Heinlein and politics?

[Brian G Turner]

How succesful were Heinlein's political visions?

More to the point - does his politics repulse or attract, or are they simply story constructs to be taken that way? Was he hopelessly too right-wing or too left-wing (according to your position)? How successful did he deal with his politics?

 

[Jayaprakash Satyamurthy]

Heinlein was fascinated with power, and military discipline, and his politics are largely authoritarian, right-wing. However, I believe he was too politically naive to make a very clear stance on this in his books, and in certain aspects - notoriously the question of sexual mores - he was very, very liberal.

 

[littlemissattitude]

I think I'd probably call Heinlein's politics more libertarian than anything else. It seems like a lot of his protagonists, notably Jubal Harshaw in "Stranger in a Strange Land" and the main character in "Farnham's Freehold" (whose name escapes me at the moment), are very independent, live and let live sorts. However, as in "Farnham's Freehold" especially, some of their personal prejudices show a great deal of intolerance for those who are substantially different from themselves. These characters are quite sure that they know more, and know better, than most other folks, which is quite a common sentiment among the libertarians I have known personally.

 

[dwndrgn]

I never really consider the politics of the author when reading. At least not conciously. I tend to take the story by itself as a whole - not using the real world around me as a yardstick. Sometimes, after reading a book, I'll consider whether the author was trying to make a statement or not. If I feel that the author was attempting to make a statement, I then generally consider the statement itself against our society. The author's politics don't usually come into it. I wrote a story once (and wish I still had it because it was the only good writing I had ever done) that contained characters who, if they were real people, I would despise. That doesn't mean that I am like those characters or that I think what they think and do is the right way to go about things.

Whether an author deliberately or unconciously creates characters that share his/her political views has no bearing on a novel whatsoever, in my opinion. A perfect example of this is my oft mentioned L. Ron Hubbard favorite, Battlefield Earth. After learning a bit about the author, thinking back on the story, it is easy to see where Hubbard was showcasing his own feelings and beliefs. I disagree with most of his politics, beliefs and real-world actions. However, it still doesn't effect my enjoyment of the story.

Now, I could be an anomaly (probably am) but I hate politics and all the word implies. I try to keep all of that out of my enjoyment of stories. If Heinlein were a confirmed murderer who believed all women were animals without respect and that animals deserved less...I would probably still like his stories even without liking the man himself. I'll go a step further, you all know that I am the opposite of a George Bush fan (when I first saw him I got the immediate and improbable feeling that he was a serial killer, waiting to begin his spree...gave me the shivers). I would probably never read anything he wrote because it would just bore me to tears, but if by some miracle he published a fantastic work about dragons and magic, I'd read it without hesitation.

I don't see how politics should ever effect the enjoyment of a story. If you don't like the story itself, that is another matter entirely. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

 

[nemogbr]

I think the author's personal politics are not germaine to their work except if they also present an argument of how aman/woman should live.

I could say Nietzche as a complete opposite to what he actually preached in his books.

No matter how he felt he could not practice what he encouraged others to do.

On the other hand a writer does inadvertently show his beliefs in the way he writes. There was that story about C.S. Lewis not knowing that he wrote a version of Jesus Christ in his Chronicles of Narnia.

 

[Brys]

I'm currently reading my first Heinlein novel, the Moon is a Harsh Mistress, and it seems to me he's too accepting of his own ideology. He doesn't risk opposing viewpoints - those which differ (eg Wyoming early on is a democratic socialist) are soon converted (Wyoming becomes a neo-liberal on the far right in economic terms). With this novel, the politics can't be ignored. That's partly because of the nature of the novel - that's fine, it makes sense in some places. But my problem is that he occasionally digresses into explanations of the politics that are simply infodumping and bad writing which don't fit the story. An example - showing that the "Loonies" hate the authority and how they want to replace it with a fairer, more just, free society is fine. Having a few pages of monologue explaining why the Professor is a rational anarchist is not fine. Heinlein too often sets up a straw man argument.

From this novel, it seems that Heinlein only pays lip service to libertarianism - he's a genuine believer in economic liberalism, that's very clear. And he doesn't believe in the state existing. But when it comes to things like capital punishment, he's very authoritarian. Heinlein's certainly further right than I am (economically), but he's also in some ways slightly less liberal socially. It's difficult to tell from just one book though, but given the dominance of politics in this novel, it's like this is the case.

I don't judge an author's work on their politics, but osmetimes, the politics is so intrinsic to that work that it is impossible for it not to have an influence. Yes, I'm more likely to admire slightly left-wing politics than slightly right-wing politics in a novel, but not enough to make a significant difference. I'm certainly no communist, but Mieville's writing is amazing. I'm not right wing at all, but I loved Ender's Game. Both interwove politics into an excellent story, and were willing to be self-critical. Often, Heinlein is able to do this as well - it's just that on occasion it becomes really obvious that he fails to do it consistently.

 

[Carolyn Hill]

I never really consider the politics of the author when reading.

Yeh, except the thing about Heinlein is, it's hard to ignore his politics because his books are full of explicit political and social commentary.

Granted, the commentary comes via the mouths of first-person narrators, and what characters expouse may not be what authors believe. But Heinlein's narrators say things that usually match what he himself says in essays.

Anyhow, to answer one of Brian's questions: when I first read Heinlein, I was in my early teens, and I didn't notice or care about the politics (although I did notice and was titillated by the social commentary in Stranger in a Strange Land). Several decades later, when I reread his work, I was surprised by how saturated in politics several of the books are--and how direct and in-your-face some of that commentary is. For example, the first few pages of Glory Road state explicit opinions about elections, conscription, patriotism, and educational "propaganda" against war, among other things.

Do his politics prevent me from reading his work? Do they get in the way? Well, I don't agree with many of his more conservative or militaristic political views, but I understand historically what shaped those views, and in his earlier works, I am sufficiently entertained by the characters expressing those views that I keep reading despite disagreement. The only time his politics really get in my way is when the narrative comes to a screeching halt as a narrator engages in extended polemical interior monologue, as if Heinlein is performing a core dump (the annoying infodumps that Brys noted in his post).

Have any of you read Heinlein's polemic "Who Are the Heirs of Patrick Henry?"--not the 1958 version, but the one published in Expanded Universe in 1980, which is accompanied by an afterword that defends Starship Troopers against criticism?

 

[Brys]

I've just finished The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, and unfortunately for me, the ending was pretty poor because he was blinded by ideology. He clearly set out what he would personally have done in the situation - but the reactions of the others were simply unrealistic. His justifications of mass murder are ridiculous. The ending is clearly feels like it's supposed to be comforting SF, unchallenging etc - and if you agree with his politics, I'm sure it is. But if you don't agree with his politics, then the way he sacrifices the end of what could have been a very good novel is depressing and to me, the utopia of Luna is actually much more of a dystopia.

At times he often vastly oversimplifies things so that they fit to his politics - he seems to assume there would be absolutely no opposition to the revolution. I've already mentioned that the responses of the earth were incredibly unrealistic. But the characters themselves seemed to become subservient to the ideology towards the end, and that was really the worst thing about it. The basic concepts behind the novel were good and there were some really interesting ideas addressed in it - but unfortunately occasionally it read more like a political manifesto than a novel.

 

[j d worthington]

This is indeed a problem with Heinlein. When he has Jubal say that politics is scarcely less important than your own heartbeat, he means it. His work is saturated with politics; sometimes libertarian, sometimes very left, sometimes lunatic-fringe right. Heinlein himself tended toward authoritarian views on many things, but was basically libertarian; in some ways very intolerant, and in others a very kind and generous man. But I think it's important to keep in mind, as well, something he himself said: yes, he wanted to entertain and to keep selling his books so he could keep writing; but he also wanted to challenge people to think about their own positions, whether they agreed with him or not; and this I'd say he certainly does. Starship Troopers annoyed the hell out of me the first time I read it; I've since become very fond of the book because it's almost diametrically opposed to my own views (if that makes any sense). But Heinlein's later books (most of those following Stranger in a Strange Land) had large portions where they were arguments about sociopolitical issues, and for many that may spoil them as novels. In a way, he almost returned the novel to its eighteenth-century progenitors, where that sort of thing was extremely common.

As for the resolution of The Moon is a Harsh Mistress -- it really isn't resolved. He returned to the situation later in The Cat Who Walks Through Walls and To Sail Beyond the Sunset; and, for that matter, began much of this in The Rolling Stones (Grandma Stone -- Hazel -- being one of the prime characters in Moon, and again in Time Enough for Love, Number of the Beast, Cat, and Sunset, where he pretty much tied together narrative threads from most of his career). While Moon was intended originall as a stand-alone (though related to his Future History stories), it finally became subsumed into the much larger canvas. If you've patience for some of the diatribes (and many don't), you may find it interesting. If politics bore you, I'd suggest you avoid them.

 

[Brys]

I am going to read more Heinlein after a while - probably Starship Troopers first, but I need a break from it for a bit. Heinlein's good for an author who has a radically different stance on politics from most authors I read. I hadn't realised that Moon wasn't a true stand-alone. The strange thing is I find myself more often disagreeing with Heinlein than Mieville, though theoretically I'm closer to Heinlein in ideological terms - I'm very libertarian socially, but slightly left leaning economically. It's just that Heinlein emphasises all the elements that I play down, and vice versa.
I think part of the problem is that while it's quite obviously political, because of the format, the ideas contained within can't be expanded upon to a decent level, which means that there's a compromise that doesn't really work - overt politics which at times seems to take away from the story, but the politics aren't that well developed in it because he doesn't want to turn it into pure propaganda.
I prefer a less heavy-handed approach to politics, but I do prefer having politics in a novel than leaving out any social/political issues whatsoever.

 

[The Ace]

Lewis deliberately wrote the Narnia series as Christian allegory !!!!

 

[The Ace]

As to Heinlein's politics, well he retired from the US Navy before WW2, when you consider this war was against Nazi Germany, it was probably a good thing as it would have been difficult to say which side he was on. Great writer, lousy politics.

 

[j d worthington]

Actually, it was TB that took him out of the Navy, as I recall. I'm not sure I'd call Heinlein a great writer, but -- despite the fact that our views are often at loggerheads -- he remains one of my personal favorites. I see him (as others have) as following the sort of traditions that Mark Twain so often used -- sometimes didactic, sometimes deliberately provocative, using what is essentially the tall tale to either make a point or poke people into rethinking (or examining) attitudes. (Or sometimes just to stir things up, perhaps.)

As I was about to move back to the New Posts, I noticed one the ads up top -- they're having a Robert A. Heinlein Centennial. Anyone interested should look into HeinleinCentennial.com. I rather wish I could go, but there's just no way. Anyone else going to this event?

 

[Asmer20]

I believe Heinlein had a way of portraying politics on both sides. It has been a long time since I read Heinlein, but of the few books I did read he was very specific putting visions of politics in a futuristic way...even if his books didn't last through the re-publishing era. The Tunnel, or whatever it was called had a good stand of politics when the kids returned. I believe some, if not many authors put politics in their books, like Ben Bova in his planetry tour series.

 

[j d worthington]

I believe Heinlein had a way of portraying politics on both sides. It has been a long time since I read Heinlein, but of the few books I did read he was very specific putting visions of politics in a futuristic way...even if his books didn't last through the re-publishing era. The Tunnel, or whatever it was called had a good stand of politics when the kids returned. I believe some, if not many authors put politics in their books, like Ben Bova in his planetry tour series.

Tunnel in the Sky, I think, is the title you're looking for. True, and for that matter, most writers who last tend to put their worldview in their work; it gives it more depth and texture. The problem, I think, is not so much with RAH's politics -- he was a libertarian of a rather hardline school, as I recall, and I have both agreements and disagreements with that view -- as one is free either to agree or disagree with any writers' views on such things. It is that he sometimes became didactic enough that it detracts somewhat from his writing itself; and Heinlein himself was aware of that trait, I'd say, from various letters, and did try to reign it in now and again, but as he got older he tended more towards large chunks of expository material that, for many, form roadblocks to enjoying some of his work. His juveniles are, by and large, among some of his best storytelling (that and his short stories), and many of them deal with politics -- nearly all of Heinlein deals with politics to one degree or another, as it was an intensely important subject to him. I think, though, that it's the later, "talking heads" aspect that most people have problems with, where the "action" of the tale may come to a screeching halt for 20-30 pages at a time while his characters discuss political issues. But at that point in his work, he was often openly writing didactic fiction, and that's a type of tale that lends itself to that sort of thing very easily. I personally enjoy those books and revisit them now and again, but for a first-time reader it can be a bit off-putting.

 

[Brys]

That's probably why I don't like Heinlein much - I don't like didactic fiction. I like politics, but if I want to see a complex political argument about a different point of view, I'll read a non-fiction book which can argue the points much better. I agree with Erikson ("Didactic fiction is a bore") and Mieville on this - Mieville saying that

Just because you are a leftist writer doesn't mean that you have to be into propaganda. I would never try to convince someone of socialism through my novels. It would probably make a very bad novel, and a very bad case of socialism. Nevertheless, you do want to have some sort of political texture to the books.

I think that applies equally to the right as to the left.