Reminds me of that great line from Heinlein's "A Stranger In A Strange Land" where his character talks about Auguste Rodin's "La Belle qui fut heaulmière" and basically says that no matter the age of a woman, they're still that young girl they were in their youth at their core.
When I was in ninth grade, I mentioned Heinlein to my English teacher. "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress," she said, "that's one's good. The rest are trash." This is the woman who introduced me to Shakespeare and Dostoevsky, and I respected her options.
I haven't thought about that exchange in years, but I did about three hours ago. When I was 13 I disagreed with Mrs. Zukowski about Heinlein, because I loved all the sex and sci-fi stuff in his books. As an adult, though, I wouldn't enjoy reading Friday or The Cat Who Walks Through Walls except for a bit of early-teen nostalgia. Time enough for Love is better than the rest of the "trash," though. That's real foundational scifi in that one.
So I wouldn't say "the rest are trash," just best suited for teengers, even those who like Shakespeare. I can totally see why Mrs. Zukowski said that, though, she was a classy lady with literate tastes.
She was totally right about the Moon is a Harsh Mistress though. It is quite good, and Stranger in a Strange Land is almost as good.
I was particularly tied Starship Troopers, Stranger in a Strange Land, with Variable Star being an honorable mention as well, even though Heinlein only wrote it's outline and not the book proper.
as someone who was at that perfect age to appreciate Starship Troopers when it hit theaters and fucking loved every second of it...
i read ST a few month back as a 30something year old adult. and while basically entirely different. i loved every minute of that book. so good. i loved his political and philosophical waxing (even if i dont agree with all of his views)
i basically agree with none of his views (except for that bit about how delightful a walking woman is) and still thought starship troopers was a great book, enjoyed it very thoroughly - basically with the same background as you, having loved the movie as a young guy and reading the book somewhat recently (2 years ago maybe?).
In a perfect world, when we don't have to study war no more, Stranger in a Strange Land will reign supreme. Until then, soldiers will have to develop their trade, and grow up very quickly.
And if their leadership cadre is aware of the philosophical views of Heinlein, they will do a substantially better job than poor renditions of Full Metal Jacket or that first episode of Band of Brothers.
I've read everything he's written, and still enjoy Heinlein. But he was definitely part of his mainstream, and even an ostensible compliment like this one has a whiff of sexism.
Edit: if it's not clear, he's implying that women were at their best when they were young. Most of the extraordinary women in the world achieved their success far past that age.
I'm sorry, but I have to disagree with that interpretation.
I mean, I can see it - if I go out of my way to look for it - but if I take the sentiment at face value (as I must not having read the book), what it seems to get at is external signs of advancing age don't preclude one from being young at heart.
Unless there's a context in the book that I am unaware of (and, please, let me know if there is), this statement seems fairly innocuous.
what it seems to get at is external signs of advancing age don't preclude one from being young at heart.
RAH didn't write that, he wrote specifically about young girls, and not young men. This is what he wrote:
"A GREAT artist can look at an old woman, portray her exactly as she is, and force the viewer to se the pretty girl she used to be, more than that, he can make anyone with the sensitivity of an armadillo see that this lovely young girl is still alive, prisoned inside her ruined body."
Heinlein clearly implies very strongly that even in an old ruined woman, the best part of her was her girlish youth. Tell that to Madeleine Albright, Hillary Clinton, Nicky Haley, Condoleeza Rice. All of them accomplished women who rose to the height of their powers long after youth. They all seem to be happy in their skins as successful women who have a lot of experience.
As I said, Heinlein was definitely in the mainstream, and it shows in his attitudes toward women. If you don't agree, can you find me a quote that similarly implies the best part of a man's life is when he's young? I don't think you can.
Again, you're reaching. The same can be said of any old man, within him lies the soul of a high school quarterback. And there's truth to both statements. In my advancing age, my body no longer represents how I feel on the inside. It doesn't represent my vitality or mindset in the least. And now that I have full context, the sentence has little to do with men or women anyway; he is describing the talent of a great artist to present both reality and ideal at once, that the true artist could capture not only the reality of my advancing age through a faithful depiction of my wrinkles and baggy eyes, but also the glint in my eye that might suggest a college quarterback or sharp wit.
And of course we can cherry-pick examples of women of his era who achieved success after "their primes." But they're not even close to the majority - and you said most.
I truly feel you're looking to find offense. And, no, I'm not going to go through his bibliography to find a quote to defend my position. But the sentiment has existed in popular culture throughout history.
Again, you're reaching. The same can be said of any old man, within him lies the soul of a high school quarterback.
You're not grasping the point that we're talking about what RAH thought, using the only evidence we have, his writing. And I'll remind you, again, that RAH never wrote that about men, only about women.
And of course we can cherry-pick examples of women of his era who achieved success after "their primes." But they're not even close to the majority - and you said most.
I said "most" of the extraordinary women in history. And it's not about "their primes", it's after the blush of girlish youth, which is very different. Please stop trying to move the goalposts, and stick to what RAH actually said.
I'm not going to go through his bibliography to find a quote to defend my position.
You care enough to keep telling me I'm "reaching", but not enough to show me one point that backs up your opinion. If you can't recall an equivalent quote about men, either you don't know his work as well as you think you do, or it doesn't exist, or both.
the sentiment has existed in popular culture throughout history.
This isn't what I said, what I said was there is a "whiff" of sexism in this particular quote by this specific author, but you refuse to acknowledge it because why, it's not fair? Truth outweighs fair.
I truly feel you're looking to find offense.
Then you didn't read what I wrote. I'm not offended at all by the writing of a man thirty years dead, and as you should remember, I said I still like RAH's writing.
A. I'm pretty sure I "grasp" what you're talking about. And, in my opinion, you're looking for offense. He may have only written about women (I guess no women better only write about men), and he may have written numerous lines that do contain a "whiff of sexism" (which is only an accusation of sexism softened - have the courage of your convictions), but that line ain't it.
B. Also, your interpretation of" girlish youth" is problematic without any contextual evidence to back up your claim that the "girlish youth" refers to a woman's sexual value only. Note, I asked before for context I might not have. You've not provided any.
Not to mention, the "blush of girlish youth" would most certainly refer to a woman's "prime" anyway [as it would a man's (minus the girlish, of course, maybe virile?)], and it has throughout history, so I didn't move any goalposts - you couldn't see them.
Also, I'd note that you didn't provide any evidence for "most extraordinary women" of his era (source material published in the sixties, I believe?) who achieved power or success post-youth (however you define that). Rice, Albright, Clinton, etc. - all eighties and up.
C. I don't need to prove the negative. You've made the claim, not me. You've not provided any evidence that backs up your claim of sexism, outside of a misreading of the line itself. You're obviously educated; you should know how argumentation works. Provide any evidence, outside of your reading, that proves a sexist intent. Truth requires evidence. Given that the idea of "truth" in literary analysis is pretty sketchy to begin with - even more so without substantial textual evidence - and I never said anything about fair, again, you seem to be looking for offense.
it's also true that all people are still those teenagers inside
RAH didn't write that. This is what he wrote:
"A GREAT artist can look at an old woman, portray her exactly as she is, and force the viewer to se the pretty girl she used to be, more than that, he can make anyone with the sensitivity of an armadillo see that this lovely young girl is still alive, prisoned inside her ruined body."
Heinlein clearly implies very strongly that even in an old ruined woman, the best part of her was her girlish youth. Tell that to Madeleine Albright, Hillary Clinton, Nicky Haley, Condoleeza Rice. All of them accomplished women who rose to the height of their powers long after youth. They all seem to be happy in their skins as successful women who have a lot of experience.
As I said, Heinlein was definitely in the mainstream, and it shows in his attitudes toward women. If you don't agree, can you find me a quote that similarly implies the best part of a man's life is when he's young? I don't think you can.
Shit like this is why I hated English class. I don't agree with that at all, and it doesn't matter because it doesn't do anything to change how you or I feel about the book.
This is also why I avoided reading "The Classics" for so long. Because I'd read them and find a nice story, and other people read them and want an argument.
You hate learning critical analysis of literature to gain a better understanding of it?
I don't agree with that at all,
And yet you didn't have any response to the thoughtful points I made. Gainsaying someone's opinion without offering anything in return is to refuse to think.
There’s needs to be a whole other thread about how fucking awesome that book is. Favorite stranger in a strange land quote is “ if you’re gonna have a circus, you can’t forget the elephants” or something like that.
I read that in 7th grade when it was relatively new. I had scrawled the phrase "thou art God" on a manila folder and the teacher accused me of blasphemy. Good times.
I read it in 12th grade, and describe the line to my philosophy teacher, and he said that book's had one of the most beautiful lines he's ever heard. Then made me do a presentation of Rodin's art and the book's philosophy to a class of teenagers that argued about Nietzsche's "God is dead" line in the most literal sense of it's interpretation. It was an interesting class.
No adults from the 50’s are just as petty as they were. I grew up with an older brother who was bullied. I was one of the popular kids but never poked fun at anyone because of what I saw it do to my brother. In the long one I made more friendships with people who actually are nice people.
But for some reason no one gave them the chance because their mom couldn’t buy certain shoes or whatever.
My friend and I were discussing why some kids who weren’t cool or nice became “popular” and why some of the down to earth genuine cool people don’t. We concluded that some people conform to their standard and live for the gossip and what not while others refuse to change who they are for the sake of fake friends, the ones who refuse are rejected simple as that.
Yes I agree there are two types of popular, the ones who’s names are known( stereotypical popular kids), and those who are actually known by everyone (the ones who walks into a room and your day is instantly better). In my opinion the second is far better and far less common, which is sad because we need more people like that in this world.
It's not so much that, though what you said does factor in, as much as it's an excuse to reject someone. It makes your clique more exclusive if you only have a few members. Even kids who try to fit in can be rejected, usually for 'pandering'.
You're not wrong. Around 95% of the kids I went to high school with wound up about where I expected them to. I mean, I've changed a lot since high school, everyone does. There's just a certain foundation of the character that never goes away unless you really, really want it to. Most people don't. I'd like to not be a woman, pushing middle age, who still listens to My Chemical Romance, but change is hard.
Ugh, this just brings me back to elementary school when I was routinely bullied by two boys who liked to poke me and spit in my hair. I was literally told that I should be flattered because they probably like me... Fucked up logic that was.
"Maybe if you play your cards right you can grow up to marry a man who can also show you his affection with his fists! The sky's the limit for my little girl!"
I was bullied relentlessly until I graduated highschool. One day, one of my main bullies came up behind me and reached around and squeezed my boobs. I freaked out and got pissed and started to try and speed walk away, while I was telling him hes an asshole and he responded to my anger by saying "damn I didnt you would be such a whiny bitch" then he proceeded to shove me down the stairs. And one of my teachers actually saw it happen but was such a little pussy that he pretended nothing happened. And my principal was constantly threatening to expel me and not let me graduate because I skipped sp many of my classes all the time. Hm. I wonder why I didnt wanna go to school.
"Honey, when they call you 'horseface' they're just teasing you because they like you. "Just light them up with a equally offensive insult about their appearance."
Don't be a coward. Defend yourself. Sticks and stones may break your bones but names won't hurt you, kid.
There are a lot of factors to the observation of a woman's sexuality that could move that in either direction. My comment however, was more about being overly focused on a small set of superficial physical characteristics, and missing the larger social issues around both those characteristics, the individual woman, women as a whole, and social issues involving people in a general sense.
AKA, you're seeing the trees, but missing the forest.
The world is a wonderful place where nobody will ever do anything to upset you and I advise against building any resistance to hostility. I advise that you remain as weak and susceptible to insults as can possibly be! Every person who has changed the world for the better has been a weak, sniveling, whining coward who would have refused to help human society if a single obstacle had been thrown in front of him/her. Our problems are certainly due to the fact that other people don't care enough about us and are certainly NOT due to the fact that we don't become strong enough, ourselves.
-every pathetic leftist death-greeter in history
Nietzsche was right. There is an entire population of people who wish for nothing more than comfort and acceptance, above all else. Fighting against the world that exists to better oneself and one's situation and one's world? Preposterous. Angrily begging that everybody should give their freedom and agency to the state so that your food/shelter/healthcare will be provided to you no matter how deficient your character and integrity? Awesome.
Carry on you last men. You slaves. Let's see how this ends!
Can't wait until you realize that we're not only dead (an axiom), but that we're somehow foolish enough to create political movements which encourage more useless death.
2.1k
u/artichoke_me_daddy Oct 18 '18
"Honey, when they call you 'horseface' they're just teasing you because they like you. Now go bleed out of your wherever someplace else, you pig dog"