From: xtifr@netcom.com (Chris Waters)
Subject: Re: Heinlein and "wimmin"
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 23:29:33 GMT

In <85384@ut-emx.uucp> amadeus@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Susan Harwood Kaczmarczik) writes:

>The big question I have is, Why are you people surprised?  The man was
>a product of his generation and his environment.  Just 'cause he
>wanted everybody humping all over the place does *not* mean he was an
>enlightened, hip, and modern sort of guy.  He was of the same
>generation as my grandmother, and I daresay to find such so-called
>unenlightend attitudes in my grandmother probably wouldn't surprise
>anybody (least of all me...).  In fact, his attitudes towards women
>would probably be considered appropriate and even reverent at the
>time, except for that part about them all having so much book
>learning.  Judge not without context, o ye readers.

An excellent point, and one that is all too often overlooked.  This goes
hand in tentacle with the attitude that some H fans have--that they
understand his "philosophy" as espoused in his novels, and anyone who
disagrees with any part of his philosophy as THEY interpret it is a
useless nogoodnick who H would have "shot as soon as looked at" (to
quote one email message I received not too long ago).

Now, the fact of the matter is, I love Heinlein.  Yet I don't subscribe
to the idea that he was the most enlightened man in all of history.  In
fact, I disagree with many of his ideas and prejudices, and agree with
many others.

But I judge him as a man of his time, and a product of his culture.  As
such, I do find him amazingly enlightened.  Probably far more so than
Susan's grandmother, at a guess.  He was, after all, a science fiction
writer, and therefore, more open and receptive to new ideas than most
people born in the 'teens.  And this is probably why some judge him so
harshly.  Since he was open to new ideas, and kept up with the ways of
the world to a great extent, it was very easy to forget the culture that
created him.  I know, I've had a tendency to forget at times myself, and
found myself stumbling across some narrow-minded, shallow attitude in
one of his books with great shock.

But then *my* grandmother happens to be an amazingly enlightened woman
herself, so perhaps it's just the fact that I'm more used to knowing
someone who has learned to see through some, but not all, of our
cultural myths.  :-)

As for those who say that Heinlein only wrote one character, I basically
agree.  (Actually, I think he wrote two: an idealized Bob, and an
idealized Ginny.)  But he made up for it IMO with interesting plots,
interesting ideas, and interesting cultures.  Characters are important
in SF, but not necessarily as important as in other branches of
literature.  And besides, Heinlein's characters weren't bad, just
repetitive.  :-)

As for his attitude towards "wimmin", well, it's pretty obvious to
anyone who looks that he thought of women as people.  Sure, he had his
blind spots in this regard, but they were relatively minor considering
his background.  For one thing, I suspect Ginny would have beat the
<bleep> out of him if he hadn't at least *tried* to have intelligent,
competent women in his stories.  :-)

To summarize:  I disagree with the extremists on both sides of this
argument.  I think H was a good, sometimes great, writer, who rose above
an amazing number of the prejudices and biases that were installed in
him at an early age.  He was neither the ideal enlightened citizen of
the 20th century, nor a recalictrant, unreconstructed old curmudgeon. 
He was a man of above average intelligence, lucky enough to see through
many of our cultural stereotypes, and a gifted writer.  No more, no less.

In my rather arrogant opinion.  :-)
-- 
Chris Waters    | the insane don't | "Imaginary guitar notes [...] exist only
xtifr@netcom.COM| need disclaimers |  in the imagination of the imaginer" --FZ
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written