No, I acknowledge that there's a good few paragraphs more of the superficial, doctrinaire nonsense you have been parroting than was immediately obvious to me here. Enough to be worth pasting through GPTZero, more than enough to say anything novel or interesting, and what a shame you never got there.
One example to shut you up: about the first thing every serious critic of The Moon is a Harsh Mistress addresses is that it's intentionally and explicitly written with about two-thirds of an eye toward the American "revolution" - hence the correspondences between Professor de la Paz and Benjamin Franklin (with a generous dash of Jefferson) on the one hand, and Mannie as an obvious George Washington expy on another. These are intentional similarities! Heinlein mentions it explicitly in Expanded Universe (don't hold me to that, it may have been in Grumbles from the Grave) and it's treated at length in one or another of the crit histories I've read, or maybe it was the Patterson biography, I'm not reading back hundreds of pages of diary notes for your lazy ass. It may have been the novel's own preface! He was intentionally loose with the correspondences, both in character and in plot, for narrative and didactic reasons, and that has proven a fruitful vein for both critical analysis and outright criticism over the years, and you can't even talk about any of it. You didn't notice any of this. Because you never learned the difference between looking at books and reading them. I'm sure you looked at every page, though!
These essays of yours are, generously, on the level of a college freshman who parties too much, studies too little, and treats English as a dump course. I did more thoughtful work as a high-school senior. For this you feel the need to be secretive? What a joke. Get lost, flyweight.
Just to note; it would be really helpful if you could ease up on the ad hominem. It's not going to stop me and doesn't add to the weight of your arguments. It just drags the discussion down and makes it harder to figure out what your arguments are
> These are intentional similarities!
I said that there are "clear comparisons" to the American revolution. I didn't suggest that the comparison was accidental. If anything, I assumed it was supposed to be read that way.
> One example to shut you up
Well, you've failed there. Perhaps we should focus on the cause of your initial outrage: Heinlein's (lack of) character depth?
> For this you feel the need to be secretive?
It's privacy rather than secrecy. I don't want it to be too easy to link this account to my Goodreads.
I assume then tha you have no arguments to make in support of Heinlein's characterisations. Thanks for the discussion I guess, in a way it's been vindicating.
All I'm looking for is some reasoning about why you think I'm wrong. Something that goes beyond fallacies such as "because it's not what I think" or "you're clearly a bigot" or "you must need to read more".
I've attempted to do some more reading of Heinlein analysis and am finding that it generally agrees with what I said (see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43703348). Would be interested t osee if you are anymore willing to engage now.
