Why do people tag Heinlein as a . . .

[Rackhir]

I alway found what Heinlein was advocating for in ST was responsibility. The idea that voting wasn't just a right, it also carried responsibilities. What "government service" meant, was that you had contributed to society and because of that you earned the right to have a vote. Nobody was forced to do government service, which is the opposite of what one would expect in a fascist society. I believe they didn't have a draft despite being at war with an enemy that was willing to commit genocide against them.

Interesting little tidbit I came across looking up some stuff. Those actually in "government service" can't vote, while they are in service. It's only once they have completed it that they get the right. A subtle point, but an important point I think.

..eventually learns the government started the war by intruding into 'bug' territory.

I think that bit is actually from the movie. I don't think that's the case for the novel. The movie certainly makes an explicit point of it.

 

[Umbran]

I'm certainly open to authorial statements to the contrary, but it's just not that strange that people think of ST as a statement of political opinion. It read like one to me, and I've read some others of his books which took a very different tone to political issues.

My guess is that many folks forget that he was a writer of speculative fiction, or that said category also includes playing around with social systems - such that they forgot to separate the art from the artist. Not strange, I suppose, but not exactly anyone's fault but their own, either.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

My guess is that many folks forget that he was a writer of speculative fiction, or that said category also includes playing around with social systems - such that they forgot to separate the art from the artist. Not strange, I suppose, but not exactly anyone's fault but their own, either.

no, I don't think they are forgetting anything. Speculative fiction playing around with social systems has many different "feels" and writers of speculative fiction can and sometimes do also have axes to grind.

I guess Anthem was just a story.... Foolish me forgetting that Ayn Rand was a writer and that sometimes includes playing around with social systems. No one's "fault" but my own.

People take many parts of a book into account when coming to the conclusion that part of it represents an author's actual views. Dismissing that in favor of a universal assumption that art and artist are separate isn't any smarter than assuming every idea presented is endorsed.

 

[kingpaul]

I alway found what Heinlein was advocating for in ST was responsibility.

That's how I took the main theme of the book.

And I liked the movie as a nice relaxing distraction. Yes, it deviated from the book (quite a bit), but I'm entertained.

 

[Umbran]

no, I don't think they are forgetting anything. Speculative fiction playing around with social systems has many different "feels" and writers of speculative fiction can and sometimes do also have axes to grind.

I guess Anthem was just a story.... Foolish me forgetting that Ayn Rand was a writer and that sometimes includes playing around with social systems. No one's "fault" but my own.

Ayn Rand has a large body of work, most of which points to a particular socio-political philosophy. Heinlein has a large body of work that points to a wide variety of socio-political philosophies. If you chose to make a determination that a singe data point designates a trend, I don't see as the fault is the author's (either Heinlein, or Rand). So, point the blame where you will after that.

 

[Storm Raven]

Well, compared to his other books that I have read, it contained a lot more cheerleading for the system. It wasn't just happening to be set there, you had the (to me jarringly out of place) little lectures on the system.

That's an interesting take, because one of the criticisms that I have seen leveled at Heinlein (to a certain extent justifiedly) is that in many of his books, his characters spend a lot of time pontificating in favor of some form of governmental set up. The character Lazarus Long is practically nothing but talking about various governmental systems and how they do or do not suit a man like him. Coventry, If This Goes On . . , Job: a Comedy of Justice (yes, it has a lot to do with government), The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress, Beyond This Horizon, and even Red Planet and so on all have characters who spend most of their time talking about government systems, and all have various lectures on the system interposed in them.

 

[Mark Chance]

I guess Anthem was just a story.... Foolish me forgetting that Ayn Rand was a writer and that sometimes includes playing around with social systems. No one's "fault" but my own.

There is a critical difference between Rand and Heinlein. Rand was a philosophical hack of the first order. She dedicated her life to advocating and practicing a corrosive system of belief that led her to abuse her children, cheat on her husband, and champion an almost Nietzchean will-to-power disguised as "enlightened self-interest".

Heinlein didn't.

 

[The Grumpy Celt]

Fascist?

People can be very sloppy in their use of words that actually have specific meanings. Heinlein did have more conservative view than liberal ones and was generally pro-military. To people who either do not really understand what Fascist means (or who do not care and simply use the term as a pejorative), those views make Heinlein a fascist.

 

[Shayuri]

Arr...lots of good points made here. I find it likely that people accusing Heinlein of being fascist are likely using mental shortcuts and either over-broadening the definition of fascist or using a very limited sample of the author's work...or both.

I can sort of see the temptation though. Heinlein's books and characters, as noted, tend to be pretty vocal on the subject of politics and such. Thus, it's tempting to use them as a basis to make judgements on his political beliefs.

Which, again, don't seem -fascist- to me.

...

And I enjoyed the movie Starship Troopers. I just think it should have had a different title. It had nothing at all, thematically or contentwise (beyond a few names), to do with the book.

Ironically, I didn't really enjoy the book either. But there we go.

 

[DM_Matt]

There is a critical difference between Rand and Heinlein. Rand was a philosophical hack of the first order. She dedicated her life to advocating and practicing a corrosive system of belief that led her to abuse her children, cheat on her husband, and champion an almost Nietzchean will-to-power disguised as "enlightened self-interest".

Heinlein didn't.

To be less inflammatory about it, Rand was, openly, a political philosopher first and foremost. She just happened to write a bunch of novels as one of her methods for expressing and championing her point of view.

Heinlein, OTOH, was a novelist whose stories had some political content and political implications.

People can be very sloppy in their use of words that actually have specific meanings. Heinlein did more conservative view than liberal ones and was generally pro-military. To people who either do not really understand what Fascist means (or who do not are and simply use the term as a pejorative), those views make Heinlein a fascist.

QFT. Heinlein is viewed as somewhat right of center on average, and definitionally-sloppy or ideologically intolerant people exaggerate and call him a fascist.