Heinlein Readers Discussion Group

03-20-2003 8:00 P.M. EST

Gulf-Friday Universe

The "Gulf" (_Starman Jones_?)-_Friday_ Universe.

Meeting Dates and Times: Thursday, March 20, 2003, from 8 to 11 PM, EST and Saturday, March 22, 2003, from 5 to 8 PM, EST

Place: AIM chatroom "Heinlein Readers Group chat"

Last week the misspelled "Chavinist" thread concerning Heinlein's _Friday_ (1982) quickly resulted in upwards of thirty replies from afh. The discussion ranged a bit farther than simply the story of Marjorie Baldwin exodus from Terra, involving at least three other Heinlein stories: "Gulf" written for Campbell's November and December 1949 issues of "Astounding SF," _Stranger in a Strange Land_ which had its genesis in the same conversation as "Gulf" but finally finished twelve years later for publication in 1961, and the juvenile novel _Starman Jones_ written for the Christmas season 1953 Scribners publication.

So, I thought, why not have a reading group meeting on the subjects mentioned in that thread, and others that might be generated? It's time to read or reread Friday and "Gulf," and perhaps a few other suggested works.

Note: the story "Gulf" can be found in Baen's recently reissued _Assignment in Eternity_ collection by Robert A. Heinlein. Use Amazon's site to find the ISBN if your bookseller is understocked or inept.

Some other thoughts . . . about the Friday universe.

Ginny's "Afterword," post chapter XV, in _Grumbles from the Grave_ notes that in 1978 Heinlein suffered a serious illness: that resulting we know from the congenital obstruction to arterial bloodflow to one side of his brain, the cure for which was detailed in "Spin-Off," Heinlein's testimony of a remarkable operation before Congress related in _Expanded Universe_, that wouldn't have been possible without discoveries first made during the space program. Before the operation, the failed first effort of _The Number of the Beast_ was written and had been deemed not publishable. After recuperation from the operation, Robert went back to his computer and essentially again wrote that unusual and puzzling story, the Heinlein reader's "supreme hacker's easter egg" as David Potter called it, containing throughout and at its ending his tributes to his real friends, his own characters, those of others he enjoyed, and the admired authors on whose shoulders he stood, that was published under that same name in 1980.

_Expanded Universe_, a partly non-fiction compilation of short stories, which was an expansion of _The Worlds of Robert A. Heinlein_ followed. It was generated during a telephone conversation transcribed by editor James Baen and was published in 1980, resulting in about two years of little but answering questions from readers.

Ginny's "Afterword" tells us Robert in 1981, at seventy-four years of age, decided to withdraw from other activities and do little more than simply write.

_Friday_ was the first story that followed. Why? Ginny told me in a conversation last year that she and Robert talked about what he might write when he decided to begin anew in 1981. Robert said he'd always felt he was not finished with the character Hartley "Kettle Baldwin" Baldwin, the Master of superman world savers, from "Gulf." So Heinlein decided to return to the world of that character and what followed the story of "Gulf." _Friday_ resulted. This wasn't the first time Heinlein's writing attentions had returned to that universe [There is an unpublished series of TV scripts, a treatment, and outlines written circa 1963 for "Century XXII" that dealt with the Gulf universe.]; but it was the first time anything that resulted was published.

Why the title? and why is Marjorie Baldwin's nickname "Friday"? Perhaps it is to remind us of one of the first novel length prose fictions in English. There is a full text version at http://www.bibliomania.com/0/0/17/31/frameset.html among other places on the Internet.

One good site, containing the famous N.C. Wyeth illustrations, and both the Adventures and "Farther" Adventures [see below], is http://ferncanyonpress.com/pirates/robinson/crusoe.shtml

That romance is considered the most famous of Daniel Defoe's works, today is called _Robinson Crusoe_, written and published in 1719 with the full title: _The Life and strange and surprising Adventures of Robinson Crusoe_. What follows is from the bibiliomania website:

"It is based, in fact, upon the experiences of Alexander Selkirk who had 
run away to sea in 1704 and requested to be left on an uninhabited 
island to be rescued five years later. Defoe himself was in his late 
fifties when he wrote the book, which is often considered to be the 
first English novel. Crusoe ends up on a desert island in the manner of 
Selkirk.With only a few supplies from the ship he builds a house, a boat 
and a new life. His island is not wholly uninhabited, though, and there 
is the exciting but ominous presence of cannibals who Crusoe 
occasionally encounters and saves a native from. The latter becomes his 
servant, Man Friday. The crew of a mutinying ship finally rescue our 
hero, but it is his adventure on the island that interests us. The story 
has remained popular ever since its publication and it spawned two 
sequels: later in 1719 with The Farther Adventures of Robinson Crusoe 
and a third part, The Serious Reflections of Robinson Crusoe , in 1720 
which consisted of moral essays. The first novel, though, is 
particularly notable for its detailed verisimilitude allowing us to 
believe in the situation - something assisted by the uncomplicated 
language used by the author."

Can somebody tell me why Heinlein alluded to the story and used the name to label his woman protagonist character?

I've also frequently noted the resemblance in plot to Voltaire's Candide. For an etext of Candide, unless you read French, you're on your own; however, both Norton and Penguin have produced perfectly affordable English language translations. There are also a lot of study suggestions for Voltaire's classics on the Internet, and you might enjoy a few of them.

Then there's the story "Gulf," _Friday_, _Starman Jones_, and the collection Expanded Universe, particularly some notes on education, but perhaps a few other sections you might skim.

Is that enough reading? <veg>

What do we think about this "Universe" and _Whatever_ is Heinlein up to, returning to his "superman" Baldwin?

Regards and, remember, everyone who can find this newsgroup and figure out how to use the software is invited to participate.

David Silver

"p-br@ne" <goungalon@hotmail.com> posted, in "Friday -- Chauvanist [sic]

Inc., on Sun, Mar 2, 2003, at 4:28 PM:

Hi guys,

Just finished reading Friday &.....what can I say...although there were elements I liked, there were some elements I certainly disliked/absoloutly detested!

In terms of the pros - I thought Heinlein dealt with the overall themes of racism (& a character's insecurity due to this)efficiently The nascent colony system was well thought out. The witty, staccato style of dialogue was extremely entertaining... As far as the cons go - The story was a little slow off the starting blocks... Some of the opinions were misguided, i.e California's decision to award all citizen's with BAs/BSCs regardless of therir merit so that they may recieve pay equal to Graduates!!! Come on RAH - if yo want to up the pay of their current jobs so that it's equal to Grads, fair enough (maybe), but don't give them a piece of paper thats ultimately meaningless & could cause a whole generation of work-place disasters!!! The main character's attitude towards sex was not liberal, but blatantly misogynistic - she seemed far too ready to THANK PEOPLE with a bout of foreplay, rather than just experiment or enjoy & infact that exact line about THANKING PEOPLE was constantly popping up. It was a little irritating...

But nothing came close to Friday's reaction when she finally comes face-to-face with one of her rapists. It was not convincing in the slightest!!! I don't know about anyone else, but I would have thought 'sorry I was deep undercover & couldn't act out of character' wholly more acceptable than 'yeah i did it cause I was real attracted to you!!!'. The fact that she felt like THANKING HIM (not for the rape, BTW) only minutes after this altercation & then married him at the end of the book made my skin crawl. It was a pity, beacuse her reactions to the actual rape as it was taking place were very convincing. But if none of this was RAH's intention, then he should have allowed this relationship more time to develop for it to be believable, 'cause let's be honest, there's a fair bit of text he could have chopped out, this wasn't one of his tightest books....

Anyways, what do other peeps think? I'd be especially interested in a female perspective....

Tanstaafl!

p-br@ne

Friday has always left me a few steps back from total involvement from the book for the same reasons, as have some of the later books' involvement with incestuous relationships -- I can see the arguments, I just have trouble accepting them the way RAH wants us to.

As for the granting of degrees, I would suggest this is RAH's satire on the meaninglessness of college degrees, and not the other way around. Check out Expanded Universe's ridicule of UC Santa Cruz' programs, if you've never read that.

Robert James

In article <3e62a1b1$1_1@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com>, "p-brane" <youngalon@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Hi guys,

"Guys?"

[snip]
> The main character's attitude towards sex was not liberal, but blatantly
> misogynistic - she seemed far too ready to THANK PEOPLE  with a  bout of
> foreplay, rather than just experiment or enjoy & infact that exact line
> about THANKING PEOPLE was constantly popping up. It was a little
> irritating...
>
> But nothing came close to Friday's reaction when she finally comes
> face-to-face with one of her rapists. It was not convincing in the
> slightest!!! I don't know about anyone else, but I would have thought 'sorry
> I was deep undercover & couldn't act out of character' wholly more
> acceptable than 'yeah i did it cause I was real attracted to you!!!'. The
> fact that she felt like THANKING HIM (not for the rape, BTW) only minutes
> after this altercation & then married him at the end of the book made my
> skin crawl. It was a pity, beacuse her reactions to the actual rape as it
> was taking place were very convincing. But if none of this was RAH's
> intention, then he should have allowed this relationship more time to
> develop for it to be believable, 'cause let's be honest, there's a fair bit
> of text he could have chopped out,  this wasn't one of his tightest
> books....
>
> Anyways, what do other peeps think? I'd be especially interested in a female
> perspective....
>

http://members.aol.com/agplusone/THJ1notes.htm#ALMOST>

Read it, and come back with something original to say; and maybe the "peeps" here will have something to talk about, if they've not been microwaved already.

> Tanstaafl!
>

--
David M. Silver www.heinleinsociety.org
"The Lieutenant expects your names to shine!"
Robert Anson Heinlein, USNA '29, Lt.(jg), USN, R'td, 1907-88

I'm at a loss - when did an opinion have to be 'original'? Isn't it simply an opinion? When I finish a book should I feel guilty that my take on it is somehow similar to previous readers' views???!!!!

I'm still not sure how to interpret yr criticism.... Is it just that u disagree with what I said? Is it that you perceived my post as an anti-RAH attack? Or is it that question of originality?

Is the irony lost on u that u attack me for being unoriginal, yet yr only real argument is actually supplied by someone else's essay via a shoddy link?

Please ensure that yr reply is slightly more...ahem, measured than the last outburst. I actually brought yr post to the attention of some other RAH fans & they were dismayed that an author who so adroitly discusses issues of social relevance is followed so doggedly by fanboys that haven't picked up the basic human skill of debate... Honestly though, don't be so socially maladjusted, it's embarrassing- just come back with a cogent argument, that's all that's required....

> In article <3e62a1b1$1_1@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com>,
>  "p-brane" <youngalon@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi guys,
>
> "Guys?"
>
> [snip]
> > The main character's attitude towards sex was not liberal, but blatantly
> > misogynistic - she seemed far too ready to THANK PEOPLE  with a bout of
> > foreplay, rather than just experiment or enjoy & infact that exact line
> > about THANKING PEOPLE was constantly popping up. It was a little
> > irritating...
> >
> > But nothing came close to Friday's reaction when she finally comes
> > face-to-face with one of her rapists. It was not convincing in the
> > slightest!!! I don't know about anyone else, but I would have thought 'sorry
> > I was deep undercover & couldn't act out of character' wholly more
> > acceptable than 'yeah i did it cause I was real attracted to you!!!'. The
> > fact that she felt like THANKING HIM (not for the rape, BTW) only minutes
> > after this altercation & then married him at the end of the book made my
> > skin crawl. It was a pity, beacuse her reactions to the actual rape as it
> > was taking place were very convincing. But if none of this was RAH's

> > intention, then he should have allowed this relationship more time to
> > develop for it to be believable, 'cause let's be honest, there's a fair bit
> > of text he could have chopped out,  this wasn't one of his tightest
> > books....
> >
> > Anyways, what do other peeps think? I'd be especially interested in a female
> > perspective....
> >
>
> Here's a "female perspective" for you:
>
> http://members.aol.com/agplusone/THJ1notes.htm#ALMOST
>
> Read it, and come back with something original to say; and maybe the
> "peeps" here will have something to talk about, if they've not been
> microwaved already.
>
> > Tanstaafl!
> >
> Yeah, Tanstaafl.

"p-brane" <youngalon@hotmail.com> wrote:

>I'm at a loss - when did an opinion have to be 'original'? Isn't it simply
>an opinion? When I finish a book should I feel guilty that my take on it is
>somehow similar to previous readers' views???!!!!
>I'm still not sure how to interpret yr criticism.... Is it just that u
>disagree with what I said? Is it that you perceived my post as an anti-RAH
>attack? Or is it that question of originality?
>Is the irony lost on u that u attack me for being unoriginal, yet yr only
>real argument is actually supplied by someone else's essay via a shoddy

>link?
>Please ensure that yr reply is slightly more...ahem, measured than the last
>outburst. I actually brought yr post to the attention of some other RAH fans
>& they were dismayed that an author who so adroitly discusses issues of 
>social relevance is followed so doggedly by fanboys that haven't picked up
>the basic human skill of debate...
>Honestly though, don't be so socially maladjusted, it's embarrassing- just
>come back with a cogent argument, that's all that's required....

A google groups search will turn up a [what I am sure you will categorize as amazing} goodly number of David's posts in which he has exercised his debate skills and extensive knowledge of Heinlein and Heinlein's works.

As demonstrated in your original post, your knowledge of Heinlein and his works [e.g., thinking that his "if this goes on" satire of contemporary California was actually something he was advocating] is so deficient as to actually prevent David from engaging in "debate", lest he be accused of child abuse. Particularly since so many of your "objections" were answered by Heinlein himself, *within* Friday itself.

I see that I should have responded when I first saw your post. Had I done so, it would have gone something like this:

Reread the book. This time with a copy of your post close to hand. As you read it *this* time, ask yourself "how" and "why" is RAH setting things up so that these situations arise, and these characters do the things that they do, rather than the things you think that they should do.

OJ III

>From: "p-brane"

>I'm at a loss - when did an opinion have to be 'original'? Isn't it simply
>an opinion? When I finish a book should I feel guilty that my take on it is
>somehow similar to previous readers' views???!!!!
>I'm still not sure how to interpret yr criticism.... Is it just that u 
>disagree with what I said? Is it that you perceived my post as an anti-RAH
>attack? Or is it that question of originality?

Step up to our virtual bar and have your favorite on me, while ignoring the negative comments that do occasionally show up here, no matter what you post.

Hello P-Brane,

>I'm at a loss - when did an opinion have to be 'original'? Isn't it simply
>an opinion? When I finish a book should I feel guilty that my take on it is
>somehow similar to previous readers' views???!!!!
>I'm still not sure how to interpret yr criticism.... Is it just that u
>disagree with what I said? Is it that you perceived my post as an anti-RAH
>attack? Or is it that question of originality?
>Is the irony lost on u that u attack me for being unoriginal, yet yr only
>real argument is actually supplied by someone else's essay via a shoddy

>link?
>Please ensure that yr reply is slightly more...ahem, measured than the last
>outburst. I actually brought yr post to the attention of some other RAH fans
>& they were dismayed that an author who so adroitly discusses issues of 
>social relevance is followed so doggedly by fanboys that haven't picked up
>the basic human skill of debate...
>Honestly though, don't be so socially maladjusted, it's embarrassing- just
>come back with a cogent argument, that's all that's required....
>

You ask for cogent argument, say you receive none then reply with your own unmeasured outburst. Do you have anything interesting to say?

An opinion need not be original. I would hope, however, that it be expressed in an original manner, perhaps with some nuance or insight.

Please run your reply through a spell checker.

Have a nice day.

Terry/tbay

>From: Terry L Smith

>>I'm at a loss - when did an opinion have to be 'original'? Isn't it simply
>>an opinion? When I finish a book should I feel guilty that my take on it is
>>somehow similar to previous readers' views???!!!!
>>I'm still not sure how to interpret yr criticism.... Is it just that u 
>>disagree with what I said? Is it that you perceived my post as an anti-RAH
>>attack? Or is it that question of originality?
>>Is the irony lost on u that u attack me for being unoriginal, yet yr only
>>real argument is actually supplied by someone else's essay via a shoddy
>>link?
>>Please ensure that yr reply is slightly more...ahem, measured than the last
>>outburst. I actually brought yr post to the attention of some other RAH fans
>>& they were dismayed that an author who so adroitly discusses issues of
>>social relevance is followed so doggedly by fanboys that haven't picked up
>>the basic human skill of debate...
>>Honestly though, don't be so socially maladjusted, it's embarrassing- just
>>come back with a cogent argument, that's all that's required....
>>
>You give an ad hominem response and your spelling skills are lacking.
>Your 'nym' could have some other meaning but it's truly difficult to
>take seriously someone who identifies themself as a "pea brain".
>
>You ask for cogent argument, say you receive none then reply with your
>own unmeasured outburst. Do you have anything interesting to say?
>
>An opinion need not be original. I would hope, however, that it be
>expressed in an original manner, perhaps with some nuance or insight.
>
>Please run your reply through a spell checker.
>Have a nice day.

Yes, P-brane did rather drastically misinterpret the California situation. Someone else pointed this out, and managed to do so without any ad hominem.

You and David Silver are the ones who give this NG the reputation of being a closed clique. You get occasional help from others too. Chill out and have a drink at the bar instead of perpetuating this reputation.

In article <3e63d414_1@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com>, "p-brane" <youngalon@hotmail.com> wrote:

> I'm at a loss - when did an opinion have to be 'original'? Isn't it simply
> an opinion? When I finish a book should I feel guilty that my take on it is
> somehow similar to previous readers' views???!!!!

feel guilty if that truly is how your mind works. If you're here to find

out whether your criticism is valid, then read on; if not, then ignore the rest of this post; and I'll ignore you until you come up with something better and worth time to reply.

> I'm still not sure how to interpret yr criticism.... Is it just that u
> disagree with what I said? Is it that you perceived my post as an anti-RAH
> attack? Or is it that question of originality?

What else did you think you wanted: whipped cream with sprinkles and a cherry on top?

It's such an old argument you've posited here that, if you claim you've never read it elsewhere and it is indeed yours originally, I'd have to observe, bluntly, you must not have read very much at all elsewhere about Heinlein.

What you should have gotten from me, if you wanted something other than silence ignoring you, was merely the admonition to go make up the time you wasted first time around: reread the book without your preconceptions -- OJ gave you that one gratis -- instead I gave you what

you expressly said you wanted. Sorry, next time instead of giving you what you ask for I'll do better: I'll ignore you.

> Is the irony lost on u that u attack me for being unoriginal, yet yr only
> real argument is actually supplied by someone else's essay via a shoddy
> link?

replying cogently to hers. Or troll your boat on out.

I'll adopt her feminine opinions, since I'm obviously incapable of giving you what you too[k] the pains to specify you seek. Is the real reason you cannot reply to her the fact that you're still in shock to find that a female might disagree with what you wrote? Welcome to real world, big boy! Or big girl! Take you pick.

> Please ensure that yr reply is slightly more...ahem, measured than the last
> outburst. I actually brought yr post to the attention of some other RAH fans
> & they were dismayed that an author who so adroitly discusses issues of
> social relevance is followed so doggedly by fanboys that haven't picked up
> the basic human skill of debate...

> Honestly though, don't be so socially maladjusted, it's embarrassing- just
> come back with a cogent argument, that's all that's required....

Go find your free lunch elsewhere. I'm sure you can find another newsgroup where your superficiality will fit right in without comment. Have you ever read about the dopy joe traps in TitS? Or the "critics lounge" in Number? That may be your speed. Enjoy.

Considering the manner of your reply, may one assume that you have not carefully read either FRIDAY or the "essay" to which Mr. Silver referred you as you sought an opinion from a female type human?

Please do take a day or so and re-read the book, and then, please, after you read the essay to which you were referred, kindly return with specific comments rather than what you have posted.

---Mac
***********                 **********
On Mon, 3 Mar 2003 22:15:53 -0000, "p-brane"
<youngalon@hotmail.com> wrote: [snipped]

LV Poker Player <lvpokerplayer@aol.com> wrote:

>
> You and David Silver are the ones who give this NG the reputation of being a
> closed clique.  You get occasional help from others too.  Chill out and have a
> drink at the bar instead of perpetuating this reputation.

I can't remember any of Mr Smith's posts David Silver's have never struck me as giving any sort of impression of a clique.

"p-brane" <youngalon@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:3e62a1b1$1_1@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...

Here you go - I'll play it straight for this...

<Snip the "Pro's" - given their brevity, it doesn't appear that you really wanted to discuss them in depth...>

> As far as the cons go - The story was a little slow off the starting
> blocks...

> Some of the opinions were misguided, i.e
> California's decision to award all citizen's with BAs/BSCs regardless of
> therir merit so that they may recieve pay equal to Graduates!!! Come on
> RAH - if yo want to up the pay of their current jobs so that it's equal to
> Grads, fair enough   (maybe), but don't give them a piece of paper thats
> ultimately meaningless & could cause a whole generation of work-place
> disasters!!!

> The main character's attitude towards sex was not liberal, but blatantly
> misogynistic

> - she seemed far too ready to THANK PEOPLE  with a  bout of
> foreplay, rather than just experiment or enjoy & infact that exact line
> about THANKING PEOPLE was constantly popping up. It was a little
> irritating...

>
> But nothing came close to Friday's reaction when she finally comes
> face-to-face with one of her rapists. It was not convincing in the
> slightest!!!

> I don't know about anyone else, but I would have thought 'sorry
> I was deep undercover & couldn't act out of character' wholly more
> acceptable than 'yeah i did it cause I was real attracted to you!!!'.

> The
> fact that she felt like THANKING HIM (not for the rape, BTW) only minutes
> after this altercation & then married him at the end of the book made my
> skin crawl.

Try this one on for size: G.I. Jane was deployed to a nasty little combat zone. In the course of her working at her profession, Foxhole Fritz pops out from ambush with his squad. Fritz shoots Jane, Jane's troops drive off/kill Fritz's boys. Jane is med-evac'ed. <Time Warp> Six months after the Accords are signed, a healed-up Jane takes some leave in Europe.

In Rome, who should she meet but Fritz!

After recounting various war stories to each other, they are left with mutual respect for each other's professionalism. Jane likes Fritz's looks & personality, so she proposes marriage. They wed & live happily ever after. Does this one make your skin crawl, too?

> It was a pity, beacuse her reactions to the actual rape as it
> was taking place were very convincing. But if none of this was RAH's
> intention, then he should have allowed this relationship more time to
> develop for it to be believable, 'cause let's be honest, there's a fair bit
> of text he could have chopped out,  this wasn't one of his tightest
> books....

Just _how_ many different ways did she try to get to her goal?

I found it to be a nicely paced book, without any serious amount of excess verbiage. Quite tight. Not all of it may be apparent to you just yet, as this is your first pass through, but RAH covered quite a lot of ground in this one, but you have to _look_ to see it. All of RAH's books are intended, in part, to stretch the mind.

If you think that his books are full of answers, you got another think comin'.

Regards,

--
Rusty the bookman

>From: "bookman"

>If you think that his books are full of answers, you got another think
>comin'.
>

Stephanie

"The age of Aquarius, indeed!"---LaCroix, Forever Knight

>From: "bookman"

>> California's decision to award all citizen's with BAs/BSCs regardless of
>> therir merit so that they may recieve pay equal to Graduates!!! Come on
>> RAH - if yo want to up the pay of their current jobs so that it's equal to
>> Grads, fair enough   (maybe), but don't give them a piece of paper thats
>> ultimately meaningless & could cause a whole generation of work-place

>> disasters!!!
>
>Have you read _Expanded Universe_?  RAH included an article
>on how easy it was to get a Degree out of the California Collegiate
>system on minimum effort.  Elsewhere (SiaSL?) RAH mentions
>a campaign promise:  "We shall press forward along these lines
>until _everyone_ has an above-average income!"  You are criticising
>RAH for writing a situation that he didn't find desirable?  Or is it that
>you dislike his extention (cast as ridiculous) of the Grammar School
>"theory" of 'Peer Group Promotion" when applied to the college level?
>(As noted elsethread:  RAH was satirizing!)

After all, Friday does say that she sees nothing wrong with it. It is obvious to me that this is really tongue in cheek approval, but I have read Expanded Universe and the rest of the canon. Would I see it if I came to Friday cold?

Hmmm...I like to think I would, but maybe not. It's too bad that she did not mention this later, in the conversation with Boss about the signs of a collapsing society. Including it there would have been more of a giveaway.

>> I don't know about anyone else, but I would have thought 'sorry
>> I was deep undercover & couldn't act out of character' wholly more
>> acceptable than 'yeah i did it cause I was real attracted to you!!!'.

>
>No one tells shaded lies to try to further a relationship?  No one tries
>to mirror the past onto the present?  But if what you are saying here
>is true, I had better go re-read this book, because I don't remember
>it being that way.  (Any excuse to re-read will do, anyway)

I think I am with P-brane here. I think the opposite might be a more likely reaction. Then again, as you point out, I have never been raped while working as a highly trained, highly paid intelligence courier. On the gripping hand, just about ANY reaction is plausible. Out of a population of a few billion, who is to say that NO ONE could POSSIBLY react THAT WAY, no matter what the situation is or what THAT WAY constitutes?

In article <20030304081733.26926.00000004@mb-mv.aol.com>, lvpokerplayer@aol.com (LV Poker Player) wrote:

>
> I think I am with P-brane here.  I think the opposite might be a more
> likely
> reaction.  Then again, as you point out, I have never been raped while

> working
> as a highly trained, highly paid intelligence courier.  On the gripping > hand,
> just about ANY reaction is plausible.  Out of a population of a few
> billion,
> who is to say that NO ONE could POSSIBLY react THAT WAY, no matter what
> the
> situation is or what THAT WAY constitutes?

To try to come up with the parallel of training, she was a practicing military physician, with both a career military and self-described adrenaline junkie attitude. I recently saw an update on her -- she's O-6, but president of the class at the National War College. At this point, I suspect it's her choice to screw up and NOT eventually wind up with three stars as Army Surgeon General.

Good morning,

On Tue, 4 Mar 2003, bookman wrote:

> "p-brane" <youngalon@hotmail.com> wrote:
[...]
> > Some of the opinions were misguided,
> > i.e
> > California's decision to award all citizen's with BAs/BSCs regardless of
> > therir merit so that they may recieve pay equal to Graduates!!! Come on
> > RAH - if yo want to up the pay of their current jobs so that it's equal to
> > Grads, fair enough   (maybe), but don't give them a piece of paper thats
> > ultimately meaningless & could cause a whole generation of work-place
> > disasters!!!

> Have you read _Expanded Universe_?  RAH included an article
> on how easy it was to get a Degree out of the California Collegiate
> system on minimum effort.  Elsewhere (SiaSL?) RAH mentions
> a campaign promise:  "We shall press forward along these lines
> until _everyone_ has an above-average income!"

> You are criticising
> RAH for writing a situation that he didn't find desirable?  Or is it that
> you dislike his extention (cast as ridiculous) of the Grammar School
> "theory" of 'Peer Group Promotion" when applied to the college level?
> (As noted elsethread:  RAH was satirizing!)
[...]

cb

p-brane wrote:

> The main character's attitude towards sex was not liberal, but blatantly
> misogynistic - she seemed far too ready to THANK PEOPLE  with a  bout of
> foreplay, rather than just experiment or enjoy & infact that exact line
> about THANKING PEOPLE was constantly popping up. It was a little 
> irritating...
>
> But nothing came close to Friday's reaction when she finally comes
> face-to-face with one of her rapists. It was not convincing in the
> slightest!!! I don't know about anyone else, but I would have thought 'sorry
> I was deep undercover & couldn't act out of character' wholly more
> acceptable than 'yeah i did it cause I was real attracted to you!!!'. The
> fact that she felt like THANKING HIM (not for the rape, BTW) only minutes
> after this altercation & then married him at the end of the book made my
> skin crawl. It was a pity, beacuse her reactions to the actual rape as it
> was taking place were very convincing. But if none of this was RAH's
> intention, then he should have allowed this relationship more time to
> develop for it to be believable, 'cause let's be honest, there's a fair bit
> of text he could have chopped out,  this wasn't one of his tightest
> books....

There would be a lot fewer "crimes of passion" if humans in general would learn to be that detached when the situation calls for it.

John David Galt wrote:

> p-brane wrote:
>> The main character's attitude towards sex was not liberal, but
>> blatantly misogynistic - she seemed far too ready to THANK PEOPLE
>> with a  bout of foreplay, rather than just experiment or enjoy &
>> infact that exact line about THANKING PEOPLE was constantly popping
>> up. It was a little irritating...
>>
>> But nothing came close to Friday's reaction when she finally comes
>> face-to-face with one of her rapists. It was not convincing in the
>> slightest!!! I don't know about anyone else, but I would have
>> thought 'sorry I was deep undercover & couldn't act out of
>> character' wholly more acceptable than 'yeah i did it cause I was
>> real attracted to you!!!'. The fact that she felt like THANKING HIM
>> (not for the rape, BTW) only minutes after this altercation & then
>> married him at the end of the book made my skin crawl. It was a
>> pity, beacuse her reactions to the actual rape as it was taking
>> place were very convincing. But if none of this was RAH's intention,
>> then he should have allowed this relationship more time to develop
>> for it to be believable, 'cause let's be honest, there's a fair bit
>> of text he could have chopped out,  this wasn't one of his tightest
>> books....
>
> Both of these reactions illustrate that Friday, as an AP, was more
> rational and less ruled by emotion than a human of either sex could
> have been.

>From: "William Dennis"

>> Both of these reactions illustrate that Friday, as an AP, was more
>> rational and less ruled by emotion than a human of either sex could
>> have been.
>
>I have always looked at the scene where she thanked the rapist as an
>example of her low self esteem, as in "I'm an AP, so I guess what happens
>to me isn't important."

Very very competent at her professional life (courier, then intuitive staff analyst), she was close to a basket case when it came to her personal life.

reply to p-br@ne:

marc wrote:

> LV Poker Player <lvpokerplayer@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> You and David Silver are the ones who give this NG the reputation of
>> being a closed clique.  You get occasional help from others too.
>> Chill out and have a drink at the bar instead of perpetuating this
>> reputation.
>
> I'm not sure that I agree that this group has that reputation,and
> whilst I can't remember any of Mr Smith's posts David Silver's have
> never struck me as  giving any sort of impression of a  clique.

In article <1frau6c.h4qc521i2e3uwN%marc@jaceeprint.demon.co.uk>, marc@jaceeprint.demon.co.uk (marc) wrote:

> LV Poker Player <lvpokerplayer@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > You and David Silver are the ones who give this NG the reputation of being a
> > closed clique.  You get occasional help from others too.  Chill out and
> > have a drink at the bar instead of perpetuating this reputation.
>
> I'm not sure that I agree that this group has that reputation,and whilst
> I can't remember any of Mr Smith's posts David Silver's have never
> struck me as  giving any sort of impression of a  clique.

In article <3e62a1b1$1_1@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com>, "p-brane" <youngalon@hotmail.com> wrote:

Okay, p-br@ne, I'll give you what you might have gotten had I been in a better mood that morning.

> Hi guys,
>
> Just finished reading Friday &.....what can I say...although there were
> elements I liked, there were some elements I certainly disliked/absoloutly
> detested!
>
> In terms of the pros -  I thought Heinlein dealt with the overall themes of
> racism (& a character's insecurity due to this)efficiently

You might consider reading this story alongside its prequel, the novella or novelette, "Gulf," written years earlier, in which one major character, Hartley Baldwin, appears. In "Gulf" Baldwin is a leader of a secret society, dedicated to saving mankind, of selected individuals who are taught to fulfill their higher intelligence and abilities by various mind-altering or mind-improvement techniques, and who call themselves "homo novis."

"Gulf" concerns the recruitment of one such individual into the secret society -- a coerced recruitment in which he is given no real choice, but to join or die. He joins, submits himself to a good deal of mental manipulation, and becomes one of the "homo novis." And also saves the world.

A generation of so later, Marjorie Baldwin -- "Friday" -- is mainly the biological child of two of those individuals, Joe, the coerced recruit, and Gail Greene, the hero and heroine of the earlier work, with dribs and drabs of other genetic improvements, including a bit of Baldwin and his wife, themselves, thrown in or so we are told in the story.

The popular notion of "superman" taken for the theme of "Gulf" and differences between those superman and the ordinary homo sapiens they protect, the question whether a 'gulf' would come to exist between the "homo novis" and those they protect and serve, is explored somewhat in "Gulf."

The story Friday continues exploration of that manipulation, mental and biological, and its effects in alienation. The 'secret society' has morphed, under Baldwin, into a mere 'organization,' and its goals are somewhat less clear.

But Friday, the artificial person, has a substantial gulf to bridge.

One part of the gulf is the question of where does she fit within human society, if anywhere? E.g., what's the meaning and purpose of her life?

That's a classic question. Take a look at Voltaire's Candide while you think about the story Friday. I believe Heinlein took the bones of Voltaire's work for his model in Friday. Same question, same plot, same characters; and he reworked them.

> The nascent colony system was well thought out.

You might also take a look at something called 'social Darwinism' for a hint here of Heinlein's thoughts.

Each of the utopiae sketched lack something necessary for them to be an utopia for all, just as Candide's travels found.

> The witty, staccato style of dialogue was extremely entertaining...
>
> As far as the cons go - The story was a little slow off the starting blocks...

> Some of the opinions were misguided, i.e
> California's decision to award all citizen's with BAs/BSCs regardless of
> therir merit so that they may recieve pay equal to Graduates!!! Come on
> RAH - if yo want to up the pay of their current jobs so that it's equal to
> Grads, fair enough   (maybe), but don't give them a piece of paper thats
> ultimately meaningless & could cause a whole generation of work-place
> disasters!!!

> The main character's attitude towards sex was not liberal, but blatantly
> misogynistic - she seemed far too ready to THANK PEOPLE  with a  bout of
> foreplay, rather than just experiment or enjoy & infact that exact line
> about THANKING PEOPLE was constantly popping up. It was a little
> irritating...

>
> But nothing came close to Friday's reaction when she finally comes
> face-to-face with one of her rapists. It was not convincing in the
> slightest!!! I don't know about anyone else, but I would have thought 'sorry
> I was deep undercover & couldn't act out of character' wholly more
> acceptable than 'yeah i did it cause I was real attracted to you!!!'. The
> fact that she felt like THANKING HIM (not for the rape, BTW) only minutes
> after this altercation & then married him at the end of the book made my
> skin crawl.

> It was a pity, beacuse her reactions to the actual rape as it
> was taking place were very convincing. But if none of this was RAH's
> intention, then he should have allowed this relationship more time to
> develop for it to be believable

>, 'cause let's be honest, there's a fair bit
> of text he could have chopped out,  this wasn't one of his tightest
> books....
>

> Anyways, what do other peeps think? I'd be especially interested in a female
> perspective....

>
> Tanstaafl!
>
> p-br@ne
>

On Wed, 05 Mar 2003 21:04:16 -0800, "David M. Silver" <ag.plusone@verizon.net> wrote:

>The popular notion of "superman" taken for the theme of "Gulf" and
>differences between those superman and the ordinary homo sapiens they
>protect, the question whether a 'gulf' would come to exist between the
>"homo novis" and those they protect and serve, is explored somewhat in
>"Gulf."
>
>The story Friday continues exploration of that manipulation, mental and

>biological, and its effects in alienation. The 'secret society' has
>morphed, under Baldwin, into a mere 'organization,' and its goals are
>somewhat less clear.

In Baldwin's will, he offers a hefty subsidy for Friday to migrate to another planet (since he expects Earth to go down the tubes in the near future) but says that the subsidy will *not* apply if she chooses to go to the "superman" planet.

This suggests that Baldwin and his erstwhile bretheren have parted ways, not that the society has "morphed into a mere organization."

In article <ukqf6vs8j1786hvg39tbnae9fim3nhrmpf@4ax.com>, Chris Zakes <moondrgn@austin.rr.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 05 Mar 2003 21:04:16 -0800, "David M. Silver"
> <ag.plusone@verizon.net> wrote:
>
[snip]
>
> One quibble: The "supermen" from "Gulf" have colonized their own
> planet by the time of "Friday."
>
> In Baldwin's will, he offers a hefty subsidy for Friday to migrate to
> another planet (since he expects Earth to go down the tubes in the
> near future) but says that the subsidy will *not* apply if she chooses

> to go to the "superman" planet.

>
> This suggests that Baldwin and his erstwhile bretheren have parted
> ways, not that the society has "morphed into a mere organization."
>

"David M. Silver" wrote:

> In article <ukqf6vs8j1786hvg39tbnae9fim3nhrmpf@4ax.com>,
>  Chris Zakes <moondrgn@austin.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 05 Mar 2003 21:04:16 -0800, "David M. Silver"
> > <ag.plusone@verizon.net> wrote:
> >
> [snip]
> >
> > One quibble: The "supermen" from "Gulf" have colonized their own
> > planet by the time of "Friday."
> >
> > In Baldwin's will, he offers a hefty subsidy for Friday to migrate to
> > another planet (since he expects Earth to go down the tubes in the
> > near future) but says that the subsidy will *not* apply if she chooses
> > to go to the "superman" planet.
>
> Quite true, and the 'red monkeys' I referred to are what remains of them
> on that new planet. They obviously aren't interested in saving mankind

> anymore: perhaps some of them never were, merely waiting to split off
> and leave. Shades of Khan! Ceti Alfa Six, or was it Five.
> >
> > This suggests that Baldwin and his erstwhile bretheren have parted
> > ways, not that the society has "morphed into a mere organization."
> >
>
> Agreed. But Baldwin's murky part of that still secret organization yet
> exists. Baldwin just doesn't state exactly what its purpose is. The
> "boss" gets jobs is apparently all his employees, or at least Friday,
> knows; and they go do them.

I always found rather telling that, pretty much the minute he discovered he had failed -- through Friday's analysis -- he kicked off. He left behind

what he could to protect those who had served him so loyally, and abandoned ship.

I don't know that I'd agree that Friday is a basket case in terms of personal relationships or any social interaction not directly related to her job; though she doesn't have the best "luck" until Janet/Ian/Georges, I note that when her social relationships fail, those failures don't affect her ability to function. She cries, she shouts "unfair!" (and she's right), she goes out and gets laid. How, exactly, is this different from a "normal" human? (I'm not implying that you're asserting any of this, David; I've purged all but the last few postings in this thread -- sorry about that.) It's been a few years since I've read _Friday_ (no, it's not in a box in the garage -- why do so many people have their books consigned to literary hell?), so perhaps there are things I don't recall. But I always found Friday to be an exceptionally strong character, even (or maybe "especially") when her personal relationships tanked.

As to the rape and her reaction to it -- I remember posting on this subject a couple years ago, in this very group, I think. My assertion then was that one must keep in mind that Friday was not raised as a "normal" human woman would have been. The typical reaction to rape -- anger, horror -- is a learned reaction. Friday was never taught it, and so does not react in the typical fashion. She's aware intellectually of the violation, and why other women react the way they do, but because she's never been taught to react this way at the emotional level... she doesn't. The rape is "simply" another method used by her captors to get her to break -- they seem not to realize that she's been trained both to not be thrown into an emotional abyss by it, and in fact to react in the manner opposite of that expected -- rendering the "technique" useless.

The circumstances that come to pass later in the novel when she meets up again with one of the rapists offends many of us, because Heinlein "obviously doesn't understand how a woman would *really* react." Maybe, maybe not -- but that's irrelevant here; Friday is not a typical woman -- she wouldn't react "normally" in any case. Because she doesn't find the rape emotionally horrifying, she doesn't react to later meeting one of the perpetrators as we would expect. He was doing his job; it was adversarial in regards to Friday, but the technique he employed was no more or less "professional tactics" than the torture or the truth drugs she was subjected to. By the late part of the novel, the rapist (Pete, right?) is no longer in an adversarial relationship -- Friday notes that what he did is considered beneath the pale, but from my interpretation, no more beneath the pale than the torture (neither especially fun afternoons, but to Friday, essentially equivalent). I always read her later conversation with him ("Can you give me any reason why I shouldn't kill you right now?") as someone who knows, intellectually, how any woman *without* her training would have reacted, and this is what generates her question. But it's really an intellectual exercise; she has no intent to kill him unless forced to by *current* circumstances -- the rape (and torture) is part of the past that she has survived and moved on from.

And, lest readers here think I'm emotionally detached myself -- the above is discussing a work of *fiction.* I, like many here I suspect, know a couple of rape victims. If it were within my power, those perpetrators would be dead. Messily, and not quickly.

Shane

shane glaseman wrote:

<major snipping>

>  Further,
> the fact that he remained on Earth and yet still controls a clandestine
> organization made up of "normal" humans AND all-but-homo-novis humans is
> indicative of what his purpose always was -- to save Mankind from itself.

> I always found rather telling that, pretty much the minute he discovered he
> had failed -- through Friday's analysis -- he kicked off. He left behind
> what he could to protect those who had served him so loyally, and abandoned
> ship.

It's also feasible -- at least to those who have read the earlier short story "Gulf" that Dr. Baldwin is on the close order of 100 years old! Dr. Baldwin was at least a couple of generations earlier in the "breeding" plan of the New Men. Even the most novo of the homo novis have got to wear out sometime.

"Old" and "fatigued," I think, are clear from the context. Your charge of "abandoning ship" seems an unearned canard. Perhaps, I've overlooked something in the text. Could you supply a citation that led to your conclusion/assumption, please.

You seem to suggest that having become convinced of his eventual failure like Brutus at Philippi, he fell on his sword or the moral equivalent. I think of him as a gallant warrior whose "wounds" finally caused him to leave the field of battle "on his shield."

Thank you, Dr. Rufo

"Dr. Rufo" <baybus@mindspring.com> wrote:

>shane glaseman wrote:
>
><major snipping>
>>  Further,
>> the fact that he remained on Earth and yet still controls a clandestine
>> organization made up of "normal" humans AND all-but-homo-novis humans is
>> indicative of what his purpose always was -- to save Mankind from itself.
>
>> I always found rather telling that, pretty much the minute he discovered he
>> had failed -- through Friday's analysis -- he kicked off. He left behind
>> what he could to protect those who had served him so loyally, and abandoned
>> ship.
>
>I find this evaluation of Dr. Hartley M. ("Kettle-Belly") Baldwin's
>character and actions unsettling.  You said that his main focus was to
>"save Mankind from itself." I completely agree. But then you say that in
>the face of Friday's analysis, he "abandoned ship" suggests that he
>"chose" to shuffle off this mortal coil.  It's made clear in the story
>that he was in constant pain and that was despite very heavy doses of
>pain-controlling medications.
>
>It's also feasible -- at least to those who have read the earlier short
>story "Gulf" that Dr. Baldwin is on the close order of 100 years old!
>Dr. Baldwin was at least a couple of generations earlier in the
>"breeding" plan of the New Men.  Even the most novo of the homo novis
>have got to wear out sometime.

 "You are finding the Master grumpy and sometimes difficult."

 "Correction.  He is always difficult."

 "Mmmm, yes.  But what you may not know is that he is in constant pain."
  She added, "He can no longer take drugs to control it."

 ... "Goldie?  What is wrong with him?"

 "Nothing, really.  I would say that he is in good health ... for his age."

 "How old is he?"

 "I don't know.  From things I have heard, I know that he is
 over a hundred.  How much over I can't guess."

No, Dr. Baldwin did not "abandon ship", he just ran out of time, as many of us have to, to finish the preparations and arrangements he intended for his people before his death.

OJ III

[And another no. I don't have Friday memorized. I started rereading it Tuesday - specifically because of the OP's comments that started this thread - and had just left off Wednesday night at this chapter. So the passage was rather fresh in my mind. ;->]

In article <s3pg6vo7o1pog1f6dfqlbbq8upkc5bsp36@4ax.com>, Ogden Johnson III <oj3@cpcug.org> wrote:

> "Dr. Rufo" <baybus@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> >shane glaseman wrote:
> >
> ><major snipping>
> >>  Further,
> >> the fact that he remained on Earth and yet still controls a clandestine
> >> organization made up of "normal" humans AND all-but-homo-novis humans is
> >> indicative of what his purpose always was -- to save Mankind from itself.
> >
> >> I always found rather telling that, pretty much the minute he discovered he
> >> had failed -- through Friday's analysis -- he kicked off. He left behind
> >> what he could to protect those who had served him so loyally, and abandoned
> >> ship.
> >
> >I find this evaluation of Dr. Hartley M. ("Kettle-Belly") Baldwin's
> >character and actions unsettling.  You said that his main focus was to
> >"save Mankind from itself." I completely agree. But then you say that in
> >the face of Friday's analysis, he "abandoned ship" suggests that he
> >"chose" to shuffle off this mortal coil.  It's made clear in the story
> >that he was in constant pain and that was despite very heavy doses of

> >pain-controlling medications.
> >
> >It's also feasible -- at least to those who have read the earlier short
> >story "Gulf" that Dr. Baldwin is on the close order of 100 years old!

> >Dr. Baldwin was at least a couple of generations earlier in the
> >"breeding" plan of the New Men.  Even the most novo of the homo novis

> >have got to wear out sometime.
>
> More than feasible, I was specifically stated in the same conversation

> between Goldie and Friday in Chapter 23 [p 233 of the Del Ray PB
> edition, Friday looking somewhat Angelina Jolie-ish in her jump suit
> on the cover] where Goldie told Friday:
>
>  "You are finding the Master grumpy and sometimes difficult."
>
>  "Correction.  He is always difficult."
>
>  "Mmmm, yes.  But what you may not know is that he is in
> constant pain."  She added, "He can no longer take drugs to control
> it."
>
>  ... "Goldie?  What is wrong with him?"
>
>  "Nothing, really.  I would say that he is in good health ...
> for his age."
>
>  "How old is he?"
>
>  "I don't know.  From things I have heard, I know that he is
> over a hundred.  How much over I can't guess."
>
> Later in the chapter, during Friday's last conversation with the Boss,

> she sees him, for the first time not using his canes as he always had
> before, but in a wheelchair.
>
> No, Dr. Baldwin did not "abandon ship", he just ran out of time, as
> many of us have to, to finish the preparations and arrangements he
> intended for his people before his death.
>
> OJ III
> [And another no.  I don't have Friday memorized.  I started rereading
> it Tuesday - specifically because of the OP's comments that started
> this thread - and had just left off Wednesday night at this chapter.
> So the passage was rather fresh in my mind.  ;->]

I've suggested before that Heinlein modeled this Gulf revisited on Candide: who is the advisor, the mentor of Candide: Pangloss, the one who puts a "gloss" on the world, who has an easy answer, so it seems, for everything. Pangloss constantly leads his pupils into the wrong direction -- read Voltaire!

I read "Gulf" a long time before Heinlein wrote Friday; and it was always one of my favorite stories, perhaps because its adventure appealled to my twelve- or thirteen-year-old mind. But while I've always admired the Baldwin of "Gulf" I've never much liked him -- I didn't like the way he trapped Joe into a one-way mission, nor Gail. I've always felt Heinlein wrote "Gulf" very ironically. "Supermen"? Give me a break,

Heinlein's generation had just finished eradicating some 'supermen' to make the world safe for me! No one in 1948 was particularly well disposed concerning the notion of 'supermen' -- we don't need no stinkin' supermen, look at the death camps they left! So you get Baldwin taking advantage of a pretty good "joe" named Greene, who happens to have been manipulated into a failure -- his own government agency of spies wants to kill him. Baldwin, the exact antithesis of the Christ on the mountain story, takes Joe down into the deep dungeon, and makes sure while he displays the meager benefit of joining "homo novis" that Joe understands that unless he joins, his bones will remain in the dungeon as no doubt many others who have gone that way before -- and chosen not to join. This is no volunteer to save the world. This is a hurt, scared man, striving despirately to survive! A draftee, and we know what Heinlein thought about governments who had to be saved by draftees -- and a slave. Just like his daughter Marjorie, come to think on it.

Baldwin's world saving is accomplished by slaves to his organization of homo novis. What kind of world must that be? And Baldwin's organization goes bonkers eventually, as any organization that believes itself to be Overlords must, and the schismatics take off for the green pastures of their own planet -- where any fool can see they pose as great a threat of developing WMD as any other race led by a madman; and where the brown monkeys will, by and by, take care of them.

Baldwin doesn't have all the answers, and I think he's realized by the time of the story _Friday_ that the only answer he has is for the mankind that's important to him: _his_ only child as well as the only child of his two martyred heroes, Joe and Gail, is to flee earth. And find a garden of her own to tend, like Candide. Leave the world saving to someone else!

Baldwin has given up the grand plan, and finally come to realize that if you can't move and shake all of it, you can move and shake it a little so your sprig of immortality will possibly survive.

. . . gingerly moving off soapbox . . .

<Liberal snippage included at no extra charge>

"David M. Silver" <ag.plusone@verizon.net> wrote in message news:ag.plusone-0E9028.02315007032003@news.fu-berlin.de...

> In article <s3pg6vo7o1pog1f6dfqlbbq8upkc5bsp36@4ax.com>,
>  Ogden Johnson III <oj3@cpcug.org> wrote:
>
> > "Dr. Rufo" <baybus@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >
> > >shane glaseman wrote:
> > >
> > ><major snipping>
> > >>  Further,
> > >> the fact that he remained on Earth and yet still controls a clandestine
> > >> organization made up of "normal" humans AND all-but-homo-novis humans is
> > >> indicative of what his purpose always was -- to save Mankind from itself.
> > >
> > >> I always found rather telling that, pretty much the minute he discovered he
> > >> had failed -- through Friday's analysis -- he kicked off. He left behind
> > >> what he could to protect those who had served him so loyally, and abandoned
> > >> ship.
> > >
> > >I find this evaluation of Dr. Hartley M. ("Kettle-Belly") Baldwin's
> > >character and actions unsettling.  You said that his main focus was to
> > >"save Mankind from itself." I completely agree. But then you say that in
> > >the face of Friday's analysis, he "abandoned ship" suggests that he 
> > >"chose" to shuffle off this mortal coil.  It's made clear in the story
> > >that he was in constant pain and that was despite very heavy doses of
> > >pain-controlling medications.
> > >
> > >It's also feasible -- at least to those who have read the earlier short
> > >story "Gulf" that Dr. Baldwin is on the close order of 100 years old!
> > 
> > More than feasible, I was specifically stated in the same conversation
> > between Goldie and Friday in Chapter 23

> > "How old is he?"
> >
> > "I don't know.  From things I have heard, I know that he is
> > over a hundred.  How much over I can't guess."

> > No, Dr. Baldwin did not "abandon ship", he just ran out of time, as
> > many of us have to, to finish the preparations and arrangements he
> > intended for his people before his death.

> Actually, I agree more with Shane's evaluation of what Baldwin does; but
> not why. Baldwin's a very old tired and disappointed man. He was the
> silly thing we all are warned about, at one time at least -- the
> idealist, who was going to save mankind. By the time we find him in
> _Friday_ he's only just what his name means: Bald Man, like the author
> at the time of writing, who went through a world saving period himself.

> Baldwin has given up the grand plan, and finally come to realize that if
> you can't move and shake all of it, you can move and shake it a little 
> so your sprig of immortality will possibly survive.

When he discovered that the Work coudn't be finished (or not by him), the fire went out, and the "house of his spirit" quickly crumbled...

Regards,

--
Rusty the bookman

David Silver by Chris Zakes on Thu, Mar 6:

Chris Zakes wrote:

> One quibble: The "supermen" from "Gulf" have colonized their own
> planet by the time of "Friday."

First, Baldwin's organization as seen in "Gulf" is still operating on Earth, pretty much unchanged, until his death. Indeed, if the supermen are as small a fraction of humanity as implied in "Gulf", hardly any of them have left Earth by then.

> In Baldwin's will, he offers a hefty subsidy for Friday to migrate to
> another planet (since he expects Earth to go down the tubes in the
> near future) but says that the subsidy will *not* apply if she chooses
> to go to [a certain planet].

Perhaps it is a nasty police state where they could not possibly operate undiscovered (such as one of the domed colonies Sam warns Max about in "Starman Jones" -- am I the only one who notices the commonality of world names between that story and Friday?) That's what I have always assumed.

Or perhaps it is so far away and so unmilitarized that it can't possibly threaten the rest of humanity, and thus doesn't need any "supermen" to keep its leadership from going astray.

> This suggests that Baldwin and his erstwhile bretheren have parted
> ways, not that the society has "morphed into a mere organization."

a) Baldwin feels that he has brought Earth through its crisis, and Earth no longer needs the level of protection it did then.

b) Baldwin has given up on Earth, knowing that its chaos will only get worse until civilization falls apart. (Both this and (a) can be true if we assume that the colonies have recently become strong enough to withstand the loss of Earth.)

c) Although Baldwin did some long-range planning for the welfare of individuals he cared about such as Friday, he did not pick a successor, either because he was too busy to get around to it, or because he didn't believe any of his colleagues yet had the right set of skills and values to continue the organization's mission.

(I have a high enough faith in Baldwin's judgment of people that I won't seriously consider a fourth possibility: he did choose a successor, but the successor was incompetent or disloyal and didn't follow through.)

>From: John David Galt j

>> One quibble: The "supermen" from "Gulf" have colonized their own
>> planet by the time of "Friday."
>
>I don't see how anyone can come to this conclusion.

>First, Baldwin's organization as seen in "Gulf" is still operating on
>Earth, pretty much unchanged, until his death.  Indeed, if the supermen
>are as small a fraction of humanity as implied in "Gulf", hardly any of
>them have left Earth by then.
>
>> In Baldwin's will, he offers a hefty subsidy for Friday to migrate to
>> another planet (since he expects Earth to go down the tubes in the
>> near future) but says that the subsidy will *not* apply if she chooses
>> to go to [a certain planet].
>
>Second, we are not told anything about the planet in question.  It seems
>more logical to me to infer that that planet is one where the "supermen"
>don't expect to be able to do any good.

Ms. Tomasawa:  "Exception:  If you migrate to Olympia, you pay for it yourself.
 Nothing from the trust."

Friday:  "Dr. Baldwin said something about that.  What's so poisonous about
Olympia?  I don't recall a colony world named that?"

Ms. Tomasawa:  "You don't?  No I guess you were too young.  That's where those
self-styled supermen went.  No real point in warning you against it, however,
the oroporation doesn't run ships there."

I am with the rest of the people here. The supermen from Gulf split off from Dr. Baldwin and emigrated to Olympia. I have no doubt that SOME of the Gulf people stayed, and might very well have been in the employ of System Enterprises, but the ones who emigrated did so without the consent or approval of Boss. Maybe System Enterprises is a continuation of the Gulf organization, maybe it continued without an actual break in operations, but it is definitely doing so after a split.

>Perhaps it is a nasty police state where they could not possibly operate
>undiscovered (such as one of the domed colonies Sam warns Max about in
>"Starman Jones" -- am I the only one who notices the commonality of world
>names between that story and Friday?)  That's what I have always assumed.

>b)  Baldwin has given up on Earth, knowing that its chaos will only
>get worse until civilization falls apart.  (Both this and (a) can be
>true if we assume that the colonies have recently become strong enough
>to withstand the loss of Earth.)

"Yes. Concerining your ex-migration:  I recommend that you not move to the
planet Olympia.  Otherwise, I have no specific advice other than to migrate.
When I was younger, I thought I could change this world.  Now I no longer think
so but for emotional reasons I must keep on fighting a holding action."

--
Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.

From: David M. Silver <ag.plusone@verizon.net>
Subject: Re: RAH-AIM Reading Group -- 3/20-22/03 meeting The "Gulf"-_Friday_ Universe
Date: Monday, March 10, 2003 5:37 PM


On Mon, Mar 10, 2003, at 11:39 AM, Chuck Krin replied to John
David Galt, in the "Chauvinist, Inc." thread: 
> 
> On Sat, 08 Mar 2003 19:52:48 -0800, John David Galt
> <jdg@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us> wrote:
> 
> >Chris Zakes wrote:
> snip
> >
> >> This suggests that Baldwin and his erstwhile bretheren have parted
> >> ways, not that the society has "morphed into a mere organization."
> >
> >I can't see either of these explanations as valid either.  What we do
> >know is that Baldwin or his successor has decided, as of his death, to
> >shut down the organization on Earth.  (Or maybe just some of it, and
> >those being dumped are kept in the dark about its continued existence
> >to protect it against any of them talking, voluntarily or otherwise.)
> 

> personally, I see this one as the "most probable" answer...cells work
> in this kind of situation, and the less the cells know about each
> other (as long as there is some way of coordinating actions and
> information), the less likely that the whole outfit is liable to be
> rolled up.

So do I; but the cells are more likely to go into hiatus if, as you 
suggest lower down, the successor who was being groomed was 
neutralized/died before he/she could take over.

Exactly what is Gloria Tomosawa doing in Luna? I think it was possible, 
had the books gone on, we might have seen more of her.
> >
> >If it did truly shut down, I would infer one of three possible reasons.
> >
> >a)  Baldwin feels that he has brought Earth through its crisis, and
> >Earth no longer needs the level of protection it did then.
> >
> >b)  Baldwin has given up on Earth, knowing that its chaos will only
> >get worse until civilization falls apart.  (Both this and (a) can be
> >true if we assume that the colonies have recently become strong enough
> >to withstand the loss of Earth.)
> >
> >c)  Although Baldwin did some long-range planning for the welfare of
> >individuals he cared about such as Friday, he did not pick a successor,
> >either because he was too busy to get around to it, or because he
> >didn't believe any of his colleagues yet had the right set of skills
> >and values to continue the organization's mission.
> >
> >(I have a high enough faith in Baldwin's judgment of people that I
> >won't seriously consider a fourth possibility:  he did choose a
> >successor, but the successor was incompetent or disloyal and didn't
> >follow through.)
> 
> There is plausibly a fifth: Dr. Baldwin had chosen and groomed a
> successor, but that successor either died or was otherwise neutralized
> before s/he could takeover.
> 

A sixth is a hiatus in activities, as suggested above. Regrouping while 
dormant and establishing cells off-planet seems equally a part of useful 
work during the hiatus.
-- 
David M. Silver www.heinleinsociety.org
"The Lieutenant expects your names to shine!"
Robert Anson Heinlein, USNA '29, Lt.(jg), USN, R'td, 1907-88


From: Dr. Rufo <baybus@mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: RAH-AIM Reading Group -- 3/20-22/03 meeting The "Gulf"-_Friday_Universe
Date: Monday, March 10, 2003 6:54 PM

David M. Silver wrote:
<snip for brevity and refusing any stiplations>
> Exactly what is Gloria Tomosawa doing in Luna? I think it was possible, 
> had the books gone on, we might have seen more of her.

	David, because of your chosen profession, I trust you have a "good" 
opinion of (at least some of) those who practice law. Miss Tomosawa of 
Fong, Tomosawa, Rothschild, Fong, and Finnegan, Luna City says:
	"I'm Gloria Tomosawa, senior partner in Fong, Tomosawa, et al., now 
that Grandpa Fong has retired. But that doesn't interfere with my being 
a vice--president of Ceres and South Africa Acceptances; we are also the 
legal department of the bank. And I'm the chief trust officer, too, 
which means that I'm going to have business with you."

	Surely, that cluster of activities should "fill her time." And now you 
suggest that she might have been a "active" participant in Dr. Baldwin's 
enterprises as well!

	I stopped to think for a moment, David. I've always been advised that 
"if you need something done, ask a 'busy' person -- they will find the 
time to help." In that spirit, I offer one more citation from "Friday":
	"Gloria Tomosawa had made it easy. I suspect that there are just two 
sorts of lawyers: those who spend their efforts making life easy for 
other people--and parasites."

	Maybe your suggestion would have borne fruit.  Mrs. Tomosawa certainly 
demonstrates the faculties of a member of Dr. Baldwin's group.

Dr. Rufo

From: Dee <ke4lfgDELETETHIS@amsat.org>
Subject: Re: RAH-AIM Reading Group -- 3/20-22/03 meeting The "Gulf"-_Friday_ Universe
Date: Monday, March 10, 2003 7:50 PM

"David M. Silver" <ag.plusone@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:ag.plusone-3586EE.14371510032003@news.fu-berlin.de...
> A sixth is a hiatus in activities, as suggested above. Regrouping while
> dormant and establishing cells off-planet seems equally a part of useful
> work during the hiatus.

    How about this one?  He was grooming Friday, beginning with training and
field experience, moving on to the "research" projects he gave her, and the
will was the back-up plan, but events got ahead of him, and she was not yet
ready.  (Especially since her creche rearing had wounded her so.)

--Dee

From: David M. Silver <ag.plusone@verizon.net>
Subject: Re: RAH-AIM Reading Group -- 3/20-22/03 meeting The "Gulf"-_Friday_ Universe
Date: Monday, March 10, 2003 8:22 PM

In article <v6qcphn3n3i2ad@corp.supernews.com>,
 "Dee" <ke4lfgDELETETHIS@amsat.org> wrote:
> "David M. Silver" <ag.plusone@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:ag.plusone-3586EE.14371510032003@news.fu-berlin.de...
> > A sixth is a hiatus in activities, as suggested above. Regrouping while
> > dormant and establishing cells off-planet seems equally a part of useful
> > work during the hiatus.
> 
>     How about this one?  He was grooming Friday, beginning with training and
> field experience, moving on to the "research" projects he gave her, and the
> will was the back-up plan, but events got ahead of him, and she was not yet
> ready.  (Especially since her creche rearing had wounded her so.)
> 

That might be my first choice, Dee. However, there's this: we learn 
Baldwin and his wife were childless, except for the genetic 
contributions they made to the "test tube and knife" conception that 
became Friday. 

"Saving the world" took up too much of the Baldwins' time for them to 
have children of their own, except (in effect by adoption) in their very 
old age (does this sound like a couple we think we knew pretty well?); 
and what childrearing they did do was only after Baldwin got out of 
prison and managed to track down Marjorie and rescue her from the doxy 
farm (you don't think it was called the 'Chicken Ranch' or something 
like that, do you? ;-) -- Marjorie must have been in her late teens at 
best by then. And it's fairly clear that the off-stage Mrs. "Kettle 
Belly" Baldwin never saw much of Marjorie before she died, before the 
story opens. 

I think if you look at some of the other novels: Podkayne, for one, you 
can say Heinlein had definite opinions about the proper time and way to 
raise children. Perhaps it's arguable he felt that too young wasn't all 
that great, e.g., the couple in Podkayne who were career space crew, the 
"Breezes" I think; but I doubt whether he felt that octagenians as 
parents (except for the long-lived Howards, who seem young forever -- 
and Friday isn't a Howard, yet) were a good thing either, as the 
Baldwin's had to be at least in their eighties if the Boss is 'over one 
hundred' by the time of the story in Friday. And he also despised the 
'hands-off' ship them off to a boarding school, or foist them off on 
unoccupied unmarried relatives to babysit while parents work school of 
childraising -- as evidenced by how poor Poddy the innocent and Clark 
the sociopath may have turned out. 

He puts Marjorie, at the end of the story, in the group marriage, 
"tending her own garden," at a young enough age to 'relate' easily, with 
energy to be actively engaged in raising the family's children, even if 
biologically none are actually her *own* children. 

I suspect Hartley Baldwin would have preferred that Majorie have this 
stage of enjoyment of life's rewards (what did I say? raising teens 
isn't exactly always an enjoyable experience, but it's important enough 
to try to do so if you have children -- rather than regret long 
afterwards never having tried), unencumbered with the role of Mistress 
of his organization of super-duper-folk out 'world-saving,' if such a 
thing really survives, if that's what she eventually chooses to do. 

"Optimism" after all, is the sub-title of _Candide_, although arguably 
it is very ironic chosen and hard to believe Voltaire blindly endorsed 
such a thing; and perhaps Heinlein didn't wholeheartedly do so either.

Hence, Mrs. Tomosawa ... or someone like her ..., and she's the more 
likely candidate I see, as likely immediate successor to Kettle Belly in 
this timeline, where I were writing the World As Myth sequela . . . but 
I'm not. ;-)

-- 
David M. Silver www.heinleinsociety.org
"The Lieutenant expects your names to shine!"
Robert Anson Heinlein, USNA '29, Lt.(jg), USN, R'td, 1907-88


From: David M. Silver <ag.plusone@verizon.net>
Subject: Re: RAH-AIM Reading Group -- 3/20-22/03 meeting The "Gulf"-_Friday_ Universe
Date: Tuesday, March 11, 2003 4:31 PM

In article <ag.plusone-874CEA.01244710032003@news.fu-berlin.de>,
 "David M. Silver" <ag.plusone@verizon.net> wrote:
[snip]
> 
> I've also frequently noted the resemblance in plot to Voltaire's 
> Candide. For an etext of Candide, unless you read French, you're on your 
> own; however, both Norton and Penguin have produced perfectly affordable 
> English language translations. 

I correct myself. Try this for a text on-line:

http://www.literature.org/authors/voltaire/candide/
-- 
David M. Silver www.heinleinsociety.org
"The Lieutenant expects your names to shine!"
Robert Anson Heinlein, USNA '29, Lt.(jg), USN, R'td, 1907-88


From: David M. Silver <ag.plusone@verizon.net>
Subject: Re: RAH-AIM Reading Group -- 3/20-22/03 meeting The "Gulf"-_Friday_ Universe
Date: Tuesday, March 11, 2003 4:42 PM

In article <rwqba.56$RY3.24737864@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com>,
 "cmaj7dmin7" <reilloc@sbcglobal.spamlessness.net> wrote:
[snip lovely little poem from Bartlesby -- a site to bookmark]
> 
> ************************************
> I recall reading (and have read, re-posted in you follow-ups, above) the
> question about the similarities between Baldwin, Harshaw and the Old Man of
> PM and didn't say anything--except, "duh," to myself.
> 
> Just who is the PM in PM? Who's the secretary and who the servant out on the
> abandoned E.S. Gardner ranch? Who was marooned and who was rescued on
> Friday? And what's it all mean, anyway? Does it have to mean something?
> Everthing is for the best in this best of all possible worlds, right?
> 

"Excellently observed," answered Candide; "but let us cultivate our 
garden." 

Enjoy your kids' vacation, LN. Drop in on a post reply if you have the 
occasion.
-- 
David M. Silver www.heinleinsociety.org
"The Lieutenant expects your names to shine!"
Robert Anson Heinlein, USNA '29, Lt.(jg), USN, R'td, 1907-88


From: David M. Silver <ag.plusone@verizon.net>
Subject: [LONG] Re: RAH-AIM Reading Group -- 3/20-22/03 meeting The "Gulf"-_Friday_ Universe
Date: Tuesday, March 11, 2003 8:06 PM

In article <ag.plusone-874CEA.01244710032003@news.fu-berlin.de>,
 "David M. Silver" <ag.plusone@verizon.net> wrote:
[snip]
> I've also frequently noted the resemblance in plot to Voltaire's 
> Candide. For an etext of Candide, unless you read French, you're on your 
> own; however, both Norton and Penguin have produced perfectly affordable 
> English language translations. There are also a lot of study suggestions 
> for Voltaire's classics on the Internet, and you might enjoy a few of 
> them. 

I sometimes worry that I get away with arguments too easily. Let me do 
one thing -- for those willing to read a little bit -- and ask you to 
answer one broad question.

This question is this: Am I wrong or right about the probable use by 
Heinlein of the plot of Voltaire's _Candide_ (subtitled: Optimism) in 
his story Friday? 

Here comes the long part: It's not a very long work -- about sixty 
pages; and it's plainly a satire from beginning to end. Downthread 
there's an URL to a text version. There's not much subtlety in it. 
Briefly, here's a sketch of enough of the plot to display its flavor:

Young, handsome Candide, a "foundling," (and the bastard of the Baron's 
sister, cf. Fielding's Tom Jones), is charitably raised in the household 
of the Baron of Westphalia, where he is educated along with the Baron's 
offspring by the Baron's resident tutor, a "philosopher," Pangloss, who 
teaches them all that we all live in the "best of all possible worlds," 
and offers the following rationale as lessons demonstrating proof of his 
philosophy: for obviously the reigning baron is best-suited to rule and, 
therefore, does; noses are best-suited for spectacles and, therefore, we 
wear them there; and other like circular twaddle, etc. 

One day, the Baron's daughter, Cunegund, observes Pangloss expanding 
upon his teachings deep in the garden between the legs of a comely maid; 
for this is indeed the "best of all possible worlds" for Pangloss and, 
following their example, falls into heat, er, love, herself. She fixes 
her attentions upon Candide; he begin to reciprocate; but the Baron 
observes them in preliminary embrace and drives his bastard nephew from 
the castle. Candide, wandering homeless and destitute, next encounters 
some fine, new friends who pressgang him into service in the army of the 
King of Bulgaria [Fielding might have thought of filing a copyright 
lawsuit against Voltaire for stealing his plot, if copyrights then were 
enforceable among separate nations]. He deserts, is recaptured, tortured 
and about to be executed for desertion, when he is pardoned by the 
King's grace and allowed to return to the ranks. As soon as he recovers, 
the Bulgarian King's army meets the King of Abares in battle.

In the ensuing carnage, several thousands of unworthy scoundrels on both 
sides are swept by cannon ball, bullet and bayonet out of this "best of 
all possible worlds;" and the chaos afterwards gives Candide a chance to 
desert again. He flees through villages where both sides have shown 
their military prowess by killing civilians, looting, raping virgins, 
etc., and encounters finally, once beyond the theatre of war, in Holland 
some townsfolk whose charity he begs but who refuse him because he fails 
soon enough to declare he holds the Pope the antichrist. A good 
samaritan named James, a merchant, privately and quietly pities him, 
takes him into his own home, feeds, cleans, and offers to teach him a 
valuable trade. 

This single act of kindness and future hope proves to Candide that it is 
indeed the "best of all possible worlds," as Pangloss had taught him. He 
rationalizes, as would Pangloss, that had he not been banished from his 
home he would not have been forced to desert the army and flee to 
Holland where, had he not been refused food and shelter by some, he 
would not have been pitied by the kind man who rescued him and offered 
to teach him a useful trade sufficient to support him in comfort for the 
rest of his life. 

The next day he meets a poxed, noseless beggar, who turns out to be 
Pangloss himself. Pangloss is now a beggar because, he claims, the 
Westphalian Baron's castle was destroyed, and all within, including 
Cunegund, killed during the war waged by the King of Bulgaria (and 
Pangloss is only incidentally a beggar because he also caught the pox 
from the comely maid he instructed in the garden). The philosopher 
explains to Candide that syphillis, his malady, is a necessary 
ingredient in this "best of all possible worlds" of ours; for were we 
not to have it, we could not have also the other wonderful Columbus 
discoveries from the New World, e.g., chocolate or red dye, Voltaire 
cites in particular. 

Charitable Candide immediately gives his teacher all the money James had 
given him. As Pangloss also needs a cure for the pox, Candide begs his 
benefactor, James, to pay for the cure. James secures Pangloss a cure, 
at the loss of merely one eye and one ear. He also makes Pangloss his 
bookkeeper-accountant. 

Two months later, the benefactor takes his two "philosophers" on a 
business trip to Lisbon. Outside Lisbon, a terrible storm strikes. 
Attempting to rescue a sailor, James is cast overboard twice and drowned 
the second time by the panicking sailor. Only the sailor, Candide and 
Pangloss, who dissuades Candide from attempting to rescue James by 
demonstrating logically to him that roadstead outside Lisbon had been 
made for the purpose that James be drowned there, survive. As they enter 
Lisbon, an earthquake destroys the city. After putting the city partly 
back to order, the Portuguese conduct an auto-de-fe to ensure infallibly 
against future earthquakes. 

Two Jews who revealed themselves by refusing to eat bacon, a man who 
committed technical incest by marrying his godmother, and Pangloss, for 
his philosophy of telling everyone in Lisbon the earthquake was 
necessary in this best of all possible worlds, and Candide, for agreeing 
to that, are selected as the main attractions in the auto-de-fe. 
Preliminary to the slow burning employed in this "best of all possible 
worlds" for an auto-de-fe, Pangloss is hanged while Candide is flogged. 
However, on his way to the stake, another earthquake occurs and, in the 
confusion, Candide is led away, fed, his wounds treated, and hidden by 
an old woman. 

Next day, the woman comes back and, loo and behold, leads him to his 
life's love, Cunegund, who isn't dead after all, but relates to him she 
was raped by a soldier, then taken by an officer as his mistress, then 
sold to a kind Jew in Lisbon, who is now being forced, by the threat of 
an auto-de-fe on himself, to share her favors with an evil Christian 
nobleman, the Inquisitor by not-much-coincidence. Her second lover had 
arranged great seats for her to witness the auto-de-fe where she 
observed Candide and Pangloss being hanged and tortured and arranged 
Candide's rescue. 

The kind Jew shows up next, so Candide very gently and sweet-temperly 
kills him. Next in comes the Inquisitor, so Candide kills him too to 
prevent him from denouncing them both for murder of the Jew. Candide, 
Cunegund, and the old woman flee.

Okay, that's enough flavor . . . right? It goes on about twenty more 
short chapters.

There follows a flight from country to country, even to fabled utopia to 
fabled utopia, through misfortune to worse misfortune, for a "cure" for 
what afflicts Candide, e.g., Pangloss' philosophy. Voltaire wheels 
character after character back on and off stage. 

Finally, Candide is reunited with Cunegund and -- loo and behold, 
Pangloss, who isn't dead after all. They all wind up together living on 
a small farm,  with a garden that well supports them, outside 
Constantinople, generally dissatisfied sometimes with each other, still 
disputing philosophy, except they are agreed on one necessary thing, for 
this "best of all possible worlds" 

That thing is this: 

Neither need you tell me," said Candide, "that we must take care of our 
garden." 

"You are in the right," said Pangloss; "for when man was put into the 
garden of Eden, it was with an intent to dress it; and this proves that 
man was not born to be idle." 

"Work then without disputing," said Martin [some other clown that 
Voltaire wheeled in later]; "it is the only way to render life 
supportable." 

***** 
[And when Pangloss attempts once again to argue his 'philosophy . . . 
the rejoinder is:]
"Excellently observed," answered Candide; "but let us cultivate our 
garden." 
 
END

Am I right or wrong in concluding Heinlein was reworking Voltaire's mine 
of Candide? Please discuss and support whichever side you pick.

Regards,
-- 
David M. Silver www.heinleinsociety.org
"The Lieutenant expects your names to shine!"
Robert Anson Heinlein, USNA '29, Lt.(jg), USN, R'td, 1907-88


From: BPRAL22169 <bpral22169@aol.com>
Subject: Re: RAH-AIM Reading Group -- 3/20-22/03 meeting The "Gulf"-_Friday_ Universe
Date: Tuesday, March 11, 2003 9:46 PM

David Silver:

For the sake of clarity, it might not be amiss to say that Friday is parallel
to Cunegonde, Candide's much put upon significant other.  I think this goes a
long way to explaining the rapes.
Bill

From: Dr. Rufo <baybus@mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: RAH-AIM Reading Group -- 3/20-22/03 meeting The "Gulf"-_Friday_Universe
Date: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 2:52 AM

David M. Silver wrote:
> In article <ag.plusone-874CEA.01244710032003@news.fu-berlin.de>,
>  "David M. Silver" <ag.plusone@verizon.net> wrote:
> 
> [snip]
> 
>>I've also frequently noted the resemblance in plot to Voltaire's 
>>Candide. For an etext of Candide, unless you read French, you're on your 
>>own; however, both Norton and Penguin have produced perfectly affordable 
>>English language translations. 
> 
> 
> I correct myself. Try this for a text on-line:
> 
> http://www.literature.org/authors/voltaire/candide/
> 

David,

	I went looking for your link for Candide and I chanced upon a couple of 
wonderful sites.  The first was for a Search Engine called ALEX (run in 
cooperation with Oxford University) specifically for finding etexts of 
public domain works.  In this it is rather like Project Gutenberg and 
Project Bartlesby.  But there are some interesting "additions."
A bit later I found another that indexed several such Search Engines 
--besides ALEX, there was ALCUIN with hypertextual capabilites andanothe 
called CARRIE.  For the sake of sharing, I offer the URLs below:

A Page of Resources to search for specific works: 
http://www.hicom.net/~oedipus/books/etexts.html

Alex Catalogue of Electronic Texts  at
http://www.infomotions.com/alex/

I hope they bring enjoyment to all.

Pax,
Dr. Rufo

From: Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <jussi-ville.heiskanen@thiswelho.com>
Subject: Re: RAH-AIM Reading Group -- 3/20-22/03 meeting The "Gulf"-_Friday_ Universe
Date: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 4:05 AM

OK. Let me throw this counterproposal onto the field:

Friday is a grail legend, told from the POV of the grail.

-- 
J-V.

From: "David M. Silver" <ag.plusone@verizon.net>
Subject: Re: RAH-AIM Reading Group -- 3/20-22/03 meeting The "Gulf"-_Friday_ Universe
Date: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 8:10 AM

In article <pan.2003.03.12.11.05.28.138371.24076@thiswelho.com>,
 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <jussi-ville.heiskanen@thiswelho.com> wrote:
> OK. Let me throw this counterproposal onto the field:
> 
> Friday is a grail legend, told from the POV of the grail.

'splain that one a bit, please, Jussi.
-- 
David M. Silver www.heinleinsociety.org
"The Lieutenant expects your names to shine!"
Robert Anson Heinlein, USNA '29, Lt.(jg), USN, R'td, 1907-88


From: "David M. Silver" <ag.plusone@verizon.net>
Subject: Re: RAH-AIM Reading Group -- 3/20-22/03 meeting The "Gulf"-_Friday_ U