SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the Pay-it-Forward-/-Grok-/-TANSTAAFL dept.
The Joplin Globe reports that Missouri lawmakers have inducted science fiction writer Robert Heinlein to the Hall of Famous Missourians to a cheering crowd of fans who call themselves "Heinlein's children."
State Rep. T.J. Berry says Heinlein encouraged others to "strive for the stars, for the moon" and "for what's next." Donors to the Heinlein Society and the Heinlein Prize Trust paid for a bronze bust of Heinlein, which will be displayed in the House Chamber at the Capitol where it will join 45 other Missourians honored with busts in the hall including Mark Twain, Dred Scott and Ginger Rogers, as well as more controversial Missourians such as Rush Limbaugh.
"Our devotion to this man must seem odd to those outside of the science fiction field, with spaceships and ray guns and bug-eyed monsters," Heinlein Society President Keith Kato said. "But to Heinlein's children, the writing was only the beginning of doing."
(Score: 2, Disagree) by Gravis on Thursday August 25 2016, @05:27AM
Umm... in his later years his writing turned anti-semitic which is what "Starship Troopers" is about, the Nazis wiping out the Jews. Not sure why they are honoring Rush Limbaugh but it must be related to his political works of fiction.
(Score: 5, Informative) by archfeld on Thursday August 25 2016, @05:35AM
I realize you have a right to an opinion but I don't see any anti-Semitism in starship trooper, but rather a satirical story about the world under a dominating Federal government that controlled all aspects of life. Want to know more... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_A._Heinlein [wikipedia.org]
'Heinlein decisively ended his juvenile novels with Starship Troopers (1959), a controversial work and his personal riposte to leftists calling for President Dwight D. Eisenhower to stop nuclear testing in 1958. "The "Patrick Henry" ad shocked 'em," he wrote many years later. "Starship Troopers outraged 'em."[44] Starship Troopers is a coming-of-age story about duty, citizenship, and the role of the military in society.[45] The book portrays a society in which suffrage is earned by demonstrated willingness to place society's interests before one's own, at least for a short time and often under onerous circumstances, in government service; in the case of the protagonist, this was military service.'
For the NSA : Explosives, guns, assassination, conspiracy, primers, detonators, initiators, main charge, nuclear charge
(Score: 2) by linkdude64 on Friday August 26 2016, @01:14AM
Watch this Israeli-Jewish made documentary about the ADL and a lot of things will start to make sense about the Jewish perspective.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XNWF9CeoZdE [youtube.com]
(Score: 2) by jelizondo on Thursday August 25 2016, @05:46AM
They had to choose between Limbaugh and a black man... Rush won unanimously.
...ducks...
...runs...
(Score: 2) by fleg on Thursday August 25 2016, @06:10AM
"anti-semitic" thats news to me. got a reference? a quick google isnt showing me much.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by aristarchus on Thursday August 25 2016, @06:54AM
Takes a bit. Let us see. Hmmmm. Bugs. Our enemy, trashed Rio, bro! But that is the deal, bugs, bug minds, bug ass-blasters, the only thing the understand is superior firepower! Hmm, just like Nazis? Oh, no, they were white, just deranged. Maybe the Japanese, whom some American soldiers described as ants, bugs trying to overwhelm Allied positions. Only option, use the nuke. Does any of this sound familiar? Kind of Racist WWII American Familiar? Oh, how quickly the innocent forget the crimes they are guilty of, on both sides of a conflict. Dougie Howser is a dead give away! As an SS officer? Whose side are you on?
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Thursday August 25 2016, @07:55AM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 3, Insightful) by NotSanguine on Thursday August 25 2016, @09:10AM
Oh, but who are the bad guys? I've always seen it as a satirical criticism of the system more than of the bugs. So if it is referring to nazis/jews (which it isn't particularly, for reasons you seem to touch on) then it's anti-nazi.
I don't know about that. I think Heinlein just wanted to bang on about the importance of an electorate who want governance for the common good, (timely now, if you ask me) personal responsibility, and poke those kinder, gentler (don't beat your kids, "we ain't gonna study war no more"), pop-psychology do-gooders in the eye.
What's more, if the Arachnids had any real Earth analog, it would have been China and the USSR (Starship Troopers was published in 1959, at the height of the cold war).
More than anything else, Starship Troopers was a thinly-veiled attempt to glorify the military. Hell, when I was a kid, Starship Troopers made me want to join the Marines when I was old enough. Thankfully, I saw the light by the time I was eighteen.
But then, that's not so surprising, since Heinlein was an Annapolis graduate and a career Navy man.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Thursday August 25 2016, @10:44AM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 25 2016, @03:51PM
It's one of those movie adaptations where the movie is good, the book is good, but they have little to do with each other except superficial details (other examples that come to mind are What Dreams May Come or I Am Legend's latest film attempt).
If you haven't seen it yet, Starship Troopers 3: Marauder is worth a watch. It's not Verhoeven, but it does a good enough job capturing the original's tone.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Thursday August 25 2016, @07:04PM
The film, as I and others noted, bears only a cosmetic resemblance to the novel.
In fact, I found the movie almost nauseating.
Given that as a reader, I'm the director of my own internal movie, whereas, movie adaptations generally reflect the prejudices and vision of the screenwriters and director.
Also, such adaptations of novels I've read tend (IMHO) to be quite deficient, since the format doesn't allow for much internal dialogue and usually rip out huge sections which strongly inform the storytelling. In some cases, like Starship Troopers the movie bears little resemblance to the novel.
Interestingly, the 1994 adaptation [wikipedia.org] of The Puppet Masters [wikipedia.org] was relatively true to the novel.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Friday August 26 2016, @09:29AM
I suspect I'd not get more than 10 pages into the book, if even that much - I'm way too visually stimulated, I want to be pamperred by the full experience created at the hands of professionals, I'm not prepared to invest the effort into creating my own sights and sounds; if I'm doing that, I may as well do the storyline too (and I am a lucid dreamer who can often control and direct my own dreams, so this is sometimes a reality).
Not personally appreciating a book doesn't mean that I don't respect Heinlein for his influence in the field, and I am happy that he's being rewarded by this memorial. Artists (from all of the creative fields, from music to visual arts, to literature) are too often under-appreciated. Where's Dick's one? Come on, Illinois, up your game!
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Saturday August 27 2016, @07:36AM
I suspect I'd not get more than 10 pages into the book, if even that much - I'm way too visually stimulated, I want to be pamperred by the full experience created at the hands of professionals, I'm not prepared to invest the effort into creating my own sights and sounds; if I'm doing that, I may as well do the storyline too (and I am a lucid dreamer who can often control and direct my own dreams, so this is sometimes a reality).
Different strokes for different folks. By all means, don't read the novel. More for me! :)
Not personally appreciating a book doesn't mean that I don't respect Heinlein for his influence in the field,
I never even considered that you were dissing Heinlein. But now that you bring it up, I considered it, and I see no reason to think you were disrespecting anyone about anything.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Saturday August 27 2016, @02:32PM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by deadstick on Thursday August 25 2016, @01:10PM
since Heinlein was an Annapolis graduate and a career Navy man
Annapolis yes, career no. Tuberculosis ended his Navy service after five years.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Thursday August 25 2016, @06:36PM
Yes, you're right. I forgot about that. My mistake.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by fleg on Thursday August 25 2016, @08:55AM
>Dougie Howser is a dead give away! As an SS officer?
yeah but that was the movie, which heinlein being dead, had no say in.
>Whose side are you on?
none, just seeking information. i've read a lot of heinlein including his letters in grumbles from the grave and i got no sense of antisemitism.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Thursday August 25 2016, @09:29AM
I'd point out that the movie [wikipedia.org] bore only a passing resemblance to the novel [wikipedia.org], mostly in the name, the names of some characters and the enemy.
Just about everything that made the novel a good read was cleansed from the movie. And the movie was, predictably, awful.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by Capt. Obvious on Thursday August 25 2016, @09:27AM
In the book, nukes are used far more liberally, including against civilian populations. They are not a last resort, but a personal weapon every human soldier was equipped with
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Thursday August 25 2016, @09:45AM
In the book, nukes are used far more liberally, including against civilian populations. They are not a last resort, but a personal weapon every human soldier was equipped with
Those aren't the nukes you think they are:
Note that the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs were 7-10 times more powerful than any "personal weapon every human soldier was equipped with." What's more, I don't have a specific reference, but Heinlein makes it clear that not everyone was allowed to carry even those small tactical nukes.
So it's a cool story, bro. It would be cooler if it was actually part of the novel.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 1) by ewk on Thursday August 25 2016, @10:50AM
There have been times/situations when a personal weapon with even 10 times less the power of a Hiroshima/Nagasaki [whichever was the smallest] would have been handy...
Hell, I'd even settle for 100 times less! :-)
I don't always react, but when I do, I do it on SoylentNews
(Score: 2) by martyb on Thursday August 25 2016, @06:57PM
I somehow missed reading Starship Troopers -- it's going on my "gotta read it" list right now.
As for your bolded text "two Kilotons nominal yield", I'd like to point out just how massive a bomb that is. I grew up in the era of A-Bomb and H-Bomb testing and so I grew used to the use of the terms: kiloton and megaton. Upon reflection, those are huge units of measure!
A single stick of dynamite is something I do NOT want to be near when it goes off.
One (short) ton of TNT is 2,000 pounds. So, "two kilotons nominal yield" is, effectively, two-thousand tons, i.e. 4,000,000 pounds (approximately 1,800,000 kg) of TNT!
Going one more step, according to Wikipedia, TNT [wikipedia.org] has a density of 1.654 g/cm^3. A rough calculation tells me that is a cube of TNT more than 10 meters on each side.
That's just 2 kiloton; the Tsar Bomba [wikipedia.org] was estimated at 50 megaton:
That just totally boggles my mind.
Wit is intellect, dancing.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Thursday August 25 2016, @07:22PM
Yes, 2 Kilotons of TNT is a big blast. It would be (leaving aside any radiation/fallout issues) about 2/3 he size of The Halifax Explosion [wikipedia.org] in 1917.
This article [wikipedia.org] gives a good overview of the destructive power of varying amounts of TNT equivalents -- with examples.
My point to GP was not that two kilotons was *small*, but rather that the weapons described in the novel aren't what we would normally think of when someone mentioned "nuclear weapons," but rather something with enormously less destructive capability than what folks generally think about when someone uses that term [wikipedia.org].
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by martyb on Thursday August 25 2016, @08:08PM
Thanks for the link! Apparently, I made a mistake in my assumption that a kiloton was 2,000 pounds of TNT; apparently, from your link [wikipedia.org], it's 1,000 kg, or closer to 2,200 pounds. Later on that page, they state: "A kiloton of TNT can be visualized as a cube of TNT 8.46 metres (27.8 ft) on a side." Learned something new today — thanks again!
Wit is intellect, dancing.
(Score: 2) by Capt. Obvious on Saturday August 27 2016, @07:15AM
And each individual soldier had a dozen of them. So, you know, enough to level a city plus.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Saturday August 27 2016, @07:31AM
And each individual soldier had a dozen of them. So, you know, enough to level a city plus.
Please provide a reference for that in the novel. I don't recall that at all. IIRC, different suits (marauder, scout, command) had different levels of armor and armaments. Also, I don't recall anyone having more than a couple of those rockets. That's not to say they weren't heavily armed.
I'm really not sure what difference it makes. Given that it's fiction and that it was written during a time when "duck and cover" was considered adequate protection against nuclear weapons, not to mention that just about everyone was pretty sure they were about to be vaporized or die a slow, painful death from radiation poisoning Any Day Now™, I don't really see what the big deal is. Historical context is important, as is the (and I'll repeat it) fictional setting.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 25 2016, @02:21PM
It sounds like you have seen the movie, not read the book.
This kind of commentary is like someone seeing Judge Dredd with Stallone and deciding that the comic book wasnt a tale of authoritarianism and a parody of our society.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 25 2016, @10:25AM
Nah, the guy was a military brat that never got to see actual combat. And thus he continually fawned over rigid chains of command etc. Damn it, he laid out his house like it was the deck of a navy ship.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday August 25 2016, @06:49PM
And there's this letter [tor.com] of Heinlein written on or prior to 1948:
I have deliberately selected a boy of Scotch-English pioneer ancestry, a boy whose father is a German immigrant, and a boy who is American Jewish. Having selected this diverse background they are then developed as American boys without reference to their backgrounds. You may run into an editor who does not want one of the young heroes to be Jewish. I will not do business with such a firm. The ancestry of the three boys is a “must” and the book is offered under those conditions. My interest was aroused in this book by the opportunity to show to kids what I conceive to be Americanism. The use of a diverse group . . . is part of my intent; it must not be changed. . . . I am as disinterested as a referee but I want to get over an object lesson in practical democracy.
"Diverse" here meaning no girls, among many other things, but it is still remarkable that a decade before your alleged antisemitism, Heinlein wrote sci fi with an explicit Jewish protagonist.
Personally, I think this shows the paltriness of an outlook that classifies people by their beliefs in racism. Even at Heinlein's worst, he still knew how to write an engaging story.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by mcgrew on Thursday August 25 2016, @08:56PM
You have to realize that during most of Heinlein's life almost every American was racist, no matter what race they were. We simply didn't know each other; I was five when I saw my first black man because America was segregated. Even as late as 1972 when I was in the service (I doubt anyone who's been in the military is bigoted) I was at a black friend's brother's apartment in Baltimore at a party and needed cigarettes. A girl there told me she'd take me to get some.
We walked down the street maybe three blocks and she said to give her the quarter to get them because I couldn't go in.
"Why not?"
"They'll kill you!"
Times have really changed in the last half century. For the better. Anyone who wants the "good old days" has a really bad memory.
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org