thoughts on re-reading Heinlein
Apr. 27th, 2005 02:29 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
snugglekittyRecently I've been re-reading my Heinlein favorites - I Will Fear No Evil, Stranger in a Strange Land, Friday, and To Sail Beyond the Sunset.
I read To Sail Beyond the Sunset for the first time when I was only twelve. My family and I were in France. I ran out of books - I was a huge bookworm even then. We went to the only local English bookstore, and I asked them to give me the biggest English book they had. Apparently it had been a special order that never got picked up. I read it, and I was completely fascinated. It was the first time that I had been exposed to a sex-positive, poly-positive mindset. It changed a lot of my thinking.
A few years later, I read Stranger in a Strange Land, and started fumblingly to practice polyamory. It wasn't the only factor, as I had friends who were poly, but it was definitely an important one. It also helped me start to acknowledge further my intuitive sense that sex was holy, not sinful.
My life has had some emotional upheaval recently, so I've been re-reading my "comfort books." Sharon Lee and Steve Miller, Mercedes Lackey, Tamora Pierce. A few months ago, I thought I had kind of run out. Then I had a strong urge to re-read Friday, and it kind of went on from there.
I do enjoy these books every time I re-read them. But some things stick out more and more glaringly, each time I go through them. Mostly to do with sexism and homophobia. (The fact that I still like these books even though that's an issue should be an indication of how good I think they are.) "No woman ever grows over the age of nineteen in her heart." "Women shouldn't claim equality with men. They're superior to us, not because of who they are but because of what they can do, and for this reason should be protected and taken care of." "If any of those poor souls (queer folks) tried to join our church, I would sense their wrongness and send them away." "Never show a man you can best him in an area he's proud of."
Most recently, I was re-reading the one that started it all - To Sail Beyond the Sunset. I almost find it more objectionable when Heinlein uses a female viewpoint character - that gives him a chance to get even more up on his soapbox about "unfeminine" women, and to present being submissive to your man as the natural order of things. (I suspect that Heinlein was kinky, and just never knew it. I think his books about women wouldn't be as horrifying if he had actually practiced BDSM and understood the concept of chosen submission.)
Several things bothered me about it, that I hadn't noticed as consciously before.
One is the idea that a man worth having is "gallant," where the definition of a gallant man is one who "doesn't wait to be drafted." Heinlein repeats a number of times that men must be willing to lay their lives on the line to protect their women and children. Personally, I think that any adult should be willing to lay their life on the line to protect their family, however they define family. But I don't agree that what that means is "volunteer military service." Granted, I'm the dove sort, and Heinlein seems mostly to be a hawk... but I think there are other ways to measure courage. Being a conscientious objector or standing up to a faulty government are certainly two of them. (And if you disagree, why aren't you in the service right now? We do have a war on, after all.)
The other thing that I noticed had to do with family relations. The main character, Maureen, writes that one of her personal rules is that she never lets her husband or her children see her cry. Also, at another point in the book, she says that she expects anyone in her household to act friendly and cheerful at all times, no matter what they're actually feeling.
Good gods, why? Why pretend to be in a good mood when you're sad, or angry, or scared? What good does it do you, or your family, to feign something you don't feel? How does that advance your closeness? Well, it doesn't, but it contributes to the feeling (not the reality) of security and happiness. I would rather work honestly towards it, together with my family, than pretend that we're there when we're not - I think that attitude is deeply fucked up.
I imagine that this has something to do with Heinlein's overall attitude that you should "keep up appearances." That you should never let your neighbors know that you are different from them, if you are. That you should "avoid the notice of Mrs. Grundy" rather than thumbing your nose in her face or trying to put her out of commission entirely. Not my values, not my strategy. But it's true that the book was written before the altsex movements really got underway. And Heinlein's internal paradigm was probably formed long before that, when "deviant" sexual behavior could lose you your job or even get you arrested. It was probably a survival strategy. Nonetheless... I can't agree with it, and even knowing that times were different then, it still bothers me. That's true of everything I've written about here. I know that he was a product of his times, and I can't truly fault him for that... but reading the biased bits still bothers me.
What books have you gone back to and found disappointing? And how?
I read To Sail Beyond the Sunset for the first time when I was only twelve. My family and I were in France. I ran out of books - I was a huge bookworm even then. We went to the only local English bookstore, and I asked them to give me the biggest English book they had. Apparently it had been a special order that never got picked up. I read it, and I was completely fascinated. It was the first time that I had been exposed to a sex-positive, poly-positive mindset. It changed a lot of my thinking.
A few years later, I read Stranger in a Strange Land, and started fumblingly to practice polyamory. It wasn't the only factor, as I had friends who were poly, but it was definitely an important one. It also helped me start to acknowledge further my intuitive sense that sex was holy, not sinful.
My life has had some emotional upheaval recently, so I've been re-reading my "comfort books." Sharon Lee and Steve Miller, Mercedes Lackey, Tamora Pierce. A few months ago, I thought I had kind of run out. Then I had a strong urge to re-read Friday, and it kind of went on from there.
I do enjoy these books every time I re-read them. But some things stick out more and more glaringly, each time I go through them. Mostly to do with sexism and homophobia. (The fact that I still like these books even though that's an issue should be an indication of how good I think they are.) "No woman ever grows over the age of nineteen in her heart." "Women shouldn't claim equality with men. They're superior to us, not because of who they are but because of what they can do, and for this reason should be protected and taken care of." "If any of those poor souls (queer folks) tried to join our church, I would sense their wrongness and send them away." "Never show a man you can best him in an area he's proud of."
Most recently, I was re-reading the one that started it all - To Sail Beyond the Sunset. I almost find it more objectionable when Heinlein uses a female viewpoint character - that gives him a chance to get even more up on his soapbox about "unfeminine" women, and to present being submissive to your man as the natural order of things. (I suspect that Heinlein was kinky, and just never knew it. I think his books about women wouldn't be as horrifying if he had actually practiced BDSM and understood the concept of chosen submission.)
Several things bothered me about it, that I hadn't noticed as consciously before.
One is the idea that a man worth having is "gallant," where the definition of a gallant man is one who "doesn't wait to be drafted." Heinlein repeats a number of times that men must be willing to lay their lives on the line to protect their women and children. Personally, I think that any adult should be willing to lay their life on the line to protect their family, however they define family. But I don't agree that what that means is "volunteer military service." Granted, I'm the dove sort, and Heinlein seems mostly to be a hawk... but I think there are other ways to measure courage. Being a conscientious objector or standing up to a faulty government are certainly two of them. (And if you disagree, why aren't you in the service right now? We do have a war on, after all.)
The other thing that I noticed had to do with family relations. The main character, Maureen, writes that one of her personal rules is that she never lets her husband or her children see her cry. Also, at another point in the book, she says that she expects anyone in her household to act friendly and cheerful at all times, no matter what they're actually feeling.
Good gods, why? Why pretend to be in a good mood when you're sad, or angry, or scared? What good does it do you, or your family, to feign something you don't feel? How does that advance your closeness? Well, it doesn't, but it contributes to the feeling (not the reality) of security and happiness. I would rather work honestly towards it, together with my family, than pretend that we're there when we're not - I think that attitude is deeply fucked up.
I imagine that this has something to do with Heinlein's overall attitude that you should "keep up appearances." That you should never let your neighbors know that you are different from them, if you are. That you should "avoid the notice of Mrs. Grundy" rather than thumbing your nose in her face or trying to put her out of commission entirely. Not my values, not my strategy. But it's true that the book was written before the altsex movements really got underway. And Heinlein's internal paradigm was probably formed long before that, when "deviant" sexual behavior could lose you your job or even get you arrested. It was probably a survival strategy. Nonetheless... I can't agree with it, and even knowing that times were different then, it still bothers me. That's true of everything I've written about here. I know that he was a product of his times, and I can't truly fault him for that... but reading the biased bits still bothers me.
What books have you gone back to and found disappointing? And how?
