Freethought & Rationalism Archive

dangin · 06-15-2002, 06:57 AM

"Delicate" that's me alright

And think you NPH for not using name calling. Crude humor, and language obviously gets a lot of slack from me. But we are trying to avoid things just ending up in ad hominems. I know you don't need my reinforcement, but when you stick to the argument you do fine.

Aethernaut · 06-15-2002, 07:00 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Gurdur:
<strong>Just to add further fuel to this fire: the story Farnham's Freehold, anyone ?

</strong>

Very fun read from a very paranoid time. I always picture Heinlein himself as the father figure Farnham. Probably make a good movie if it was set period and done tongue-in-cheek. Terry Gilliam directing?

-SK

bluefugue · 06-15-2002, 08:30 AM

Originally posted by Vorkosigan:

Quote:

Maybe...I can see how the public information stuff and the other things people listed could be regarded as satirical, but the problem is that this is a world of the future and it utterly lacks reference points to the world of the Now. There's no "other" either implied or plain that would be satirized. The society of ST forms a seamless whole -- the Nazi references mesh with the bogus political commentary, the kids squshing bugs and everything else to form a vision of a facist society where people are controlled from birth. This is exactly the kind of thing that people mistake Heinlein for, when they don't read him right.

Well, you might say that Verhoeven wants satire without knowing what he is satirizing. Though I think he is trying to poke fun at American audiences' attitudes by forcing them to identify with the bad guys. (The film suggests the humans are needlessly being aggressive toward the bugs.) As for mistaking Heinlein, I don't rate the movie based on its faithfulness (or lack thereof) to the source material. Maybe Verhoeven did read him wrong, or maybe he just took the raw material of the story and tried to turn it into something completely different. All that matters is, does it work? (And I'm not claiming that it does.)

Quote:

I have no doubt after reading on the web, that Verhoeven intended it as satire (I had never heard that prior to this conversation).

Well that's primarily what I was arguing all along. Whether he succeeded is a separate matter, but I and my friends who saw the film, certainly observed some satirical intent as we watched the film. But from the first time I saw it in the theater, I also felt that the humor was off, or was too obvious, or wasn't really accomplishing anything anyway, or was maybe even a smokescreen for what is still a pretty weak action movie. So we seem to be on the same page there.

Quote:

For all the viewer knows -- as many critics and viewers thought -- Verheoven intended it as a straight read of the novel. This view is even more plausible because that is the way it is often and incorrectly read. As Not Prince Hamlet did, and I suspect Verheoven as well.

Well, perhaps Verhoeven was satirizing what he believed were Heinlein's fascist proclivities. Honestly I'm not sure Verhoeven was that interested in Heinlein. He has his own hangups and his own preoccupations, and this wasn't the first time he tackled Nazism in a film (viz. Soldier of Orange).

Quote:

You are correct, in Antz the lockstep marching is there to show what kind of society Z lives in. But it is meant in all seriousness; the satire is supplied by Z, the "Other" who makes the satire go. And that is my other point; in the symbology of Hollywood, lockstep marching is a negative symbol -- as it is in ST. If Verheoven wanted us to see it as satire, why didn't he transform it somehow, turn the symbol inside out? Instead, he gives us a facist society where people march in lockstep. That's supposed to be satirical? That would be par for the course in such a society!
And again, let me emphasize, unlike Mel Brooks, Verhoeven never strays from Hollywood convention. What's scary is the thought that he thought he was making satire, but simply followed Hollywood formula.

I think making the Good Guys (as opposed to Bad Guys) into fascists does constitute a variation on Hollywood formula. He keeps the negative connotation but foists it onto the characters the narrative tells us to identify with. If this were the only thing Verhoeven did, it would still not necessarily be "satire," but again, I read the fascist imagery comically a) because the tone is set by the over-the-top propaganda motif, and b) because of the absurdity of some of the resulting imagery, particularly (I'm sorry to keep harping on it) Doogie in a Gestapo coat.

Quote:

Not Prince Hamlet referenced Brazil, a fantasy/SF movie with many satirical elements, including its O Henry ending. But in Brazil the Now surfaces constantly, like when the torturer tells poor Mr. Buttle that fighting him will only spoil his credit rating, or the Consumers for Christ. The film is set in the 20th century. Etc. ST contains no references like that. Oh, and Brazil is brilliantly directed, with an Oscar-nominated script. Those are areas where ST just plain sucks, as dangin put is so delicately.

Well, I wasn't a big fan of Brazil. (I guess I'm just tired of quasi-Orwellian parables.) I will concede that Starship Troopers doesn't relate to the real world as directly as Brazil did. (Maybe Verhoeven should have made the film in Germany circa 1942?) Except, again, for one possible goal that Verhoeven had: by forcing us film viewers to identity with fascist heroes, he wanted to tell us that our tendency to watch violent action movies makes us fascists. Or something. (Hey, I never said it was good satire...

)

Quote:

No matter how you cut it, the last hour or so of ST is just bad action flick.

I agree. Which is part of why Robocop is IMO so much more successful -- because if you take the satire away you still have a great action flick. (And also the satire was more timely, relating directly to '80s corporate culture.)

[ June 15, 2002: Message edited by: IesusDomini ]</p>

GunnerJ · 06-15-2002, 08:35 AM

Quote:

Sure, it's in the book. Again, that doesn't necessarily mean he supports it or agrees with it or likes it. Those are questions you have to decide for yourself, for your own purposes.

However, a detail about the way in which the "might makes right" attidtude is presented can lead one to the conclusion that Heinlein agreed with it. Specifically, who presented it is important. It seems that in many of his novels, Heinlein nominated one character to act as his mouthpeice, lecturing the other characters, and by proxy the reader. In Stranger in a Strange Land, it was Jubal Hershaw; in The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, it was the Professor (can't remember his name). It seemed that in Starship Troopers, it was Rico's history teacher, the one who lectured about this might-based policy. Another possible candidate is Zim, the drill instructor, but I always saw that character as a stand-in for Heinlein's own, real-life drill instructor, to whom he dedicats SST.

The Other Michael · 06-17-2002, 04:49 PM

RAH never impressed me as anything but a libertarian, and from what I've seen about the movie I can't say I'm sad I missed it.

RAH was a graduate of a US military academy (Annapolis I think) and certainly had some military background. But I can't recall anytime in any of his books (and I believe I've read them all, both juvenile and adult, many of them multiple times) in which the stupid and pigheaded were glorified, whether military or civilian.

I'd have to say my main quibble with him is more with what I see as an objectification of women in re sex, but I can see some of that as his cultural background.

But he did have female protaganists, and I rooted for Podkayne the whole way through the book every time I read it.

But I won't say that he didn't have a few books that were a bit of a clanger.

Next thing I presume someone will tell us how Miles Vorkosigin/Naismith is a raging fascist because of his desire to serve his society in the military.

cheers,
Michael

IvanK · 06-18-2002, 08:44 AM

From what little I remember of the little Heinlein I read lo these many years ago I recall that he was a rollicking good read, just like the bulk of what's produced year in year out in the eminently forgettable genre of science fiction. From what I've learned of his views since I conclude that he, and Ayn Rand for that matter, would probably have been numbered among the "good Germans" who longed for a strong leader in the late 1930s and got their wish in the 40s.

Celebrating the "elite," usually defined as "people like me and my friends whose faults are excused by their many sterling qualities and who really should be running the world," while denegrating the "inferior" characters who have always made up the bulk of the human race may not be fascist in itself, but it is a rich seedbed where facism can take root and flower.

From my "eminently forgettable" characterization I exclude but few writers, Harlan Ellison, Norman Spinrad, Philip K. Dick, Isaac Asimov, Ray Bradbury, H.G. Welles and Jules Verne, among a very select group of writers who possess the genuine talent and compassion to use the genre as one way to explore the human condition in the here and now rather than as an escape from the unfortunate facts of reality.

[ June 18, 2002: Message edited by: IvanK ]</p>

bluefugue · 06-18-2002, 09:32 AM

Personally, I'd add Le Guin to that list.

And oh yeah, the Germans already had their strong leader by the late '30s.

IvanK · 06-18-2002, 10:35 AM

My bad, mixed up my beer hall putsch and invasion of Poland dates.

Corwin · 06-18-2002, 01:34 PM

Heinlein frequently gets accused of sexism, mostly by people who have only read his very early stuff. (Come on people, a lot of this was written in the mid 50's. Get over it.)

However, read his later stuff... read Friday, Stranger in a Strange Land, and To Sail Beyond the Sunset and tell me he's sexist.

Calling Heinlein's early stuff sexist, and therefore he's a sexist, is kind of like complaining that James Bond is sexist or that early 19th century literature is racist.

GunnerJ · 06-18-2002, 01:54 PM

Quote:

However, read his later stuff... read Friday, Stranger in a Strange Land, and To Sail Beyond the Sunset and tell me he's sexist.

LOL. Stranger in a Strage Land isn't sexist, you say? "Nine times out of ten if a girl gets raped it's her own fault." Now where did that quote come from?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-15-2002, 06:57 AM	#31
dangin Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: The Middle, Kansas Posts: 2,637	"Delicate" that's me alright And think you NPH for not using name calling. Crude humor, and language obviously gets a lot of slack from me. But we are trying to avoid things just ending up in ad hominems. I know you don't need my reinforcement, but when you stick to the argument you do fine.

06-17-2002, 04:49 PM	#35
The Other Michael Honorary Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: In the fog of San Francisco Posts: 12,631	RAH never impressed me as anything but a libertarian, and from what I've seen about the movie I can't say I'm sad I missed it. RAH was a graduate of a US military academy (Annapolis I think) and certainly had some military background. But I can't recall anytime in any of his books (and I believe I've read them all, both juvenile and adult, many of them multiple times) in which the stupid and pigheaded were glorified, whether military or civilian. I'd have to say my main quibble with him is more with what I see as an objectification of women in re sex, but I can see some of that as his cultural background. But he did have female protaganists, and I rooted for Podkayne the whole way through the book every time I read it. But I won't say that he didn't have a few books that were a bit of a clanger. Next thing I presume someone will tell us how Miles Vorkosigin/Naismith is a raging fascist because of his desire to serve his society in the military. cheers, Michael

06-18-2002, 08:44 AM	#36
IvanK Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Posts: 2,016	From what little I remember of the little Heinlein I read lo these many years ago I recall that he was a rollicking good read, just like the bulk of what's produced year in year out in the eminently forgettable genre of science fiction. From what I've learned of his views since I conclude that he, and Ayn Rand for that matter, would probably have been numbered among the "good Germans" who longed for a strong leader in the late 1930s and got their wish in the 40s. Celebrating the "elite," usually defined as "people like me and my friends whose faults are excused by their many sterling qualities and who really should be running the world," while denegrating the "inferior" characters who have always made up the bulk of the human race may not be fascist in itself, but it is a rich seedbed where facism can take root and flower. From my "eminently forgettable" characterization I exclude but few writers, Harlan Ellison, Norman Spinrad, Philip K. Dick, Isaac Asimov, Ray Bradbury, H.G. Welles and Jules Verne, among a very select group of writers who possess the genuine talent and compassion to use the genre as one way to explore the human condition in the here and now rather than as an escape from the unfortunate facts of reality. [ June 18, 2002: Message edited by: IvanK ]</p>

06-18-2002, 09:32 AM	#37
bluefugue Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 1,427	Personally, I'd add Le Guin to that list. And oh yeah, the Germans already had their strong leader by the late '30s.

06-18-2002, 10:35 AM	#38
IvanK Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Posts: 2,016	My bad, mixed up my beer hall putsch and invasion of Poland dates.

06-18-2002, 01:34 PM	#39
Corwin Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 4,369	Heinlein frequently gets accused of sexism, mostly by people who have only read his very early stuff. (Come on people, a lot of this was written in the mid 50's. Get over it.) However, read his later stuff... read Friday, Stranger in a Strange Land, and To Sail Beyond the Sunset and tell me he's sexist. Calling Heinlein's early stuff sexist, and therefore he's a sexist, is kind of like complaining that James Bond is sexist or that early 19th century literature is racist.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.