the id, the ego, & the single misfiring brain cell

apparently controversial

This story is by Robert Heinlein and is included in his novel Time Enough for Love. The premise is as follows: Lazarus Long, born in the early 20th century, is still alive two millenia later, thanks to techonology and his ability to survive. He is the Senior, the oldest living man, and he's being held by less than malevolent powers so they can learn his secrets to longevity and happiness. 

One of his early stories is this one: "The Tale of the Man Who Was Too Lazy to Fail." (If you're curious, go here and do a quick search on "David" to find the story.) And I urge you to, as the story is not only delightful and amusing--particularly to any with military experience or knowledge--but insightful, as well. 

It's drawn, in part, from Heinlein's own experiences at the US naval academy (as you can tell as you read the story, he was an insider). Its basic premise is that the main character, David, was born to farming. He hated it, so when he finished what few years of school he could get where he lived, he left home to join the navy, since staying home meant spending the rest of his days facing the south end of a northbound mule. He discovered quickly that the navy not only paid more, but required less "honest work"* of him. After some time as an enlisted sailor, he realized that he still had to perform a lot of unsavory jobs, like swabbing the decks and such, so he applied to the naval academy. He graduated, became a qualified naval aviator, then switched to larger airframes not only because he was lazy (although that was part of it), but because he didn't have to trust someone else with his life (naval aviation is a study in trust). I won't tell you how the story comes out; I think you should read it. It's about 15 pages, a short story, with lots of amusements tossed in. 

* In the words of Heinlein, "meaning hard, dirty, inefficient, and ill-paid-and also involved getting up early, which he hated even less." 

So yesterday after class, I was chatting with a navy friend (CDR Johnson, aka "Jamey"), and I asked if he'd ever heard of this story. He said no. I told him I'd provide it for his pleasure reading. I found it online (as linked above), copied the bits to a Word document, and sent it to everyone in the class. B'cause it's good. We're all friends here (I thought). We're career officers. We've all been in some sort of bullshit officer training (discussed in some detail in this story), and so on. I figured everyone would enjoy it. 

NNnnnnnnope. 

Apparently, a couple of people were outright miffed at it. Why? Because "it suggests that pilots are lazy." This from an Army green beret classmate, in an email (he-man!). I wrote back: "Heinlein had a rather narrow definition of the word 'lazy,' is all." But I was thinking...erm, humor?! 

The more upsetting comment came from one of our Marines, though. He's a helo pilot. He emailed (again...way to deal with a disagreement with someone who is sitting 1o feet in front of you...): "Building bridges. I hope you remember this when you need to be picked up in the middle of a firefight." Or something like that. 

I was dumbfounded. Seriously?! Did these people read the same story I sent out? I have to assume they did. But wtf?!

I AM NOT CALLING PILOTS LAZY. 

Let's think about this for a second, shall we? Pilots go through far more rigorous physical and academic screenings and training than I do. If I'm calling them "lazy," what am I calling myself? 

My first reaction, honestly ,was to just send them a copy of this pic: 

Then I thought, tempting...but no. That would accomplish nothing, other than my emotional satisfaction, which--if history is a schoolmarm--rarely makes any ultimate bank. 

But that hurt. Seriously. I took the time to provide a tale I found amusing, that I figured we could all identify with on a couple of levels, and I got...unpleasant snark at best, and attacks at worst. Maybe they really believe I don't like/appreciate Soldiers/Marines/Sailors. I really don't know at this point. Their reading comprehension skills seem to have plateaued in the 7th grade. 

So what is the story about? It's about the blue collar and white collar definitions of "work." Every military officer has heard from an enlisted troop, "Don't call me Sir! I work for a living!"* This story is from the viewpoint of the ignorant-but-smart hillbilly. All he knew for sure was that he wanted to do as little "honest work" as he possibly could, "honest work" having been described early on.

* A line I just might discipline someone over someday. 

The whole piece is from the viewpoint of the hillbilly, as relayed through the memories of his fellow midshipman, Lazarus Long. As such, it is a viewpoint--BUT NOT BY ANY MEANS MY VIEWPOINT. If anything, my viewpoint is the humorous look at it provided by Lazarus Long, our ancient narrator. 

Some of my classmates seem immune to nuance. I want to ask--but cannot figure out how to do it inobtrustively--is that really all you got out of that story? What did you see as its thesis? Another part of me wants to say...If this is a fair sample of your reading comprehension skills, I understand why you vote Republican. 

I won't stay that, though. It's just not professional. 

And maybe that's my problem: I don't know how to professionally respond to the feedback I've been getting from this story. I refuse to believe that I'm somehow more intelligent in that I can understand the implications of the story while these people are immune. I have reason to believe these are very intelligent men and women. 

So...wtf?!

d