Heinlein Readers Group Discussion
Day 02/21/08 9 P.M. EST
Stranger In A Strange Land Part I
Subject: February 21, 2008 meeting--Reading Group
From: "David M. Silver" <ag.plusone@verizon.net>
Topic: Stranger in a Strange Land--Parts I and II
Date: Thursday, February 21, 2008, 9 PM EST
Place: AIM chatroom "Heinlein Readers Group"
A novice reviewer in the L.A. Times recently wrote, inter alia, of
Heinlein:
FOR years, the intellectually ambitious novels of the 1960s,
especially "Stranger in a Strange Land," about a spiritually and
sexually messianic Martian-born human, and "The Moon Is a Harsh
Mistress," which concerns a free-market revolt by prisoners on the
moon, were considered Heinlein's great work.
These books still have followings; "Moon" sits in the International
Space Station library.
But the bestselling "Stranger," which Kurt Vonnegut Jr. reviewed on
the cover of the New York Times Book Review in 1990 when it was
reissued in an expanded edition, now reads like a long-winded relic
of the '60s, philosophy for junior high kids.
It's always nice to hear from the next generation, especially when they
barely had begun attending junior high school when reviews with which
they disagree and would reassess and have us discard came out.
We've decided to review Stranger in a Strange Land, taking our time to
do so, beginning with Parts I and II, "His Maculate Origin," and "His
Preposterous Heritage" beginning next month.
Anyone is free to attend the meetings and make relevant pre-meeting
posts. The more commentary we have, the better the chats turn out to be.
What do you think? Is SiaSL a "long-winded relic of the '60s, philosophy
for junior high kids"?
--
David M. Silver
http://www.heinleinsociety.org
"The Lieutenant expects your names to shine!"
Robert Anson Heinlein, USNA '29
Lt.(jg), USN, R'td
Subject: Re: February 21, 2008 meeting--Reading Group
From: "Gaeltach" <hcatleag@bigpond.com>
"David M. Silver" <ag.plusone@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:ag.plusone-473146.05384711012008@individual.net...
> Topic: Stranger in a Strange Land--Parts I and II
> Date: Thursday, February 21, 2008, 9 PM EST
> Place: AIM chatroom "Heinlein Readers Group"
>
>
> A novice reviewer in the L.A. Times recently wrote, inter alia, of
> Heinlein:
>
> FOR years, the intellectually ambitious novels of the 1960s,
> especially "Stranger in a Strange Land," about a spiritually and
> sexually messianic Martian-born human, and "The Moon Is a Harsh
> Mistress," which concerns a free-market revolt by prisoners on the
> moon, were considered Heinlein's great work.
>
> These books still have followings; "Moon" sits in the International
> Space Station library.
>
> But the bestselling "Stranger," which Kurt Vonnegut Jr. reviewed on
> the cover of the New York Times Book Review in 1990 when it was
> reissued in an expanded edition, now reads like a long-winded relic
> of the '60s, philosophy for junior high kids.
>
> It's always nice to hear from the next generation, especially when they
> barely had begun attending junior high school when reviews with which
> they disagree and would reassess and have us discard came out.
>
> We've decided to review Stranger in a Strange Land, taking our time to
> do so, beginning with Parts I and II, "His Maculate Origin," and "His
> Preposterous Heritage" beginning next month.
>
> Anyone is free to attend the meetings and make relevant pre-meeting
> posts. The more commentary we have, the better the chats turn out to be.
>
> What do you think? Is SiaSL a "long-winded relic of the '60s, philosophy
> for junior high kids"?
I have no doubt it is a valid comment by some younger readers.
For some it may indeed be considered "long-winded", which is RAH's style at
times, like it or not. It is definitely a "relic" of the '60s. Novels have a
habit of ageing - some age better than others. I don't think that SIASL has
particularly aged badly, but I can see why younger readers may have issues
with it.
I think it helps to acknowledge that reviewers of any vintage are mostly
trying to be honest with their opinions. That is, they are not making up how
a novel makes them feel, they are telling the truth (as it appears to them).
It would be most unusual if opinions of reviewers remained unchanged over
forty plus years.
Subject: Re: February 21, 2008 meeting--Reading Group
From: "David M. Silver" <ag.plusone@verizon.net>
In article <mQVhj.2221$421.78@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
"Gaeltach" <hcatleag@bigpond.com> wrote:
> "David M. Silver" <ag.plusone@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:ag.plusone-473146.05384711012008@individual.net...
> > Topic: Stranger in a Strange Land--Parts I and II
> > Date: Thursday, February 21, 2008, 9 PM EST
> > Place: AIM chatroom "Heinlein Readers Group"
> >
> >
> > A novice reviewer in the L.A. Times recently wrote, inter alia, of
> > Heinlein:
> >
> > FOR years, the intellectually ambitious novels of the 1960s,
> > especially "Stranger in a Strange Land," about a spiritually and
> > sexually messianic Martian-born human, and "The Moon Is a Harsh
> > Mistress," which concerns a free-market revolt by prisoners on the
> > moon, were considered Heinlein's great work.
> >
> > These books still have followings; "Moon" sits in the International
> > Space Station library.
> >
> > But the bestselling "Stranger," which Kurt Vonnegut Jr. reviewed on
> > the cover of the New York Times Book Review in 1990 when it was
> > reissued in an expanded edition, now reads like a long-winded relic
> > of the '60s, philosophy for junior high kids.
> >
> > It's always nice to hear from the next generation, especially when they
> > barely had begun attending junior high school when reviews with which
> > they disagree and would reassess and have us discard came out.
> >
[ ... snip myself ... ]
> >
> > What do you think? Is SiaSL a "long-winded relic of the '60s, philosophy
> > for junior high kids"?
>
> I have no doubt it is a valid comment by some younger readers.
>
That they might be "younger" doesn't make them necessarily ignorant, but
it might make them a little less than sophisticated reviewers of
writings. Timberg, writer of the review quoted, for example, has a
background of having written mainly music with some related media
(movies, music videos, performances) reviews. Someone at the Times
thought he was ready to try a review of a writer of SF. Why? We don't
know.
But it is pretty clear, from what he wrote, that Timberg relied heavily
on another young lightweight named Newitz who is burdened with her own
agendas.
> For some it may indeed be considered "long-winded", which is RAH's style at
> times, like it or not.
I suppose "long-winded" is akin to the criticism that Mozart's music has
"too many notes." The question is whether the words or notes are wasted
in production of an irrelevant or immaterial impact, not how many they
may be.
> It is definitely a "relic" of the '60s. Novels have a
> habit of ageing - some age better than others. I don't think that SIASL has
> particularly aged badly, but I can see why younger readers may have issues
> with it.
>
But I don't know with any certainty that "relic of the '60s" means
anything significant. Shakespeare's plays are relics of the end of the
sixteenth century, the Elizabethan Age; Swift's essays and stories,
particularly including _Gulliver's Travels_, are relics of early
eighteenth century; Hemingway's writings a relic of the first half of
the twentieth century. I also don't know that "aged better" (or worse)
means anything more than continues or fails to have some bearing and
impact on the subject of the writing.
> I think it helps to acknowledge that reviewers of any vintage are mostly
> trying to be honest with their opinions. That is, they are not making up how
> a novel makes them feel, they are telling the truth (as it appears to them).
Sincerity may exist, but proving it depends on an assessment of effort,
depth, time spent, and approach. I would reserve my opinion on Timberg
were I unconnected with his research. However, he interviewed me, and
his article pointedly ignored anything including all facts I pointed out
to him contradicting points he attempted to verify with me. Cherry
picking one post-interview point (how many Heinlein books I read
yearly--and I do conduct these discussions of Heinlein's works here and
elsewhere), and ignoring all else said in a substantially long
discussion, told me all I needed to know about his impartiality as a
reporter--he wouldn't know what impartiality was if it had bit him in
the nose.
> It would be most unusual if opinions of reviewers remained unchanged over
> forty plus years.
Anyway, let's look at other efforts of newspaper reviewers of all
vintages during the past forty-some years. The New York Times' Orville
Prescott, preeminent reviewer in his age, wrote that in the novel, Mr.
Heinlein "expresses his sardonic opinions with violence and gusto," but
he didn't care for it as Vonnegut notes. He claimed he was looking for
something light and clever and not too much of a strain on his weary
brain cells to read and "My selection of this disastrous mishmash of
science fiction, laborious humor, dreary social satire and cheap
eroticism was a frightful mistake."
So you might say, as some younger readers of today may themselves say,
Prescott had "issues with it." Putting a strain on Prescott's weary
brain cells was deemed by him to be truly a grievous fault.
100,000 copies of the abridged (1961) edition sold in hard cover--during
which time it became the first SF title to crack The New York Times Book
Review's best-seller list, and nearly five million in paperback later,
by 1991. Prescott who died in 1989, a year after Heinlein, had he lived
that long, may have regretted expressing his ire to such extent. Perhaps
it's true any publicity is good publicity. In any event for the next two
decades, Heinlein's problem wasn't that Stranger wasn't selling, it was
getting the publishers to print sufficient copies to keep up with the
demand.
It's not a great surprise that the criticism of "long-winded" or "too
many words" is leveled. This was Heinlein's twelve-year-long effort, a
time he had never spent on a work before by orders of magnitude, in
writing a work. It was his first successful effort to 'write my own
stuff' the way he wished to write it. It wasn't "something light and
clever" that placed "not too much a strain" on readers looking for
diversion on a rainy day.
Exactly what was the "philosophy for junior high school kids" that
Timberg attacks?
It is, as Heinlein pointed out, a satire making a frontal assault on the
two biggest, fattest sacred cows of Western Society, "monotheism and
monogamy" (and a "double dozen" other objects).
Going beyond Timberg, we take from Prescott a need to search out and
examine those evidences of mistake by Heinlein in producing a
"disastrous mishmash of science fiction, laborious humor, dreary social
satire and cheap eroticism."
Is Heinlein's magnum opus a "philosophy for junior high school kids" and
a disastrous mishmash of science fiction, laborious humor, dreary social
satire and cheap eroticism?
What do you think, anyone, Sean?
--
David M. Silver
http://www.heinleinsociety.org
"The Lieutenant expects your names to shine!"
Robert Anson Heinlein, USNA '29
Lt.(jg), USN, R'td
Subject: Re: February 21, 2008 meeting--Reading Group
From: "Gaeltach" hcatleag@bigpond.com>
"David M. Silver" <ag.plusone@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:ag.plusone-0F3848.22445611012008@individual.net...
> In article <mQVhj.2221$421.78@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
> "Gaeltach" <hcatleag@bigpond.com> wrote:
>
>> "David M. Silver" <ag.plusone@verizon.net> wrote in message
>> news:ag.plusone-473146.05384711012008@individual.net...
>> > Topic: Stranger in a Strange Land--Parts I and II
>> > Date: Thursday, February 21, 2008, 9 PM EST
>> > Place: AIM chatroom "Heinlein Readers Group"
>> >
>> >
>> > A novice reviewer in the L.A. Times recently wrote, inter alia, of
>> > Heinlein:
>> >
>> > FOR years, the intellectually ambitious novels of the 1960s,
>> > especially "Stranger in a Strange Land," about a spiritually and
>> > sexually messianic Martian-born human, and "The Moon Is a Harsh
>> > Mistress," which concerns a free-market revolt by prisoners on the
>> > moon, were considered Heinlein's great work.
>> >
>> > These books still have followings; "Moon" sits in the International
>> > Space Station library.
>> >
>> > But the bestselling "Stranger," which Kurt Vonnegut Jr. reviewed on
>> > the cover of the New York Times Book Review in 1990 when it was
>> > reissued in an expanded edition, now reads like a long-winded relic
>> > of the '60s, philosophy for junior high kids.
>> >
>> > It's always nice to hear from the next generation, especially when they
>> > barely had begun attending junior high school when reviews with which
>> > they disagree and would reassess and have us discard came out.
>> >
> [ ... snip myself ... ]
>> >
>> > What do you think? Is SiaSL a "long-winded relic of the '60s,
>> > philosophy for junior high kids"?
>>
>> I have no doubt it is a valid comment by some younger readers.
>>
>
> That they might be "younger" doesn't make them necessarily ignorant, but
> it might make them a little less than sophisticated reviewers of
> writings. Timberg, writer of the review quoted, for example, has a
> background of having written mainly music with some related media
> (movies, music videos, performances) reviews. Someone at the Times
> thought he was ready to try a review of a writer of SF. Why? We don't
> know.
>
> But it is pretty clear, from what he wrote, that Timberg relied heavily
> on another young lightweight named Newitz who is burdened with her own
> agendas.
I'm just going on what you presented in your post.
>> For some it may indeed be considered "long-winded", which is RAH's style
>> at times, like it or not.
>
> I suppose "long-winded" is akin to the criticism that Mozart's music has
> "too many notes." The question is whether the words or notes are wasted
> in production of an irrelevant or immaterial impact, not how many they may
> be.
"Long-winded" can also be akin to "too wordy", i.e. taking too long to make
a point. I think that is what this latest reviewer may be talking about. For
some situations less can be more, and RAH himself used this approach
successfully in many of his earlier works. In some he combined both
approaches e.g. in Starship Troopers he (IMO)successfully spoke at length at
times, and used brevity to distinct effect as well.
>> It is definitely a "relic" of the '60s. Novels have a
>> habit of ageing - some age better than others. I don't think that SIASL
>> has particularly aged badly, but I can see why younger readers may have
>> issues with it.
>>
>
> But I don't know with any certainty that "relic of the '60s" means
> anything significant. Shakespeare's plays are relics of the end of the
> sixteenth century, the Elizabethan Age; Swift's essays and stories,
> particularly including _Gulliver's Travels_, are relics of early
> eighteenth century; Hemingway's writings a relic of the first half of the
> twentieth century. I also don't know that "aged better" (or worse) means
> anything more than continues or fails to have some bearing and impact on
> the subject of the writing.
Well, the question was asked and addressed. I think being a "relic of the
'60's" *is* significant in that the novel SIASL should be considered in the
context of the age in which it was written, now that a substantial amount of
time has passed between now and then.
>> I think it helps to acknowledge that reviewers of any vintage are mostly
>> trying to be honest with their opinions. That is, they are not making up
>> how a novel makes them feel, they are telling the truth (as it appears to
>> them).
>
> Sincerity may exist, but proving it depends on an assessment of effort,
> depth, time spent, and approach. I would reserve my opinion on Timberg
> were I unconnected with his research. However, he interviewed me, and his
> article pointedly ignored anything including all facts I pointed out to
> him contradicting points he attempted to verify with me. Cherry picking
> one post-interview point (how many Heinlein books I read yearly--and I do
> conduct these discussions of Heinlein's works here and elsewhere), and
> ignoring all else said in a substantially long discussion, told me all I
> needed to know about his impartiality as a reporter--he wouldn't know what
> impartiality was if it had bit him in the nose.
David, I have no doubt missed some earlier posts about this. Is his article
on-line?
>> It would be most unusual if opinions of reviewers remained unchanged over
>> forty plus years.
>
> Anyway, let's look at other efforts of newspaper reviewers of all
> vintages during the past forty-some years. The New York Times' Orville
> Prescott, preeminent reviewer in his age, wrote that in the novel, Mr.
> Heinlein "expresses his sardonic opinions with violence and gusto," but
> he didn't care for it as Vonnegut notes. He claimed he was looking for
> something light and clever and not too much of a strain on his weary
> brain cells to read and "My selection of this disastrous mishmash of
> science fiction, laborious humor, dreary social satire and cheap eroticism
> was a frightful mistake."
All I can say is that tastes vary, and this opinion is probably very valid
for some. Sometimes it helps to provide some further insight regarding
difficult novels (such as SIASL) and previously disenchanted readers may
achieve a more appreciative perspective. Sometimes there is no chance of
achieving this.
> So you might say, as some younger readers of today may themselves say,
> Prescott had "issues with it." Putting a strain on Prescott's weary
> brain cells was deemed by him to be truly a grievous fault.
I don't think if SIASL was written today by any other author it would
achieve anywhere near the same success. This could be said of many great
works from the past, not just RAH. Times change, peoples tastes and
attitudes change. What people *want* to read changes. I'm sure there is an
equation in there somewhere to demonstrate this.
> 100,000 copies of the abridged (1961) edition sold in hard cover--during
> which time it became the first SF title to crack The New York Times Book
> Review's best-seller list, and nearly five million in paperback later,
> by 1991. Prescott who died in 1989, a year after Heinlein, had he lived
> that long, may have regretted expressing his ire to such extent. Perhaps
> it's true any publicity is good publicity. In any event for the next two
> decades, Heinlein's problem wasn't that Stranger wasn't selling, it was
> getting the publishers to print sufficient copies to keep up with the
> demand.
>
> It's not a great surprise that the criticism of "long-winded" or "too
> many words" is leveled. This was Heinlein's twelve-year-long effort, a
> time he had never spent on a work before by orders of magnitude, in
> writing a work. It was his first successful effort to 'write my own
> stuff' the way he wished to write it. It wasn't "something light and
> clever" that placed "not too much a strain" on readers looking for
> diversion on a rainy day.
>
> Exactly what was the "philosophy for junior high school kids" that
> Timberg attacks?
>
> It is, as Heinlein pointed out, a satire making a frontal assault on the
> two biggest, fattest sacred cows of Western Society, "monotheism and
> monogamy" (and a "double dozen" other objects).
Perhaps Heinlein succeeded, or the western world has moved on somewhat from
these sacred cows?
> Going beyond Timberg, we take from Prescott a need to search out and
> examine those evidences of mistake by Heinlein in producing a
> "disastrous mishmash of science fiction, laborious humor, dreary social
> satire and cheap eroticism."
No, not "evidence of mistake" by Heinlein. Those were your words I think. I
have no difficulty accepting that no one true view of SIASL exists, and that
even certain views will modify over the passage of time, and especially as
newer generations come to read it. To think otherwise is a bit King
Canute-ish (IMO).
>
> Is Heinlein's magnum opus a "philosophy for junior high school kids" and
> a disastrous mishmash of science fiction, laborious humor, dreary social
> satire and cheap eroticism?
>
> What do you think, anyone, Sean?
I don't really understand the point about "philosophy for junior high school
kids", so haven't addressed it. Is the reviewer suggesting the intellectual
level of discussion in SIASL is not very high? If that is what is meant,
then I couldn't go along with that. The literary, philosophical, religious
and historical allusions are many (and would be beyond many junior high
school kids, IMO).
Subject: Re: February 21, 2008 meeting--Reading Group
From: "David M. Silver" <ag.plusone@verizon.net>
In article <a0fij.2490$421.740@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
"Gaeltach" <hcatleag@bigpond.com> wrote:
> > Sincerity may exist, but proving it depends on an assessment of effort,
> > depth, time spent, and approach. I would reserve my opinion on Timberg
> > were I unconnected with his research. However, he interviewed me, and
> > his article pointedly ignored anything including all facts I pointed out
> > to him contradicting points he attempted to verify with me. Cherry
> > picking one post-interview point (how many Heinlein books I read
> > yearly--and I do conduct these discussions of Heinlein's works here and
> > elsewhere), and ignoring all else said in a substantially long
> > discussion, told me all I needed to know about his impartiality as a
> > reporter--he wouldn't know what impartiality was if it had bit him in the
> > nose.
>
> David, I have no doubt missed some earlier posts about this. Is his article
> on-line?
The December 9, 2007, review by Scott Timberg, entitled "Robert
Heinlein's Future May Be Past," is here:
http://tinyurl.com/32fb22
Giving due where it is merited, the Times published one letter in reply:
Writer's legacy strong
December 16, 2007
HAVING just become the only writer ever to collaborate with Robert
Heinlein on a novel, I feel an obligation to compliment Scott Timberg
on "Robert Heinlein's Future May Be Past" [Dec. 9]. He did a very
nearly perfect job.
But not quite perfect.
Although every opinion expressed by Timberg is malicious nonsense --
and he neglects to mention recent news items related to Mr. Heinlein
(the new half-million dollar Heinlein Trust Prize, his huge and
successful 100th birthday celebration last summer, his first new
novel in nearly 20 years just released this month, etc.) -- I
discovered one statement of fact that was not false ("Still,
hard-core admirers remain"), and one quotation from someone who has
actually published in the field and doesn't say a single silly thing
(Thomas Disch).
Please exercise more care in future; these small flaws marred an
otherwise perfect piece of comedy.
Spider Robinson
Vancouver
Robinson is the co-author with Robert A. Heinlein of "Variable Star"
and a winner of the Hugo and Nebula Awards.
http://tinyurl.com/324cwe
--
David M. Silver
http://www.heinleinsociety.org
"The Lieutenant expects your names to shine!"
Robert Anson Heinlein, USNA '29
Lt.(jg), USN, R'td
Subject: Re: February 21, 2008 meeting--Reading Group
From: djinn <djenni@gmail.com>
On Jan 13, 12:22 pm, "David M. Silver" <ag.plus...@verizon.net> wrote:
> In article <a0fij.2490$421....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
>
> "Gaeltach" <hcatl...@bigpond.com> wrote:
> > > Sincerity may exist, but proving it depends on an assessment of effort
> > > , depth, time spent, and approach. I would reserve my opinion on
> > > Timberg
> > > were I unconnected with his research. However, he interviewed me, and
> > > his article pointedly ignored anything including all facts I pointed o
> > > ut to him contradicting points he attempted to verify with me. Cherry
> > > picking one post-interview point (how many Heinlein books I read
> > > yearly--and I do conduct these discussions of Heinlein's works here an
> > > d elsewhere), and ignoring all else said in a substantially long
> > > discussion, told me all I needed to know about his impartiality as a
> > > reporter--he wouldn't know what impartiality was if it had bit him in
> > > the nose.
>
> > David, I have no doubt missed some earlier posts about this. Is his arti
> > cle on-line?
>
> The December 9, 2007, review by Scott Timberg, entitled "Robert
> Heinlein's Future May Be Past," is here:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/32fb22
>
> Giving due where it is merited, the Times published one letter in reply:
snip
>
> Please exercise more care in future; these small flaws marred an
> otherwise perfect piece of comedy.
>
> Spider Robinson
>
Nicely put.
Subject: Re: February 21, 2008 meeting--Reading Group
From: "David M. Silver" <ag.plusone@verizon.net>
In article <a0fij.2490$421.740@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
"Gaeltach" <hcatleag@bigpond.com> wrote:
> > Going beyond Timberg, we take from Prescott a need to search out and
> > examine those evidences of mistake by Heinlein in producing a
> > "disastrous mishmash of science fiction, laborious humor, dreary social
> > satire and cheap eroticism."
>
> No, not "evidence of mistake" by Heinlein. Those were your words I think. I
> have no difficulty accepting that no one true view of SIASL exists, and that
> even certain views will modify over the passage of time, and especially as
> newer generations come to read it. To think otherwise is a bit King
> Canute-ish (IMO).
Prescott used the term "frightful mistake" to describe what he
characterized as a "disastrous mismash ... etc."
> >
> > Is Heinlein's magnum opus a "philosophy for junior high school kids" and
> > a disastrous mishmash of science fiction, laborious humor, dreary social
> > satire and cheap eroticism?
> >
> > What do you think, anyone, Sean?
>
> I don't really understand the point about "philosophy for junior high school
> kids", so haven't addressed it. Is the reviewer suggesting the intellectual
> level of discussion in SIASL is not very high? If that is what is meant,
> then I couldn't go along with that. The literary, philosophical, religious
> and historical allusions are many (and would be beyond many junior high
> school kids, IMO).
Neither do I understand it. It's basically an insult to any reader who
finds something among the satire of SiaSL worth thinking about.
Essentially, Timberg and Newitz, who seems to have done his thinking for
him, in her "complicated dose of didacticism" and "tasty little
soundbyte[s]" are telling readers of SiaSL that our concerns are at at
best a junior high level.[1] I don't know about you, but someone who
takes ten or twelve years to get a Ph.D. from Berkeley (normal is seven
years from the beginning of an undergrad degree) and still manages not
to obtain a tenure-track teaching position doesn't impress me a great
deal, no matter how busy she seems to involve herself in blogging,
delivering papers at "Arse Electronika," whatever that may have been,
and addresses at "feminist science fiction conventions". Nor does a
"journalist" who relies so heavily upon her "tasty" little bits.
[1] See, last paragraph of http://www.techsploitation.com/about/ and
http://www.techsploitation.com/appearances/ On the other hand, I rather
like the taste she expresses in the three-piece suit she wears in one
photograph on her appearances page. I had one like that when I was about
thirty.
--
David M. Silver
http://www.heinleinsociety.org
"The Lieutenant expects your names to shine!"
Robert Anson Heinlein, USNA '29
Lt.(jg), USN, R'td
Subject: Re: February 21, 2008 meeting--Reading Group
From: djinn <djenni@gmail.com>
On Jan 13, 1:25 pm, "David M. Silver" <ag.plus...@verizon.net> wrote:
> In article <a0fij.2490$421....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
>
> "Gaeltach" <hcatl...@bigpond.com> wrote:
> > > Going beyond Timberg, we take from Prescott a need to search out and
> > > examine those evidences of mistake by Heinlein in producing a
> > > "disastrous mishmash of science fiction, laborious humor, dreary socia
> > > l satire and cheap eroticism."
>
> > No, not "evidence of mistake" by Heinlein. Those were your words I think
> > . I have no difficulty accepting that no one true view of SIASL exists,
> > and that even certain views will modify over the passage of time, and
> > especially as newer generations come to read it. To think otherwise is
> > a bit King Canute-ish (IMO).
>
> Prescott used the term "frightful mistake" to describe what he
> characterized as a "disastrous mismash ... etc."
>
>
>
> > > Is Heinlein's magnum opus a "philosophy for junior high school kids" a
> > > nd a disastrous mishmash of science fiction, laborious humor, dreary
> > > soci al satire and cheap eroticism?
>
> > > What do you think, anyone, Sean?
>
> > I don't really understand the point about "philosophy for junior high sc
> > hool kids", so haven't addressed it. Is the reviewer suggesting the
> > intellect ual level of discussion in SIASL is not very high? If that is
> > what is meant,
> > then I couldn't go along with that. The literary, philosophical, religio
> > us and historical allusions are many (and would be beyond many junior
> > high school kids, IMO).
>
> Neither do I understand it. It's basically an insult to any reader who
> finds something among the satire of SiaSL worth thinking about.
> Essentially, Timberg and Newitz, who seems to have done his thinking for
> him, in her "complicated dose of didacticism" and "tasty little
> soundbyte[s]" are telling readers of SiaSL that our concerns are at at
> best a junior high level.[1] I don't know about you, but someone who
> takes ten or twelve years to get a Ph.D. from Berkeley (normal is seven
> years from the beginning of an undergrad degree) and still manages not
> to obtain a tenure-track teaching position doesn't impress me a great
> deal, no matter how busy she seems to involve herself in blogging,
> delivering papers at "Arse Electronika," whatever that may have been, and
> addresses at "feminist science fiction conventions". Nor does a
> "journalist" who relies so heavily upon her "tasty" little bits.
>
got yer tasty bit's right here, baby. :)
You've got a point. It sounds like a 'sour grapes' kind of sneer. The
writers really didn't 'get it', so anyone who likes Heinleins' writing
must be dumber than they are. A not uncommon situation, the contempt
of the ignorant for the knowledgable.
This seems to be what she does for AE.
Upcoming Events:
10.07.2007 / Delivering a paper on "A Futurist's History of Sexual
Technology" at Arse Electronika, a conference on pornography and
technical innovation, San Francisco.
I have to admit to curiosity about Sexual Technology.
/On the other hand, I rather
> like the taste she expresses in the three-piece suit she wears in one
> photograph on her appearances page. I had one like that when I was about
> thirty.
That is a nice suit.
Subject: Re: February 21, 2008 meeting--Reading Group
From: Ogden Johnson III <oj3usmc@yahoo.com>
"Gaeltach" <hcatleag@bigpond.com> wrote:
>"David M. Silver" <ag.plusone@verizon.net> wrote:
>> Topic: Stranger in a Strange Land--Parts I and II
>> Date: Thursday, February 21, 2008, 9 PM EST
>> Place: AIM chatroom "Heinlein Readers Group"
>>
>>
>> A novice reviewer in the L.A. Times recently wrote, inter alia, of
>> Heinlein:
[Snips]
>> " But the bestselling "Stranger," which Kurt Vonnegut Jr. reviewed on
>> the cover of the New York Times Book Review in 1990 when it was
>> reissued in an expanded edition, now reads like a long-winded relic
>> of the '60s, philosophy for junior high kids."
[More snips]
>> What do you think? Is SiaSL a "long-winded relic of the '60s, philosophy
>> for junior high kids"?
>
>I have no doubt it is a valid comment by some younger readers.
Heck, *I* probably would have considered SiaSL "long-winded" if
it had come out when I was in my teens/early 20s - it's the
nature of being in your teens/early 20s, impatience, or maybe
better, lack of patience reigns supreme.
I have noticed, as I gain age, that the works of a lot of authors
seem to increase in length in direct proportion to their age and
success in the market place. To pick just one, Tom Clancy of
Hunt for Red October - 350 - 400 pp IIRC - hit 1500-1600 pp with
the combined pair Debt of Honor and Executive Orders.
--
OJ III
Subject: Re: February 21, 2008 meeting--Reading Group
From: Chris Zakes <dontivar@gmail.com>
On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 06:17:14 -0500, an orbital mind-control laser
caused Ogden Johnson III <oj3usmc@yahoo.com> to write:
>"Gaeltach" <hcatleag@bigpond.com> wrote:
>
>>"David M. Silver" <ag.plusone@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>>> Topic: Stranger in a Strange Land--Parts I and II
>>> Date: Thursday, February 21, 2008, 9 PM EST
>>> Place: AIM chatroom "Heinlein Readers Group"
>>>
>>>
>>> A novice reviewer in the L.A. Times recently wrote, inter alia, of
>>> Heinlein:
>
>[Snips]
>
>>> " But the bestselling "Stranger," which Kurt Vonnegut Jr. reviewed on
>>> the cover of the New York Times Book Review in 1990 when it was
>>> reissued in an expanded edition, now reads like a long-winded relic
>>> of the '60s, philosophy for junior high kids."
>
>[More snips]
>
>>> What do you think? Is SiaSL a "long-winded relic of the '60s, philosophy
>>> for junior high kids"?
>>
>>I have no doubt it is a valid comment by some younger readers.
>
>Heck, *I* probably would have considered SiaSL "long-winded" if
>it had come out when I was in my teens/early 20s - it's the
>nature of being in your teens/early 20s, impatience, or maybe better, lack
>of patience reigns supreme.
I'm not so sure about that. Wasn't a major part of SIASL's popularity
among the hippie/counter-culture set? Most of that group was in their
teens and early twenties.
>I have noticed, as I gain age, that the works of a lot of authors
>seem to increase in length in direct proportion to their age and
>success in the market place. To pick just one, Tom Clancy of
>Hunt for Red October - 350 - 400 pp IIRC - hit 1500-1600 pp with the
>combined pair Debt of Honor and Executive Orders.
I *think* than may be more a product of publisher's policies than the
age of the writers. Remember that Heinlein had to cut something like
1/3 of SIASL before his publisher was willing to gamble on such a
"long" SF book. Looking through our library (roughly equal parts SF,
fantasy and mysteries) most of the books published in the 1950s or
'60s, run about 200 pages. For those published more recently, 400+
pages seem pretty common. (And let's not even mention Robert Jordan's
tomes... <G>)
-Chris Zakes
Texas
The only thing that preserved religious freedom in the United States was not the
First Amendment and was not tolerance… but was solely a Mexican standoff between
rival religious sects, each sect intolerant, each sect the sole custodian of the
"One True Faith"-but each sect a minority that gave lip service to to keep its
own "One True Faith from being persecuted by all the other "True Faiths."
-Maureen Johnson Smith in "To Sail Beyond the Sunset"
by Robert Heinlein
Subject: Re: February 21, 2008 meeting--Reading Group
From: "Bruce C. Baker" <bcb@undisclosedlocation.net>
"Chris Zakes" <dontivar@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:k7iho3pg39u0i8663hlaa6bue9oavg69dj@4ax.com...
<snip>
> I *think* than may be more a product of publisher's policies than the
> age of the writers. Remember that Heinlein had to cut something like
> 1/3 of SIASL before his publisher was willing to gamble on such a
> "long" SF book. Looking through our library (roughly equal parts SF,
> fantasy and mysteries) most of the books published in the 1950s or
> '60s, run about 200 pages. For those published more recently, 400+
> pages seem pretty common. (And let's not even mention Robert Jordan's
> tomes... <G>)
But the print is so much bigger now! (I'm only half-kidding ...)
Subject: Re: February 21, 2008 meeting--Reading Group
From: Chris Zakes <dontivar@gmail.com>
On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 12:26:23 -0600, an orbital mind-control laser
caused "Bruce C. Baker" <bcb@undisclosedlocation.net> to write:
>
>"Chris Zakes" <dontivar@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:k7iho3pg39u0i8663hlaa6bue9oavg69dj@4ax.com...
>
><snip>
>
>> I *think* than may be more a product of publisher's policies than the
>> age of the writers. Remember that Heinlein had to cut something like
>> 1/3 of SIASL before his publisher was willing to gamble on such a
>> "long" SF book. Looking through our library (roughly equal parts SF,
>> fantasy and mysteries) most of the books published in the 1950s or
>> '60s, run about 200 pages. For those published more recently, 400+
>> pages seem pretty common. (And let's not even mention Robert Jordan's
>> tomes... <G>)
>
>But the print is so much bigger now! (I'm only half-kidding ...)
Well, yeah, that's because *we're* older and our eyes don't work as
well as they used to, so it's either bigger print or reading glasses.
-Chris Zakes
Texas
The only thing that preserved religious freedom in the United States was not the
First Amendment and was not tolerance… but was solely a Mexican standoff between
rival religious sects, each sect intolerant, each sect the sole custodian of the
"One True Faith"-but each sect a minority that gave lip service to to keep its
own "One True Faith from being persecuted by all the other "True Faiths."
-Maureen Johnson Smith in "To Sail Beyond the Sunset"
by Robert Heinlein
Subject: Re: February 21, 2008 meeting--Reading Group
From: "Vance P. Frickey" <vfrickey@safetyricochet.com>
"Chris Zakes" <dontivar@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:u9gio3hnaojoa1jvib55ms99g8lf2audti@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 12:26:23 -0600, an orbital
> mind-control laser
> caused "Bruce C. Baker" <bcb@undisclosedlocation.net> to write:
>
>>
>>"Chris Zakes" <dontivar@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:k7iho3pg39u0i8663hlaa6bue9oavg69dj@4ax.com...
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>> I *think* than may be more a product of publisher's
>>> policies than the
>>> age of the writers. Remember that Heinlein had to cut
>>> something like
>>> 1/3 of SIASL before his publisher was willing to gamble
>>> on such a
>>> "long" SF book. Looking through our library (roughly
>>> equal parts SF,
>>> fantasy and mysteries) most of the books published in
>>> the 1950s or
>>> '60s, run about 200 pages. For those published more
>>> recently, 400+
>>> pages seem pretty common. (And let's not even mention
>>> Robert Jordan's
>>> tomes... <G>)
>>
>>But the print is so much bigger now! (I'm only half-kidding ...)
>
> Well, yeah, that's because *we're* older and our eyes
> don't work as
> well as they used to, so it's either bigger print or reading glasses.
...or bigger fonts and/or monitors. That was part of my
wife's decision in getting me the Dell 17" screen Inspiron
E1705 laptop - I think she was getting sympathy eyestrain
every time she saw me squinting at the old one.
One of my nephews just splurged for the Dell "portable"
computer which sports a 20" LCD monitor. It's not the
heaviest thing you might put on your lap in a business
environment - if you're immune to sexual harassment suits
and/or being shot by an angry spouse. :-)
--
Vance P. Frickey
"False words are not only evil in themselves, but they
infect the soul with evil." -- Socrates
Subject: Re: February 21, 2008 meeting--Reading Group
From: "Bruce C. Baker" <bcb@undisclosedlocation.net>
"Vance P. Frickey" <vfrickey@safetyricochet.com> wrote in message
news:tc-dnaMPEPZ-1BTanZ2dnUVZ_o-mnZ2d@forethought.net...
> "Chris Zakes" <dontivar@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:u9gio3hnaojoa1jvib55ms99g8lf2audti@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 12:26:23 -0600, an orbital mind-control laser
>> caused "Bruce C. Baker" <bcb@undisclosedlocation.net> to write:
>>
>>>
>>>"Chris Zakes" <dontivar@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>news:k7iho3pg39u0i8663hlaa6bue9oavg69dj@4ax.com...
>>>
>>><snip>
>>>
>>>> I *think* than may be more a product of publisher's policies than the
>>>> age of the writers. Remember that Heinlein had to cut something like
>>>> 1/3 of SIASL before his publisher was willing to gamble on such a
>>>> "long" SF book. Looking through our library (roughly equal parts SF,
>>>> fantasy and mysteries) most of the books published in the 1950s or
>>>> '60s, run about 200 pages. For those published more recently, 400+
>>>> pages seem pretty common. (And let's not even mention Robert Jordan's
>>>> tomes... <G>)
>>>
>>>But the print is so much bigger now! (I'm only half-kidding ...)
>>
>> Well, yeah, that's because *we're* older and our eyes don't work as well
>> as they used to, so it's either bigger print or reading glasses.
>
> ...or bigger fonts and/or monitors. That was part of my wife's decision
> in getting me the Dell 17" screen Inspiron E1705 laptop - I think she was
> getting sympathy eyestrain every time she saw me squinting at the old one.
>
> One of my nephews just splurged for the Dell "portable" computer which
> sports a 20" LCD monitor. It's not the heaviest thing you might put on
> your lap in a business environment - if you're immune to sexual harassment
> suits and/or being shot by an angry spouse. :-)
Chris, Vance: Both good points! :-D But what I was referring to and probably
should have been more explicit about is a comparison of the physical books
then and now. A couple of examples from my library:
"Starship Troopers"
-
Berkeley Medallion Edition, May 1968: 208 pages of small print between
very narrow margins.
-
Ace edition, May 1987: 263 pages of larger print with wide margins.
"Revolt in 2100"
-
Signet, circa mid-60s: 192 pages of small print between very narrow
margins.
-
Baen Books, Sept 1986: 336 pages of larger print with wide margins.
By "large print" I mean what's common nowadays, not the LARGE PRINT editions
available for some books.
Of course, if you're familiar at all with paperbacks from the 40s, 50s, and
60s, they're all small print and narrow margins. Could this have been due to
a mindset left over from WWII paper shortages?
Subject: Re: February 21, 2008 meeting--Reading Group
From: "Vance P. Frickey" <vfrickey@safetyricochet.com>
"Chris Zakes" <dontivar@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:u9gio3hnaojoa1jvib55ms99g8lf2audti@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 12:26:23 -0600, an orbital
> mind-control laser
> caused "Bruce C. Baker" <bcb@undisclosedlocation.net> to write:
>
>>
>>"Chris Zakes" <dontivar@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:k7iho3pg39u0i8663hlaa6bue9oavg69dj@4ax.com...
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>> I *think* than may be more a product of publisher's
>>> policies than the
>>> age of the writers. Remember that Heinlein had to cut
>>> something like
>>> 1/3 of SIASL before his publisher was willing to gamble
>>> on such a
>>> "long" SF book. Looking through our library (roughly
>>> equal parts SF,
>>> fantasy and mysteries) most of the books published in
>>> the 1950s or
>>> '60s, run about 200 pages. For those published more
>>> recently, 400+
>>> pages seem pretty common. (And let's not even mention
>>> Robert Jordan's
>>> tomes... <G>)
>>
>>But the print is so much bigger now! (I'm only half-kidding ...)
>
> Well, yeah, that's because *we're* older and our eyes
> don't work as
> well as they used to, so it's either bigger print or reading glasses.
...or bigger fonts and/or monitors. That was part of my
wife's decision in getting me the Dell 17" screen Inspiron
E1705 laptop - I think she was getting sympathy eyestrain
every time she saw me squinting at the old one.
One of my nephews just splurged for the Dell "portable"
computer which sports a 20" LCD monitor. It's not the
heaviest thing you might put on your lap in a business
environment - if you're immune to sexual harassment suits
and/or being shot by an angry spouse. :-)
--
Vance P. Frickey
"False words are not only evil in themselves, but they
infect the soul with evil." -- Socrates
Subject: Re: February 21, 2008 meeting--Reading Group
From: Pete LaGrange <oldman1961@hotmail.com>
Chris Zakes wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 12:26:23 -0600, an orbital mind-control laser
> caused "Bruce C. Baker" <bcb@undisclosedlocation.net> to write:
>
>>
>>"Chris Zakes" <dontivar@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:k7iho3pg39u0i8663hlaa6bue9oavg69dj@4ax.com...
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>> I *think* than may be more a product of publisher's policies than the
>>> age of the writers. Remember that Heinlein had to cut something like
>>> 1/3 of SIASL before his publisher was willing to gamble on such a
>>> "long" SF book. Looking through our library (roughly equal parts SF,
>>> fantasy and mysteries) most of the books published in the 1950s or
>>> '60s, run about 200 pages. For those published more recently, 400+
>>> pages seem pretty common. (And let's not even mention Robert Jordan's
>>> tomes... <G>)
>>
>>But the print is so much bigger now! (I'm only half-kidding ...)
>
> Well, yeah, that's because *we're* older and our eyes don't work as
> well as they used to, so it's either bigger print or reading glasses.
>
Or both!
--
Pete LaGrange
loyalty above all, save honor
http://69.127.16.11:7776/index.html
Subject: Re: February 21, 2008 meeting--Reading Group
From: "Vance P. Frickey" <vfrickey@safetyricochet.com>
"Pete LaGrange" <oldman1961@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9aeij.236280$uv7.19564@fe05.news.easynews.com...
> Chris Zakes wrote:
>> On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 12:26:23 -0600, an orbital
>> mind-control laser
>> caused "Bruce C. Baker" <bcb@undisclosedlocation.net> to write:
>>
>>>
>>>"Chris Zakes" <dontivar@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>news:k7iho3pg39u0i8663hlaa6bue9oavg69dj@4ax.com...
>>>
>>><snip>
>>>
>>>> I *think* than may be more a product of publisher's
>>>> policies than the
>>>> age of the writers. Remember that Heinlein had to cut
>>>> something like
>>>> 1/3 of SIASL before his publisher was willing to gamble
>>>> on such a
>>>> "long" SF book. Looking through our library (roughly
>>>> equal parts SF,
>>>> fantasy and mysteries) most of the books published in
>>>> the 1950s or
>>>> '60s, run about 200 pages. For those published more
>>>> recently, 400+
>>>> pages seem pretty common. (And let's not even mention
>>>> Robert Jordan's tomes... <G>)
>>>
>>>But the print is so much bigger now! (I'm only half-kidding ...)
>>
>> Well, yeah, that's because *we're* older and our eyes
>> don't work as
>> well as they used to, so it's either bigger print or reading
>> glasses.
--
Vance P. Frickey
"False words are not only evil in themselves, but they
infect the soul with evil." -- Socrates
Subject: Re: February 21, 2008 meeting--Reading Group
From: "Vance P. Frickey" <vfrickey@safetyricochet.com>
"Vance P. Frickey" <vfrickey@safetyricochet.com> wrote in
message
news:WYqdnQxvK6i_5RTanZ2dnUVZ_qWtnZ2d@forethought.net...
> "Pete LaGrange" <oldman1961@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:9aeij.236280$uv7.19564@fe05.news.easynews.com...
>> Chris Zakes wrote:
>>> On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 12:26:23 -0600, an orbital
>>> mind-control laser
>>> caused "Bruce C. Baker" <bcb@undisclosedlocation.net> to write:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Chris Zakes" <dontivar@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:k7iho3pg39u0i8663hlaa6bue9oavg69dj@4ax.com...
>>>>
>>>><snip>
>>>>
>>>>> I *think* than may be more a product of publisher's
>>>>> policies than the
>>>>> age of the writers. Remember that Heinlein had to cut
>>>>> something like
>>>>> 1/3 of SIASL before his publisher was willing to
>>>>> gamble on such a
>>>>> "long" SF book. Looking through our library (roughly
>>>>> equal parts SF,
>>>>> fantasy and mysteries) most of the books published in
>>>>> the 1950s or
>>>>> '60s, run about 200 pages. For those published more
>>>>> recently, 400+
>>>>> pages seem pretty common. (And let's not even mention
>>>>> Robert Jordan's tomes... <G>)
>>>>
>>>>But the print is so much bigger now! (I'm only half-kidding ...)
>>>
>>> Well, yeah, that's because *we're* older and our eyes
>>> don't work as
>>> well as they used to, so it's either bigger print or reading
>>> glasses.
>
>
> --
> Vance P. Frickey
>
> "False words are not only evil in themselves, but they
> infect the soul with evil." -- Socrates
>
> remove safety from Email address to use
Sorry, I meant to insert meaningful repartee in the previous
post while watching the remake of the "Hitchhikers' Guide to
the Galaxy" and was distracted by the Vogon Poetry
Appreciation Scene in which, of course, nothing of
significance was uttered to forestall the captives' death by
immediate exposure to the vacuum of space.
--
Vance P. Frickey
"False words are not only evil in themselves, but they
infect the soul with evil." -- Socrates
Subject: Re: February 21, 2008 meeting--Reading Group
From: Chris Zakes <dontivar@gmail.com>
On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 12:26:23 -0600, an orbital mind-control laser
caused "Bruce C. Baker" <bcb@undisclosedlocation.net> to write:
>
>"Chris Zakes" <dontivar@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:k7iho3pg39u0i8663hlaa6bue9oavg69dj@4ax.com...
>
><snip>
>
>> I *think* than may be more a product of publisher's policies than the
>> age of the writers. Remember that Heinlein had to cut something like
>> 1/3 of SIASL before his publisher was willing to gamble on such a
>> "long" SF book. Looking through our library (roughly equal parts SF,
>> fantasy and mysteries) most of the books published in the 1950s or
>> '60s, run about 200 pages. For those published more recently, 400+
>> pages seem pretty common. (And let's not even mention Robert Jordan's
>> tomes... <G>)
>
>But the print is so much bigger now! (I'm only half-kidding ...)
Well, yeah, that's because *we're* older and our eyes don't work as
well as they used to, so it's either bigger print or reading glasses.
-Chris Zakes
Texas
The only thing that preserved religious freedom in the United States was not the
First Amendment and was not tolerance… but was solely a Mexican standoff between
rival religious sects, each sect intolerant, each sect the sole custodian of the
"One True Faith"-but each sect a minority that gave lip service to to keep its
own "One True Faith from being persecuted by all the other "True Faiths."
-Maureen Johnson Smith in "To Sail Beyond the Sunset"
by Robert Heinlein
Subject: Re: February 21, 2008 meeting--Reading Group
From: "Vance P. Frickey" <vfrickey@safetyricochet.com>
"Gaeltach" <hcatleag@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:mQVhj.2221$421.78@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> "David M. Silver" <ag.plusone@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:ag.plusone-473146.05384711012008@individual.net...
>> Topic: Stranger in a Strange Land--Parts I and II
>> Date: Thursday, February 21, 2008, 9 PM EST
>> Place: AIM chatroom "Heinlein Readers Group"
>>
>>
>> A novice reviewer in the L.A. Times recently wrote, inter
>> alia, of
>> Heinlein:
>>
>> FOR years, the intellectually ambitious novels of the 1960s,
>> especially "Stranger in a Strange Land," about a
>> spiritually and
>> sexually messianic Martian-born human, and "The Moon
>> Is a Harsh
>> Mistress," which concerns a free-market revolt by
>> prisoners on the
>> moon, were considered Heinlein's great work.
>>
>> These books still have followings; "Moon" sits in the
>> International
>> Space Station library.
>>
>> But the bestselling "Stranger," which Kurt Vonnegut
>> Jr. reviewed on
>> the cover of the New York Times Book Review in 1990
>> when it was
>> reissued in an expanded edition, now reads like a
>> long-winded relic
>> of the '60s, philosophy for junior high kids.
>>
>> It's always nice to hear from the next generation, especially when
>> they barely had begun attending junior high school when
>> reviews with which
>> they disagree and would reassess and have us discard came out.
>>
>> We've decided to review Stranger in a Strange Land, taking our time
>> to do so, beginning with Parts I and II, "His Maculate
>> Origin," and "His
>> Preposterous Heritage" beginning next month.
>>
>> Anyone is free to attend the meetings and make relevant pre-meeting
>> posts. The more commentary we have, the better the chats
>> turn out to be.
>>
>> What do you think? Is SiaSL a "long-winded relic of the
>> '60s, philosophy
>> for junior high kids"?
>
> I have no doubt it is a valid comment by some younger readers.
>
> For some it may indeed be considered "long-winded", which
> is RAH's style at times, like it or not. It is definitely
> a "relic" of the '60s. Novels have a habit of ageing -
> some age better than others. I don't think that SIASL has
> particularly aged badly, but I can see why younger readers
> may have issues with it.
>
> I think it helps to acknowledge that reviewers of any
> vintage are mostly trying to be honest with their
> opinions. That is, they are not making up how a novel
> makes them feel, they are telling the truth (as it appears
> to them). It would be most unusual if opinions of reviewers remained
> unchanged over forty plus years.
NOT philosophy for junior high kids. I was in junior high
when I got my first copy, and the philosophy was definitely
advanced for me - not that I thought so then :-) but I can
understand why (as is recorded in Grumbles) some more
impressionable and less balanced kids were absconding with
the family store till and running off to start Nests after
reading SIASL. It all seems so plausible - all you have to
do is pass the water around and start screwing (or so you
might think if you're an ninth grader with a full set of
hormones and a new copy of SIASL).
SIASL is dangerous in precisely the way that John Brunner's
"Stand on Zanzibar" is dangerous - it points out graphically
and acerbically what is wrong with modern society, then
places the weak-minded, ignorant reader in a situation where
he or she could be tempted to believe that an alternative
actually is readily available which lacks the drawbacks of
modern society - but when you draw the curtain back,
there's... mostly what the reader walked in with in the
first place.
Certainly SIASL was "an invitation to think" as RAH said it
was - but in most cases junior high kids don't have the
firmware or the data for the sort of thinking SIASL
invites - not yet, anyway. You could make the very same
statement of most first and second-year college
undergraduates. And, by the way, both books place Islam on
a pedestal which now we can see isn't justified. I'm not
anti-Islam as such, but if you read how Brunner and RAH
describe it in SIASL and "Stand on Zanzibar" and take the
statements made by some of the characters in those books at
face value, you could be tempted to think it lacks the
drawbacks of other religions.
"Dangerous" doesn't mean "Bad," by the way. Sharp knives
and fast cars are dangerous, too, but they have their uses
and I would not abolish them. Writers shouldn't have to
write down to the slowest ten-percentile of their potential
audience, or slap "mature audience" labels on their work.
(The rating system usually accomplishes the exact opposite
of what it intends - it shrieks "Buy Me!" for the work which
kids probably shouldn't be viewing, not because of its
explicitness, but because it's just crap. Tipper Gore was
the rapper's friend, believe me, when she got ratings for
music pushed through. She made them MONEY.)
The term "long-winded" is relative. Depends on how much the
writer really has to say, and how long the reader's
attention span is. I'd have stuck around if RAH hadn't made
the cuts his editors and agent recommended. Then again, I
read all three "Lord of the Rings" books in a week (I was in
bed with the London Flu, and trust me, reading about the
Pits of Mordor when you're running a high fever definitely
gives you value for money).
I also didn't have a 128-bit graphics video game system or
much else in the way of complex entertainment competing for
my time and attention. Nor was I chemically-enhanced,
especially not with some of the phenethamine derivatives
being sold to kids with little alien faces printed on the
tablets these days. Some of the little twits reading and
reviewing literature these days would find the instructions
which came with their iPhone long-winded.
Georgian England had some of the same drawbacks - a critical
audience the majority of which by and large wasn't up for
the challenge of reading worthwhile literature. Remember,
public hanging was one of the major forms of entertainment
at that time. Dr. Greg Dening (in "Mr. Bligh's Bad
Language") gives a good account of what I'm talking about.
Not only must you, in criticizing a work of literature
written in another time, consider that time, but it helps to
consider the current criteria against which it's being
judged. We've got a wide spectrum of literature and
readers now. Just WHO is calling SIASL "long-winded" and
"philosophy for junior high kids"? The same people driving
the sales reported in the NYT's list of bestsellers?
--
Vance P. Frickey
"False words are not only evil in themselves, but they
infect the soul with evil." -- Socrates
Subject: Re: February 21, 2008 meeting--Reading Group
From: Chris Zakes <dontivar@gmail.com>
On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 08:40:52 -0700, an orbital mind-control laser
caused "Vance P. Frickey" <vfrickey@safetyricochet.com> to write:
(Snip the rest of a very intelligent post, so I can get to the one
point I want to quibble about.)
>And, by the way, both books place Islam on
>a pedestal which now we can see isn't justified. I'm not
>anti-Islam as such, but if you read how Brunner and RAH
>describe it in SIASL and "Stand on Zanzibar" and take the
>statements made by some of the characters in those books at
>face value, you could be tempted to think it lacks the drawbacks of
>other religions.
<shrug> Is this all that different from Heinlein speaking favorably of
the priest who lives down the street in "This I Believe"? There are
elements of the Koran and the Bible (and probably every other sacred
text out there) that can be misinterpreted or overemphasized or taken
out of context and used to justify all sorts of things.
Consider, for example, the sharp contrasts between the Amish, with
their 19th century technology and Joel Osteen (a Houston preacher who
recently bought a 16,000-seat sports arena and turned it into a
mega-church ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compaq_Center_(Houston) .)
They are both Christians and (theoretically) operating under the same
set of rules.
Or consider some of the atrocities perpetrated in the name of religion
by the Inquisition or during the Crusades. It's not the religion per
se that's at fault, it's the fanatics who use it as an excuse for
their crimes.
-Chris Zakes
Texas
The only thing that preserved religious freedom in the United States was not the
First Amendment and was not tolerance... but was solely a Mexican standoff between
rival religious sects, each sect intolerant, each sect the sole custodian of the
"One True Faith"-but each sect a minority that gave lip service to to keep its
own "One True Faith from being persecuted by all the other "True Faiths."
-Maureen Johnson Smith in "To Sail Beyond the Sunset"
by Robert Heinlein
Subject: Re: February 21, 2008 meeting--Reading Group
From: "Vance P. Frickey" <vfrickey@safetyricochet.com>
"Chris Zakes" <dontivar@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:rcgio357o57g4k46v2674plenu7rl1rbmf@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 08:40:52 -0700, an orbital
> mind-control laser
> caused "Vance P. Frickey" <vfrickey@safetyricochet.com> to write:
>
> (Snip the rest of a very intelligent post, so I can get to
> the one
> point I want to quibble about.)
>
>>And, by the way, both books place Islam on
>>a pedestal which now we can see isn't justified. I'm not
>>anti-Islam as such, but if you read how Brunner and RAH
>>describe it in SIASL and "Stand on Zanzibar" and take the
>>statements made by some of the characters in those books at
>>face value, you could be tempted to think it lacks the drawbacks of
>>other religions.
>
> <shrug> Is this all that different from Heinlein speaking
> favorably of
> the priest who lives down the street in "This I Believe"?
> There are
> elements of the Koran and the Bible (and probably every
> other sacred
> text out there) that can be misinterpreted or
> overemphasized or taken
> out of context and used to justify all sorts of things.
Chris, I very specifically mentioned two specific works, one
by RAH and one by John Brunner, in which the glaring
inconsistencies of the Old and New Testaments are trotted
out for lip-smacking condemnation while passages from the
Qur'an and/or the supposed treatment of People of the Book
by Muslims are applauded. I am aware that at least in
RAH's case, more even-handed views of al-Qur'an and other
texts are presented.
I had two Muslim roommates in college, one of whom was a
fundamentalist and one of whom used to split expenses with
me in the matter of keeping my dorm fridge full of Miller's
High Life. You win some, you lose some. I agree with you
that religious texts in general are the worst possible
foundation for political and military decisions, especially
when money or lives are riding on the outcome of whatever's
at stake.
--
Vance P. Frickey
"False words are not only evil in themselves, but they
infect the soul with evil." -- Socrates
Subject: Re: February 21, 2008 meeting--Reading Group
From: Chris Zakes <dontivar@gmail.com>
On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 18:17:56 -0700, an orbital mind-control laser
caused "Vance P. Frickey" <vfrickey@safetyricochet.com> to write:
>"Chris Zakes" <dontivar@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:rcgio357o57g4k46v2674plenu7rl1rbmf@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 08:40:52 -0700, an orbital
>> mind-control laser
>> caused "Vance P. Frickey" <vfrickey@safetyricochet.com> to write:
>>
>> (Snip the rest of a very intelligent post, so I can get to
>> the one
>> point I want to quibble about.)
>>
>>>And, by the way, both books place Islam on
>>>a pedestal which now we can see isn't justified. I'm not
>>>anti-Islam as such, but if you read how Brunner and RAH
>>>describe it in SIASL and "Stand on Zanzibar" and take the
>>>statements made by some of the characters in those books at
>>>face value, you could be tempted to think it lacks the drawbacks of
>>>other religions.
>>
>> <shrug> Is this all that different from Heinlein speaking
>> favorably of
>> the priest who lives down the street in "This I Believe"?
>> There are
>> elements of the Koran and the Bible (and probably every
>> other sacred
>> text out there) that can be misinterpreted or
>> overemphasized or taken
>> out of context and used to justify all sorts of things.
>
>Chris, I very specifically mentioned two specific works, one
>by RAH and one by John Brunner, in which the glaring
>inconsistencies of the Old and New Testaments are trotted
>out for lip-smacking condemnation while passages from the
>Qur'an and/or the supposed treatment of People of the Book
>by Muslims are applauded. I am aware that at least in
>RAH's case, more even-handed views of al-Qur'an and other texts are
>presented.
It's been 30+ years since I read "Stand on Zanzibar" so I'll stick to
"Stranger".
Where and how does Heinlein praise the Koran and/or "the supposed
treatment of People of the Book"? Jubal says he learned Arabic so he
could read the words of the Prophet in the original, but is that all
that much different from Jake Burroughs keeping a copy of the King
James Bible around?
I recall Jubal talking about Sodom and Gomorrah and Elisha and the
bears, but I expect those examples were used becase in 1961 almost
nobody in the US knew anything about the Koran, so kicking that
particular sacred cow would have been ineffectual. (These days, of
course, kicking Islamic sacred cows would have landed Heinlein in hot
water with the PC crowd, which would probably have suited him just
fine. <G>)
-Chris Zakes
Texas
Make yourselves sheep and the wolves will eat you.
- Benjamin Franklin
Subject: Re: February 21, 2008 meeting--Reading Group
From: "Vance P. Frickey" <vfrickey@safetyricochet.com>
"Chris Zakes" <dontivar@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:f6smo39fpcj2s32du7i2rnc7a01p0psbqq@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 18:17:56 -0700, an orbital
> mind-control laser
> caused "Vance P. Frickey" <vfrickey@safetyricochet.com> to write:
>
>>"Chris Zakes" <dontivar@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:rcgio357o57g4k46v2674plenu7rl1rbmf@4ax.com...
>>> On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 08:40:52 -0700, an orbital
>>> mind-control laser
>>> caused "Vance P. Frickey" <vfrickey@safetyricochet.com> to write:
>>>
>>> (Snip the rest of a very intelligent post, so I can get to
>>> the one
>>> point I want to quibble about.)
>>>
>>>>And, by the way, both books place Islam on
>>>>a pedestal which now we can see isn't justified. I'm not
>>>>anti-Islam as such, but if you read how Brunner and RAH
>>>>describe it in SIASL and "Stand on Zanzibar" and take the
>>>>statements made by some of the characters in those books at
>>>>face value, you could be tempted to think it lacks the drawbacks of
>>>>other religions.
>>>
>>> <shrug> Is this all that different from Heinlein speaking
>>> favorably of
>>> the priest who lives down the street in "This I
>>> Believe"?
>>> There are
>>> elements of the Koran and the Bible (and probably every
>>> other sacred
>>> text out there) that can be misinterpreted or
>>> overemphasized or taken
>>> out of context and used to justify all sorts of things.
>>
>>Chris, I very specifically mentioned two specific works, one
>>by RAH and one by John Brunner, in which the glaring
>>inconsistencies of the Old and New Testaments are trotted
>>out for lip-smacking condemnation while passages from the
>>Qur'an and/or the supposed treatment of People of the Book
>>by Muslims are applauded. I am aware that at least in
>>RAH's case, more even-handed views of al-Qur'an and other texts are
>>presented.
>
> It's been 30+ years since I read "Stand on Zanzibar" so
> I'll stick to
> "Stranger".
>
> Where and how does Heinlein praise the Koran and/or "the supposed
> treatment of People of the Book"? Jubal says he learned
> Arabic so he
> could read the words of the Prophet in the original, but
> is that all
> that much different from Jake Burroughs keeping a copy of
> the King
> James Bible around?
>
> I recall Jubal talking about Sodom and Gomorrah and Elisha
> and the
> bears, but I expect those examples were used becase in
> 1961 almost
> nobody in the US knew anything about the Koran, so kicking that
> particular sacred cow would have been ineffectual. (These
> days, of
> course, kicking Islamic sacred cows would have landed
> Heinlein in hot
> water with the PC crowd, which would probably have suited
> him just
> fine. <G>)
Where does RAH say one bad thing about the Koran? He rips
up Christian, Jewish and Hindu holy scripture in no
uncertain terms - but doesn't dig up dirt on the Muslims'
book. My point was just that. The Commentaries (Hadith)
might have given RAH some grist for his mill.
--
Vance P. Frickey
"False words are not only evil in themselves, but they
infect the soul with evil." -- Socrates
Subject: Re: February 21, 2008 meeting--Reading Group
From: "Vance P. Frickey" <vfrickey@safetyricochet.com>
Correction - the hadith are the collected sayings and deeds of Muhammad, while the
Commentaries and explications of the text are the tafsir. My apologies.
In any case, Jubal's demolition of all religious texts displays as much his provincialism as his erudition - going back thirteen to twenty-four centuries to judge scriptures by modern morals and manners is scarcely good scholarly practice. This, after RAH takes care to upbraid Americans for mistaking their customs for laws of God (the Shaw quote in the beginning of Glory Road). It's only when those ancient scriptures are used verbatim to run people's lives here and now that there is a problem with the usefulness of the Scripture - any Scripture. My reading of the Bible does not indicate to me that it is a cookbook or a rule book, but a remarkable collection of history. Christianity originally rested on two central facts - the Incarnation of Jesus and his Resurrection.
--
Vance P. Frickey
"False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the soul with evil." -- Socrates
Subject: Re: February 21, 2008 meeting--Reading Group
From: "Gaeltach" <hcatleag@bigpond.com>
"Vance P. Frickey" Correction - the hadith are the collected sayings and
deeds of Muhammad, while the Commentaries and explications of the text are
the tafsir. My apologies.
In any case, Jubal's demolition of all religious texts displays as much his
provincialism as his erudition - going back thirteen to twenty-four
centuries to judge scriptures by modern morals and manners is scarcely good
scholarly practice. This, after RAH takes care to upbraid Americans for
mistaking their customs for laws of God (the Shaw quote in the beginning of
Glory Road). It's only when those ancient scriptures are used verbatim to
run people's lives here and now that there is a problem with the usefulness
of the Scripture - any Scripture. My reading of the Bible does not indicate
to me that it is a cookbook or a rule book, but a remarkable collection of
history. Christianity originally rested on two central facts - the
Incarnation of Jesus and his Resurrection.
*********************************************************************************
Where do the Ten Commandments fit in? Are they rules, or a recipe?
Subject: Re: February 21, 2008 meeting--Reading Group
From: "David M. Silver" <ag.plusone@verizon.net>
In article <dfidndQsj72STQvanZ2dnUVZ_j6dnZ2d@forethought.net>,
"Vance P. Frickey" <vfrickey@safetyricochet.com> wrote:
> In any case, Jubal's demolition of all religious texts displays as much his
> provincialism as his erudition - going back thirteen to twenty-four centuries
> to judge scriptures by modern morals and manners is scarcely good scholarly
> practice.
Or, you might say, it merely displays Jubal's own orientation: Jubal is
an agnostic, and rejects every religious text, whatever the origin. How
far back he goes to reject text is determined on how far back the text
goes.
> This, after RAH takes care to upbraid Americans for mistaking
> their customs for laws of God (the Shaw quote in the beginning of Glory
> Road). It's only when those ancient scriptures are used verbatim to run
> people's lives here and now that there is a problem with the usefulness of
> the Scripture - any Scripture.
When any scripture, ancient or modern, or any text, literature,
philosophy, religion, political, science, or cultural is used (verbatim
or not) to "run people's lives" the same problem exists, even Shaw's.
> My reading of the Bible does not indicate to
> me that it is a cookbook or a rule book, but a remarkable collection of
> history. Christianity originally rested on two central facts - the
> Incarnation of Jesus and his Resurrection.
Jubal's reading is the only POV he seeks (or Heinlein through him seeks)
to express. Try this take on his state of mind.
"Easter Day. Naples, 1849"
Through the great sinful streets of Naples as I past,
With fiercer heat than flamed above my head
My heart was hot within me; till at last
My brain was lightened, when my tongue had said
Christ is not risen!
Christ is not risen, no,
He lies and moulders low;
Christ is not risen.
What though the stone were rolled away, and though
The grave found empty there! <
If not there, then elsewhere;
If not where Joseph laid Him first, why then
Where other men
Translaid Him after; in some humbler clay
Long ere to-day
Corruption that sad perfect work hath done,
Which here she scarcely, lightly had begun.
The foul engendered worm
Feeds on the flesh of the life-giving form
Of our most Holy and Anointed One.
He is not risen, no,
He lies and moulders low;
Christ is not risen.
Ashes to ashes, dust to dust;
As of the unjust, also of the just <
Christ is not risen.
What if the women, ere the dawn was grey,
Saw one or more great angels, as they say,
Angels, or Him himself? Yet neither there, nor then,
Nor afterward, nor elsewhere, nor at all,
Hath He appeared to Peter or the Ten,
Nor, save in thunderous terror, to blind Saul;
Save in an after-Gospel and late Creed
He is not risen indeed,
Christ is not risen.
Or what if e¹en, as runs the tale, the Ten
Saw, heard, and touched, again and yet again?
What if at Emmaus¹ inn and by Capernaum¹s lake
Came One the bread that brake,
Came One that spake as never mortal spake,
And with them ate and drank and stood and walked about?
Ah! "some" did well to "doubt"!
Ah! the true Christ, while these things came to pass,
Nor heard, nor spake, nor walked, nor dreamt, alas!
He was not risen, no,
He lay and moulder low,
Christ was not risen.
As circulates in some great city crowd
A rumour changeful, vague, importunate, and loud,
From no determined centre, or of fact,
Or authorship exact,
Which no man can deny
Nor verify;
So spread the wondrous fame;
He all the same
Lay senseless, mouldering, low.
He was not risen, no,
Christ was not risen!
Ashes to ashes, dust to dust;
As of the unjust, also of the just <
Yea, of that Just One too.
This is the one sad Gospel that is true,
Christ is not risen.
______________
Is He not risen, and shall we not rise?
Oh, we unwise!
What did we dream, what wake we to discover?
Ye hills, fall on us, and ye mountains, cover!
In darkness and great gloom
Come ere we thought it is our day of doom,
From the cursed world which is one tomb,
Christ is not risen!
Eat, drink, and die, for we are men deceived,
Of all the creatures under heaven¹s wide cope
We are most hopeless who had once most hope,
We are most wretched that had most believed.
Christ is not risen.
Eat, drink, and play, and think that this is bliss!
There is no Heaven but this!
There is no Hell; <
Save Earth, which serves the purpose doubly well,
Seeing it visits still
With equallest apportionments of ill
Both good and bad alike, and brings to one same dust
The unjust and the just
With Christ, who is not risen.
Eat, drink, and die, for we are souls bereaved,
Of all the creatures under this broad sky
We are most hopeless, that had hoped most high,
And most beliefless, that had most believed.
Ashes to ashes, dust to dust;
As of the unjust, also of the just <
Yea, of that Just One too.
It is the one sad Gospel that is true,
Christ is not risen!
______________
Weep not beside the Tomb,
Ye women, unto whom
He was great solace while ye tended Him;
Ye who with napkin o¹er His head
And folds of linen round each wounded limb
Laid out the Sacred Dead;
And thou that bar¹st Him in thy Wondering Womb.
Yea, Daughters of Jerusalem, depart,
Bind up as best ye may your own sad bleeding heart;
Go to your homes, your living children tend,
Your earthly spouses love;
Set your affections not on things above,
Which moth and rust corrupt, which quickliest come to end:
Or pray, if pray ye must, and pray, if pray ye can,
For death; since dead is He whom ye deemed more than man,
Who is not risen, no,
But lies and moulders low,
Who is not risen.
Ye men of Galilee!
Why stand ye looking up to heaven, where Him ye ne¹er may see,
Neither ascending hence, nor hither returning again?
Ye ignorant and idle fishermen!
Hence to your huts and boats and inland native shore,
And catch not men, but fish;
Whate¹er things ye might wish,
Him neither here nor there ye e¹er shall meet with more.
Ye poor deluded youths, go home,
Mend the old net ye left to roam,
Tie the split oar, patch the torn sail;
It was indeed "an idle tail",
He was not risen.
And oh, good men of ages yet to be,
Who shall believe because ye did not see,
Oh, be ye warned! be wise!
No more with pleading eyes,
And sobs of strong desire,
Unto the empty vacant void aspire,
Seeking another and impossible birth
That is not of your own and only Mother Earth.
But if there is no other life for you,
Sit down and be content, since this must even do:
He is not risen.
One look, and then depart,
Ye humble and ye holy men of heart!
And ye! ye ministers and stewards of a word
Which ye would preach, because another heard, <
Ye worshippers of that ye do not know,
Take these things hence and go;
He is not risen.
Here on our Easter Day
We rise, we come, and lo! we find Him not;
Gardener nor other on the sacred spot,
Where they have laid Him is there none to say!
No sound, nor in, nor out; no word
Of where to seek the dead or meet the living Lord;
There is no glistering of angel¹s wings,
There is no voice of heavenly clear behest:
Let us go hence, and think upon these things
In silence, which is best.
Is He not risen? No <
But lies and moulders low <
Christ is not risen.
1849
"Easter Day. II"
So while the blear-eyed pimp beside me walked,
And talked,
For instance, of the beautiful danseuse
And "Eccellenza sure must see, if he would choose"
Or of the lady in the green silk there,
Who passes by and bows with minx¹s air,
Or of the little thing not quite fifteen,
Sicilian-born who surely should be seen <
So while the blear-eyed pimp beside me walked
And talked, and I too with fit answer talked,
So in the sinful streets, abstracted and alone,
I with my secret self held communing of mine own.
So in the southern city spake the tongue
Of one that somewhat overwildly sung;
But in a later hour I sat and heard
Another voice that spake, another graver word.
Weep not, it bade, whatever hath been said;
Though he be dead, he is not dead.
In the true Creed
He is yet risen indeed,
Christ is yet risen.
Weep not beside his tomb
Ye women unto whom
He was great comfort and yet greater grief;
Nor ye faithful few that wont with him to roam,
Seek sadly what for him ye left, go hopeless to your home;
Nor ye despair, ye sharers yet to be of their belief;
Though he be dead, he is not dead,
Nor gone though fled,
Not lost though vanished;
Though he return not, though
He lies and moulders low,
In the true Creed
He is yet risen indeed,
Christ is yet risen.
Sit if ye will, sit down upon the ground,
Yet not to weep and wail, but calmly look around.
Whate¹er befell,
Earth is not hell;
Now too as when it first began,
Life yet is Life and Man is Man.
For all that breathes beneath the heavens¹ high cope,
Joy with grief mixes, with despondence hope.
Hope conquers cowardice, joy grief,
Or at the least, faith unbelief.
Though dead not dead;
Though gone not fled;
Though lost not vanished.
In the great Gospel and true Creed
He is yet risen indeed,
Christ is yet risen.
1849?
-- Arthur Hugh Clough,
--
David M. Silver
http://www.heinleinsociety.org
"The Lieutenant expects your names to shine!"
Robert Anson Heinlein, USNA '29
Lt.(jg), USN, R'td
Subject: Re: February 21, 2008 meeting--Reading Group
From: "David M. Silver" <ag.plusone@verizon.net>
In article <ag.plusone-393291.08380723012008@individual.net>,
"David M. Silver" <ag.plusone@verizon.net> wrote:
> Jubal's reading is the only POV he seeks (or Heinlein through him seeks)
> to express.
More importantly, for the purpose of reading SiaSL, since it is a
satire, how are we to take what Jubal says? Is it true? Did Heinlein
intend us to take his expressions of hostility towards forms of
organized religion to be true?
--
David M. Silver
http://www.heinleinsociety.org
"The Lieutenant expects your names to shine!"
Robert Anson Heinlein, USNA '29
Lt.(jg), USN, R'td
Subject: Re: February 21, 2008 meeting--Reading Group
From: "Vance P. Frickey" <vfrickey@safetyricochet.com>
"David M. Silver" <ag.plusone@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:ag.plusone-1ABAA5.08464523012008@individual.net...
> In article
> <ag.plusone-393291.08380723012008@individual.net>,
> "David M. Silver" <ag.plusone@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> Jubal's reading is the only POV he seeks (or Heinlein
>> through him seeks) to express.
>
> More importantly, for the purpose of reading SiaSL, since
> it is a
> satire, how are we to take what Jubal says? Is it true?
> Did Heinlein
> intend us to take his expressions of hostility towards
> forms of
> organized religion to be true?
Hmmmmm. A definite poser.
In SIASL, he was playing Jubal up as a hard-bitten
misanthrope who by the bye was also working off a mighty
grudge against the people who were responsible for his early
religious instruction - a sentiment with which I can
identify heartily, having had catechism under Dominican
nuns. :-)
BUT RAH's letters confirm the sentiment; this isn't to say
that he was hostile towards PRACTITIONERS of organized
religion (all of them, anyway) - that would be directly
contradicted by the "This I Believe" speech.
But the sage of Butler, writing as himself to Lurton
Blassingame and perhaps others (lost my copy of Grumbles
temporarily and can't remember), was definitely of the
opinion that religion was one of the things that people
addled their minds with, with no redeeming value past any
anesthetic effects induced in the believer.
Again, reasonable men may differ, I go by what the man
wrote.
--
Vance P. Frickey
"False words are not only evil in themselves, but they
infect the soul with evil." -- Socrates
Subject: Re: February 21, 2008 meeting--Reading Group
From: Chris Zakes <dontivar@gmail.com>
to write:
>Correction - the hadith are the collected sayings and deeds of Muhammad, while the
>Commentaries and explications of the text are the tafsir. My apologies.
>
>In any case, Jubal's demolition of all religious texts displays as much his provincialism
>as his erudition - going back thirteen to twenty-four centuries to judge scriptures by
>modern morals and manners is scarcely good scholarly practice. This, after RAH takes
>care to upbraid Americans for mistaking their customs for laws of God (the Shaw quote in
>the beginning of Glory Road).
Are you saying that children being torn apart by bears or a man
offering his daughters for a gang-rape are *not* universally
despicable?
And on the other side of the coin, there's this scene in the hotel
room after they have had the big conference with Secretary Douglas.
Jubal says:
"'How about victuals, Stinky? Anne stuffed a ham in one of those
hampers--and there may be other unclean items. Shall I check?'
Mahmoud shook his head. 'I'm not a traditionalist, Jubal. That
legislation was given long ago, for the needs of the time. The times
are different now.'
Jubal suddenly looked sad. 'Yes, but for the better? Never mind, this
too shall pass.'"
>It's only when those ancient scriptures are used verbatim to run
>people's lives here and now that there is a problem with the
>usefulness of the Scripture - any Scripture. My reading of the Bible
>does not indicate to me that it is a cookbook or a rule book, but a
>remarkable collection of history.
The Bible *is* history, but what's your opinion of the Ten
Commandments or the various prohibitions in Leviticus? It's hard to
see them as anything other than a rule book.
-Chris Zakes
Texas
Overhead, without any fuss, the stars were going out.
-Arthur C. Clarke, "The Nine Billion Names of God"
Subject: Re: February 21, 2008 meeting--Reading Group
From: "Vance P. Frickey" <vfrickey@safetyricochet.com>
"Chris Zakes" <dontivar@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:vc0gp3lnd1bv6458g1kpq50dlsb4v5m37g@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 22:25:42 -0700, an orbital
> mind-control laser
> caused "Vance P. Frickey" <vfrickey@safetyricochet.com> to write:
>
>>Correction - the hadith are the collected sayings and
>>deeds of Muhammad,
>>while the Commentaries and explications of the text are
>>the tafsir. My apologies.
>>
>>In any case, Jubal's demolition of all religious texts
>>displays as much his provincialism
>>as his erudition - going back thirteen to twenty-four
>>centuries to judge scriptures by
>>modern morals and manners is scarcely good scholarly
>>practice. This,
>>after RAH takes care to upbraid Americans for mistaking
>>their customs
>>for laws of God (the Shaw quote in the beginning of Glory
>>Road).
>
> Are you saying that children being torn apart by bears or
> a man
> offering his daughters for a gang-rape are *not* universally
> despicable?
>
> And on the other side of the coin, there's this scene in
> the hotel
> room after they have had the big conference with Secretary
> Douglas.
> Jubal says:
>
> "'How about victuals, Stinky? Anne stuffed a ham in one of those
> hampers--and there may be other unclean items. Shall I check?'
>
> Mahmoud shook his head. 'I'm not a traditionalist, Jubal.
> That
> legislation was given long ago, for the needs of the time.
> The times
> are different now.'
>
> Jubal suddenly looked sad. 'Yes, but for the better? Never
> mind, this
> too shall pass.'"
>
>
>>It's only when those ancient scriptures are used verbatim
>>to run
>>people's lives here and now that there is a problem with the
>>usefulness of the Scripture - any Scripture. My reading
>>of the Bible
>>does not indicate to me that it is a cookbook or a rule
>>book, but a
>>remarkable collection of history.
>
> The Bible *is* history, but what's your opinion of the Ten
> Commandments or the various prohibitions in Leviticus?
> It's hard to
> see them as anything other than a rule book.
I view the Bible as written - the most remarkable history
ever written in human civilization. Very few other
contemporary accounts have had some of the archaeological
confirmation that the Old Testament has (Simcha Jacobovitch,
host of "the Naked Archaeologist" satellite TV series, shows
some fascinating examples of this). But it's not a rule
book for modern man. We have JC's word on that, unless I'm
badly mistaken.
I do not think that it is a rule book until we get to the
Sermon on the Mount - and I have strong personal doubts
about all of that. And I take the individual books and
epistles in their historical context. St. Peter was
definitely talking out of his yarmulke about the piety of
Lot. He was an unlettered fisherman, and brave as hell to
boot. In general, to say that the Bible was Divinely
inspired cover to cover not only shows a misunderstanding of
the book itself, but may actually be unintentional
blasphemy. God is God. His employees don't always speak
for him.
> -Chris Zakes
> Texas
> Overhead, without any fuss, the stars were going out.
>
> -Arthur C. Clarke, "The Nine Billion Names of God"
You WOULD quote that one. Remember that the computer jockey
who installed the monks' computer was from Louisiana? :-)
--
Vance P. Frickey
"False words are not only evil in themselves, but they
infect the soul with evil." -- Socrates
Subject: Re: February 21, 2008 meeting--Reading Group
From: Anneli <Anneli.halme@gmail.com>
wrote:
> "Chris Zakes" <donti...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:vc0gp3lnd1bv6458g1kpq50dlsb4v5m37g@4ax.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 22:25:42 -0700, an orbital
> > mind-control laser
> > caused "Vance P. Frickey" <vfric...@safetyricochet.com> to write:
>
> >>Correction - the hadith are the collected sayings and
> >>deeds of Muhammad,
> >>while the Commentaries and explications of the text are the tafsir.
> >> My apologies.
>
> >>In any case, Jubal's demolition of all religious texts
> >>displays as much his provincialism
> >>as his erudition - going back thirteen to twenty-four
> >>centuries to judge scriptures by
> >>modern morals and manners is scarcely good scholarly
> >>practice. This,
> >>after RAH takes care to upbraid Americans for mistaking
> >>their customs
> >>for laws of God (the Shaw quote in the beginning of Glory
> >>Road).
>
> > Are you saying that children being torn apart by bears or
> > a man
> > offering his daughters for a gang-rape are *not* universally
> > despicable?
>
> > And on the other side of the coin, there's this scene in
> > the hotel
> > room after they have had the big conference with Secretary
> > Douglas.
> > Jubal says:
>
> > "'How about victuals, Stinky? Anne stuffed a ham in one of those
> > hampers--and there may be other unclean items. Shall I check?'
>
> > Mahmoud shook his head. 'I'm not a traditionalist, Jubal.
> > That
> > legislation was given long ago, for the needs of the time.
> > The times
> > are different now.'
>
> > Jubal suddenly looked sad. 'Yes, but for the better? Never
> > mind, this
> > too shall pass.'"
>
> >>It's only when those ancient scriptures are used verbatim
> >>to run
> >>people's lives here and now that there is a problem with the
> >>usefulness of the Scripture - any Scripture. My reading
> >>of the Bible
> >>does not indicate to me that it is a cookbook or a rule
> >>book, but a
> >>remarkable collection of history.
>
> > The Bible *is* history, but what's your opinion of the Ten
> > Commandments or the various prohibitions in Leviticus?
> > It's hard to
> > see them as anything other than a rule book.
>
> I view the Bible as written - the most remarkable history
> ever written in human civilization. Very few other
> contemporary accounts have had some of the archaeological
> confirmation that the Old Testament has (Simcha Jacobovitch, host of
> "the Naked Archaeologist" satellite TV series, shows some fascinating
> examples of this). But it's not a rule book for modern man. We have
> JC's word on that, unless I'm badly mistaken.
>
> I do not think that it is a rule book until we get to the
> Sermon on the Mount - and I have strong personal doubts
> about all of that. And I take the individual books and
> epistles in their historical context. St. Peter was
> definitely talking out of his yarmulke about the piety of
> Lot. He was an unlettered fisherman, and brave as hell to
> boot. In general, to say that the Bible was Divinely
> inspired cover to cover not only shows a misunderstanding of
> the book itself, but may actually be unintentional
> blasphemy. God is God. His employees don't always speak
> for him.
>
> > -Chris Zakes
> > Texas
> > Overhead, without any fuss, the stars were going out.
>
> > -Arthur C. Clarke, "The Nine Billion Names of God"
>
> You WOULD quote that one. Remember that the computer jockey who
> installed the monks' computer was from Louisiana? :-)
Hadits or fatwas, so what?
I think RAH and others, most folks actually, have succumnded to the
myth of islam as a peacefull religion and in reality to the western
very new secular myth of begging pardon for everything.
The crusades where only an answer to the Jihad! I do respect islam as
a religion, the majority of muslims are good people. BUT those in
Saudiarabia (who sent out the Jihad), Do not take care of their
children. The "palestinian arabians are their brothers in camps and
as fugetives around the world.
Now when jews and christian palestinians make them selves free, the
muslims try to make them selves into sufferers and refuggees and the
western world makes appollogees and agrees and have forgotten history.
The muslims in Palestine condems the crusades, What about their Jihad
that raped the Christian Middeleast and Northafrica and the only thing
we rescued was the Iberians (perhaps we should give that penisula back
to them?)
Islam has many good folks and thinkers, but so have we who read the
Bible in warious tougues and the Thora and Talmud and so on.
The only thing I really do hate Muhammed for doing is that he and
his followers did show christians that "Holy Wars" was possible. That
learning made some big results in America and here in Europe.
Anneli
From: "Vance P. Frickey" <vfrickey@safetyricochet.com>
Subject: Re: February 21, 2008 meeting--Reading Group
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 03:37:14 -0700
"Anneli" <Anneli.halme@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:75f6c622-54fc-4f80-9583-c5ad69ac6cca@q21g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
> On 24 Jan, 06:30, "Vance P. Frickey" <vfric...@safetyricochet.com>
> wrote:
>> "Chris Zakes" <donti...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:vc0gp3lnd1bv6458g1kpq50dlsb4v5m37g@4ax.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 22:25:42 -0700, an orbital
>> > mind-control laser
>> > caused "Vance P. Frickey" to write:
>>
>> >>Correction - the hadith are the collected sayings and
>> >>deeds of Muhammad,
>> >>while the Commentaries and explications of the text are the tafsir.
>> >>My apologies.
>>
>> >>In any case, Jubal's demolition of all religious texts
>> >>displays as much his provincialism
>> >>as his erudition - going back thirteen to twenty-four
>> >>centuries to judge scriptures by
>> >>modern morals and manners is scarcely good scholarly
>> >>practice. This,
>> >>after RAH takes care to upbraid Americans for mistaking
>> >>their customs
>> >>for laws of God (the Shaw quote in the beginning of
>> >>Glory
>> >>Road).
>>
>> > Are you saying that children being torn apart by bears or
>> > a man
>> > offering his daughters for a gang-rape are *not* universally
>> > despicable?
>>
>> > And on the other side of the coin, there's this scene in
>> > the hotel
>> > room after they have had the big conference with
>> > Secretary
>> > Douglas.
>> > Jubal says:
>>
>> > "'How about victuals, Stinky? Anne stuffed a ham in one of those
>> > hampers--and there may be other unclean items. Shall I check?'
>>
>> > Mahmoud shook his head. 'I'm not a traditionalist,
>> > Jubal.
>> > That
>> > legislation was given long ago, for the needs of the time.
>> > The times
>> > are different now.'
>>
>> > Jubal suddenly looked sad. 'Yes, but for the better?
>> > Never
>> > mind, this
>> > too shall pass.'"
>>
>> >>It's only when those ancient scriptures are used verbatim
>> >>to run
>> >>people's lives here and now that there is a problem with the
>> >>usefulness of the Scripture - any Scripture. My reading
>> >>of the Bible
>> >>does not indicate to me that it is a cookbook or a rule
>> >>book, but a
>> >>remarkable collection of history.
>>
>> > The Bible *is* history, but what's your opinion of the
>> > Ten
>> > Commandments or the various prohibitions in Leviticus?
>> > It's hard to
>> > see them as anything other than a rule book.
>>
>> I view the Bible as written - the most remarkable history
>> ever written in human civilization. Very few other
>> contemporary accounts have had some of the archaeological
>> confirmation that the Old Testament has (Simcha
>> Jacobovitch,
>> host of "the Naked Archaeologist" satellite TV series, shows
>> some fascinating examples of this). But it's not a rule
>> book for modern man. We have JC's word on that, unless
>> I'm
>> badly mistaken.
>>
>> I do not think that it is a rule book until we get to the
>> Sermon on the Mount - and I have strong personal doubts
>> about all of that. And I take the individual books and
>> epistles in their historical context. St. Peter was
>> definitely talking out of his yarmulke about the piety of
>> Lot. He was an unlettered fisherman, and brave as hell to
>> boot. In general, to say that the Bible was Divinely
>> inspired cover to cover not only shows a misunderstanding of
>> the book itself, but may actually be unintentional
>> blasphemy. God is God. His employees don't always speak
>> for him.
>>
>> > -Chris Zakes
>> > Texas
>> > Overhead, without any fuss, the stars were going out.
>>
>> > -Arthur C. Clarke, "The Nine Billion Names of God"
>>
>> You WOULD quote that one. Remember that the computer jockey who
>> installed the monks' computer was from Louisiana? :-)
>
> Hadits or fatwas, so what?
>
> I think RAH and others, most folks actually, have
> succumnded to the
> myth of islam as a peacefull religion and in reality to
> the western
> very new secular myth of begging pardon for everything.
>
> The crusades where only an answer to the Jihad! I do
> respect islam as
> a religion, the majority of muslims are good people. BUT
> those in
> Saudiarabia (who sent out the Jihad), Do not take care of their
> children. The "palestinian arabians are their brothers in
> camps and
> as fugetives around the world.
>
> Now when jews and christian palestinians make them selves
> free, the
> muslims try to make them selves into sufferers and
> refuggees and the
> western world makes appollogees and agrees and have
> forgotten history.
> The muslims in Palestine condems the crusades, What about
> their Jihad
> that raped the Christian Middeleast and Northafrica and
> the only thing
> we rescued was the Iberians (perhaps we should give that
> penisula back
> to them?)
>
> Islam has many good folks and thinkers, but so have we who
> read the
> Bible in warious tougues and the Thora and Talmud and so on.
>
> The only thing I really do hate Muhammed for doing is
> that he and
> his followers did show christians that "Holy Wars" was
> possible. That
> learning made some big results in America and here in
> Europe.
If it had been a "holy war" we thought we were waging in
Iraq, not one stone would stand on another by now. Our
troops risked, and sometimes gave up their lives in order to
conduct a war according to the laws established to protect
civilian lives regardless of religious faith.
Reasonable efforts, and sometimes unreasonable efforts were
undertaken to avoid civilian deaths by our forces. The
lower life form who killed my son and his comrades doubtless
did so clad in civilian clothes, his weapon a garage door
opener or some other remote control wired to detonate three
heavy-bore artillery shells under their armored personnel
carrier. But I do not advocate retaliation against
civilians - my daughter-in-law has relatives there, and my
son was strongly motivated to help them and others in the
area. I think that his wishes should be honored.
--
Vance P. Frickey
"False words are not only evil in themselves, but they
infect the soul with evil." -- Socrates
From: Chris Zakes <dontivar@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: February 21, 2008 meeting--Reading Group
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 09:40:13 -0600
On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 21:51:10 -0800 (PST), an orbital mind-control
laser caused Anneli <Anneli.halme@gmail.com> to write:
(snip)
>I think RAH and others, most folks actually, have succumbed to the
>myth of islam as a peaceful religion and in reality to the western very
>new secular myth of begging pardon for everything.
Don't forget the historical context of when "Stranger" was written,
though. In the 1950s and early 60s, "Militant Islam" (if there
actually was such a beast) was limited to trying to conquer Israel.
Bin Laden, Al Quaeda and suchlike were still far in the future.
-Chris Zakes
Texas
I ha' harpit ye up to the throne o' God,
I ha' harpit your midmost soul in three;
I ha' harpit ye down to the Hinges o' Hell,
And -- ye -- would -- make -- a Knight o' me!
Rudyard Kipling, "The Last Rhyme of True Thomas"
From: "Dr. Rufo" <baybus@mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: February 21, 2008 meeting--Reading Group
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 13:08:12 -0800
Anneli wrote:
< snip >
> Hadits or fatwas, so what?
>
> I think RAH and others, most folks actually, have succumnded to the
> myth of islam as a peacefull religion and in reality to the western
> very new secular myth of begging pardon for everything.
>
> The crusades where only an answer to the Jihad! I do respect islam as
> a religion, the majority of muslims are good people. BUT those in
> Saudiarabia (who sent out the Jihad), Do not take care of their
> children. The "palestinian arabians are their brothers in camps and
> as fugetives around the world.
In response to your assertion that the Crusades were "only an
answer to the Jihad," I suggest you've over-simplified to allow your
rant below - which I have snipped.
The "Public Reason" for the Crusades was "the undoubtedly 'holy
task' of the recovery of the Land of the Christian Savior's Life
from the infidels." There were equally binding and important
"Private Reason(s)" as varied as the number of crusaders. But I'll
provide these two for starters.
1. Land/estates to be won in combat for the younger sons of the
European nobility who (mostly) inherited their holdings via
primogeniture. There was precious little unassigned land available
in Europe at the time. RAH mentions this "population pressure" in
STARSHIP TROOPERS en passant.
2. Influence
A. Of the Church over the laity/nobility. Remember, there was only
One practical Church at that time and this influence/control was
important to the generally accepted European world-view
B. Of the Nobility over the lesser members of the stratified feudal
European society. Important for the same reasons as "A" above.
Further, regarding any Jihad to which the Crusades were a response
originating in Saudi Arabia:
The Umayyad caliphs' capital was in Damascus -- which was and is in
*Syria* rather than in Arabia Felix. That of the Abbisid caliphs was
in Cordoba which has always been located on the *Iberian* Peninsula.
"Saudi Arabia" didn't exist until the Brits backed the Saud Family
in the 1920s.
Rufe
From: Chris Zakes <dontivar@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: February 21, 2008 meeting--Reading Group
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 09:23:51 -0600
On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 22:30:48 -0700, an orbital mind-control laser
caused "Vance P. Frickey" <vfrickey@safetyricochet.com> to write:
>
>
>"Chris Zakes" <dontivar@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:vc0gp3lnd1bv6458g1kpq50dlsb4v5m37g@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 22:25:42 -0700, an orbital
>> mind-control laser
>> caused "Vance P. Frickey" <vfrickey@safetyricochet.com> to write:
>>
>>>Correction - the hadith are the collected sayings and
>>>deeds of Muhammad,
>>>while the Commentaries and explications of the text are
>>>the tafsir. My apologies.
>>>
>>>In any case, Jubal's demolition of all religious texts
>>>displays as much his provincialism
>>>as his erudition - going back thirteen to twenty-four
>>>centuries to judge scriptures by
>>>modern morals and manners is scarcely good scholarly
>>>practice. This,
>>>after RAH takes care to upbraid Americans for mistaking
>>>their customs
>>>for laws of God (the Shaw quote in the beginning of Glory
>>>Road).
>>
>> Are you saying that children being torn apart by bears or
>> a man
>> offering his daughters for a gang-rape are *not* universally
>> despicable?
>>
>> And on the other side of the coin, there's this scene in
>> the hotel
>> room after they have had the big conference with Secretary
>> Douglas.
>> Jubal says:
>>
>> "'How about victuals, Stinky? Anne stuffed a ham in one of those
>> hampers--and there may be other unclean items. Shall I check?'
>>
>> Mahmoud shook his head. 'I'm not a traditionalist, Jubal.
>> That
>> legislation was given long ago, for the needs of the time.
>> The times
>> are different now.'
>>
>> Jubal suddenly looked sad. 'Yes, but for the better? Never
>> mind, this
>> too shall pass.'"
>>
>>
>>>It's only when those ancient scriptures are used verbatim
>>>to run
>>>people's lives here and now that there is a problem with the
>>>usefulness of the Scripture - any Scripture. My reading
>>>of the Bible
>>>does not indicate to me that it is a cookbook or a rule
>>>book, but a
>>>remarkable collection of history.
>>
>> The Bible *is* history, but what's your opinion of the Ten
>> Commandments or the various prohibitions in Leviticus?
>> It's hard to
>> see them as anything other than a rule book.
>
>I view the Bible as written - the most remarkable history
>ever written in human civilization. Very few other
>contemporary accounts have had some of the archaeological
>confirmation that the Old Testament has (Simcha Jacobovitch, host of
>"the Naked Archaeologist" satellite TV series, shows some fascinating
>examples of this). But it's not a rule book for modern man. We have
>JC's word on that, unless I'm badly mistaken.
>
>I do not think that it is a rule book until we get to the
>Sermon on the Mount - and I have strong personal doubts
>about all of that. And I take the individual books and
>epistles in their historical context. St. Peter was
>definitely talking out of his yarmulke about the piety of
>Lot. He was an unlettered fisherman, and brave as hell to
>boot. In general, to say that the Bible was Divinely
>inspired cover to cover not only shows a misunderstanding of
>the book itself, but may actually be unintentional
>blasphemy. God is God. His employees don't always speak for him.
Fair enough. (For the record, I suppose *some* of the rules in
Leviticus might still be applicable, but I haven't done a detailed
study of the matter, so I can't give you a list.)
>> -Chris Zakes
>> Texas
>> Overhead, without any fuss, the stars were going out.
>>
>> -Arthur C. Clarke, "The Nine Billion Names of God"
>
>You WOULD quote that one. Remember that the computer jockey who
>installed the monks' computer was from Louisiana? :-)
<chuckle> Hey, don't blame *me*, that's just what happened to be next
in my sig file list. It's either mere coincidence or an Act of God.
(If it's any consolation, I put up a new sig this morning.)
-Chris Zakes
Texas
I ha' harpit ye up to the throne o' God,
I ha' harpit your midmost soul in three;
I ha' harpit ye down to the Hinges o' Hell,
And -- ye -- would -- make -- a Knight o' me!
Rudyard Kipling, "The Last Rhyme of True Thomas"
From: Chris Zakes <dontivar@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: February 21, 2008 meeting--Reading Group
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 17:36:04 -0600
On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 21:48:49 -0700, an orbital mind-control laser
caused "Vance P. Frickey" <vfrickey@safetyricochet.com> to write:
>"Chris Zakes" <dontivar@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:f6smo39fpcj2s32du7i2rnc7a01p0psbqq@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 18:17:56 -0700, an orbital
>> mind-control laser
>> caused "Vance P. Frickey" <vfrickey@safetyricochet.com> to write:
>>
>>>"Chris Zakes" <dontivar@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>news:rcgio357o57g4k46v2674plenu7rl1rbmf@4ax.com...
>>>> On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 08:40:52 -0700, an orbital
>>>> mind-control laser
>>>> caused "Vance P. Frickey" <vfrickey@safetyricochet.com> to write:
>>>>
>>>> (Snip the rest of a very intelligent post, so I can get to
>>>> the one
>>>> point I want to quibble about.)
>>>>
>>>>>And, by the way, both books place Islam on
>>>>>a pedestal which now we can see isn't justified. I'm not
>>>>>anti-Islam as such, but if you read how Brunner and RAH
>>>>>describe it in SIASL and "Stand on Zanzibar" and take the
>>>>>statements made by some of the characters in those books at
>>>>>face value, you could be tempted to think it lacks the drawbacks of
>>>>>other religions.
>>>>
>>>> <shrug> Is this all that different from Heinlein speaking
>>>> favorably of
>>>> the priest who lives down the street in "This I
>>>> Believe"?
>>>> There are
>>>> elements of the Koran and the Bible (and probably every
>>>> other sacred
>>>> text out there) that can be misinterpreted or
>>>> overemphasized or taken
>>>> out of context and used to justify all sorts of things.
>>>
>>>Chris, I very specifically mentioned two specific works, one
>>>by RAH and one by John Brunner, in which the glaring
>>>inconsistencies of the Old and New Testaments are trotted
>>>out for lip-smacking condemnation while passages from the
>>>Qur'an and/or the supposed treatment of People of the Book
>>>by Muslims are applauded. I am aware that at least in
>>>RAH's case, more even-handed views of al-Qur'an and other texts are
>>>presented.
>>
>> It's been 30+ years since I read "Stand on Zanzibar" so
>> I'll stick to
>> "Stranger".
>>
>> Where and how does Heinlein praise the Koran and/or "the supposed
>> treatment of People of the Book"? Jubal says he learned
>> Arabic so he
>> could read the words of the Prophet in the original, but
>> is that all
>> that much different from Jake Burroughs keeping a copy of
>> the King
>> James Bible around?
>>
>> I recall Jubal talking about Sodom and Gomorrah and Elisha
>> and the
>> bears, but I expect those examples were used becase in
>> 1961 almost
>> nobody in the US knew anything about the Koran, so kicking that
>> particular sacred cow would have been ineffectual. (These
>> days, of
>> course, kicking Islamic sacred cows would have landed
>> Heinlein in hot
>> water with the PC crowd, which would probably have suited
>> him just
>> fine. <G>)
>
>Where does RAH say one bad thing about the Koran? He rips
>up Christian, Jewish and Hindu holy scripture in no
>uncertain terms - but doesn't dig up dirt on the Muslims'
>book. My point was just that. The Commentaries (Hadith)
>might have given RAH some grist for his mill.
Vance, you're starting to contradict yourself. You'd started out by
saying that Heinlein (and Brunner) "place Islam on a pedestal", then
later you say that "passages from the Qur'an and/or the supposed
treatment of People of the Book by Muslims are applauded."
You've yet to provide any evidence for those statements. I agree that
Heinlein doesn't specifically run down the Koran (although Jubal
implies that he *could* when he asks Jill if she's read it, before he
goes on to cite negative Biblical examples.) But "doesn't dig up dirt
on the Muslims' book" is hardly the same as putting it on a pedestal.
-Chris Zakes
Texas
Overhead, without any fuss, the stars were going out.
-Arthur C. Clarke, "The Nine Billion Names of God"
From: "Dr. Rufo" <baybus@mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: February 21, 2008 meeting--Reading Group
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 17:15:43 -0800
Chris Zakes wrote:
< snip >
> Vance, you're starting to contradict yourself. You'd started out by
> saying that Heinlein (and Brunner) "place Islam on a pedestal", then
> later you say that "passages from the Qur'an and/or the supposed
> treatment of People of the Book by Muslims are applauded."
>
> You've yet to provide any evidence for those statements. I agree that
> Heinlein doesn't specifically run down the Koran (although Jubal
> implies that he *could* when he asks Jill if she's read it, before he
> goes on to cite negative Biblical examples.) But "doesn't dig up dirt
> on the Muslims' book" is hardly the same as putting it on a pedestal.
Chris, I supply the following from the text. Neither suggests either
the previously-mentioned "pedestal" or "the lack of negative examples.":
Dr. Stinky asks Dr. Jubal--
"Doctor, you speak Arabic, do you not?"
"Eh? I used to, badly, many years ago," admitted Jubal. "Put in a
while as a surgeon with the American Field Service, in Palestine.
But I don't now. I still read it a little . . . because I prefer to
read the words of the Prophet in the original."
Just a bit further along, the exchange from Stinky to Jubal
continues with --
"But nevertheless there are things which can be said in the simple
Arabic tongue that cannot be said in English."
Jubal nodded agreement. "Quite true. That's why I've kept up my
reading of it, a little."
Perhaps, "on a pedestal" is an hyperbole but at least Jubal
shows/admits to some appreciation for the *language* of the Koran
itself ("the words of the Prophet").
I do not suggest that RAH, himself, shared that attitude citing
Niven's Law.
As ever, YMMV.
Rufe
From: Chris Zakes <dontivar@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: February 21, 2008 meeting--Reading Group
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 09:59:30 -0600
On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 17:15:43 -0800, an orbital mind-control laser
caused "Dr. Rufo" <baybus@mindspring.com> to write:
>
>
>Chris Zakes wrote:
>
>< snip >
>> Vance, you're starting to contradict yourself. You'd started out by
>> saying that Heinlein (and Brunner) "place Islam on a pedestal", then
>> later you say that "passages from the Qur'an and/or the supposed
>> treatment of People of the Book by Muslims are applauded."
>>
>> You've yet to provide any evidence for those statements. I agree that
>> Heinlein doesn't specifically run down the Koran (although Jubal
>> implies that he *could* when he asks Jill if she's read it, before he
>> goes on to cite negative Biblical examples.) But "doesn't dig up dirt
>> on the Muslims' book" is hardly the same as putting it on a pedestal.
>
>Chris, I supply the following from the text. Neither suggests either
>the previously-mentioned "pedestal" or "the lack of negative examples.":
> Dr. Stinky asks Dr. Jubal--
> "Doctor, you speak Arabic, do you not?"
> "Eh? I used to, badly, many years ago," admitted Jubal. "Put in a
>while as a surgeon with the American Field Service, in Palestine.
>But I don't now. I still read it a little . . . because I prefer to
>read the words of the Prophet in the original."
>
>Just a bit further along, the exchange from Stinky to Jubal
>continues with --
> "But nevertheless there are things which can be said in the simple
>Arabic tongue that cannot be said in English."
> Jubal nodded agreement. "Quite true. That's why I've kept up my
>reading of it, a little."
>
>Perhaps, "on a pedestal" is an hyperbole but at least Jubal
>shows/admits to some appreciation for the *language* of the Koran
>itself ("the words of the Prophet").
Granted. I'd say Heinlein's attitude toward Islam in SIASL was
"polite" especially in showing Jubal's relationship to Dr. Mahmoud.
Kind of like his attitude toward Mormons in several of his other
books, or the way he talks about neopaganism near the end of "Expanded
Universe."
Remember the bit where Jubal says that a dear friend of his believes
in astrology, and that while *he* thinks it's twaddle, you won't hear
him saying so in Becky's presence? That may account for a lot of his
politeness about Islam.
Had he lived to see 9/11, I doubt his attitude (at least toward the
more militant aspects of Islam) would have been much different from
his attitude toward the Japanese Empire after Pearl Harbor.
-Chris Zakes
Texas
I ha' harpit ye up t |
