Yes, Heinlein is the progressive one.
December 21, 2016 10:07 AM Subscribe
Walter Cronkite Discusses Apollo 11 with Robert A. Heinlein & Arthur C. Clarke (SLYT)
Heinlein: "I want to point out that it doesn’t have to be a man at all, and for esprit, and for the continuation of the human race, it is time for us as quickly as possible to get the other half of the human race in on this," he said. "It does not take a man to run a spaceship. It can be done just as well by a woman as it can be done by a man."
After Clarke says he can't imagine a crew of three women instead of three men, Cronkite makes an unfortunate joke about how the women wouldn't be able to decide who should go down to the surface. Heinlein saves the discussion by returning to his point that women were eminently able and "could qualify tomorrow" to become astronauts.
Heinlein: "I want to point out that it doesn’t have to be a man at all, and for esprit, and for the continuation of the human race, it is time for us as quickly as possible to get the other half of the human race in on this," he said. "It does not take a man to run a spaceship. It can be done just as well by a woman as it can be done by a man."
After Clarke says he can't imagine a crew of three women instead of three men, Cronkite makes an unfortunate joke about how the women wouldn't be able to decide who should go down to the surface. Heinlein saves the discussion by returning to his point that women were eminently able and "could qualify tomorrow" to become astronauts.
Very apropos this post: this afternoon’s Radio 4 drama in the UK was “Mercury 13” - the story of the women who qualified to go into space but were never permitted to do so by the deeply sexist space program.
posted by pharm at 10:56 AM on December 21, 2016 [10 favorites]
posted by pharm at 10:56 AM on December 21, 2016 [10 favorites]
I don't know where the quote comes from, but it's actually Cronkite who makes the point that women were eminently able and "could qualify tomorrow" to become astronauts, in a moment of rather humble self correction.
This is a pretty remarkable clip, regardless, reflecting the euphoric atmosphere at that time with an almost child-like sense of optimism, from three men few could ever describe as child-like.
posted by 2N2222 at 10:58 AM on December 21, 2016 [3 favorites]
This is a pretty remarkable clip, regardless, reflecting the euphoric atmosphere at that time with an almost child-like sense of optimism, from three men few could ever describe as child-like.
posted by 2N2222 at 10:58 AM on December 21, 2016 [3 favorites]
I'm struck by Heinlein's optimism. In the enthusiasm of the moment, when the possibilities seemed so vast, who would have been so gaspingly cynical as to suppose we wouldn't realize any of them?
posted by wobh at 11:10 AM on December 21, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by wobh at 11:10 AM on December 21, 2016 [5 favorites]
Clarke was able to predict the advent of GPS and global telecommunications via geostationary satellites, but I guess the idea of women drivers was just a bridge too far.
posted by Atom Eyes at 11:26 AM on December 21, 2016 [9 favorites]
posted by Atom Eyes at 11:26 AM on December 21, 2016 [9 favorites]
I remember one of Heinlein's stories (can't recall if it was The Menace from Earth or Podkayne of Mars) featured a female protagonist who wanted to be a starship captain (or something like that) and managed to overcome the biases against her and prove that she was as good or better than all the men around her -- only to discover that while she would be an excellent starship captain, her true calling was to be motherly and nurturing of children, and that adventuring through the stars could never be as rewarding as that. So Heinlein certainly wasn't progressive by modern standards when it came to gender roles, but at least he didn't think that women's abilities were less than those of men.
posted by biogeo at 12:10 PM on December 21, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by biogeo at 12:10 PM on December 21, 2016 [7 favorites]
Heinlein's politics are pretty complicated, really.
posted by atoxyl at 12:47 PM on December 21, 2016 [11 favorites]
posted by atoxyl at 12:47 PM on December 21, 2016 [11 favorites]
On his sex and gender politics, secondhand citiation via Wikipedia
Gary Westfahl points out that "Heinlein is a problematic case for feminists; on the one hand, his works often feature strong female characters and vigorous statements that women are equal to or even superior to men; but these characters and statements often reflect hopelessly stereotypical attitudes about typical female attributes. It is disconcerting, for example, that in Expanded Universe Heinlein calls for a society where all lawyers and politicians are women, essentially on the grounds that they possess a mysterious feminine practicality that men cannot duplicate.
posted by atoxyl at 12:48 PM on December 21, 2016 [9 favorites]
Gary Westfahl points out that "Heinlein is a problematic case for feminists; on the one hand, his works often feature strong female characters and vigorous statements that women are equal to or even superior to men; but these characters and statements often reflect hopelessly stereotypical attitudes about typical female attributes. It is disconcerting, for example, that in Expanded Universe Heinlein calls for a society where all lawyers and politicians are women, essentially on the grounds that they possess a mysterious feminine practicality that men cannot duplicate.
posted by atoxyl at 12:48 PM on December 21, 2016 [9 favorites]
Heinlein is an odd duck, in that regard. He has an idea of gender relations that's very different than other male writers "of his time", but it's not one that fits with feminist sensibilities either. On the one hand, he's a hard gender essentialist in a way that almost no post-second wave feminists are. On the other hand, he generally doesn't seem to regard the qualities he assigns to the female gender as inherently lesser, unlike most of his male contemporaries. But then, on the gripping hand, the women in most of his books generally function as window-dressing to be ogled over, and the fact that he seems to think more highly of said window-dressing than his peers doesn't mean they aren't window-dressing.
Then there's that one book where the main character is a dirty old man who almost dies but is saved by having his brain transplanted into his secretary's body, and I don't even know where to start with that one.
posted by tobascodagama at 1:05 PM on December 21, 2016 [11 favorites]
Then there's that one book where the main character is a dirty old man who almost dies but is saved by having his brain transplanted into his secretary's body, and I don't even know where to start with that one.
posted by tobascodagama at 1:05 PM on December 21, 2016 [11 favorites]
Wait, his name is prounounced "hein-line" not "hein-lin"?
I've been mispronouncing it all this time?
posted by sotonohito at 1:13 PM on December 21, 2016 [2 favorites]
I've been mispronouncing it all this time?
posted by sotonohito at 1:13 PM on December 21, 2016 [2 favorites]
Later era Heinlein almost seems to think that women are better than men (as long as they are good-looking). Women can do anything men can do plus they can give birth and have greater empathy, which is vary important in his techno-future. Men, however, are unpleasant to look at and driven by animalistic urges. They exist to give women something to fuss over and take care of.
Now there's a man whose wife taught him a thing or two.
posted by irisclara at 1:15 PM on December 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
Now there's a man whose wife taught him a thing or two.
posted by irisclara at 1:15 PM on December 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
Heinlein liked to describe himself as a female chauvinist, but there's a lot of woman on the pedestal crap involved in his women are superior shtick. As others have noted his sexual and gender attitudes are simultaneously very regressive and surprisingly progressive.
Basically for a guy born in rural Missouri in 1907, he was startlingly progressive on race and sex. But he was only progressive when we take his origins into account. He had a lot of gender essentialism going on, and in his earlier books he had a lot of racial essentialism too [1]. He later dropped some of the racial essentialism in favor of something reminiscent of the modern leftybro's "colorblind" stuff.
He was firmly convinced that women could kick ass and take names, and that they should. But also that once a woman found a man to love he was in charge and she should, and naturally and sort of instinctively would, take the back seat and be his very competent sidekick. He had an innately hierarchical view of relationships and families, he often promoted the idea that a family was a bit like a ship, there had a to be a captain, and a good captain listened to his crew but when push came to shove he was in charge and everyone had better remember it.
Accordingly, Heinlein Heroic Female Characters are bold, capable, deadly, and the very instant they meet a Heinlein Heroic Male Character they utterly submit to him and want nothing more than to have baby after baby.
And oh god was he convinced that having a crapton of babies was both a woman's ultimate desire and only real function in life. The original Podkayne of Mars was an extended screed against career women, he spends the whole book making Poddy sympathetic so he could killer her in the end to teach her mom the lesson that she needed to give up her career as a scientist and be a full time stay at home mom.
He also had really disturbing ideas about space travel and population. Since his often expressed ideal was huge families with women popping babies out one after the other (and anything else was presented as a dystopic One Child type Chinese draconian government program), he "solved" the problem of overpopulation in his fiction by deciding that of course every planet humanity colonized would be over populated in short order. The smart people would then leave to start overpopulating a new planet, while the stupid people would stay behind and suffer. To him this seemed like a just, proper, and non-problematic solution to the problem.
So it doesn't really surprise me that Heinlein was advocating for women in space. He had no problem with competent women. And besides, you can't start the all important project of raising huge families and overpopulating the moon and Mars without women.
[1] In Magic Inc, for example, he devotes several paragraphs to the idea that black people look goofy and silly in white men's clothing, but when in African tribal garb they look impressive, dignified, and proper.
posted by sotonohito at 1:33 PM on December 21, 2016 [14 favorites]
Basically for a guy born in rural Missouri in 1907, he was startlingly progressive on race and sex. But he was only progressive when we take his origins into account. He had a lot of gender essentialism going on, and in his earlier books he had a lot of racial essentialism too [1]. He later dropped some of the racial essentialism in favor of something reminiscent of the modern leftybro's "colorblind" stuff.
He was firmly convinced that women could kick ass and take names, and that they should. But also that once a woman found a man to love he was in charge and she should, and naturally and sort of instinctively would, take the back seat and be his very competent sidekick. He had an innately hierarchical view of relationships and families, he often promoted the idea that a family was a bit like a ship, there had a to be a captain, and a good captain listened to his crew but when push came to shove he was in charge and everyone had better remember it.
Accordingly, Heinlein Heroic Female Characters are bold, capable, deadly, and the very instant they meet a Heinlein Heroic Male Character they utterly submit to him and want nothing more than to have baby after baby.
And oh god was he convinced that having a crapton of babies was both a woman's ultimate desire and only real function in life. The original Podkayne of Mars was an extended screed against career women, he spends the whole book making Poddy sympathetic so he could killer her in the end to teach her mom the lesson that she needed to give up her career as a scientist and be a full time stay at home mom.
He also had really disturbing ideas about space travel and population. Since his often expressed ideal was huge families with women popping babies out one after the other (and anything else was presented as a dystopic One Child type Chinese draconian government program), he "solved" the problem of overpopulation in his fiction by deciding that of course every planet humanity colonized would be over populated in short order. The smart people would then leave to start overpopulating a new planet, while the stupid people would stay behind and suffer. To him this seemed like a just, proper, and non-problematic solution to the problem.
So it doesn't really surprise me that Heinlein was advocating for women in space. He had no problem with competent women. And besides, you can't start the all important project of raising huge families and overpopulating the moon and Mars without women.
[1] In Magic Inc, for example, he devotes several paragraphs to the idea that black people look goofy and silly in white men's clothing, but when in African tribal garb they look impressive, dignified, and proper.
posted by sotonohito at 1:33 PM on December 21, 2016 [14 favorites]
Since you bring up his racial essentialism, I can't avoid mentioning Farnham's Freehold. It seems to me that he's making a point in that novel that a lot of modern progressive historians make: namely, that the colonial dominance of western European nations is not due to an inherent superiority of white racial biology or white Western culture but instead to historical contingency, and that white people bloody well wouldn't like it if what they did to colonised peoples were done to them in return. Thus, just as the decimation of indigenous pre-Columbian American populations by disease enabled European conquest of the New World, a nuclear war in Farnham's Freehold permits the conquest of the New World and of Europe by a new pan-African/Arabian culture.
Of course, in the process, the book replicates a toooooooooooooooooooooooooon of white supremacist tropes, even while it attempts to subvert one of the founding myths of white supremacy. I mean, the situation going into the final act of the plot is literally that the eponymous (white, male) Farnham's women have been inducted into a harem and he can only see them again if he submits to emasculation. There is not one iota of exaggeration or figurative language in the preceding sentence, I cannot stress that enough. Yet, again, the structure of the novel suggests that he probably means it all as a criticism of colonialism and white supremacy, not support for them.
To quote MeFi's own cstross, struggling valiantly to find something nice to say about the book:
posted by tobascodagama at 2:16 PM on December 21, 2016 [6 favorites]
Of course, in the process, the book replicates a toooooooooooooooooooooooooon of white supremacist tropes, even while it attempts to subvert one of the founding myths of white supremacy. I mean, the situation going into the final act of the plot is literally that the eponymous (white, male) Farnham's women have been inducted into a harem and he can only see them again if he submits to emasculation. There is not one iota of exaggeration or figurative language in the preceding sentence, I cannot stress that enough. Yet, again, the structure of the novel suggests that he probably means it all as a criticism of colonialism and white supremacy, not support for them.
To quote MeFi's own cstross, struggling valiantly to find something nice to say about the book:
here was a privileged white male from California, a notoriously exclusionary state, trying to understand American racism in the pre-Martin Luther King era. And getting it wrong for facepalm values of wrong, so wrong he wasn't even on the right map ... but at least he wasn't ignoring it.Yeah. A really odd duck.
posted by tobascodagama at 2:16 PM on December 21, 2016 [6 favorites]
>On the one hand, he's a hard gender essentialist in a way that...
>On the other hand, he generally doesn't seem to regard the qualities...
>on the gripping hand, the women in most of his books generally...
Is that a The Mote in God's Eye reference?
posted by dgeiser13 at 5:15 PM on December 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
>On the other hand, he generally doesn't seem to regard the qualities...
>on the gripping hand, the women in most of his books generally...
Is that a The Mote in God's Eye reference?
posted by dgeiser13 at 5:15 PM on December 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
... the story of the women who qualified to go into space but were never permitted to do so by the deeply sexist space program.
Promised the Moon: The Untold Story of the First Women in the Space Race by Stephanie Nolen is also a fascinating book about the first women in the NASA astronaut training programs. One technical note from the book is that most women generally scored much higher than most men in patience dealing with the boredom of isolation chambers.
posted by ovvl at 5:18 PM on December 21, 2016 [2 favorites]
Promised the Moon: The Untold Story of the First Women in the Space Race by Stephanie Nolen is also a fascinating book about the first women in the NASA astronaut training programs. One technical note from the book is that most women generally scored much higher than most men in patience dealing with the boredom of isolation chambers.
posted by ovvl at 5:18 PM on December 21, 2016 [2 favorites]
Is that a The Mote in God's Eye reference?
Yes, but only by way of the Jargon File. I've never actually read the book.
posted by tobascodagama at 7:53 PM on December 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
Yes, but only by way of the Jargon File. I've never actually read the book.
posted by tobascodagama at 7:53 PM on December 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
I agree with what people have written, but I have decided that I won't completely judge people of other eras by our modern standards. Heinlein thought he was a feminist, even though we can now see a lot of ways he was wrong. There is also some creepy stuff about how he had a stroke later in life and the medications he was on radically changed his brain chemistry and most of his later work is very heavily sexualized in ways that many of us now find distasteful. This is why a lot of his later work remains unread by me, and I have trouble rereading anything of his but his juvenile novels (which I think are some of his best work). And despite reading a lot of his work, and several biographies, I am by no means a Heinlein expert. For instance, I have never read Stranger in a Strange Land, again because of a vague feeling thumbing through it that it would also be icky. I am however, knowledgeable enough to confirm he pronounced it HINE-LINE, equal emphasis on both syllables.
I am having the same struggles with rereading John D. MacDonald's Travis McGee novels. Here is a another guy who really thought he was on womens' sides, thought he was a feminist, but all his story arcs are like, "Oh no, my old friend is dead again, and I could do nothing about it! Now I must avenge him/her. And look, here is (another) women who is sad and broken, and only I can fix her-- WITH SEX!" It's frustrating because even with all that he was a really good writer, but I just can't read the books more than about one every six or eight months because it leaves a bad taste in my mouth. At least I am getting the books for free on my Overdrive account through the excellent King County Library System, so I don't have to worry about whether or not paying for them is right or not.
But seriously, how can I think about these two writers, and others like them? Part of me thinks it is wrong to judge them according to standards they had no idea would be in place decades later. It is like hating a caveman because he doesn't know the Python programming language. But the other part of me recognizes that maybe they should have known better? And then I wonder what people one hundred years from now will hate US for that we don't even know we are doing wrong. (I have a good idea it will have something to do with destroying the environment and also buying artificially cheap consumer items that we know were produced by slaves.)
How do you guys think about these things? I could really use some advice and other perspectives.
posted by seasparrow at 9:32 PM on December 21, 2016 [5 favorites]
I am having the same struggles with rereading John D. MacDonald's Travis McGee novels. Here is a another guy who really thought he was on womens' sides, thought he was a feminist, but all his story arcs are like, "Oh no, my old friend is dead again, and I could do nothing about it! Now I must avenge him/her. And look, here is (another) women who is sad and broken, and only I can fix her-- WITH SEX!" It's frustrating because even with all that he was a really good writer, but I just can't read the books more than about one every six or eight months because it leaves a bad taste in my mouth. At least I am getting the books for free on my Overdrive account through the excellent King County Library System, so I don't have to worry about whether or not paying for them is right or not.
But seriously, how can I think about these two writers, and others like them? Part of me thinks it is wrong to judge them according to standards they had no idea would be in place decades later. It is like hating a caveman because he doesn't know the Python programming language. But the other part of me recognizes that maybe they should have known better? And then I wonder what people one hundred years from now will hate US for that we don't even know we are doing wrong. (I have a good idea it will have something to do with destroying the environment and also buying artificially cheap consumer items that we know were produced by slaves.)
How do you guys think about these things? I could really use some advice and other perspectives.
posted by seasparrow at 9:32 PM on December 21, 2016 [5 favorites]
The stuff about what Heinlein thinks seems like mostly a derail/metafilter bait.
I'm struck by Heinlein's optimism. In the enthusiasm of the moment, when the possibilities seemed so vast, who would have been so gaspingly cynical as to suppose we wouldn't realize any of them?
This is the sort of thing that I think makes this clip so interesting. I this age, human space exploration looks like mostly a non starter, largely a kind of vanity project for entities with deep enough pockets. Here in the clip, a couple of the most creative minds of the time are clearly overcome with giddiness to the point of being wholly unrealistic. I mean, Proxima Centauri?!?! Really? Surely they had to know that even a colony on the moon would pose remarkable technological hurdles, not to mention the existential justification. Yet their unbridled enthusiasm I think did many of us a tremendous disservice, selling a future of rocketship adventures that made no real sense and could not be truly justified. That in the end, made real (mostly unmanned) scientific exploration of space a second class citizen. Even in the minds of some of its biggest supporters.
posted by 2N2222 at 12:40 AM on December 22, 2016 [1 favorite]
I'm struck by Heinlein's optimism. In the enthusiasm of the moment, when the possibilities seemed so vast, who would have been so gaspingly cynical as to suppose we wouldn't realize any of them?
This is the sort of thing that I think makes this clip so interesting. I this age, human space exploration looks like mostly a non starter, largely a kind of vanity project for entities with deep enough pockets. Here in the clip, a couple of the most creative minds of the time are clearly overcome with giddiness to the point of being wholly unrealistic. I mean, Proxima Centauri?!?! Really? Surely they had to know that even a colony on the moon would pose remarkable technological hurdles, not to mention the existential justification. Yet their unbridled enthusiasm I think did many of us a tremendous disservice, selling a future of rocketship adventures that made no real sense and could not be truly justified. That in the end, made real (mostly unmanned) scientific exploration of space a second class citizen. Even in the minds of some of its biggest supporters.
posted by 2N2222 at 12:40 AM on December 22, 2016 [1 favorite]
Heinlein got me started reading SF, decades ago ... 'Starship Troopers' of all things ... when I returned it to the library I grabbed an OLD anthology which included him (Golden Age writers, luckily) to see what all this stuff was about.
I've heard it said several times that Heinlein (yes, 'line') was a conservative. I never heard him in person, but that never fit with the books I read. (What's conservative about 'Stranger in a Strange Land'???) Clarke, OTOH, -was- a geeky/sciency type, and back in those times most of the professionals did lean somewhat right (the 'Red Scare' may have been responsible); in Clarke's heyday women in science were still rare.
That said (and I'm pretty sure MeFi is unanimous on it), the ladies would sure as hell get it done. Women built and programmed the first computers, kept the first computers running, worked at NASA, and long before that were majorly helpful with pre-Hubble astronomy. (Brand-new book on the topic:Glass Universe, Dava Sobel ISBN-10: 0670016950).
posted by Twang at 1:11 AM on December 22, 2016
I've heard it said several times that Heinlein (yes, 'line') was a conservative. I never heard him in person, but that never fit with the books I read. (What's conservative about 'Stranger in a Strange Land'???) Clarke, OTOH, -was- a geeky/sciency type, and back in those times most of the professionals did lean somewhat right (the 'Red Scare' may have been responsible); in Clarke's heyday women in science were still rare.
That said (and I'm pretty sure MeFi is unanimous on it), the ladies would sure as hell get it done. Women built and programmed the first computers, kept the first computers running, worked at NASA, and long before that were majorly helpful with pre-Hubble astronomy. (Brand-new book on the topic:Glass Universe, Dava Sobel ISBN-10: 0670016950).
posted by Twang at 1:11 AM on December 22, 2016
...how can I think about these two writers, and others like them?
One thing you can try is to imagine the time most popular pulps books were variations on ERB, Doc Smith and Howard, Lovecraft was in a league of his own. RAH lived when the KKK was a large multi regional political force, was in the Navy when Filipinos could only be stewards, so him pointing kinda toward the right direction instead of directly in the right direction is ok with me.
Surely they had to know that even a colony on the moon would pose remarkable technological hurdles,
These guys were born before the end of the horse age and were watching TV broadcasts from a quarter million miles away while nuke subs were patrolling under the Arctic Ocean. If we could keep from bombing ourselves back to the Stone Age, Outer Space seemed pretty doable.
Unmanned exploration wasn't really on the radar because the tools were embryonic. The Stanford robotic arm was brand new and I think the Apollo Guidance Computer had 75 kb of hand woven read only rope memory (probably woman woven).
posted by ridgerunner at 3:31 AM on December 22, 2016 [7 favorites]
One thing you can try is to imagine the time most popular pulps books were variations on ERB, Doc Smith and Howard, Lovecraft was in a league of his own. RAH lived when the KKK was a large multi regional political force, was in the Navy when Filipinos could only be stewards, so him pointing kinda toward the right direction instead of directly in the right direction is ok with me.
Surely they had to know that even a colony on the moon would pose remarkable technological hurdles,
These guys were born before the end of the horse age and were watching TV broadcasts from a quarter million miles away while nuke subs were patrolling under the Arctic Ocean. If we could keep from bombing ourselves back to the Stone Age, Outer Space seemed pretty doable.
Unmanned exploration wasn't really on the radar because the tools were embryonic. The Stanford robotic arm was brand new and I think the Apollo Guidance Computer had 75 kb of hand woven read only rope memory (probably woman woven).
posted by ridgerunner at 3:31 AM on December 22, 2016 [7 favorites]
seasparrow asks: How do you guys think about these things? I
You don't. They were writers and products of their time, as are we all. You enjoy (or not) their writings which is all that they ever wanted yo to do. The fact that they were shaped by the dominant thoughts, idea and ideals of their time is a given. You don't need anyone's permission to enjoy (or not) what they wrote. Here's an interesting fact : most of the writers you (you as in everyone) love are complete schmucks in real life. The reasons vary and none of it matters - they write, you read - it's a symbiotic relationship (which borders more to the parasitic side at cons)
So enjoy your Heinlein, Van Vogt or Ayn Rand if that, god help you, floats your boat and rest secure in the knowledge that those who hold products of the past morally accountable will themselves be held to account some time in the future.
posted by AGameOfMoans at 6:10 AM on December 22, 2016 [6 favorites]
You don't. They were writers and products of their time, as are we all. You enjoy (or not) their writings which is all that they ever wanted yo to do. The fact that they were shaped by the dominant thoughts, idea and ideals of their time is a given. You don't need anyone's permission to enjoy (or not) what they wrote. Here's an interesting fact : most of the writers you (you as in everyone) love are complete schmucks in real life. The reasons vary and none of it matters - they write, you read - it's a symbiotic relationship (which borders more to the parasitic side at cons)
So enjoy your Heinlein, Van Vogt or Ayn Rand if that, god help you, floats your boat and rest secure in the knowledge that those who hold products of the past morally accountable will themselves be held to account some time in the future.
posted by AGameOfMoans at 6:10 AM on December 22, 2016 [6 favorites]
Well, I mean, but don't sweep the problematic shit under the rug, either. "How do I ethically consume problematic works?" is a looooooooooooooooooooooooong-running debate in social justice circles, and anyone interested in doing that would do well to engage with the body of existing literature on the topic.
I can't immediately recall any of the pieces in the genre that were formative for me, in particular, but this short one seems decent.
posted by tobascodagama at 7:51 AM on December 22, 2016 [2 favorites]
I can't immediately recall any of the pieces in the genre that were formative for me, in particular, but this short one seems decent.
posted by tobascodagama at 7:51 AM on December 22, 2016 [2 favorites]
"How do I ethically consume problematic works?"
I really do not understand why "In context" can't be the answer to that question, but the debate goes on.
posted by pan at 9:00 AM on December 22, 2016 [3 favorites]
I really do not understand why "In context" can't be the answer to that question, but the debate goes on.
posted by pan at 9:00 AM on December 22, 2016 [3 favorites]
I think that answer is too dismissive. "It wasn't that bad at the time" is a way to avoid engaging with a work's problematic qualities, whereas ethical consumption requires grappling with them directly.
posted by tobascodagama at 9:07 AM on December 22, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by tobascodagama at 9:07 AM on December 22, 2016 [1 favorite]
I think that answer is too dismissive. "It wasn't that bad at the time" is a way to avoid engaging with a work's problematic qualities, whereas ethical consumption requires grappling with them directly.
I'm probably packing a bit to much into the phrase "In Context"; but, I'd assume understanding the context or some semblance of the context in which a work arose would include that. That does require that the reader have some understanding of their own current context in order to make the comparison.
In any case, I'm always getting in trouble for vocabulary, so feel free to correct as appropriate.
posted by pan at 1:28 PM on December 22, 2016 [3 favorites]
I'm probably packing a bit to much into the phrase "In Context"; but, I'd assume understanding the context or some semblance of the context in which a work arose would include that. That does require that the reader have some understanding of their own current context in order to make the comparison.
In any case, I'm always getting in trouble for vocabulary, so feel free to correct as appropriate.
posted by pan at 1:28 PM on December 22, 2016 [3 favorites]
I don't think any of your vocab was incorrect, necessarily, it just happened to lie adjacent to bogus arguments that people sometimes trot. Now that you've clarified, I see you weren't making one of those bogus arguments, so no big deal.
posted by tobascodagama at 7:17 PM on December 22, 2016
posted by tobascodagama at 7:17 PM on December 22, 2016
[wrong thread, deleted, sorry]
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 7:35 PM on December 22, 2016
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 7:35 PM on December 22, 2016
There's also How to be a Fan of Problematic Things discussed on MeFi. A pretty good article and approach I think.
posted by sotonohito at 8:23 PM on December 22, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by sotonohito at 8:23 PM on December 22, 2016 [1 favorite]
Yes, but only by way of the Jargon File. I've never actually read the book.You should.
There's actually a pretty super weird potential misunderstanding towards someone using 'on the gripping hand' - it could mean a poseur who heard of it being used, someone who picked up the expression from a treasonous traitor, an actual treasonous traitor, or a war hero. The technical intentional use in context may be even more esoteric.
("The Mote in God's Eye" and "The Gripping Hand" by Niven and Pournelle. Hard space opera approximating 'age of sail' distances and humanity's first First Contact. Celestial mechanics are a big part of the plot, especially in the sequel. Strong female protagonists but are ultimately gender-roled in the end, race is problematically stereotyped and is White California Aristocracy vs Islamic Trading Emirs vs First Contact Aliens, and that kind of gets particularly ugly - or 'ironically' telling - in the sequel.
But it's a great (and grand) story with interesting characterizations, compelling if fanciful physics, and a frightening allegory of where the human population is headed if we don't get our shit together, if in a super-duper patronizing way.
Incidentally, there is a huge body of military science fiction novels laying out history and circumstances and root events that support the two Mote novels. They're competently written, quick fun reads, cover many different branches of space warfare, and has an overarching plot that actually makes sense and explains why the characters in "Mote" do what they did and how the setup came to be. The first 60-70% [arguably much less] of the stuff is to this level, it then rapidly deteriorates into don't bother territory.
There's a contemporary/prequel story, and Pournelle's daughter wrote a quasi-sequel recently that would have benefited greatly from being in being set in a completely different universe.)
posted by porpoise at 10:02 PM on December 22, 2016 [1 favorite]
These guys were born before the end of the horse age and were watching TV broadcasts from a quarter million miles away while nuke subs were patrolling under the Arctic Ocean. If we could keep from bombing ourselves back to the Stone Age, Outer Space seemed pretty doable.
Unmanned exploration wasn't really on the radar because the tools were embryonic. The Stanford robotic arm was brand new and I think the Apollo Guidance Computer had 75 kb of hand woven read only rope memory (probably woman woven).
Outer space was doable. We were doing it!
My point is that these were smart, forward looking men, who were so overcome as to think (and presumably convince themselves) that outer space was more doable than it was. And knew better. Wishful thinking overcame inconvenient reality. The authority of their kind inspired a generation of enthusiasts who to this day bemoan the lack of technological progress, never mind the lack of justification to send people very far into space. They compare space exploration to sea explorers of centuries past, a popular plea even today, ignoring where the analogy rapidly loses traction. Selling space exploration as astronaut adventure does a disservice to the useful inquiry that space exploration offers to sate. Perhaps not surprisingly, these visionaries were selling science fiction, not realizing they were undermining the most compelling reasons for actually exploring space in the process. Where it doesn't count as much unless there's a man (or woman) on board to push buttons and manipulate levers. It was a bait and switch that continues by some of today's most popular space travel enthusiasts, who don't have the excuse of being caught up in the excitement of the moment.
posted by 2N2222 at 12:35 AM on December 23, 2016 [1 favorite]
Unmanned exploration wasn't really on the radar because the tools were embryonic. The Stanford robotic arm was brand new and I think the Apollo Guidance Computer had 75 kb of hand woven read only rope memory (probably woman woven).
Outer space was doable. We were doing it!
My point is that these were smart, forward looking men, who were so overcome as to think (and presumably convince themselves) that outer space was more doable than it was. And knew better. Wishful thinking overcame inconvenient reality. The authority of their kind inspired a generation of enthusiasts who to this day bemoan the lack of technological progress, never mind the lack of justification to send people very far into space. They compare space exploration to sea explorers of centuries past, a popular plea even today, ignoring where the analogy rapidly loses traction. Selling space exploration as astronaut adventure does a disservice to the useful inquiry that space exploration offers to sate. Perhaps not surprisingly, these visionaries were selling science fiction, not realizing they were undermining the most compelling reasons for actually exploring space in the process. Where it doesn't count as much unless there's a man (or woman) on board to push buttons and manipulate levers. It was a bait and switch that continues by some of today's most popular space travel enthusiasts, who don't have the excuse of being caught up in the excitement of the moment.
posted by 2N2222 at 12:35 AM on December 23, 2016 [1 favorite]
these visionaries were selling science fiction, not realizing they were undermining the most compelling reasons for actually exploring space in the process.
Compelling to whom? I can be excited about a 360 degree panorama of red rocks recorded by a computer controlled platform mounting a few instruments. Most people that care, want a story about a plucky anthropomorphized robot, alone in a vast desolate wasteland, millions of miles from Earth. Most people that even noticed were "Meh, looks like Arizona."
After 12 years, European space freaks manage rendezvousing with and a soft landing on a comet in deep space, and what makes the news? The metalhead postdoc in charge's shirt with boobies on it. Voyagers' still broadcasting with 23 watts of power from 20 lighthours out but nobody's listening.
The majority of people have an IQ of 100 give or take 20, if you can't engage their emotions, the only other way to get their support is to steal their money. Maybe if NASA had done like Brin suggested and left all the shuttles' external tanks in LEO as bones of a big space station, we could let Beyoncé use it to choreograph a great spectacle and people would give a shit. But I doubt it, Judith Resnik was a hell of a woman and I would have loved to hang out and talk with her. Now most people don't remember who she was or how she died 31 years ago next month.
Tldr: if you don't constantly reengage people's emotions they're not going to support something long term, and electronic boxes doing complicated thing in vacuum don't cut it. Most people would rather spend their money on beer and watch someone hot on tv.
posted by ridgerunner at 5:43 AM on December 23, 2016 [1 favorite]
Compelling to whom? I can be excited about a 360 degree panorama of red rocks recorded by a computer controlled platform mounting a few instruments. Most people that care, want a story about a plucky anthropomorphized robot, alone in a vast desolate wasteland, millions of miles from Earth. Most people that even noticed were "Meh, looks like Arizona."
After 12 years, European space freaks manage rendezvousing with and a soft landing on a comet in deep space, and what makes the news? The metalhead postdoc in charge's shirt with boobies on it. Voyagers' still broadcasting with 23 watts of power from 20 lighthours out but nobody's listening.
The majority of people have an IQ of 100 give or take 20, if you can't engage their emotions, the only other way to get their support is to steal their money. Maybe if NASA had done like Brin suggested and left all the shuttles' external tanks in LEO as bones of a big space station, we could let Beyoncé use it to choreograph a great spectacle and people would give a shit. But I doubt it, Judith Resnik was a hell of a woman and I would have loved to hang out and talk with her. Now most people don't remember who she was or how she died 31 years ago next month.
Tldr: if you don't constantly reengage people's emotions they're not going to support something long term, and electronic boxes doing complicated thing in vacuum don't cut it. Most people would rather spend their money on beer and watch someone hot on tv.
posted by ridgerunner at 5:43 AM on December 23, 2016 [1 favorite]
I now mostly avoid old sci-fi for various reasons including the ones discussed above. I recently read Fahrenheit 451 because my parents had a copy and it's really short. I regretted it, though it was intellectually interesting to see a textbook Manic Pixie Dream Girl show up early in the piece.
There's plenty of good modern sci-fi to read that doesn't suffer from these kinds of problems.
posted by nnethercote at 4:06 PM on December 23, 2016 [2 favorites]
There's plenty of good modern sci-fi to read that doesn't suffer from these kinds of problems.
posted by nnethercote at 4:06 PM on December 23, 2016 [2 favorites]
« Older Why do you care so much about lunar phase, anyway? | Furiosa’s Cat Feeder Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Huck500 at 10:10 AM on December 21, 2016 [3 favorites]