He was pretty misogynistic and kind of nuts, but I do enjoy his books, especially The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, which is a great example of how to use a science fiction setting to retell a historical event.
I think that it is unfair to say that about Heinlen that he was misogynistic. The women in his books were strong and capable. He may have been sexiest, but he wasn’t misogynistic.
Another thing to note is in many of the books, he changes the point he is trying to make. He is an interesting author as he covers a vast number of topics.
I don’t know if I would agree with you. Maybe he wasn’t misogynistic earlier in life, but by the end? Did you ever read Friday? It’s kind of disturbing. Yes, the main character is a woman who is better than a normal human through genetic engineering. She also enjoys getting raped.
I think you misunderstood that whole scene. Friday was pretending to like the rape to throw the rapists off guard, so she could find her way to get the upper hand and kill them.
(×) I don't discuss my colleagues' works or my own. A novelist writes from
many viewpoints; opinions expressed even by a first-person character are not
necessarily those of the author. Fiction is sold as entertainment, not as fact.
(×) Please do not write to me again.
Sincerely yours,
Robert A. Heinlein, by ____
I haven’t read this story, and it is ironic that Heinlein’s list makes a point about the characters viewpoint not being the author’s.
I’m In that same point he also goes on to say that fiction is entertainment. It’s also okay to like rapey entertainment I guess is the argument your making. Maybe you’d like the sword of truth books. Or some stephen r donaldson.
That idea is also a very common thing in Ayn Rand’s writing too, which he’s said he was quite influenced by her writing in an interview in the mid 70s.
@wintermute_oregon@FlyingSquid At very least, Verhoven’s film was one of the most point by point perfect parodies of fascism we’ve ever seen. The original novel, IIRC, was written out of terrified nuclear paranoia and very sincere in its genocidal authoritarianism.
I’ve never seen it that way - the opening pages say what the protagonist is doing. He’s landing on a planet to kill bugs, using all his ammo and nukes even though there are sentient beings living on the planet.
All because it isn’t cost effective to evacuate the ammo as well.
Immediately following that we move to the viewpoint of the teenager being brainwashed.
As such I think the movie did a decent job of adapting the story, even though we lost those awesome mechs and dropships.
Only do so if you have high tolerance for bad filmmaking. I’ve seen the live action sequels, and they are BAD. The second film feels like an unrelated script that got attached to the IP for name recognition. As I recall, it’s dull, poorly acted, ugly, and cheap. The third film does lean into the IP, complete with satirical propaganda gags and, yes, mech suits make an appearance. However, my recollection of the rest of the movie is that it is dull, poorly acted, ugly, and cheap, but less so than the second.
If you enjoy Sci Fi Channel original movies from the early 00s, these movies are birds of a feather with those.
Fair. I felt I should jump in and provide some more context than the other poster for exactly that reason. The worst thing a movie can be to me is dull, and those sequels qualify, in my opinion.
In his memoir I, Asimov, Isaac Asimov wrote chapters about his contemporaries and apparently Heinlein was notorious for changing his political convictions based on who he was married to/sleeping with at the time. Hence, free-love hippie in Stranger in a Strange World and boot-licking war-hawk in Starship Troopers.
Interesting, thanks for the info, and great name! I found a first edition of his in a basement bookstore in Switzerland as a teen. Totally random, I know.
No problem! Obviously, I like talking about this stuff. And if you’re interested, I’d also recommend reading the whole book. It’s pretty fascinating, although in his reminiscing and pontificating, Asimov does get a little “get off my lawn” for my taste at times.
great name! I found a first edition of his in a basement bookstore in Switzerland as a teen. Totally random, I know.
Thanks! And it’s not too random, I’d say; we’re in a sci-fi forum talking about historical sci-fi writers, many of whom were also trained as scientists, after all.
I have to say his books make you think. I think he is under appreciated as an author.
People miss the point of Starship Troopers because of the movie. The book is nothing like the movie.
He was pretty misogynistic and kind of nuts, but I do enjoy his books, especially The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, which is a great example of how to use a science fiction setting to retell a historical event.
I think that it is unfair to say that about Heinlen that he was misogynistic. The women in his books were strong and capable. He may have been sexiest, but he wasn’t misogynistic.
Another thing to note is in many of the books, he changes the point he is trying to make. He is an interesting author as he covers a vast number of topics.
I don’t know if I would agree with you. Maybe he wasn’t misogynistic earlier in life, but by the end? Did you ever read Friday? It’s kind of disturbing. Yes, the main character is a woman who is better than a normal human through genetic engineering. She also enjoys getting raped.
I think you misunderstood that whole scene. Friday was pretending to like the rape to throw the rapists off guard, so she could find her way to get the upper hand and kill them.
book vs person. Heinlen explored ideas.
and no, I have no read that one.
When the idea is “if you get gang raped, just lie back and enjoy it,” I think that says something about the person.
Not always. If it was a constant them then yes, but Heinlen was complicated. It’s like saying Stephen king likes to murder people.
It’s okay to think rapey stuff is bad.
I haven’t read this story, and it is ironic that Heinlein’s list makes a point about the characters viewpoint not being the author’s.
I’mIn that same point he also goes on to say that fiction is entertainment. It’s also okay to like rapey entertainment I guess is the argument your making. Maybe you’d like the sword of truth books. Or some stephen r donaldson.I haven’t read that book, so I can’t comment on it.
Starship troopers is all fascism but Heinlen wasn’t a fascist.
His books were to make you think or explore a topic.
That idea is also a very common thing in Ayn Rand’s writing too, which he’s said he was quite influenced by her writing in an interview in the mid 70s.
Not to mention very much into eugenics.
@wintermute_oregon @FlyingSquid At very least, Verhoven’s film was one of the most point by point perfect parodies of fascism we’ve ever seen. The original novel, IIRC, was written out of terrified nuclear paranoia and very sincere in its genocidal authoritarianism.
I’ve never seen it that way - the opening pages say what the protagonist is doing. He’s landing on a planet to kill bugs, using all his ammo and nukes even though there are sentient beings living on the planet.
All because it isn’t cost effective to evacuate the ammo as well.
Immediately following that we move to the viewpoint of the teenager being brainwashed.
As such I think the movie did a decent job of adapting the story, even though we lost those awesome mechs and dropships.
Boy have I got news for you- Starship Troopers3: Marauder has mechs. I haven’t seen the next three movies/serieses.
Ah, I’ve never seen any of the sequels. Might check it out, thanks.
Only do so if you have high tolerance for bad filmmaking. I’ve seen the live action sequels, and they are BAD. The second film feels like an unrelated script that got attached to the IP for name recognition. As I recall, it’s dull, poorly acted, ugly, and cheap. The third film does lean into the IP, complete with satirical propaganda gags and, yes, mech suits make an appearance. However, my recollection of the rest of the movie is that it is dull, poorly acted, ugly, and cheap, but less so than the second.
If you enjoy Sci Fi Channel original movies from the early 00s, these movies are birds of a feather with those.
I honestly don’t have the time to watch all the shit I want to anyway, so it’s a long shot.
Fair. I felt I should jump in and provide some more context than the other poster for exactly that reason. The worst thing a movie can be to me is dull, and those sequels qualify, in my opinion.
Sincere how? Heinlen was a raging liberal.
In his memoir I, Asimov, Isaac Asimov wrote chapters about his contemporaries and apparently Heinlein was notorious for changing his political convictions based on who he was married to/sleeping with at the time. Hence, free-love hippie in Stranger in a Strange World and boot-licking war-hawk in Starship Troopers.
Interesting, thanks for the info, and great name! I found a first edition of his in a basement bookstore in Switzerland as a teen. Totally random, I know.
No problem! Obviously, I like talking about this stuff. And if you’re interested, I’d also recommend reading the whole book. It’s pretty fascinating, although in his reminiscing and pontificating, Asimov does get a little “get off my lawn” for my taste at times.
Thanks! And it’s not too random, I’d say; we’re in a sci-fi forum talking about historical sci-fi writers, many of whom were also trained as scientists, after all.
Heinlein changed his mind.
There are 7 years between Starship Troopers and The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, during which the world didn’t end or devolve into anarchy.
That’s a long time to think about something, especially if you do so by writing an entire book about the theme.
Well, then there’s what he said in the form letter above, that the views expressed in fiction aren’t necessarily those of the author in real life.