give up the life of his family,
>or as in this case, put them into a position where they might be subjected
>to harm, in order to do what he can to protect the life of his nation, or
>other 'higher' loyalty.
Yeah, but ... he put them in that position (as decoy) unwittingly so far as Poddy and Clark (and their parents) were concerned. I could see him saying: "Listen, kids, if you come with me, you might be in danger because there are evil men who may try to stop me and you might be injured collaterally." But he didn't do that. Had he done so Clark might possibly not have been so stupid as to agreed to smuggle what turned out to be the A-bomb on board. He didn't talk to the parents about this aspect either. I don't care how far in the clouds that father's head was. I can imagine the conversation between Uncle Tom and his brother-in-law. "You want to use my kids as WHAT?! You realize of course this means you never set foot in this house again (or worse, "we have to meet in a set duel"), don't you?"
Yes, people take their families in covered wagons across the continent; but they usually have a slight clue what they're getting into.
--
David M. Silver
AGplusone@aol.com
"I expect your names to shine!"
=========================================================================================
On Mon, 29 Jan 2001 12:42:37 -0500, "David Wright"
<maikosht@alltel.net> insisted that the sooth was being spoken here:
>
>"AGplusone" <agplusone@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:20010126225526.07832.00000445@ng-ch1.aol.com...
>> ... I'd theoretically look for the greatest villain as one who betrayed the
>>family group to which he or she belonged. Perhaps Uncle Tom, or Thorby's
>>grandparents, or someone else, depending on the nature of the wrong committed
>> might qualify, here?
>>
>However, I have to disagree, (maybe). And although what I am about to say
>might sound cold-hearted and unfeeling, I see it is a necessary corollary of
>my interpretation of Heinlein's (fictionally expressed) 'theory of morals',
>that I outlined in the essay.
>
>Loyalty to every level can be subjugated to a 'higher' level without its
>being a 'betrayal' of the lower levels. In this case, Uncle Tom submitted
>his nephew and niece to possible danger because of a desire to protect and
>advance the welfare of his country/planet. Just as a person can give up his
>own life to defend his family, he can also give up the life of his family,
>or as in this case, put them into a position where they might be subjected
>to harm, in order to do what he can to protect the life of his nation, or
>other 'higher' loyalty.
David, I don't think what you postulate is possible. Imo, what Uncle Tom (like his literary antecedent) did, was to betray a primary loyalty for one which, Heinlein seems to suggest, evolves out of (but does not replace) that primary loyalty. By betraying it, he calls into question the legitimacy of what springs from it. Otherwise your argument suggests that untainted goodness can spring from a tainted source.
>I know that many people would have strong feelings against such a viewpoint.
>I doubt, frankly, that I could do such a thing myself. Think about it for a
>moment. Almost no one would object to a person killing a person in their own
>self-defense. Very few would have objections to a person giving up his own
>life to protect the life of his family. Somewhat fewer, most likely, would
>have objections to a person giving up his own life in the defense of his
>country, even when such a loss would, most likely, cause some harm to his
>family. Many more would have objections to giving up the life of his family
>for the protection of their nation. I can't give any examples off the top of
>my head, but it is my gut feeling that many people, throughout history, have
>indeed sacrificed their families to some 'higher' loyalty, and that we don't
>necessarily consider them 'traitors' to their families. At the very least,
>we rarely call them "villains".
The only support for your argument that I can think of is "Farewell. Return with your shield, or on it." But I think I could make a case for the Roman matriarchs' placing their city-state over their families was a sign that the Republic was corrupt and the Empire was doomed to be. (And in this case, it is presumable that the son is going willingly, not unknowingly.)
When the family unit is replaced, or made less of, in order for the tribe/state to achieve primal, we are looking towards the corruption of the fascist ideal into the adulation of the great and godlike leader - be he Khan, Octavius, Mao, Hussein, Moon, or Farrakhan.
We may not call those who place the survival of their tribe over the survival of their family villains, but I believe we do call them fanatics.
--
Jon
"if someone gets something out of the story that the author didn't
intend then I'd say they were making too much soup from one oyster."
ddavit
=========================================================================================
On Mon, 29 Jan 2001 22:10:26 -0500, ddavitt <ddavitt@netcom.ca>
insisted that the sooth was being spoken here:
>jon ogden wrote:
>
>>
>> >So; no Mrs Grew isn't a good thing?
>>
>> I don't think she qualifies. Too alien.
>>
>That's an interesting POV; why alien? Because harming children is so awful a deed that it's
>not compatible with being human? I don't quite see how that works; we could never have
>villains if villains have to be human and evil isn't human.
>Maybe I'm just reading it wrong; could you expand a bit?
>
>Jane
>
Do I have to explain everything??? It should be quite obvious that I brain-farted. Saw "Mrs. Grew;" read "Mother-Thing." You are, of course, correct. If Grew isn't evil then I was elected president and OJ is my Attorney General.
(I so admire soeone who can say "You're so full of it!" so gently. "Interesting POV," indeed! <grin>)
--
Jon
"if someone gets something out of the story that the author didn't
intend then I'd say they were making too much soup from one oyster."
ddavit
=========================================================================================
"AGplusone" <agplusone@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010130031611.03853.00003808@ng-md1.aol.com..
. >David Wright:
>
(snip)
>
>Yeah, but ... he put them in that position (as decoy) unwittingly so far as
>Poddy and Clark (and their parents) were concerned.
The more I think about this, the more I believe that Uncle Tom did not actually know that he was putting them in danger. (of course, this undermines my entire argument with respect to UT, but not necessarily the argument as a whole). The entire purpose of making the trip with Clark and Poddy was to *disguise* the fact that he was, in fact, on the diplomatic mission. Had he *known* that it was already compromised, there would have been no point in trying it that way. In addition, had he known the extreme lengths to which they were willing to stop him, I seriously doubt that he would have carried them with him. Perhaps, he can be faulted with the failure to recognize both the fact that his mission was known and that they were willing to blow up a whole ship to stop him. I haven't read Podkayne in a while, so I may be mis-remembering crucial details, but that is the way that it seems now.
(snip)
>Yes, people take their families in covered wagons across the continent; but
>they usually have a slight clue what they're getting into.
>
>--
>David M. Silver
>AGplusone@aol.com
>"I expect your names to shine!"
=========================================================================================
"jon ogden" <jonogden@ogdenco.net> wrote in message
news:BKF2OuNnPfwkPF++Fp6919di1txC@4ax.com...
>On Mon, 29 Jan 2001 12:42:37 -0500, "David Wright"
><maikosht@alltel.net> insisted that the sooth was being spoken here:
>
(snip)
>>Loyalty to every level can be subjugated to a 'higher' level without its
>>being a 'betrayal' of the lower levels. In this case, Uncle Tom submitted
>>his nephew and niece to possible danger because of a desire to protect and
>>advance the welfare of his country/planet. Just as a person can give up his
>>own life to defend his family, he can also give up the life of his family,
>>or as in this case, put them into a position where they might be subjected
>>to harm, in order to do what he can to protect the life of his nation, or
>>other 'higher' loyalty.
>
>David, I don't think what you postulate is possible. Imo, what Uncle
>Tom (like his literary antecedent) did, was to betray a primary
>loyalty for one which, Heinlein seems to suggest, evolves out of (but
>does not replace) that primary loyalty.
See my reply to David Silver about Uncle Tom's intentions. As far as betraying 'primary' loyalty. I don't see how that squares with the concept as a whole. Now, I will grant that in *most* situations, it is simply not necessary to go beyond such a personal loyalty, because the consequences of any single person's actions do not normally determine the outcome of whether or not a nation, race or species undergoes tribulations or not. But in an extreme scenario, where such is, indeed, the outcome, the person would have to 'resolve the conflicts at each level' and determine his level of morality. Think of Johnny Dalhlquist, who preferred to give up his life rather than let his baby girl grow up in a world dominated by the likes of Towers. Imagine, if you will, that his family were with him on the moon and that he took them with him to the bomb room, so that they couldn't be used as hostages against him. Would he have made the choice of sacrificing his baby girl and wife to not let all of the other baby girls grow up under such a regime?
In Space Cadet, Heinlein used the example of Riviera who had to call down the bombing on his own home town, where presumably members of his family still lived. It's interesting to look at the conversation between Lt. Wong and Matt in light of this discussion here.
>By betraying it, he calls into
>question the legitimacy of what springs from it. Otherwise your
>argument suggests that untainted goodness can spring from a tainted
>source.
>
As I have suggested, I consider it neither a 'betrayal', nor a 'tainted source'. Many people during the holocaust were willing to put themselves *and their families* into jeopardy for the sake of a greater humanitarian cause and that is the kind of thing that I am thinking of, whether you call it a 'race', 'nation', 'human kind' or whatever. I'm not saying, 'my government right or wrong' or of things like which happened in Jonestown.
(snip)
>At the very least,
>>we rarely call them "villains".
>
>The only support for your argument that I can think of is "Farewell.
>Return with your shield, or on it." But I think I could make a case
>for the Roman matriarchs' placing their city-state over their families
>was a sign that the Republic was corrupt and the Empire was doomed to
>be. (And in this case, it is presumable that the son is going
>willingly, not unknowingly.)
I think, as apparently RAH may have, that it was just the opposite which was the sign of its doom and downfall. As Lazarus said in his notebooks. "later this custom declined, and so did Rome". (May not be exact quote).
>
>When the family unit is replaced, or made less of, in order for the
>tribe/state to achieve primal, we are looking towards the corruption
>of the fascist ideal into the adulation of the great and godlike
>leader - be he Khan, Octavius, Mao, Hussein, Moon, or Farrakhan.
>
Any tool, whether it be a mechanical or electronic invention, or a 'theory of morals' can be used for good or bad. The ultimate consequences of *not* putting the welfare of the clan, race or species above that of the family can also lead to the type of 'dog-eat-dog' anarchy of which I spoke in my essay. Such outcomes of either choice do not necessarily have to follow.
>We may not call those who place the survival of their tribe over the
>survival of their family villains, but I believe we do call them fanatics.
Some yes, so no. The key to remember is that it can be the survival of the 'tribe', 'clan', 'race' or whatever on which the survival of individuals and individual families depends.
David Wright
=========================================================================================
>Himself as
>the black hats.
I think the idea is the author of an action-adventure book (at least) is always the principal enemy of his heroes -- because he is the efficient cause of all their troubles, sending them fleeing hither and yon for no better reason than auctorial convenience, etc.
Bill
=========================================================================================
>IIRC, Heinlein mentions in a few of his books that Male witches don't like
>being referred to as Warlocks -
Correct. It is a social solecism; a male witch is a witch (a word that derives, IIRC, from "wicca") The social stricture against "warlock" was stronger in the thirties and forties than it is now. I believe the term "warlock" is a Christian invention and places the witch in a Christian-demonic context rather than the pagan-agricultural context.
Bill
=========================================================================================
There is a technical definition of "evil" in Scholastic theology: To know what is good but to choose to do otherwise. I think this definition cuts through some of the circular and ambiguous meditations.
Maikosht, I don't think your analysis of Uncle Tom acting on the good for the higher rank of value is correct, because when he chose to endanger his family, he put himself outside the group values he is theoretically trying to serve: They have the right to choose to endanger themselves for a "higher" cause -- he does not have the right to choose for them and cannot get such a right within the context of western liberalism. Even if his "motivation" for doing this was oriented toward the "higher" value, he was undercutting that value by that act. He does evil in fact.
However, you are, I believe, still correct that Uncle Tom would not be considered a "villain" in the pulp sense we are talking about here.
There is another sense of villain people like C.S. Lewis were interested in -- as Screwtape was a villain, using banality to manipulate people into damnation. It does not seem to me that Heinlein was interested enough to place such a villain front-and-center, but he uses this type occasionally.
Bill
=========================================================================================
>I have trouble coming up with "real" villains in his books.
I think you're right that most of the antagonists in Heinlein's books are simply "inconvenient" to the protagonist -- but there are a few I would say qualify. Mrs. Keithly in "Gulf." It's self-evident that she "knows" what is good -- she knows enough to present a front of ultra-respectability, but she thinks her goals are important enough to justify casual torture and murder -- i.e., she knows it's not good but chooses it anyway.
Now, arguably, some of the CIA-type organizations in Heinlein's books (Puppet Masters, "Gulf") might fall into the same category, though we are, tastefully, never shown the ruthlessness in action I cannot offhand think of an example, but the clear implication that the Old Man's organization is involved in Black Ops circa 1950 implies torture-for-the-benefit-of-their-goals. In thinking about this, we become embroiled in the concept of appropriate use of force, which is a very muddled area.
Bill
=========================================================================================
>As for Belle . . .I really doubt if she considered herself a villainess.>
I have no doubt that Belle Darkin knew she was one of the bad 'uns and gloried in it. After 25 years she pulled the rationalization she used at the time over her head -- but she knew it was a rationalization when she did it -- called CYA.
Bill
=========================================================================================
On Tue, 30 Jan 2001 10:18:19 -0500, "David Wright" <maikosht@alltel.net> insisted that the sooth was being spoken here:
Snip
>>
>> David, I don't think what you postulate is possible. Imo, what Uncle
>> Tom (like his literary antecedent) did, was to betray a primary
>> loyalty for one which, Heinlein seems to suggest, evolves out of (but
>> does not replace) that primary loyalty.
>
>See my reply to David Silver about Uncle Tom's intentions.
There's no question that if Tom didn't intend for them to be endangered that the entire situation changes. But I responded to the postulates as they were this morning. However, I don't agree with you. Tom was too intelligent and competant to be guilty of gross stupidity.
>As far as
>betraying 'primary' loyalty. I don't see how that squares with the concept
>as a whole. Now, I will grant that in *most* situations, it is simply not
>necessary to go beyond such a personal loyalty, because the consequences of
>any single person's actions do not normally determine the outcome of whether
>or not a nation, race or species undergoes tribulations or not. But in an
>extreme scenario, where such is, indeed, the outcome, the person would have
>to 'resolve the conflicts at each level' and determine his level of
>morality. Think of Johnny Dalhlquist, who preferred to give up his life
>rather than let his baby girl grow up in a world dominated by the likes of
>Towers. Imagine, if you will, that his family were with him on the moon and
>that he took them with him to the bomb room, so that they couldn't be used
>as hostages against him. Would he have made the choice of sacrificing his
>baby girl and wife to not let all of the other baby girls grow up under such
>a regime?
Again - a totally different situation than what was posulated. Many times Men have provided their wives and children with the final mercy in order to save them from a worse fate. Presumably Dalquist, before sacrificing his family, would have talked it over with his wife.
By the way, Dalquist is fiction. I was looking at your ideas as they applied to my perceptions in the real world. (That's pretty much what i do with RAH's, too.) But when I am asked to answer a what-if question about a character, I feel that I am treading on on pretty shakey ground when I am fool enough to answer.
>In Space Cadet, Heinlein used the example of Riviera who had to call down >the bombing on his own home town, where presumably members of his family >still lived. It's interesting to look at the conversation between Lt. Wong >and Matt in light of this discussion here.
The point was made that the Patrol was not crazy enough to think that most of its psychologically "clear" officers with certified nobility stamped on their souls (I'm not being snide, honest.) would be asked to or allowed to get anywhere near a bomb that had to be targetted at their country.
As to Riviera -- given the demands of his job, it's not unreasonable to assume he was unmarried and as a senior officer, it's not unreasonable to assume that his parents were dead. But we are both guessing at what is unknowable.
Granting for the moment your suppositions, what does that mean? That everything that Lt. Wong said was an expression of Heinlein's beliefs? Frankly, Riveriera has always made me shudder. I regarded it as proof that sometimes law-enforcement types are required to be inhuman.
However, let's assume that Wong does speak for Heinlein. In which case, I would have to say that this supports your argument. But all my caveats about fictional characters in what-ifs still apply.
>As I have suggested, I consider it neither a 'betrayal', nor a 'tainted
>source'. Many people during the holocaust were willing to put themselves
>*and their families* into jeopardy for the sake of a greater humanitarian
>cause and that is the kind of thing that I am thinking of, whether you call
>it a 'race', 'nation', 'human kind' or whatever.
You definitely have a point here. There are stories of gentiles who sheltered Jews in the same house with their own children - knowing that the Nazi's would take their revenge on the entire family. And I do regard them as heros. However, they were saving real, live, in-front-of-them human beings, not some abstract idea. I'm not sure whether that makes a difference, but it certainly shows that I don't have all the truth in my grasp. <grin>
>I'm not saying, 'my
>government right or wrong' or of things like which happened in Jonestown.
Jonestown, Waco, etc. happend because of people who had the same commitment to an abstract ideal as Rivera. They lost touch with the basic realities and have blinded themselves with a devotion to an ideal that demands they ignore their humanity.
>(snip)
>
>> At the very least,
>> >we rarely call them "villains".
>>
>> The only support for your argument that I can think of is "Farewell.
>> Return with your shield, or on it." But I think I could make a case
>> for the Roman matriarchs' placing their city-state over their families
>> was a sign that the Republic was corrupt and the Empire was doomed to
>> be. (And in this case, it is presumable that the son is going
>> willingly, not unknowingly.)
>
>I think, as apparently RAH may have, that it was just the opposite which was
>the sign of its doom and downfall. As Lazarus said in his notebooks. "later
>this custom declined, and so did Rome". (May not be exact quote).
Yes, but he was talking about volunteer armies being replaced by conscript armies. I wasn't talking about the sons, but the mothers.
>>
>> When the family unit is replaced, or made less of, in order for the
>> tribe/state to achieve primal, we are looking towards the corruption
>> of the fascist ideal into the adulation of the great and godlike
>> leader - be he Khan, Octavius, Mao, Hussein, Moon, or Farrakhan.
>>
>
>Any tool, whether it be a mechanical or electronic invention, or a 'theory
>of morals' can be used for good or bad. The ultimate consequences of *not*
>putting the welfare of the clan, race or species above that of the family
>can also lead to the type of 'dog-eat-dog' anarchy of which I spoke in my
>essay. Such outcomes of either choice do not necessarily have to follow.
Absolutely. You are right that both slopes are slippery and that a slide down one or the other has to be the result. However, we may disagree about the likelihood of that slide, in either case.
>> We may not call those who place the survival of their tribe over the
>> survival of their family villains, but I believe we do call them
>> fanatics.
>
>Some yes, so no. The key to remember is that it can be the survival of the
>'tribe', 'clan', 'race' or whatever on which the survival of individuals and
>individual families depends.
"The former are idealists acting from the highest motives for the greatest good for the greatest number. The latter are surly curmudgeons, suspicious and lacking in altruism. But they are more comfortable neighbors than the other sort."
There may be Riveras in the real world. I hope i don't live too close to any. (Not a rebutal to anything you said, just a personal observation, you probably can agree with.)
--
Jon
"Admiral Heinlein doesn't allow the Russians to build rockets"
-- Larry Niven
=========================================================================================
On 30 Jan 2001 18:14:55 GMT, bpral22169@aol.com (BPRAL22169) insisted
that the sooth was being spoken here:
<snip>
>. I believe the term
>"warlock" is a Christian invention and places the witch in a Christian-demonic
>context rather than the pagan-agricultural context.
"Warlock" is from the Old Norse "var?lokkur," and means roughly "spirit song." Modern Pagans have developed a belief that it is a Scottish word and means oath-breaker and was a pejorative that began to be applied during the the Great Burnings of the mid 16th to mid 17th century.
It's hard to prove a negative, but I was interested in this at one time, and I could never find any evidence that warlock was first used or invented by Christianity. It appears to be an invention of the Neo-Pagans who cite each other when talking about this, never any verifiable sources.
It is true that James VI of Scotland (James I of England) was a fanatical believer in and hater of witches (Scotland burned something like 1300 witches while England burned four) He may have been a source of the Scottish-word legend.
--
Jon
"Admiral Heinlein doesn't allow the Russians to build rockets"
-- Larry Niven
=========================================================================================
I meant to say:
>"Warlock" is from the Old Norse "var'lokkur," and means roughly
>"spirit song."
--
Jon
"Admiral Heinlein doesn't allow the Russians to build rockets"
-- Larry Niven
=========================================================================================
"jon ogden" <jonogden@ogdenco.net> wrote in message
news:jUt3OqteuBRMHTZ8prVEI33j9O+z@4ax.com... >On Tue, 30 Jan 2001 10:18:19 -0500, "David Wright" ><maikosht@alltel.net> insisted that the sooth was being spoken here: >
(snip)
>
>There's no question that if Tom didn't intend for them to be
>endangered that the entire situation changes. But I responded to the
>postulates as they were this morning.
I realize that and apologize for switching streams in mid-horse.
However, I don't agree with you.
>Tom was too intelligent and competant to be guilty of gross stupidity.
Well, he appeared to be intelligent and competant, but he obviously, had to not realize the extent to which one group, at least, would go to stop his mission, or otherwise he himself would probably not have boarded that ship, much less letting Poddy and Clark get on it. BTW, I don't recall at this time, but were the people behind the bomb attempt the same as the ones behind Mrs. Grew? Or was she perhaps, a fall-back in case the bomb failed?
>
>
(snip scenario about Dahlquist)
>
>Again - a totally different situation than what was posulated. Many
>times Men have provided their wives and children with the final mercy
>in order to save them from a worse fate. Presumably Dalquist, before
>sacrificing his family, would have talked it over with his wife.
>
I don't see it as a different situation. I was actually asking, if he had to, would he sacrifice his family to prevent others from having to suffer the fate that he, (in the original story), knew that *his* daughter would suffer.
>By the way, Dalquist is fiction. I was looking at your ideas as they
>applied to my perceptions in the real world. (That's pretty much what
>i do with RAH's, too.) But when I am asked to answer a what-if
>question about a character, I feel that I am treading on on pretty
>shakey ground when I am fool enough to answer.
You are right. No one can say what a fictional character would do in the situation that I was suggesting. In fact, *no one* can predict what a *real* person would do in such a case. At the very least, I do not know what *I* would do in such a case. I would like to think that If I knew without a doubt that my decisions involved the life and death of some not insignificant number of people, and to prevent their death, (or other fate worse than death), that I would be have to sacrifice my family, that I could do so, no matter how abhorrent that thought is to me. I am much more confident that I could sacrifice my own life in such a situation.
>
>>In Space Cadet, Heinlein used the example of Riviera who had to call down
>>the bombing on his own home town, where presumably members of his family
>>still lived. It's interesting to look at the conversation between Lt.Wong >>and Matt in light of this discussion here.
>
>The point was made that the Patrol was not crazy enough to think that
>most of its psychologically "clear" officers with certified nobility
>stamped on their souls (I'm not being snide, honest.) would be asked
>to or allowed to get anywhere near a bomb that had to be targetted at
>their country.
It was clear that it was expected that such occurrences would be extremely unlikely to happen, and should it happen, that they, in fact, would be 'locked up rather than take a chance', but it was just as clearly implied, that if it did happen, in spite of all of the low chance etc, and there was no other choice, that such an officer was expected to do so. Whether or not it is a reasonable expectation, that no one can ever know as I said above. Matt, I think, recognized that there had to be the possiblity of 'skin of his own nose' being part of the price and one which he had to be prepared to pay no matter what the consequences to himself or to those close to him.
>
>As to Riviera -- given the demands of his job, it's not unreasonable
>to assume he was unmarried and as a senior officer, it's not
>unreasonable to assume that his parents were dead. But we are both
>guessing at what is unknowable.
>
True. Likely, I would agree, not married, but likely to have mother or father or siblings. Not really knowable. I agree.
>Granting for the moment your suppositions, what does that mean? That
>everything that Lt. Wong said was an expression of Heinlein's beliefs?
>Frankly, Riveriera has always made me shudder. I regarded it as proof
>that sometimes law-enforcement types are required to be inhuman.
>
>However, let's assume that Wong does speak for Heinlein. In which
>case, I would have to say that this supports your argument. But all
>my caveats about fictional characters in what-ifs still apply.
>
I don't know if RAH actually believed any of this himself and I'm not claiming that. I was only proposing, (although, I admit now that it I don't think it really was the case), that Uncle Tom's actions were consistent with such a 'theory' rather than being 'villainous' or 'evil'.
>>As I have suggested, I consider it neither a 'betrayal', nor a 'tainted
>>source'. Many people during the holocaust were willing to put themselves
>>*and their families* into jeopardy for the sake of a greater humanitarian
>>cause and that is the kind of thing that I am thinking of, whether you
call
>>it a 'race', 'nation', 'human kind' or whatever.
> >You definitely have a point here. There are stories of gentiles who
>sheltered Jews in the same house with their own children - knowing
>that the Nazi's would take their revenge on the entire family. And I
>do regard them as heros. However, they were saving real, live,
>in-front-of-them human beings, not some abstract idea. I'm not sure
>whether that makes a difference, but it certainly shows that I don't
>have all the truth in my grasp. <grin>
>
There is a valid point here. I do know that having 'real, live, in-front-of-them human beings' to deal with would make it easier to do such. I am firmly convinced, however, that it would be difficult, if not impossible to overcome that self/family sense of survival in the first place, no-matter how personal or close the contacts might be without some *higher level of morality' underlying such actions, whether it is there consciously or unconsciously. An obvious situation where such would not have to be true, would be the case where the other people were truly considered as 'family' and thus would fall under what has been called here 'primary loyalty'. But, in the case of 'just friends' or 'people we know', it would be a different situation.
>>I'm not saying, 'my
>>government right or wrong' or of things like which happened in Jonestown.
>
>Jonestown, Waco, etc. happend because of people who had the same
>commitment to an abstract ideal as Rivera. They lost touch with the
>basic realities and have blinded themselves with a devotion to an
>ideal that demands they ignore their humanity.
>
Like technology on another thread, 'commitment to an abstract ideal', is IMHO, neither 'good' nor 'evil' in itself. The trick is know whether or not what you are commiting to is to be used for 'good' or 'evil' purposes. And, it is, unfortunately, the case that such 'commitments' are often misued for 'evil'. But, we cannot deny that such commitments can be and often are the moving force behind much, perhaps even most, of what is good.
>>(snip)
>>
(snip)
>
>"The former are idealists acting from the highest motives for the
>greatest good for the greatest number. The latter are surly
>curmudgeons, suspicious and lacking in altruism. But they are more
>comfortable neighbors than the other sort."
In spite of what many people claim, you can always find that RAH's 'opinionated beliefs' usually have a counter-example somewhere to balance them.
>
>There may be Riveras in the real world. I hope i don't live too close
>to any. (Not a rebutal to anything you said, just a personal
>observation, you probably can agree with.)
>
Especially, not if my government leaders want to try to rule over the world and the Patrol is up there protecting everyone from such. :)
'Quis Custodiet Ipso Custodes?"
David
P.S. I see that in replying to this group from my office, that one of my alternate e-mail identities was used, 'maiKoshT'.
This is a trivia question based on that:
This was originally an alternate screen name for AIM so,in addition to logging from home under my primary name,I could log onto the chat group (adv) from my office which has a much more reliable connection than I do from home and by which I could make sure that I had a complete log of the discussions. The name derives from the Russian masculine form for 'my' ,(misspelled) and a name which I first came across in H.Beam Piper's works but which was also used by Heinlein. That name is partially obscured by using the letter 'T' as shorthand for one syllable rather than the full syllable, (that syllable also being similar to another Russian word spelled diferrently).
a) what is the full name that I put together with 'my'?
b) What work of RAH did that name appear in prominently.
c) What work of Piper's did it appear in?
d) What source did Piper attribute the name to ?
e) What is the English translation of the word represented by 'T'? (hint: Hilda refers to it in NOTB)
=========================================================================================
On Thu, 1 Feb 2001 13:54:12 -0500, "David Wright"
<maikosht@alltel.net> insisted that the sooth was being spoken here:
>> Again - a totally different situation than what was posulated. Many
>> times Men have provided their wives and children with the final mercy
>> in order to save them from a worse fate. Presumably Dalquist, before
>> sacrificing his family, would have talked it over with his wife.
>>
>
>I don't see it as a different situation. I was actually asking, if he had
>to, would he sacrifice his family to prevent others from having to suffer
>the fate that he, (in the original story), knew that *his* daughter would
>suffer.
I think I would be in a more uncomfortable spot deciding what Dahlquist would do if the conspiritors _did_ have his wife and child and promised to kill them slowly and as painfully as possible unless he let them into the bomb room.
This reminds me of some of the I Robot stories. Istm that both of us are trying to program the the positronic brains of Heinleinian-hero robots and putting them into no-win situations where the laws conflict with each other. (Not complaining, it's fun. Just observing)
>>By the way, Dalquist is fiction. I was looking at your ideas as they
>>applied to my perceptions in the real world. (That's pretty much what
>>i do with RAH's, too.) But when I am asked to answer a what-if
>>question about a character, I feel that I am treading on on pretty
>>shakey ground when I am fool enough to answer.
>
>You are right. No one can say what a fictional character would do in the
>situation that I was suggesting. In fact, *no one* can predict what a *real*
>person would do in such a case. At the very least, I do not know what *I*
>would do in such a case. I would like to think that If I knew without a
>doubt that my decisions involved the life and death of some not
>insignificant number of people, and to prevent their death, (or other fate
>worse than death), that I would be have to sacrifice my family, that I could
>do so, no matter how abhorrent that thought is to me. I am much more
>confident that I could sacrifice my own life in such a situation.
Probably the real question for most of us in here - at least those of us old enough to be fathers -- would be: How long would we allow ourselves to stay alive after we sacrificed our wife and children.
>
>> >In Space Cadet, Heinlein used the example of Riviera who had to call down
>> >the bombing on his own home town, where presumably members of his family
>> >still lived. It's interesting to look at the conversation between Lt.Wong
>> >and Matt in light of this discussion here.
>>
>> The point was made that the Patrol was not crazy enough to think that
>> most of its psychologically "clear" officers with certified nobility
>> stamped on their souls (I'm not being snide, honest.) would be asked
>> to or allowed to get anywhere near a bomb that had to be targetted at
>> their country.
>
>It was clear that it was expected that such occurrences would be extremely
>unlikely to happen, and should it happen, that they, in fact, would be
>'locked up rather than take a chance', but it was just as clearly implied,
>that if it did happen, in spite of all of the low chance etc, and there was
>no other choice, that such an officer was expected to do so. Whether or not
>it is a reasonable expectation, that no one can ever know as I said above.
>Matt, I think, recognized that there had to be the possiblity of 'skin of
>his own nose' being part of the price and one which he had to be prepared to
>pay no matter what the consequences to himself or to those close to him.
>
Any armed force tries very hard to get its members into that state of mind. There must be enough success-proof available to have them keep doing it, but even though there is a strong militaristic tradition in my family, I'm not sure any of them would have been able to sacrifice their families, or even brooked a suggestion that they might. Though mayhaps that is mostly my projection.
Assuming that the Patrol with its advanced psychological conditioning techniques both obvious and covert, was successful in convincing its officers to always follow orders - would that have been a good thing?
The what-if question also occurs to me: Would Tex, Oscar or Matt actually respond with "aye, aye, sir" if they ordered to release strategic nukes on their home town? If yes, which ones and why would they?
>
>There is a valid point here. I do know that having 'real, live,
>in-front-of-them human beings' to deal with would make it easier to do such.
>I am firmly convinced, however, that it would be difficult, if not
>impossible to overcome that self/family sense of survival in the first
>place, no-matter how personal or close the contacts might be without some
>*higher level of morality' underlying such actions, whether it is there
>consciously or unconsciously. An obvious situation where such would not have
>to be true, would be the case where the other people were truly considered
>as 'family' and thus would fall under what has been called here 'primary
>loyalty'. But, in the case of 'just friends' or 'people we know', it would
>be a different situation.
I am reminded of the young wife who has no children who is asked: "If you did have a child and both your child and your husband were drowning, which one would you save?"
The wife unhesitatingly answer, "My husband, because he and I could have more children."
A few years later, she has a child and is asked the question again.
This time she turns to her husband and says: "Honey, you know how to tread water, don't you?"
Reality never gives us clearcut choices. One way we can tell that Dahlquist and Riveria are fictional is that their choice is so clearly defined.
>
>Like technology on another thread, 'commitment to an abstract ideal', is
>IMHO, neither 'good' nor 'evil' in itself. The trick is know whether or not
>what you are commiting to is to be used for 'good' or 'evil' purposes. And,
>it is, unfortunately, the case that such 'commitments' are often misued for
>'evil'. But, we cannot deny that such commitments can be and often are the
>moving force behind much, perhaps even most, of what is good.
>
Problem is: when you commit to that abstract ideal, it is far less likely to evolve than the reality in which the commitment must be honored. I am not arguing for situational ethics here - at least i don't think I am - but anything absolutely frozen in stone - including the strictures against murder, theft, rape, incest, slave-owning or whatever repugnant act you want to bring up -- will sooner or later be tested in a scenario where the stricture is anti-survival.
>In spite of what many people claim, you can always find that RAH's
>'opinionated beliefs' usually have a counter-example somewhere to balance
>them.
RAH does have Oscar point out later - Doing things in the tradition of the Patrol does not mean doing the same things in exactly the same way. Which suggests they are supposed to think, not just act.
>'Quis Custodiet Ipso Custodes?"
Indeed.
btw: Kosh is also the name of the alien/forerunner/angel in Babylon 5
.
"(t)Here is only one fundamental right (all others are its consequences or corollaries):
a man's right to his own life...which means: the freedom to take all actions required
by the nature of a rational being for the support, the furtherance, the fulfillment
and the enjoyment of his own life. A. Rand
=========================================================================================
This thread is reminding me a lot of FAIL SAFE, another fictional situation that has no easy answer. I don't know if the book or movie would have the same impact now as when I read/saw them many years ago. Showtime did a live play type thing about a year ago that disappointed me, but I think that was the production.
Jeanette
==================================