On this day in 1907, the second greatest proselytizer for the strident, oversimple libertarianism of high school debaters, Robert Heinlein, was born. Second only to The Fountainhead in importance to adolescent males whose genius isn’t appreciated by authoritarian parents, The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress informs readers How [to] Find Freedom in an Unfree World: chunk definite articles, catapult space rocks at Middle America, and embrace Ho Chi Minh. As my colleague Adam Roberts argues:
We might take this further, a note the many parallels between the ‘Loonies’ and the Viet-Cong. Heinlein may have been a pro-war signatory on the famous Galaxy double-page Vietnam advertisement, but his sympathetically portrayed, anti-American Loonies, who are essentially farmers, and who live in elaborate tunnel-systems that prove impossible for invading troops to infiltrate, have much in common with the South-Eastern enemy. More to the point, the whole scenario of a war between Earth (a large, populous, technologically-advanced world) and the Moon (a small, technologically-backward nation of farmer struggling for independence) presents a penetrating commentary upon the international events of 1966.
This is not Bob Barr’s Bob Heinlein. Granted, it’s a damned clever interpretation, but I’m more inclined to agree with my colleague Adam Roberts, who claims that after 1960, Heinlein sacrificed the virtues of his early work
to a strident, even desperate ‘puppet-master’ authorial persona, which harps incessantly and sometimes unpleasantly on a narrow range of ideological concerns: the importance of individual liberty conceived in the American libertarian mode, with a pendant mistrust of ‘government’ and a fetishisation of authority as such.
Difficult as it for us, as adults, to read novels in which characters break the fourth wall to deliver lectures about politics, the anti-authoritarian appeal of the libertarian rants of Heinlein’s not-even-veiled surrogates shouldn’t be overestimated, as the only alternative explanation for his continued popularity among the adolescent set is that 70 percent of his work is made of fucking.*
Not just any old fucking, though, but polyamorous-underwater-fucking, a practice whose appeal to bookish 16-year-old minds can’t be exaggerated. There’s also plenty of rape-fucking, which is mildly disturbing until you remember that by novel’s end it becomes marriage fucking, at which point you overdose on disturb and vow never to use your penis again. Especially when compared to the respectful, nuanced treatment of rape by Chris Claremont. The mind reels.**
My point, as you’ve probably surmised, is that this day in 1907 saw the birth of an author whose adolescent philosophy was disseminated in books chock-a-block with puerile male sex fantasies, a fact Penn & Teller would call bullshit on except, you know.
*Hence the title of the post, borrowed from a letter Joseph John W. Campbell, arguably the most powerful editorial voice during the Golden Age of science fiction, to Isaac Asimov:
I’ve got a Bob Heinlein novel on hand now [The Door Into Summer], for decision, that’s got me worried and bothered. Bob can write a better story, with one hand tied behind him, than most people in the field can do with both hands. But Jesus, I wish that son of a gun would take that other hand out of his pocket.
**I know, I know, this is a family blog. But there’s no other word for what Heinlein and adolescent males the world over fantasize about.
149 comments
July 7, 2008 at 7:02 pm
urbino
I’ve never read any Heinlein, but I’m for any post that uses “The Fountainhead” and “strident, oversimple . . . adolescent” in the same paragraph.
July 7, 2008 at 7:08 pm
CJS
Yep, I’d have to agree about Heinlein. He could spin a yarn, and he had a remarkable ability to draw male (and female) characters who adolescent males would find incredibly appealing–but the bastard was a perpetual adolescent himself. Like Rand, one hopes to outgrow those kind of fantasy projections.
July 7, 2008 at 7:09 pm
neocynic
. . . the strident, oversimple libertarianism of high school debaters . . .
You mean there’s another kind?
July 7, 2008 at 7:31 pm
Q
Ah the halcyon days of high school revolutionizing, how I miss thee.
July 7, 2008 at 8:02 pm
John Emerson
Joseph “Masks of God” Campbell?
July 7, 2008 at 8:12 pm
eric
Do you maybe not mean John Campbell?
July 7, 2008 at 8:25 pm
urbino
Alexander Campbell? No, probably not.
July 7, 2008 at 8:31 pm
Josh
Not just any old fucking, though, but polyamorous-underwater-fucking
Not just polyamorous-underwater-fucking, but time-travelling incestuous fucking. I mean, the guy wrote an entire goddamn book on the theme of incest. WTF?
July 7, 2008 at 8:46 pm
SEK
Do you maybe not mean John Campbell?
I did. Problem was, when I consulted Adam’s History of Science Fiction, I couldn’t resist rereading his damning-with-faint-praise account of Lucas.
Not just polyamorous-underwater-fucking, but time-travelling incestuous fucking. I mean, the guy wrote an entire goddamn book on the theme of incest. WTF?
I had a whole bit about Lazarus Long and what would compel someone to write a novel in which the near-immortal protagonist made the exact same mistakes like clockwork every sixty years for 700 pages, but then I thought, “That’s piling on.”
July 7, 2008 at 8:54 pm
John Emerson
Eric, myth and pulp are two completely unrelated areas of study.
July 7, 2008 at 9:16 pm
urbino
Given these as primary materials, I’d like to posit the thesis that the Heinlein oeuvre features much coition. Could I get a dissertation out of that? Assuming I use the word “oeuvre,” I mean.
July 7, 2008 at 10:12 pm
Brad
Heinlein went from writing completely chaste boys adventure novels that happened to be set in space to writing weird sex romps and odd satires of religion.
urbino, I think that is worth a couple of Ph.D. dissertations, at least. And, hey, you get to spend lots of time in Santa Cruz reading the man’s papers. What better place to read about odd sex and weird religion?
July 7, 2008 at 10:18 pm
Josh
Heinlein went from writing completely chaste boys adventure novels that happened to be set in space to writing weird sex romps and odd satires of religion.
Probably due in large part to the changing market and his relationship with his editors. IIRC, all of his juveniles were sold to the same publishing house and edited by the same woman. Once he got big enough that he could branch out, he was free to write what he wanted.
And the juveniles weren’t *completely* chaste. He still managed to sneak the occasional sexual reference in.
Why do I know this?
July 7, 2008 at 10:23 pm
bitchphd
Heinlein: ick.
July 7, 2008 at 10:24 pm
Josh
Of course, now I’ve gone a-Googling, and discovered that Alexei Panshin’s apparently put the entire text of Heinlein in Dimension online.
July 8, 2008 at 4:52 am
[links] Link salad for an Omaha Tuesday | jlake.com
[…] I wish that son of a gun would take that other hand out of his pocket. — The Edge of the American West (a history blog) comments on Robert Heinlein, libertarianism and sex. Definitely worth the read. […]
July 8, 2008 at 5:07 am
jhm
Considering that the revolution would have most likely gone nowhere without Mycroft Holmes, I wonder what part the computer would play in the Viet Nam analogy; or the libertarian aspect, for that matter, as they can hardly be accused of being self-reliant.
As someone who enjoyed The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, as well as Job (one of his “odd satires of religion.”), I should say that it is possible to read and enjoy this fiction without a perfervid over analysis ruining it. Just like I enjoyed the cinematic “Fountainhead” even though I find Mrs. Rand’s philosophy over-simplistic twaddle.
July 8, 2008 at 5:11 am
jhm
That should be ‘cinematized,’ not ‘cinematic.’ I’ve not read the book, so I can’t characterize it.
July 8, 2008 at 8:07 am
Charlieford
“the famous Galaxy double-page Vietnam advertisement” Huh?
July 8, 2008 at 8:44 am
Nebris
“70 percent of his work is made of fucking”
What a very sad neo-Puritan pronouncement. But in my adolescence fucking wasn’t fatal.
I can tell y’all for a fact that Stranger was just as popular among females as among males back in the mid to late 60’s.
Yeah, Bob got tedious later on, but Valentine Michael Smith was a true culture hero for a while. Of course, like I said, back then fucking wasn’t fatal.
I’ll be 56 at the end of this August for those who are wondering.
July 8, 2008 at 8:58 am
Rich Puchalsky
Nebris, there’s nothing wrong with sex per se. What people object to in Heinlein is the authoritarianism that goes along with it. But I don’t want to repeat everything I’ve written about this at Acephalous over here.
July 8, 2008 at 9:01 am
Adam Roberts
““the famous Galaxy double-page Vietnam advertisement” Huh?”
Galaxy Science Fiction was one of the major genre magazines of the 1960s. A bunch of people took out a double-page ad to express support for American involvement in Vietnam, and Heinlein was one signatory. ‘Famous’ may overstate the case here, I concede.
Mind you, that first paragraph of mine SEK quotes is sloppy stuff: “We might take this further, and note … have much in common with the South-East Asian enemy …”
July 8, 2008 at 9:06 am
Fats Durston
Who can forget when Deety’s nipples went “spung!”?
“the famous Galaxy double-page Vietnam advertisement” Huh?
SFWA (Science Fiction Writers of America) suffered a major rift between doves and hawks during the American portion of the Vietnam War, each side publishing full page ads stating their position with a list of signatories.
July 8, 2008 at 9:08 am
Fats Durston
Er…not quick enough. I had paused on that “South-Eastern” enemy, thinking, that’s an odd phrasing.
July 8, 2008 at 9:13 am
Nebris
“there’s nothing wrong with sex per se”
Tell that to SEK. He sneers at Heinlein’s sexual philosophy through the entire piece; “this day in 1907 saw the birth of an author whose adolescent philosophy was disseminated in books chock-a-block with puerile male sex fantasies”.
It’s kind of creepy to be honest.
July 8, 2008 at 9:25 am
Vance Maverick
“Heinlein’s sexual philosophy” != “sex”
(and yes, honesty is creepy).
July 8, 2008 at 9:45 am
Nebris
None of you guys has done your homework vis-a-vis “Heinlein’s sexual philosophy”. Stranger was a major element in starting the modern polyamory movement.
That particular oversight makes all your ‘ick’ noise sound even more juvenile.
July 8, 2008 at 10:03 am
Gassalasca
I’m interested in what’s your verdict on Starship Troopers?
July 8, 2008 at 10:03 am
Josh
None of you guys has done your homework vis-a-vis “Heinlein’s sexual philosophy”. Stranger was a major element in starting the modern polyamory movement.
That particular oversight makes all your ‘ick’ noise sound even more juvenile.
I’m trying to make sense of this, and failing.
July 8, 2008 at 10:12 am
grackle
If I recall, I read a late Heinlein book and noticed, oh, after a few pages into the first chapter, that perhaps his editor was taking advantage of an oldster in the throes of senility. I don’t think I finished it. Honest statement – sorry for being a little creepy here.
July 8, 2008 at 10:32 am
eric
Reading Heinlein’s surname always reminds me of Asimov’s joke—“drunk and mendacious.”
July 8, 2008 at 11:04 am
Walt
I haven’t read it in a million years, but I think Moon is a Harsh Mistress was actually a pretty good book.
While as a teenage boy I appreciated the 70% fucking plot of Stranger in a Strange Land, the asymmetry of the fact that the women would sleep together but the men wouldn’t bothered me. It didn’t really make sense in the context of the novel. But this probably means that I hate sex.
July 8, 2008 at 11:25 am
Rich Puchalsky
Yeah, Walt has it. Older guy sleeping with lots of younger women while no older woman gets to sleep with lots of younger guys is just a repeated accident of Heinlein’s books — nothing to see here — and if you don’t like it, you hate sex.
“I can tell y’all for a fact that Stranger was just as popular among females as among males back in the mid to late 60’s.”
And a lot of my best friends are black. If you say anything about 60’s racism that wasn’t seen as racism at the time — that even may have been an advance over old-style 50’s racism — they’ll get on your case.
July 8, 2008 at 11:25 am
Charlieford
Thanks for the clarification on Galaxy. So, Heinlein was pro-war? What about Asimov?
July 8, 2008 at 12:02 pm
dware
Heinlein (like many other authors) is/was a wildly mixed and not entirely savory bag in terms of personal philosophy. Also, toward the end of his career he wrote with both hands in his pocket too much of the time, recycling characters (particularly Woodrow Wilson Smith, aka Lazarus Long) and working out his twin fascinations with incest and solipsism. That said, I’ve found much to enjoy in his novels and stories over the years and a few things to admire, cherish and even pass along to students. His short-story-within-a-novel, “The Man who was Too Lazy To Fail,” (Time Enough for Love) seems therapeutic for students weho think that they have to make much obvious effort (hence spin their wheels). Also, his late novel “Job: A Comedy of Justice,” holds up pretty well. No trace of any of the Howards in there and as a critique of the “bottom line” of any faith claiming a special dispensation, it’s pretty sharp.
So, was he great? at times. Was he a hack? at times. Could he write a mean story? More often than the rest of us, I’d say. One interesting observation I’ve seen elsewhere is that in the 1930s he was something of a lefty-progressive, as was his second wife Leslyn. After he remarried, he turned toward the libertarian right, where he mainly stayed for the rest of his days.
July 8, 2008 at 12:19 pm
bob mcmanus
Thanks for the link to the Panshin, which I plan to read today. Yesterday I read 300 pages of Thomas Disch SF criticism, and while Disch mostly agrees with the crowd, he did give Friday a good review. I haven’t read Friday, and with the exception of Time Enough didn’t read any Heinlein written after 1965. I won’t claim the “Lifeline” thru 1965 stuff is much more than the juvenelia Disch as describes it, much of it politically offensive, but I wouldn’t tear Double Star or the Green Hills of Earth collection from my adolescent’s hands in horror.
12-yr-olds read some dreck, and there is worse out there than early & mid period Heinlein.
PS:I do like me a preview.
July 8, 2008 at 12:29 pm
Vance Maverick
Browsing these books in Amazon, I keep clicking “Surprise Me!”, but it doesn’t seem to work. In any case, this has reminded me of reading I Will Fear No Evil when I was 7 or 8, a memory I had essentially buried (though scanning it now, a surprising amount seems familiar).
Over on Making Light, Jim MacDonald has a fun “This Day In History”.
July 8, 2008 at 12:39 pm
urbino
working out his twin fascinations with incest and solipsism
Isn’t that really just one fascination?
July 8, 2008 at 12:40 pm
bob mcmanus
PS:Having just finished Disch on SF, I think it is important to understand that all of the New Wave (Disch, Delany, PKD) started off as adolescents with the Golden Age writers:Heinlein, Asimov, Clarke, Van Vogt and probably the 2nd wave of the early fifties, and chose to make the writing of SF a career. Delany specifically mentions two Heinlein influences:the black protagonist of Starship Troopers, and “the door dilated”. Since both Delany & Disch emphasize the unity of style and content in writing, and that “ideas” are only words + reader’s imagination, I might suggest that the wide open possibilities of what could be done with language in SF was a critical factor in their decisions.
Of course, some people in the 50s probably read Costain and Ross Lockridge and became different kinds of writers.
July 8, 2008 at 12:41 pm
urbino
a memory I had essentially buried (though scanning it now, a surprising amount seems familiar)
Don’t you find it sort of creepy when that happens, Vance?
July 8, 2008 at 12:45 pm
Vance Maverick
Honestly, I do. (No wonder Glenn Branca’s name had rung, uh, something resonant.)
July 8, 2008 at 12:47 pm
SomeCallMeTim
But this probably means that I hate sex.
That’s the obvious interpretation of a concern that the men in the book don’t sleep together.
July 8, 2008 at 12:50 pm
Giblets
This reminds me that Giblets has been working on his own epic scifi masterpiece about an intrepid space traveler marooned on the post-nuclear pansexual anarcho-lovelands of Thrustular 7, where he must impregnate one thousand virile female clones of himself while fighting off hordes of deadly Venusian sexfighters – for galactic peace.
July 8, 2008 at 12:58 pm
JP Stormcrow
Heinlein certainly had a formula that worked well for his readership (for many of the reasons mentioned). And at times I think it really came together well on many levels (The Moon is a Harsh Mistress is my personal favorite of his). But in the end I think it was mostly just adolescent pseudo-libertarian wish fulfillment with a surprising authoritarian streak masked as meritocracy (and even Mistress had lots of that, he just pulled it off in an amusing over-the-top way. Fatuous stories like “The Roads Must Roll” are his tell.
Stranger is certainly an interesting artifact and a telling one with an interesting reception, but in the end I think it supports SEK’s thesis.
July 8, 2008 at 12:59 pm
neocynic
This reminds me that Giblets has been working on his own epic scifi masterpiece about an intrepid space traveler marooned on the post-nuclear pansexual anarcho-lovelands of Thrustular 7, where he must impregnate one thousand virile female clones of himself while fighting off hordes of deadly Venusian sexfighters – for galactic peace.
I want to see that made into a film. The lead? Abe Vigoda.
July 8, 2008 at 1:04 pm
bob mcmanus
Incidentally, Ray Davies is doing a series on Frank Tashlin’s 50’s unsuccessful transition from animation to film that may be relevant.
SF is poetry, most of it very bad, but all of it, like Coleridge’s Xanadu, using language to create impossible images in the reader’s mindseye. I should quote Panshin to explain what Heinlein did in 1939-41 that laid the essential ground for all the better writers to follow. But just look at his stories of the period and compare them to Verne, Wells, Stapledon, EE Smith, Campbell and you might see how important he was. And he hadn’t even reached his peak.
July 8, 2008 at 1:05 pm
Walt
Dear God, I have not been a follower of yours long, but please let neocynic’s comment become true…
July 8, 2008 at 1:07 pm
urbino
And the theme music could be one of those Viagra anthems.
Vance, that always creeps me out when it happens to me, too. Luckily, it hasn’t happened in a long time. I’m sure neuroscientists have something really interesting to say about that; they usually do.
July 8, 2008 at 1:09 pm
JP Stormcrow
Gads, replace The Moon is a Harsh Mistress with The Man Who Sold the Moon in both places it is mentioned in my comment. Jesus Christ. Mistress is much more same old, same old from Heinlein.
July 8, 2008 at 1:10 pm
Walt
Briefly, I felt so close to you, JP.
July 8, 2008 at 1:11 pm
bob mcmanus
I read Joyce and Mann because of PKD. PKD could write about sympathetic talking slimemolds grounded in empathetic human dramas because of Heinlein.
But y’all wanna laugh at the silly old man.
July 8, 2008 at 1:15 pm
neocynic
The funniest part would be the “virile female clones” of Abe Vigoda. I’m imagining cornsilk-blond wigs on innumerable Abes.
And now I’m blind. Inside my brain. How is this possible?
July 8, 2008 at 1:18 pm
Vance Maverick
According to Panshin, “Heinlein has written mysteries, and stories for teenage girls, both of these under unrevealed pen names.” I wonder if the veil of silence has been lifted? Perhaps <a href=”http://jezebel.com/tag/fine-lines/”Jezebel could investigate.
July 8, 2008 at 1:20 pm
Vance Maverick
Ach, make that Jezebel.
July 8, 2008 at 1:28 pm
JP Stormcrow
Heinlein has written mysteries, and stories for teenage girls, both of these under unrevealed pen names
Hmm, wonder if those are what this seemingly rather complete FAQ is referring to here:
Note: The two girls’ stories (“Cliff and the Calories” and “Poor Daddy”) were long believed to have been written under a pseudonym. They were not, and it is amusing/amazing that no one discovered them prior to Heinlein’s inclusion of the first in Expanded Universe.
It shows them as being published as R A Heinlein.
July 8, 2008 at 1:35 pm
eric
The lead? Abe Vigoda.
Heh.
July 8, 2008 at 1:47 pm
JP Stormcrow
And according to IMDB in production on two movies.
July 8, 2008 at 1:48 pm
SEK
Yesterday I read 300 pages of Thomas Disch SF criticism, and while Disch mostly agrees with the crowd, he did give Friday a good review.
I was going to mention Disch — esp. with regard to this — but it just made me sad.
What a very sad neo-Puritan pronouncement. But in my adolescence fucking wasn’t fatal.
I do believe this is the first time anyone’s accused me of being neo-Puritan. How does one frame a comment?
He sneers at Heinlein’s sexual philosophy through the entire piece
To get technical, I allude to it in the title then spring it on you in the third-to-last graph.
If you think I’m being a Puritan because I point that there’s oodles of sex in books beloved by adolescent males for what they claim to be purely philosophical reasons, you’re missing the point.
July 8, 2008 at 2:03 pm
urbino
What a very sad neo-Puritan pronouncement.
One wonders how a happy neo-Puritan would pronounce it.
July 8, 2008 at 2:04 pm
ben wolfson
I do believe this is the first time anyone’s accused me of being neo-Puritan.
It would explain your repelled reaction to those people innocently screwing in your office.
July 8, 2008 at 2:11 pm
urbino
SEK has a screw-in office? That’s cool! It must look like the Guggenheim.
(Sorry. Caffeine crash.)
July 8, 2008 at 2:16 pm
neocynic
I just posted a picture at my blog to illustrate the implications of Giblets’s vision. And then my interpretation thereof.
I’m sorry.
July 8, 2008 at 2:22 pm
Giblets
Great! Giblets will shop it to ILM.
July 8, 2008 at 2:28 pm
Rich Puchalsky
“I was going to mention Disch […]”
I suppose that most people here already know this, but Disch died just a few days ago. In sad circumstances.
July 8, 2008 at 2:37 pm
bob mcmanus
The book I read yesterday was On SF, 2005 which seems, from the ToC, to share content with Dreams, but not completely. I am a little confused.
Still reading the Panshin, which I have probably read before, but don’t remember. In further defense of Heinlein, Henry at CT is asking for suggestions for books on American politics. If we look at American novels about process, politics, revolution, ideology, there are famously very few good ones written after WWII. Okay, maybe a lot, Vidal, Robert Stone…
But anyway, there are so many SF novels and stories that have political main themes or subtexts (world building, how does a matriarchy work, etc) that it is hard to imagine the genre without it.
There are certainly other antecedents for imaginative political fiction, but Erewhon and Brave New World are not as readable and entertaining as Pohl & Kornbluth or Banks or (cast of thousands).
That’s because of Heinlein. Just give it up. He is a giant of the century.
PS:My guess is that Henry would rather read Caro or Perlstein than Camp Concentration and 334 on the 60s. He is wrong.
July 8, 2008 at 2:47 pm
urbino
Speaking of Perlstein, a post reviewing Nixonland wouldn’t go amiss, O, Historical Hosts.
July 8, 2008 at 2:59 pm
bob mcmanus
Visiting Robert’s blog, I suddenly don’t want to argue Heinlein, here, with someone who has allies like Roberts. My reputation and credibility could get damaged.
Heinlein. ick.
July 8, 2008 at 3:17 pm
ac
Speaking of Perlstein, a post reviewing Nixonland wouldn’t go amiss, O, Historical Hosts.
I was thinking the same thing.
July 8, 2008 at 3:27 pm
Josh
Speaking of Perlstein, a post reviewing Nixonland wouldn’t go amiss
It’s awesome and you should go read it right now. What more do you need?
July 8, 2008 at 3:30 pm
urbino
Some details about why it’s awesome, so I can talk about it without having to read it. Obviously.
July 8, 2008 at 3:33 pm
SEK
Visiting Robert’s blog, I suddenly don’t want to argue Heinlein, here, with someone who has allies like Roberts. My reputation and credibility could get damaged.
You hate The Valve, bob. Now tell me something I don’t know.
July 8, 2008 at 3:58 pm
Rich Puchalsky
Assuming that he means Roberts’ blog instead of Robert’s blog, how would you know which one? He has five, if you include the date-stamped feed on his website.
But Adam Roberts has always said that Heinlein is a great writer (at least for some of his early-to-mid work) so I don’t know what bob is worried about.
July 8, 2008 at 4:37 pm
bob mcmanus
so I don’t know what bob is worried about.
Oh, the importance of Heinlein to post-WWII American speculative political fiction. Peter Nichols devotes a full page before he even gets to genre material.
1) Genre vs non-genre. Is It Can’t Happen Here “SF?” There were shelves of speculative political fiction written in the 20s & 30s (and after) and Roberts might want to expropriate it as apparently Nichols does. I am a genre guy, and consider the genre superior, at its best, to what is outside the genre. Roth sucked, and letting him in will ruin the neighborhood.
2) John Campbell. I was trying to remember for instance how political, in the sense of how do we get together to solve this problem, The Black Star Passes is. It is hard to separate the influences on genre of Heinlein and Campbell in 39-42.
3) What is “political fiction” anyway? Is Camp Concentration a political novel? Exactly how did early & mid Heinlein add politics to his fiction in a less obstrusive way (sometimes) that made say Left Hand of Darkness and Triton possible?
Long and hard arguments, for which I am underqualified.
July 8, 2008 at 4:38 pm
Summer
Rich Puchalsky: “Older guy sleeping with lots of younger women while no older woman gets to sleep with lots of younger guys is just a repeated accident of Heinlein’s books”
Erm, what? Take another read through, oh, To Sail Beyond The Sunset, or perhaps The Number of the Beast. Both books do feature older women sleeping with younger men. Not as a central theme of the story, mind you, but then again, neither was sex between people of different ages the central theme of Stranger In A Strange Land.
And for the record, I’m female, in my mid-forties, politically liberal/progressive/left (I came here via Making Light, which probably tells you something) and think the Vietnam war was a huge mistake (though obviously I was rather young when it was actually in progress). I might well have clashed with RAH over political philosophies and any number of other things, had I been afforded the opportunity to discuss anything with him at all, but I can certainly appreciate a good yarn when I read one.
July 8, 2008 at 4:39 pm
Summer
And I wish there was a preview function here so I could have been reminded to close that damn HTML tag. Grrr.
July 8, 2008 at 4:46 pm
neocynic
I’m glad I never make mistakes like that . . .
What?
July 8, 2008 at 5:01 pm
bob mcmanus
3b would be my thesis, that Heinlein improved/created? the craft of using world-building (speculative socio-politics) as background to related but partially independent narratives, thereby creating SF as we know it today, beyond the nonsense of EE Smith and the tedium of Bellamy. For SEK, I know of Sea Wolf, Iron Heel, & Martin Eden. They only show how hard it is to maintain an entertaining balance.
July 8, 2008 at 8:32 pm
Henry
??? Given that I both (a) did a post yesterday talking about how much I loved Disch’s novels, and (b) specifically said in the post in question that I was interested in good novels as well as non-fiction, I dunno where this is coming from …
July 8, 2008 at 9:05 pm
urbino
His name is bob mcmanus.
His name is bob mcmanus.
His name is bob mcmanus.
July 8, 2008 at 9:27 pm
bob mcmanus
I dunno where this is coming from
Okay, I’ll play, it’s part of my job description. I thought your interest was professional, searching for topics and sources for the next book or paper. Now I suppose I could imagine a peer-reviewed paper using Delany, Dick, and Disch etc as primary or secondary sources being accepted by a history or political science journal or department, but it is quite a stretch.
Perlstein I presumed used Abbie Hoffman (and Chicago Seven?) because there were the kind of primary sources (there were 375 articles in 456 newspapers saying blah blah) that are considered professionally responsible, acceptable.
Now the SF New Wave’s rise & fall 65-75, along with the similar and related arcs in music and movies is a part of the story, but a hard one to connect to the politics in a tight and defensible thesis.
Go for it, since you say your sympathetic to the idea. I look forward to reading the work.
July 9, 2008 at 12:14 am
Nebris
SEK, Your post is a simple hatch job, starting with a title drawn from a John W. Campbell quote. Heinlein and Campbell parted acrimoniously because Campbell was, to put it plainly, a controlling prick and Heinlein ‘dumped’ him because of that.
The tenuous linkage to Rand, a narcissistic psychopath, is a reach to say the least. Heinlein was certainly bombastic and opinionated, but he never got close to Rand’s hated of just about everybody and everything. And he never manipulated the people in his personal life with anything like to Rand’s evil machinations.
The rest of your rant [which it clearly is] seems lifted from Mr. Robert’s book of Sci-Fi criticism, which no one on Amazon seemed to have enough interest in to bother reviewing. Is that ad hominem? Yeah, pretty much, but I’m just following the path you’ve laid out in that regard.
The entire tone here positively drips with personal enmity toward Heinlein, who probably could have gotten as much young pussy as Charles Bukowski. That’s why I wondered if you fucked at all. You seem rather frustrated.
July 9, 2008 at 12:18 am
urbino
Well that was plainly said.
July 9, 2008 at 3:00 am
Nebris
Well that was plainly said.
Being ‘clever’ is tricky business, so I shot from the hip.
I wish this joint had an editing function. The “like to Rand’s evil” and “Mr. Robert’s” typos are bugging the shit outta me.
July 9, 2008 at 7:08 am
Henry
OK – it sounds like you misunderstood my post. I wasn’t looking for help with a new academic project; instead, I was saying that now I was finished with one, I wanted good reading recommendations to fill in the vast gaping holes in my knowledge of US history, politics etc. Hence, Disch etc would work very well (and in any event, I have plugged SF authors like Ken McLeod in ostensibly dry pieces of political theory, as well as writing a forthcoming book chapter on the political science of China Mieville, so there you go …)
July 9, 2008 at 7:19 am
Rich Puchalsky
“And he never manipulated the people in his personal life with anything like to Rand’s evil machinations.”
Heinlein once loaned PKD a fairly substantial sum of money to tide him over past some crisis, which PKD was quite grateful for. Given that PKD is the secular saint of contemporary haute SF readership, I don’t think that people would dismiss Heinlein as a personal devil.
July 9, 2008 at 8:50 am
bob mcmanus
Heinlein also gave Sturgeon 26 story ideas and a check.
As far as the break with Campbell, Panshin (linked above) has a lengthy discussion of the economics of genre writing. Post-WWII Heinlein could sell stories to Boys Life and the Saturday Evening Post at higher word rates, and the “juveniles” novel contract with Scribner’s gave him financial security for the rest of his life. My guess is that, with the tougher magazine competition of the early 50s, this is part of the reason Campbell felt betrayed by Heinlein’s abandonment of the short story/serialization format.
July 9, 2008 at 8:55 am
Martin Wisse
SEK didn’t say anything that isn’t true (though I would reverse the importance of Rand and Heinlein myself): scratch an American libertarian and you’ll find a Heinlein reader underneath.
The great secret behind Heinlein’s succes even when his writing became increasingly awful is that the man could sell shit for shinola better than any other writer.
July 9, 2008 at 10:41 am
Nebris
SEK didn’t say anything that isn’t true
More like mean spirited half truths. The entire ‘essay’ is so overtly hostile I was compelled to give him a cyber-smack for being a brat.
scratch an American libertarian and you’ll find a Heinlein reader underneath.
Agreed. That said, I’ve met very few ‘American libertarians’ who have his sense of personal responsibility and honor. They’re almost all talk. But then I guess most folks are….
the man could sell shit for shinola better than any other writer
Which makes him The Great American that he was!!!
July 9, 2008 at 11:00 am
Josh
The entire ‘essay’ is so overtly hostile I was compelled to give him a cyber-smack for being a brat.
Oh noes! Someone said something mean about Robert Heinlein!
I have to say thank you, at least, for not putting on the fake-folksy dialect so many Heinlein fans seem compelled to use in conversations like this.
July 9, 2008 at 11:33 am
Nebris
@ Josh
Poor ol’ Bob gets such a bad rap from ‘lefty lit types’ that I felt at least one non-Neanderthal type should fight for him.
I will admit that Stranger in A Strange Land and Starship Troopers both had a profound effect upon my adolescence. But my real Sci-Fi heroes are Cordwainer Smith and Olaf Stapledon, who seem to have been forgotten by everybody, much to our collective loss.
July 9, 2008 at 11:48 am
Walt
Nebris, what the fuck is wrong with you? Heinlein is dead — he’s feelings won’t be hurt by anything Scott writes. Unless you’re Heinlein’s brother or something you have no standing to be such a ginormous asshole.
July 9, 2008 at 12:04 pm
Nebris
@ Walt
This is the Internet. We all have a God/dess Given Right to be as ginormous asshole as we so choose. SEK’s ‘essay’ above is a Prima Facie case for said Right.
July 9, 2008 at 12:09 pm
Nebris
PS @ Walt
I’m wondering why you seem so ‘butthurt’ [see: Offended, Aggrieved] about my comments. Seriously. One goes on-line and one takes ones chances. [see: “Get out of the kitchen”]
July 9, 2008 at 12:23 pm
Megan
SEK, I’m just curious. Which would you say that you hate more, sex or freedom? Am I maybe forgetting some third possibility, like literature?
July 9, 2008 at 12:33 pm
neocynic
The third possibility, Megan, is “America.” Scott, why do you hate America?
July 9, 2008 at 12:36 pm
Walt
SEK hates history most of all.
Nebris, I’m not actually new to this Internet thing. It’s just that the low level of discussion that the Internet can sustain actively irritates me. I know, God given right, blah, blah, blah, but have you achieved anything? You’ve irritated a bunch of total strangers, and convinced them you’re a big weirdo. Have you defended Heinlein at all? Does anyone have a higher opinion of Heinlein than before you commented? Bob has posted a detailed defense of Heinlein that has a chance of changing people’s opinions. You’ve done nothing except increase the amount of hostility in the world.
July 9, 2008 at 12:39 pm
SEK
Heinlein and Campbell parted acrimoniously because Campbell was, to put it plainly, a controlling prick and Heinlein ‘dumped’ him because of that.
Campbell may have been a prick, but that doesn’t mean he was wrong — and in this case, he clearly wasn’t.
The tenuous linkage to Rand, a narcissistic psychopath, is a reach to say the least.
Tenuous? Really? I mean, really? Because I can keep making this “tenuous” connection all day.
The rest of your rant [which it clearly is] seems lifted from Mr. Robert’s book of Sci-Fi criticism, which no one on Amazon seemed to have enough interest in to bother reviewing.
Yes, I clearly lifted my analysis from a book you haven’t read — because if you had, you’d know I didn’t lift it from Adam.
The entire ‘essay’ is so overtly hostile I was compelled to give him a cyber-smack for being a brat.
A “cyber-smack”? What is this, a warboard?
I will admit that Stranger in A Strange Land and Starship Troopers both had a profound effect upon my adolescence.
Mine too. Then, as happens, I grew up.
July 9, 2008 at 12:41 pm
SEK
Which would you say that you hate more, sex or freedom?
As should be obvious from my slagging of Stranger, the correct answer is (c) sexual freedom.
July 9, 2008 at 12:42 pm
Walt
To be fair, Scott, sometimes I’d like to put you over my cyber-knee, and give you such a cyber-spanking…
July 9, 2008 at 12:44 pm
ari
Live I’ve said before: troll musk. SEK has odd troll-baiting emanations.
July 9, 2008 at 12:53 pm
Nebris
SEK, you’re siting an Amazon list that labels Uncle Tom’s Cabin and Huck Finn as ‘libertarian novels’?!?! That does not even qualify as nail soup. Really, I expected a better riposte than that and I’m not snarking here. Honestly, I’m quite flabbergasted.
July 9, 2008 at 12:59 pm
Nebris
RE: J Neil Schulman and Top Ten Libertarian Novels
The guy is a National Review loser who thinks OJ is innocent. This is a credible source? Feh!
July 9, 2008 at 1:00 pm
SEK
SEK, you’re siting an Amazon list that labels Uncle Tom’s Cabin and Huck Finn as ‘libertarian novels’?
I’m demonstrating a self-selecting affinity for certain novels — Rand, Heinlein, L. Neil Smith, &c. — and I could pull up about a thousand more links from a search for “libertarian novels,” but to be frank, that would be a chore.
July 9, 2008 at 1:06 pm
Nebris
Campbell may have been a prick, but that doesn’t mean he was wrong — and in this case, he clearly wasn’t.
C’mon, dood, this ‘yes it is/no it isn’t’. Refute the point.
Then, as happens, I grew up.
Into a smug semi-adolescent academic? I stand by my characterization of your ‘essay’ as a ‘hostile rant’ fueled by personal frustration, not serious criticism. Your siting of Schulman underscores the sloppiness of your ‘argument’.
July 9, 2008 at 1:16 pm
Walt
Ari has the right idea. I blame you, Scott. You did this to us.
July 9, 2008 at 1:21 pm
Vance Maverick
Wow, this really is a warboard. They don’t call it the Edge of the West for nothing!
July 9, 2008 at 1:21 pm
Nebris
You’ve done nothing except increase the amount of hostility in the world.
Walt, baby, this is just two very opinionated fellas tossing some barbs back and forth. Get a grip. It ain’t that serious. Sheesh…
July 9, 2008 at 1:25 pm
SEK
C’mon, dood, this ‘yes it is/no it isn’t’. Refute the point.
Which would be … ? Seriously, you want me to refute the fact that Campbell was a bastard? That’d be silly, because he was.
Into a smug semi-adolescent academic? I stand by my characterization of your ‘essay’ as a ‘hostile rant’ fueled by personal frustration, not serious criticism. Your siting of Schulman underscores the sloppiness of your ‘argument’.
My citing of the second of the four hundred million billion lists of best libertarian fiction that include both Rand and Heinlein underscores nothing more than the fact that I didn’t feel like combing through the four hundred million billion lists of best libertarian fiction to make a point you yourself concede up-thread. Since you admit that most libertarians are Heinlein readers, the only way you don’t agree with me vis-a-vis the Rand/Heinlein/libertarian connection is if you deny Rand is a libertarian favorite — and I can’t see you making that particular argument in good faith.
Also, as long as you’ve got me on the couch, care to tell me what “personal frustration” it is I’m working out in this post?
July 9, 2008 at 1:27 pm
Walt
I take my outlets for procrastination very seriously indeed. It’s my work that I don’t take seriously.
July 9, 2008 at 1:30 pm
Adam Roberts
“…smug semi-adolescent academic? I stand by my characterization of your ‘essay’ as a ‘hostile rant’ … not serious criticism. Your siting of Schulman underscores the sloppiness…
That’s some sibilance you got going on there in that passage. It almost sounds like you’re … hissing.
SEK: “As should be obvious from my slagging of Stranger, the correct answer is (c) sexual freedom.”
This reinforces my belief that, despite his accident of birth, SEK is actually an Englishman. You should come over here, Scott. We all hate sex and freedom in England, and sexual freedom most of all. Well, I say hate; I actually mean ‘are rendered uncomfortable by’. But it amounts to the same thing.
July 9, 2008 at 1:36 pm
eric
We all hate sex and freedom in England, and sexual freedom most of all.
Oh please. I’ve watched British television, and your alleged hatred of sexual freedom includes the friendly depiction of pansexual cross-racial relationships on state-funded broadcasting’s most-watched family-hour program. Try that in the U.S. and see how far you get.
July 9, 2008 at 1:38 pm
Nebris
Which would be … ?
That Campbell’s statement was based upon personal enmity, not actual fact. I’ll drop that one because it is pretty ‘yes it is/no it isn’t’ unless we devote time and effort that we both can spend better elsewhere.
the four hundred million billion lists of best libertarian fiction
Libertarians are delusional fruit cakes. Not the most profound of political arguments, but I suspect it’s one thing we both agree upon.
Therefor I dismiss their collective opinions on ‘literature’ as irrelevant, hence the Rand/Heinlein connection is bogus.
care to tell me what “personal frustration” it is I’m working out in this post?
I don’t want to get that mean. =) [sorry, had to give in to my emoticon addiction]
July 9, 2008 at 1:39 pm
Adam Roberts
We all watch that stuff, it’s true, but only because the cultural ubiquity of la vice anglaise means that we enjoy being made to feel uncomfortable.
By the way: ‘oh please’ as an opening gambit? Very British.
July 9, 2008 at 1:39 pm
Nebris
It almost sounds like you’re … hissing.
Beautiful…and on the money.
July 9, 2008 at 1:41 pm
Walt
I think there’s something wrong with my intertubes.
July 9, 2008 at 1:42 pm
eric
By the way: ‘oh please’ as an opening gambit? Very British.
I came by it more or less honestly, like my watching of British television.
July 9, 2008 at 1:42 pm
Nebris
I take my outlets for procrastination very seriously indeed.
Well, then, type away, my friend.
I have a half dozen short stories and two novels that I am furiously avoiding with all this blather. [all Sci-Fi…yes, ‘how shocking!’]
July 9, 2008 at 1:43 pm
Nebris
‘oh please’ as an opening gambit?
I picked it up from me mum. Honestly.
July 9, 2008 at 1:44 pm
Walt
Scott loves sci-fi. It’s scandalous. You and he should be lovers. Hey wait, that was your plan all along…
July 9, 2008 at 1:52 pm
Nebris
You and he should be lovers.
Is he a bottom? *wink*
July 9, 2008 at 1:55 pm
Walt
Well, he does seem to bring out the top in everyone else.
July 9, 2008 at 1:57 pm
Nebris
bring out the top
There ya go…said in my best Dennis Weaver
July 9, 2008 at 2:00 pm
Nebris
Okay, this is sliding into prurience [all puns intended] and I usually get my prurience from on-line porn and fetish communities. I should really get back work…or at least take a nap.
But not worry, I’ll be back. [that pun was automatic…honest]
July 9, 2008 at 2:01 pm
Nebris
Damn! “But not to worry…”
Guys, we need an edit function!
July 9, 2008 at 2:14 pm
neocynic
My head. It just asplode.
July 9, 2008 at 2:25 pm
SEK
You should come over here, Scott.
As soon as I find money and a job, I will come visit you in the land of sexual repression, Adam.
That Campbell’s statement was based upon personal enmity, not actual fact.
They were still friends at the time he wrote this, having reconnected after a five hiatus. Plus, it’s verifiable — there is a lot of plot-unnecessary copulating in Heinlein novels:
&c.
Therefore I dismiss their collective opinions on ‘literature’ as irrelevant, hence the Rand/Heinlein connection is bogus.
This bar is so low I’m liable to trip over it:
From Reason. As is this. And all of these.
July 9, 2008 at 2:40 pm
Walt
The truth can now be told. This was all an elaborate assassination attempt on neocynic. When my handler told me the plan, I thought it had a low probability of success, but that’s why they plan the assassinations, and I just carry them out.
July 9, 2008 at 2:47 pm
Digest O’Crap II: The Electric Boogaloo « Blurred Productions
[…] Brilliance, hilarious brilliance. […]
July 9, 2008 at 2:49 pm
bitchphd
Stranger was a major element in starting the modern polyamory movement.
That particular oversight makes all your ‘ick’ noise sound even more juvenile.
I’m the actual only person who said the word “ick.” I also wager that I’m the only person here who has an open relationship.
I think the key to why that’s the case might be here:
He sneers at Heinlein’s sexual philosophy through the entire piece; “this day in 1907 saw the birth of an author whose adolescent philosophy was disseminated in books chock-a-block with puerile male sex fantasies”.
See, “puerile male sex fantasies” /= sex. Or even a defensible sexual philosophy. Sorry.
July 9, 2008 at 3:13 pm
neocynic
Walt. Thank you for explaining things to my now headless, but inexplicably-able-to-type corpse. It becomes clear.
July 9, 2008 at 4:08 pm
ben wolfson
By the way: ‘oh please’ as an opening gambit? Very British.
Oh please.
July 9, 2008 at 8:06 pm
bob mcmanus
As a literary influence on the emerging libertarian movement, Heinlein was second only to Rand.
Hell, I would say he was first. The importance of those brilliant Scribner’s juveniles, never out of print, and suffused with Heinlein’s philosophy, cannot be overestimated.
I have tried to avoid discussing the politics of Heinlein in this thread, and as I said Stranger , Mi>Glory Road , and especially Farnham’s Freehold were more than I could take, and ended my reading. He was elitist and authoritarian in his libertarianism.
And I have long realized my left libertarian anarcho-syndicalist whatever is incomprehensible and unwelcome to the fanatical worshippers of the STATE that are the left blogosphere.
But there is a place where my vision of egalitarian communities collides with some suspicion that a leader or dominant personality or heirarchy will always arise (Mosca, Pareto), and there I still have some empathy with Heinlein. I just hate it. Hate it hard.
Which may explain a little of my antipathy to Obama, a walking demonstration of the truth of classical elitist pessimism.
July 9, 2008 at 8:13 pm
bob mcmanus
“The people must be ruled” = authoritarian
“The people will be ruled” = libertarian pessimism
“The people will rule themselves.” In your dreams
July 9, 2008 at 9:24 pm
Rich Puchalsky
“left libertarian anarcho-syndicalist whatever”
Who are the left-libertarian anarcho-(socialist, at least) SF writers? Iain Banks, first. Arguably Michael Moorcock. Alasdair Gray? I forget whether he’s an anarchist. China Mieville is left, but probably not anarchist enough. Ken MacLeod always struck me as being a bit right-libertarian somehow, but I think he’s left-libertarian.
British SF has a much more robust tradition and body of currently writing good writers for that kind of thing.
July 9, 2008 at 9:33 pm
Nebris
@ bitchphd
I’m in a poly relationship.
July 9, 2008 at 9:42 pm
Nebris
SEK
“Man wakes up. Thinks to himself, before I get on this spaceship to kill nasty aliens, I fancy a fuck. But who is available? Three big-breasted bisexual beauties magically appear.
“Would any of you fancy a fuck?”
“No,” they reply, “we all would.”
Group sex ensues.”
Umm…ya better stick to your day job, sir.
I love Bob’s quote, “I’m so much a libertarian that I have no use for the whole libertarian movement.” That goes back to “Libertarians are delusional fruit cakes.” The philosophy fails utterly in the face of Corporate Fascism….but that’s a can of worms I shall steer away from right now.
What actually warms my mad little heart is that the Reason article confirms what I love about the man and pretty much pisses upon your dismissive snarkage e.g. “The man was brilliant and changed the world for the better”. Thanks, pal.
July 9, 2008 at 9:46 pm
Nebris
Heinlein is the embodiment of the Spirit of Coyote; “a paradoxical mixture of wise sage and foolish prankster”. One can argue over that forever and come up empty.
And with that, I depart….
July 9, 2008 at 11:44 pm
urbino
a forthcoming book chapter on the political science of China Mieville
Does this book have a name, Henry? I’ve a friend who reads Mieville and would be interested.
July 10, 2008 at 12:04 am
bitchphd
I’m in a poly relationship.
Good for you. You’re wrong about Heinlein, though, and about whether or not SEK’s reaction to him is prudish.
July 10, 2008 at 2:23 am
Keir
Culturally, almost all the Scottish SF writers mentioned above are radical socialists of one stripe or another, which is, I think, the important thing. They’re not left-libertarians; they’re radical socialists who reject state-capitalism.
Thus do I cut the Gordian Knot of MacLeod, who veers between Maoism, Stalinism, Trotskyism, Fabianism, and occasional attacks of the Californian Ideology in a political sense, but always remains culturally safely ensconced in the radical Scottish socialist tradition.
Gray’s certainly not an anarchist, and I’d be quite suspicious about putting Banks as an anarchist as well.
July 10, 2008 at 5:24 am
Rich Puchalsky
They’re all Scottish SF writers? It’s a serious question — is there something about the specifically Scottish socialist tradition that writers not born in Scotland would be immersed in?
Banks may or may not personally be an anarchist, but given that he’s written a popular, well-written, and long-running series featuring the anarcho-socialist Culture, I think that he qualifies as writer of anarcho-socialist SF.
Also, did I miss anyone? I’m always looking for more of these sort of writers.
July 10, 2008 at 1:02 pm
tpb
I am reading Dennis Showalter’s “Little Man, What Now? Der Stuermer in the Weimar Republic” and on page 113, after detailing one of Streicher’s attacks on a Jewish business, in this instance for giving away free paint because it was a scam designed to fool good Germans into buying more paint, Showalter writes that this argument “prefigur[ed] Robert Heinlein in its insistence that there was no such thing as a free paint job . . . ” Not sure what this means, but
July 10, 2008 at 1:12 pm
j.s.nelson
I wonder if Nebris really departed?
Anyway, (s(doubtful))he seems like a person who was personally affected by Heinlein’s sexual philosophy (not so much the libertarianism) and thus takes a great deal of offense when it’s described as puerile. Kind of missed the point that Scott isn’t objecting to the sex in Heinlein, nor even necessarily the kinds of sex or sexual relationship but instead the fact that it’s used essentially as “fan service”.
The only Heinlein book I ever finished was I Will Fear No Evil which I picked up when I was a preteen, honestly looking for an interesting book about gender and sexuality, and even then I put it down thinking that it was more preoccupied with having the main character fuck everyone than it was with actually saying anything.
July 10, 2008 at 1:53 pm
SEK
Showalter writes that this argument “prefigur[ed] Robert Heinlein in its insistence that there was no such thing as a free paint job . . . ” Not sure what this means, but
Can’t tell if you lost something here or just dropped a
commaperiod, but the answer’s from The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, in which Heinlein popularized the phrase TANSTAAFL, or “there’s no such thing as a free lunch.”July 10, 2008 at 2:21 pm
tpb
“Can’t tell if you lost something”
My youthful good looks and capacity for moral outrage, thanks for asking.
July 10, 2008 at 3:39 pm
tpb
Dang, but this is annoying, I read the whole thread and managed not to remember a single line from RAH’s works and now, thanks to TANSTAAFL, the whole of that dopey book is lodged foremost in the brain and, making matters worse, the line from the Scandahoovian “Send us hors tausends and tausends, and I’ll marry em I betcha” repeats over and over in the persona of the aunt from the film version of I Remember Moma who kept threatening to yump in the bay, which is just weird howsoever properly polyamourous.
Re punctuation, a comma perhaps as it is a dependent clause although my larger point, to the extent that there was one and there wasn’t really, was odd juxtaposition Julius Streicher and Heinlein.
July 10, 2008 at 4:33 pm
Keir
Banks, Gray, and MacLeod are Scottish, while the rest aren’t.
Charles Stross is another Scottish resident who also plays with anarchism and socialism in some of his works.
I think that Scotland produces good socialist writers because (a) Alasdair Gray, and (b) Scotland has been historically quite left wing, especially the industrial belt from Strathclyde through to Fife*, so most Scottish writers are leftish anyway.
July 10, 2008 at 7:27 pm
Nebris
I wonder if Nebris really departed?
Yes.
October 8, 2008 at 7:42 pm
“This Nicholas Sandworm anon let flee a fart, as gret as it hadde ben a thundir dent.” « The Edge of the American West
[…] time I am lifting from Adam Robert’s excellent History of Science Fiction, in which he claims “one of the […]