Newsgroups: alt.fan.heinlein
Subject: Heinlein Reading Group meeting announcement: March 24 and 26, 2005
From: LNC <reilloc@sbcglobal.net>

The next meeting of the Robert A. Heinlein Reading Group will be held on the following topic, at the following dates, times, and in the following place.

Topic: What's your least favorite Heinlein?

Dates and Times: Thursday, March 24, 2005, from 9 PM to midnight, ET, and Saturday, March 26, 2005, from 5 to 8 PM, ET

Place: "Heinlein Readers Group chat" on AIM

Reading Recommended: Funny you should ask that...

Chat Room Moderator: "reilloc," i.e., me.

Funny you should ask that because, since the topic's your "least favorite Heinlein," should you have to read it again to get ready for this? Well, maybe yes, maybe no.

As the recently-appointed chairperson of the Readers Group Committee, assigned the undertaking of determining topics and setting meetings, I've picked this one because it has a couple of advantages. For one thing, in early-February, Dee started a thread on it which now contains more than 100, pretty much on-topic posts. If you click this link http://tinyurl.com/6qflf, you'll be taken to Google groups and can see them all listed. For another thing, maybe talking about the topic live, online might make somebody want to go back and re-read the one she/he didn't like, way back when, and find things that either bolster or modify his/her old impression.

Here's a list of all the names of the "least fav's" mentioned so far:

--Orphans of the Sky
--Beyond This Horizon
--I Will Fear No Evil
--The Cat Who Walked Through Walls
--Job
--Time For the Stars
--Farnham's Freehold
--Number of the Beast
--Rocketship Galileo
--For Us, The Living
--Friday
--Glory Road
--The Unpleasant Profession of Jonathan Hoag
--Successful Operation
--Podkayne of Mars
--Waldo

Finally, who's your least favorite Heinlein character? You could like a book but not like a character. What don't you like about this character? What would you change that would make you like her/him?

Please post your comments for the meeting either in this thread or Dee's original. We should be able to pick up both for the archive.

L.N.C.

Folks, I am not qualified for serious literary review, and htta is not the pont of this thread. I am just interested in which Heinlein work(s) you like least, and why.

My very least favorite is Orphans in the Sky, and my second is Beyond is Horizon. And it has been so long since I read tehm, I don''t even remember why. I do remember thatI had to force myself to stick with Orphans, and that BYT fell copletely flat with me, so much so that I have never had any desire to re-read it. Of course, maybe I should re-read them both, or try to, if only to see if my tastes have changed with time.

Oddly enough, two of my favorites are two that many people bemoan--Number of the Beast and I Will Fear No Evil. I just enjoy them. They take me back to old friends I wouldn't mind meeting in RL.

So, anybody else want to go for some casual conversation and personal opinion, as oposed to erudite literary review?

--Dee

> Folks, I am not qualified for serious literary review, and htta is not
> the pont of this thread.  I am just interested in which Heinlein work(s)
> you like least, and why.

I know missing "Cat" probably leaves a hole in my appreciation of some of the references in TSBTS but I can live with that for now. I know Dave Silver's writings about IWFNE are thought-provoking and suggestive of a coherency I couldn't get when I read the book. Maybe if he pays me enough, I'll read the book.

L.N.C.

> Folks, I am not qualified for serious literary review, and htta is not 
> the pont of this thread.  I am just interested in which Heinlein work(s) 
> you like least, and why.
> 
> My very least favorite is Orphans in the Sky, and my second is Beyond is 
> Horizon.  

I suppose Job-the-novel is rather like the Jules Pfeffer cartoon about the Biblical Job:

   1st Panel:  Job on his knees, appealing "I try to follow your
               commandments. Why do you torment me so?
   2nd Panel:  CRACK! FLASH!
   3rd Panel:  A Voice says "I've thought about that, Job, and I 
               have concluded there is just something about you
               THAT PISSES ME OFF."

:My least favorite is Job. TNotB carried off world-as-myth, while Job 
:didn't. 
:
:I suppose Job-the-novel is rather like the Jules Pfeffer cartoon about 
:the Biblical Job:
:
:   1st Panel:  Job on his knees, appealing "I try to follow your
:               commandments. Why do you torment me so?
:   2nd Panel:  CRACK! FLASH!
:   3rd Panel:  A Voice says "I've thought about that, Job, and I 
:               have concluded there is just something about you
:               THAT PISSES ME OFF."

I know how Job felt.  

> Howard Berkowitz <hcb@gettcomm.com> wrote:
> 
> :My least favorite is Job. TNotB carried off world-as-myth, while Job 
> :didn't. 
> :
> :I suppose Job-the-novel is rather like the Jules Pfeffer cartoon about 
> :the Biblical Job:
> :
> :   1st Panel:  Job on his knees, appealing "I try to follow your
> :               commandments. Why do you torment me so?
> :   2nd Panel:  CRACK! FLASH!
> :   3rd Panel:  A Voice says "I've thought about that, Job, and I 
> :               have concluded there is just something about you
> :               THAT PISSES ME OFF."
> 
> I know how Job felt.  
> 
> Unfortunately, what we seem to have around here are merely folks who
> THINK they're God....

	>> Unfortunately, what we seem to have around here are folks that have posted that
	>> there is just something about you
	>> :               THAT PISSES ME OFF."

:> Howard Berkowitz <hcb@gettcomm.com> wrote:
:> 
:> :My least favorite is Job. TNotB carried off world-as-myth, while Job 
:> :didn't. 
:> :
:> :I suppose Job-the-novel is rather like the Jules Pfeffer cartoon about 
:> :the Biblical Job:
:> :
:> :   1st Panel:  Job on his knees, appealing "I try to follow your
:> :               commandments. Why do you torment me so?
:> :   2nd Panel:  CRACK! FLASH!
:> :   3rd Panel:  A Voice says "I've thought about that, Job, and I 
:> :               have concluded there is just something about you
:> :               THAT PISSES ME OFF."
:> 
:> I know how Job felt.  
:> 
:> Unfortunately, what we seem to have around here are merely folks who
:> THINK they're God....
:
:Sir,
:	>> Unfortunately, what we seem to have around here are folks that have posted that
:	>> there is just something about you
:	>> :               THAT PISSES ME OFF."

-- 
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
 territory."
                                      --G. Behn

> Howard Berkowitz <hcb@gettcomm.com> wrote:
> 
> :My least favorite is Job. TNotB carried off world-as-myth, while Job 
> :didn't. 
> :
> :I suppose Job-the-novel is rather like the Jules Pfeffer cartoon about 
> :the Biblical Job:
> :
> :   1st Panel:  Job on his knees, appealing "I try to follow your
> :               commandments. Why do you torment me so?
> :   2nd Panel:  CRACK! FLASH!
> :   3rd Panel:  A Voice says "I've thought about that, Job, and I 
> :               have concluded there is just something about you
> :               THAT PISSES ME OFF."
> 
> I know how Job felt.  
> 
> Unfortunately, what we seem to have around here are merely folks who
> THINK they're God....
> 
> 

:In article <be48015nn6056bqbv3re50h8fe56vc1dn1@4ax.com>, 
:fmccall@earthlink.net wrote:
:
:> Howard Berkowitz <hcb@gettcomm.com> wrote:
:> 
:> :My least favorite is Job. TNotB carried off world-as-myth, while Job 
:> :didn't. 
:> :
:> :I suppose Job-the-novel is rather like the Jules Pfeffer cartoon about 
:> :the Biblical Job:
:> :
:> :   1st Panel:  Job on his knees, appealing "I try to follow your
:> :               commandments. Why do you torment me so?
:> :   2nd Panel:  CRACK! FLASH!
:> :   3rd Panel:  A Voice says "I've thought about that, Job, and I 
:> :               have concluded there is just something about you
:> :               THAT PISSES ME OFF."
:> 
:> I know how Job felt.  
:> 
:> Unfortunately, what we seem to have around here are merely folks who
:> THINK they're God....
:
:It is said that the difference between God and a neurosurgeon is that 
:God doesn't think he's a neurosurgeon.

There was even a joke about God having delusions of grandeur and thinking he was Rickover....

-- 
"It's always different.  It's always complex.  But at some point,
 somebody has to draw the line.  And that somebody is always me....
 I am the law."
                               -- Buffy, The Vampire Slayer

>Howard Berkowitz <hcb@gettcomm.com> wrote:
>
>:My least favorite is Job. TNotB carried off world-as-myth, while Job 
>:didn't. 
>:
>:I suppose Job-the-novel is rather like the Jules Pfeffer cartoon about 
>:the Biblical Job:
>:
>:   1st Panel:  Job on his knees, appealing "I try to follow your
>:               commandments. Why do you torment me so?
>:   2nd Panel:  CRACK! FLASH!
>:   3rd Panel:  A Voice says "I've thought about that, Job, and I 
>:               have concluded there is just something about you
>:               THAT PISSES ME OFF."
>
>I know how Job felt.  
>
>Unfortunately, what we seem to have around here are merely folks who
>THINK they're God....
>

God hasn't played being a surgeon since he removed Adam's ribs...

ck
-- 
country doc in louisiana
(no fancy sayings right now)

>Dee wrote:
>> Folks, I am not qualified for serious literary review, and htta is not 
>> the pont of this thread.  I am just interested in which Heinlein work(s) 
>> you like least, and why.
>> 
>> My very least favorite is Orphans in the Sky, and my second is Beyond is 
>> Horizon.  
>
>Ah. I particularly liked Beyond This Horizon, I suppose because I 
>sympathize with Felix; his angst parallels mine over the meaning of it 
>all because he doesn't try to drag deities into the conversation. I also 
>like Heinlein's dabbling with a centrally controlled economy; shades of 
>the politburo. Fits so well with the libertarian minded folks trying to 
>define Heinlein in their own narrow spectrum. Heinlein is bigger than 
>any number of political/economic theories.

_Time for the Stars_ was my least favorite juvenile--I figured out why as an adult. It's a story about going into space, but it's written from the point of view of someone who didn't want to be there and who didn't have anything especially interesting to do.

_The Cat Who Walked through Walls_ is my least favorite late Heinlein novel. Incoherent plot, uninteresting main character, irritating what's- wrong-with-young-people subplot about the freelance socialist....The book probably has some good details, but I'll probably never reread it to find them.

I don't have an official least favorite short story, but there may be something in this thread to remind me of what it might be.

--
Nancy Lebovitz     http://www.nancybuttons.com
"We've tamed the lightning and taught sand to give error messages."
http://livejournal.com/users/nancylebov

>Folks, I am not qualified for serious literary review, and htta is not 
>the pont of this thread.  I am just interested in which Heinlein work(s) 
>you like least, and why.

It would have been much better to see the old guy get into the young sexpot woman's body and not have any clue what to do with it, about it, or anything, and try to figure it out *more realistically*. How? Well, there was some movie about a guy who gets into a woman's body, it was hilarious and more along the lines of what I'd have expected. Not the seemingly (IMO) nonexistant transition I get from the book. It's just not believable to me. Neither is the dialogue.

Some of the juvies really turn me off, too; but I'm one of those who love the later works most. Except for CotG. That one is right up there with my favorites.

-- 
~teresa~
 AFH Barwench

    ^..^  "Never try to outstubborn a cat."  Robert A. Heinlein  ^..^
    http://www.heinleinsociety.org/    http://pixelmeow.com/  
    http://pixelmeow.com/Book_Exchange/index.htm
    http://www.storesonline.com/site/rowanmystic/
    aim: pixelmeow  msn:pixelmeow@passport.com
    my first name at pixelmeow dot com

Least favorite: Farnham's Freehold

Scariest: Puppet Masters

Favorite: Farmer in the Sky

> 
> Scariest: Puppet Masters

Interesting offshoot: the "Gary-brains" in Rudy Rucker's very amusing _Master of Space & Time_, which are slug shoulder-riders explicitly modelled on the RAH classic.

Other homages? And was there a precursor(s)? Other than Gothic (etc) "hag-ridden" oldies, that is.

Cheers -- Pete Tillman

>In article <36gf2qF52qr0tU1@individual.net>,
> "Kay Archer" <kayhyphenarcher@cableone.net> wrote:
>
>> 
>> Scariest: Puppet Masters
>
>Second to that. How does the (fairly recent) 'uncut' edition compare to 
>the 'standard used pb' one?

FWIW, that one is pretty high up on my list of favorites (but then I read H.P. Lovecraft for fun, too.)

	-Chris Zakes
		Texas

"We shall swim out to that brooding reef in the sea and dive down through 
black abysses to cyclopean and many-columned Y'ha-nthlei, and in that lair 
of the Deep Ones we shall dwell amidst wonder and glory for ever."

	-H.P. Lovecraft, "The Shadow Over Innsmouth"

>In article <36gf2qF52qr0tU1@individual.net>,
> "Kay Archer" <kayhyphenarcher@cableone.net> wrote:
************************** 
> Scariest: Puppet Masters
>
>Second to that. How does the (fairly recent) 'uncut' edition compare to 
>the 'standard used pb' one?
>
>Interesting offshoot: the "Gary-brains" in Rudy Rucker's very amusing
>_Master of Space & Time_, which are slug shoulder-riders explicitly 
>modelled on the RAH classic.
*******************************

---Mac

> On Fri, 04 Feb 2005 10:37:13 -0700, "Peter D. Tillman"
> <tillman@aztec.asu.edu> wrote:
>
>>In article <36gf2qF52qr0tU1@individual.net>,
>> "Kay Archer" <kayhyphenarcher@cableone.net> wrote:
> **************************
>> Scariest: Puppet Masters
>>
>>Second to that. How does the (fairly recent) 'uncut' edition compare to
>>the 'standard used pb' one?
>>
>>Interesting offshoot: the "Gary-brains" in Rudy Rucker's very amusing
>>_Master of Space & Time_, which are slug shoulder-riders explicitly
>>modelled on the RAH classic.
> *******************************
> Well, if you are really curious, perhaps you might wish to
> obtain copies of both editions and do your own research??
> ---Mac

I mentioned my acquisition here in this NG when I purchased the Galaxy serial installments, and my intention to do a parallel reading/study of the three versions of the story, and my plan to post a short report of my findings. I actually started doing so, but after a few chapters, I had some major claims on my free time that caused me to put these books aside, and I have not yet returned to it. I did, however, discover that this sort of reading method is rather slow, and sometimes exasperating! Plus, with the old hardcover and old Galaxy copies, it is necessary to be very careful in handling them.

I'll get back to this project one of these days. Perhaps I'm just awaiting the arrival of a round tuit.

Bob

> "Mac" <None@NoSpam.com> wrote in message 
> news:k6e801dhd9kcitkivtt7eqimmrkp621vab@4ax.com...
> > On Fri, 04 Feb 2005 10:37:13 -0700, "Peter D. Tillman"
> > <tillman@aztec.asu.edu> wrote:
> >
> >>In article <36gf2qF52qr0tU1@individual.net>,
> >> "Kay Archer" <kayhyphenarcher@cableone.net> wrote:
> > **************************
> >> Scariest: Puppet Masters
> >>
> >>Second to that. How does the (fairly recent) 'uncut' edition compare to
> >>the 'standard used pb' one?
> >>
> >>Interesting offshoot: the "Gary-brains" in Rudy Rucker's very amusing
> >>_Master of Space & Time_, which are slug shoulder-riders explicitly
> >>modelled on the RAH classic.
> > *******************************
> > Well, if you are really curious, perhaps you might wish to
> > obtain copies of both editions and do your own research??
> > ---Mac
> 
> I am happy to say that I have copies of all FOUR editions, the 3 installment 
> serial in Galaxy magazine, the original hard cover, the original PB, and the 
> "uncut" PB. By far, the best version is the "uncut" paperback. The story 
> plot is the same, the charactors are the same, the various events and 
> situations are the same, but the "small stuff" that got edited out of the 
> serialized version by the Galaxy editor, then by RAH for the original HC and 
> PB versions, makes a very large and unsuspected difference to the feel of 
> the story. IMHO, the uncut version is a MUCH darker story, and richer. I am 
> very glad that Ginny authorized the publication of the various "uncut" 
> versions of the Master's works, for the books that this was possible to do. 
> In the portion of the Galaxy serial I have read, the differences really make 
> no sense to me, except that there has yet to be any kind of editor that does 
> not have an unshakeable belief that there is no story that is so good, that 
> he/she the editor cannot make it better. It seems that this particular 
> editor had a bad reputation for making lots of unnecessary alterations 
> (adulterations?) to every story published by Galaxy while he worked there.
> 
> I mentioned my acquisition here in this NG when I purchased the Galaxy 
> serial installments, and my intention to do a parallel reading/study of the 
> three versions of the story, and my plan to post a short report of my 
> findings. I actually started doing so, but after a few chapters, I had some 
> major claims on my free time that caused me to put these books aside, and I 
> have not yet returned to it. I did, however, discover that this sort of 
> reading method is rather slow, and sometimes exasperating! Plus, with the 
> old hardcover and old Galaxy copies, it is necessary to be very careful in 
> handling them.
> 
> I'll get back to this project one of these days. Perhaps I'm just awaiting 
> the arrival of a round tuit.
> 
> Bob 

There's one description scene in the uncut version, the vision at night of the capitol, that I think is almost lyrical. Did it survive the Gold cut?

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

> In article <zi1Nd.3836$Yu.2293@fed1read01>,
> "R Oxley" <tychounderNO@SPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
>

>>
>> I'll get back to this project one of these days. Perhaps I'm just 
>> awaiting
>> the arrival of a round tuit.
>>
>> Bob
>
> It's a very worthwhile project, Bob; and might be just the thing for a
> Journal article. I think Gold was the editor. Despite RAH's concern over
> what he did with the Galaxy serial version, I've heard RAH nevertheless
> got along with him in later years, personally.
>
> There's one description scene in the uncut version, the vision at night
> of the capitol, that I think is almost lyrical. Did it survive the Gold
> cut?
>
> -- 
> David M. Silver

I don't remember. I'll have to go into the story and find that passage, then locate that section in the serial. Do you recall the approximate place in the story? From what I've read, I would hazard a guess that such descriptions were either removed altogether, or slashed right down to the bone, and perhaps with a little of the bone removed for good measure.

I know that editors, despite what I said in my first reply in this thread, have their place. They catch occasional discontinuities, unintended non-sequitors, excessively slow parts of a story, and so on. But, IMHO, they would often do a better job if they limited themselves to locating spelling errors, and gross grammatical errors, then show them to the author FIRST before correcting anything, to be sure that the misspelling or grammatical faux pas was not intentional and necessary to the story.

H. L. Gold was indeed the editor of Galaxy for the Sep, Oct, and Nov 1951 issues that carried the serialized Puppet Masters. The sort of "editing" I remember from the portions I got to before I had to stop, in my opinion, qualified him for a seat in the Critic's Lounge in the First Centennial Convention of the Interuniversal Society for Eschatological Pantheistic Multiple-Ego Solipsism. I wonder if he could read and understand the English language well enough to get out alive? I wonder if that sign might have been something as simple as PT Barnum's "This Way to the Egress"? ;-)

Bob

> 
> "David M. Silver" <ag.plusone@verizon.net> wrote in message 
> news:ag.plusone-EAA3BA.05260805022005@individual.net...
> > In article <zi1Nd.3836$Yu.2293@fed1read01>,
> > "R Oxley" <tychounderNO@SPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> 
> >>
> >> I'll get back to this project one of these days. Perhaps I'm just 
> >> awaiting
> >> the arrival of a round tuit.
> >>
> >> Bob
> >
> > It's a very worthwhile project, Bob; and might be just the thing for a
> > Journal article. I think Gold was the editor. Despite RAH's concern over
> > what he did with the Galaxy serial version, I've heard RAH nevertheless
> > got along with him in later years, personally.
> >
> > There's one description scene in the uncut version, the vision at night
> > of the capitol, that I think is almost lyrical. Did it survive the Gold
> > cut?
> >
> > -- 
> > David M. Silver
> 
> 
> You might have provided me the the needed "round tuit", David.
> 
> I don't remember. I'll have to go into the story and find that passage, then 
> locate that section in the serial. Do you recall the approximate place in 
> the story? From what I've read, I would hazard a guess that such 
> descriptions were either removed altogether, or slashed right down to the 
> bone, and perhaps with a little of the bone removed for good measure.

There's another interesting passage, describing Kansas City residential neighborhoods, several chapters later, that I wonder whether it was cut heavily.

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

> In article <X3gNd.17832$Yu.4209@fed1read01>,
> "R Oxley" <tychounderNO@SPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > It's a very worthwhile project, Bob; and might be just the thing for a
>> > Journal article. I think Gold was the editor. Despite RAH's concern 
>> > over
>> > what he did with the Galaxy serial version, I've heard RAH nevertheless
>> > got along with him in later years, personally.
>> >
>> > There's one description scene in the uncut version, the vision at night
>> > of the capitol, that I think is almost lyrical. Did it survive the Gold
>> > cut?
>> >
>> > -- 
>> > David M. Silver
>>
>>
>
> It's the short four paragraph passage at the beginning of Chapter IV, at
> pp. 34-5, in my paperback Del Rey, fifth printing, May 1990, beginning
> with "I _woke_ up at dusk. The room I was in had a real window. ... "
> and continuing onto the next page to the vine and figtree indirect
> quote, ending " ... as it says."
>
> There's another interesting passage, describing Kansas City residential
> neighborhoods, several chapters later, that I wonder whether it was cut
> heavily.
>
> -- 
> David M. Silver

Well, I've done a bit of triple parallel reading, and found the two passages of interest. The first is indeed in chapter 4, the other is chapter 17. Interestingly, the first installment of the serial (September 1951), has no chapter delineations, but the second and third parts do, and they match the HC and PB editions. The serial version and the original novelization bear a striking resemblence to each other, so much so, that editor Gold should have received a check from Doubleday Science Fiction, the publisher of the hard cover volume I own! I just checked the masthead page in the magazine, and cannot find any connection. The differences are so minor, that it is easy at first to overlook them. In fact, if I were not reading all three editions with the express intention of finding differences, I would almost certainly have overlooked them, with the impression that the serialization and the original novel were "carbon copies" of each other. But they are not, quite. I'll quote a few passages, to offer a typical example:

Galaxy serialization, Sep51, page 22:

I woke up at dusk and looked out as the Capital came to life for the night. 
The river swept away in a wide band past the Memorial; they were adding 
fluorescine to the water above the District, so the river stood out in 
curving sweeps of glowing rose and amber and emerald and shining fire. 
Pleasure boats cut through the colors, each filled, I had no doubt, with 
couples up to no good and enjoying it.

The hardcover has the indentical paragraph, with the exception of the spelling of the word "fluorescine". The HC spells it "fluorescin", omitting the letter "e". The "e" is restored in the uncut PB. Two paragraphs later, there is a difference in capitalization: "Last Ride Together" in the serial, versus "last ride together" in the HC. The end of that paragraph has the "vine and fig tree" reference. The serial puts it: "...with nobody to make him afraid, as it says." The HC omits the phrase "as it says", but that phrase IS included in the "uncut" edition.

Here is the first paragraph of chapter 4 from the uncut edition:

I woke up at  dusk. The room I was in had a real window - the Section pays 
well and I could afford little luxuries. I looked out over the Capital as it 
came to life for the night. The river swept away in a wide bend past the 
Memorial; it was summer and they were adding fluorescine to the water above 
the District so the river stood out in curving sweeps of glowing rose and 
amber and emerald and shining fire. Little pleasure boats cut through the 
colors, each filled, I had no doubt, with couples up to no good and enjoying 
it.

Anyway, on to chapter 17, where our hero conducts a reconnaissance of Kansas City.

Here, all three versions are nearly the same, with a few commas added or omitted, some sentences removed from the end of one paragraph, and made into their own paragraph, with no other alteration.

In the middle of the first paragraph, the serial writes: Or you can fly in and make another choice: land in the landing flats north of the river... The HC has it: Or one can fly in... The uncut edition has as a new paragraph: One can fly in...

Three different ways of saying exactly the same thing. Why they made the changes from RAH's original manuscript I have no idea, except as I opined in a previous posting upthread, that each editor is convinced that there is no writing that is so well done, that they cannot do "a little something" to make it better, sort of like a tomcat in a new territory not being happy until he has sprayed all the trees, fences, posts, car tires, bushes, and anything else he sees, to mark that area as part of his personal territory.

There are other minor and major differences between the three versions, and it is going to be difficult to annotate them without writing an almost book length set of notes. And I'm not sure how much more I can quote within the "fair use" provisions of copyright law. And from the time consumed researching your two questions, I can see that this is going to take a good deal of time, much more than simply sitting down to read each of the three versions through individually.

For the most part, reading one of the early pre-uncut paperbacks will give you what was in the serialization.

This last thing may not mean much, but I got curious. Each version, serial, HC, and modern PB, seems to have about 200 words per page. Using my calibrated eyeball, I held the PB and old HC next to each other, and the uncut PB is about one third thicker than the pages bound between the boards of the HC. Which matches 340 pages in the uncut PB, and 219 in the 1951 hard cover. There are 174 total pages in the serialization, not counting quite a few half and whole pages of story art mixed in for the serial adaptation.

I feel the illustrations should have been included in the original hard cover edition, in the fashion of the drawings that were in the original large sized softcover release of The Number Of The Beast in 1980. The Puppet Masters illustrations, by Don Sibley, showed that the artist had indeed read the story BEFORE executing the drawings! That does not always happen, does it? But nothing nearly as sexy looking as the drawing of Deety in NOTB! Not in 1951! The color plate of the human female in Gray's Anatomy was probably still as incomplete in 1951 as it was in 1910 or so, when Maureen Smith was looking through Ira's books with Brian in their home in KC in TSBTSS.

I can't help but wonder if HL Gold was working for both Galaxy and Doubleday at the same time. Or was there some sort of contract with the author that Doubleday would release the novel to a pulp mag for serialization. The similarities of the pulp serial and the HC are just too close to be coincidental. I can't locate my copy of Grumbles to see if RAH mentioned anything about these arrangements.

That is enough for now. My workshop is going on an extended period of overtime work starting tomorrow, and while I doubt I can get to sleep any earlier than usual, I need to at least crawl in bed and try. I imagine that after two weeks of twelve hour days, including weekends, it won't be too long before I have no trouble at all getting to sleep!

Bob

> That is enough for now. My workshop is going on an extended period of 
> overtime work starting tomorrow, and while I doubt I can get to sleep any 
> earlier than usual, I need to at least crawl in bed and try. I imagine that 
> after two weeks of twelve hour days, including weekends, it won't be too 
> long before I have no trouble at all getting to sleep!

In the world of editors such as these, apparently, doors never dilate -- beam me up, Scotty!

I wouldn't worry yet about restating too much. You'll want to select the more important, or significant, as examples sufficient to show what you have found, eventually from what you find, to publish; and things can be worked out with the holder on fair use for an article.

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

>
> That's a great comparison you did. I'm looking forward for more. I've
> saved the post; and I am going to look at it further. One note: the
> cutting of the sentence citing the usual lack of outside windows is
> telling about the attitude of editors. Here's RAH on the one hand, using
> one of his typical disorienting notes to say: you're in the future,
> reader, and it's gonna be a little weird because you can't get a room
> with real windows unless you pay a premium for it. Get ready for some
> changes you won't exactly like. Gold takes it out as "unnecessary,"
> presumably to save some space for another advertisement for Lydia
> Pinkham's Little Liver Pills, or whatever. Editors!
>
> -- 
> David M. Silver

I was about two thirds asleep when I wrote that. I'm glad the essence came through. What you say about the missing sentence about windows starts on page one of the story. They started deleting things right from the beginning that help to set the feeling for the society and culture the story is set in. What is the point in writing and publishing "speculative" fiction, if the first thing you do is remove the speculation from it?

Your comment regarding advertising sent me back to look at those three issues of Galaxy again. I am so used to being overwhelmingly bombarded by advertising from every bloody direction all the time, that I have learned to ignore nearly all of it, and the lack of advertising is therefore also easy to ignore. I was quite pleasantly surprised to flip through those three issues and see that only about 4 total pages were devoted to advertising, and most of that was to announce upcoming features in the magazine! I had the feeling that I was missing something significant while going through those mags, but it took your hint to figure it out. How refreshing to see a magazine that was able to survive and thrive on the revenues brought in by the subscription price alone! I wonder how long that happy circumstance lasted.

I just saw a website for our local convention, ConDor, to be held in a few months, and one of the events is the Heinlein Blood Drive. So far, I'm not overly impressed by the list of guests and events otherwise, but I will make an effort at least to donate to the blood drive. I am conveniently close to this con, it is just 5 miles up the road from me! I may make the effort to attend just to say I've finally been to one.

Bob

> "David M. Silver" <ag.plusone@verizon.net> wrote in message 
> news:ag.plusone-A6C34B.07082907022005@individual.net...
> >
> > That's a great comparison you did. I'm looking forward for more. I've
> > saved the post; and I am going to look at it further. One note: the
> > cutting of the sentence citing the usual lack of outside windows is
> > telling about the attitude of editors. Here's RAH on the one hand, using
> > one of his typical disorienting notes to say: you're in the future,
> > reader, and it's gonna be a little weird because you can't get a room
> > with real windows unless you pay a premium for it. Get ready for some
> > changes you won't exactly like. Gold takes it out as "unnecessary,"
> > presumably to save some space for another advertisement for Lydia
> > Pinkham's Little Liver Pills, or whatever. Editors!
> >
> > -- 
> > David M. Silver
> 
> 
> Thanks David,
> 
> I was about two thirds asleep when I wrote that. I'm glad the essence came 
> through. What you say about the missing sentence about windows starts on 
> page one of the story. They started deleting things right from the beginning 
> that help to set the feeling for the society and culture the story is set 
> in. What is the point in writing and publishing "speculative" fiction, if 
> the first thing you do is remove the speculation from it?
> 
> Your comment regarding advertising sent me back to look at those three 
> issues of Galaxy again. I am so used to being overwhelmingly bombarded by 
> advertising from every bloody direction all the time, that I have learned to 
> ignore nearly all of it, and the lack of advertising is therefore also easy 
> to ignore. I was quite pleasantly surprised to flip through those three 
> issues and see that only about 4 total pages were devoted to advertising, 
> and most of that was to announce upcoming features in the magazine! I had 
> the feeling that I was missing something significant while going through 
> those mags, but it took your hint to figure it out. How refreshing to see a 
> magazine that was able to survive and thrive on the revenues brought in by 
> the subscription price alone! I wonder how long that happy circumstance 
> lasted.
> 
> I just saw a website for our local convention, ConDor, to be held in a few 
> months, and one of the events is the Heinlein Blood Drive. 

> So far, I'm not 
> overly impressed by the list of guests and events otherwise, but I will make 
> an effort at least to donate to the blood drive. I am conveniently close to 
> this con, it is just 5 miles up the road from me! I may make the effort to 
> attend just to say I've finally been to one.
> 
> Bob 

We've got a lot of qualified people in SoCal to volunteer do panels.

http://home.san.rr.com/condorcon/info.htm

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

> I just saw a website for our local convention, ConDor, to be held in a few 
> months, and one of the events is the Heinlein Blood Drive. So far, I'm not 
> overly impressed by the list of guests and events otherwise, but I will make 
> an effort at least to donate to the blood drive. I am conveniently close to 
> this con, it is just 5 miles up the road from me! I may make the effort to 
> attend just to say I've finally been to one.

It's a juvenile, sorta, but not what we were used to. It's a tribute to Rocket Ship Galileo, jazzed up a bit with modern day concerns of late teenagers, including IRL ones such as sex, drugs, and rock 'n roll (well, maybe not much R & R), and the kids come from a rather vast social difference. I found it intriguing.

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

My favorite (so far) John Varley/Heinlein companion book is THE GOLDEN GLOBE. I liked it much better than RED THUNDER. Maybe for the same reasons I enjoy DOUBLE STAR more that RSG.

Jeanette--giving it her strongest if you like RAH you should read...... recommendation.

>
>"David M. Silver" <ag.plusone@verizon.net> wrote in message 
>news:ag.plusone-EAA3BA.05260805022005@individual.net...
>> In article <zi1Nd.3836$Yu.2293@fed1read01>,
>> "R Oxley" <tychounderNO@SPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>
>>>
>>> I'll get back to this project one of these days. Perhaps I'm just 
>>> awaiting
>>> the arrival of a round tuit.
>>>
>>> Bob
>>
>> It's a very worthwhile project, Bob; and might be just the thing for a
>> Journal article. I think Gold was the editor. Despite RAH's concern over
>> what he did with the Galaxy serial version, I've heard RAH nevertheless
>> got along with him in later years, personally.
>>
>> There's one description scene in the uncut version, the vision at night
>> of the capitol, that I think is almost lyrical. Did it survive the Gold
>> cut?
>>
>> -- 
>> David M. Silver
>
>
>You might have provided me the the needed "round tuit", David.
>
>I don't remember. I'll have to go into the story and find that passage, then 
>locate that section in the serial. Do you recall the approximate place in 
>the story? 

	-Chris Zakes
		Texas

Butterflies are not insects, they are self-propelled flowers.

	-Captain John Sterling in "The Cat Who Walks Through Walls" by Robert Heinlein

>
>"Mac" <None@NoSpam.com> wrote in message 
>news:k6e801dhd9kcitkivtt7eqimmrkp621vab@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 04 Feb 2005 10:37:13 -0700, "Peter D. Tillman"
>> <tillman@aztec.asu.edu> wrote:
>>
>>>In article <36gf2qF52qr0tU1@individual.net>,
>>> "Kay Archer" <kayhyphenarcher@cableone.net> wrote:
>> **************************
>>> Scariest: Puppet Masters
>>>
>>>Second to that. How does the (fairly recent) 'uncut' edition compare to
>>>the 'standard used pb' one?
>>>
>>>Interesting offshoot: the "Gary-brains" in Rudy Rucker's very amusing
>>>_Master of Space & Time_, which are slug shoulder-riders explicitly
>>>modelled on the RAH classic.
>> *******************************
>> Well, if you are really curious, perhaps you might wish to
>> obtain copies of both editions and do your own research??
>> ---Mac
>
>I am happy to say that I have copies of all FOUR editions, the 3 installment 
>serial in Galaxy magazine, the original hard cover, the original PB, and the 
>"uncut" PB. By far, the best version is the "uncut" paperback. The story 
>plot is the same, the charactors are the same, the various events and 
>situations are the same, but the "small stuff" that got edited out of the 
>serialized version by the Galaxy editor, then by RAH for the original HC and 
>PB versions, makes a very large and unsuspected difference to the feel of 
>the story. IMHO, the uncut version is a MUCH darker story, and richer. I am 
>very glad that Ginny authorized the publication of the various "uncut" 
>versions of the Master's works, for the books that this was possible to do. 
>In the portion of the Galaxy serial I have read, the differences really make 
>no sense to me, except that there has yet to be any kind of editor that does 
>not have an unshakeable belief that there is no story that is so good, that 
>he/she the editor cannot make it better. It seems that this particular 
>editor had a bad reputation for making lots of unnecessary alterations 
>(adulterations?) to every story published by Galaxy while he worked there.

Heinlein: "Eat it or I'll rub it in your hair"

Gold: "Eat it or you'll get it through a tube."

After Heinlein complained to his agent, Gold apologized and promised to keep his hands off Heinlein's work in the future.

	-Chris Zakes
		Texas

Butterflies are not insects, they are self-propelled flowers.

	-Captain John Sterling in "The Cat Who Walks Through Walls" by Robert Heinlein

> Least favorite: Farnham's Freehold
> 
> Scariest: Puppet Masters

BTW, I don't think the story gets enough respect.

> 
> Favorite: Farmer in the Sky
> 
> 

:Folks, I am not qualified for serious literary review, and htta is not 
:the pont of this thread.  I am just interested in which Heinlein work(s) 
:you like least, and why.
:
:My very least favorite is Orphans in the Sky, and my second is Beyond is 
:Horizon.  And it has been so long since I read tehm, I don''t even 
:remember why.  I do remember thatI had to force myself to stick with 
:Orphans, and that BYT fell copletely flat with me, so much so that I 
:have never had any desire to re-read it.  Of course, maybe I should 
:re-read them both, or try to, if only to see if my tastes have changed 
:with time.
:
:Oddly enough, two of my favorites are two that many people 
:bemoan--Number of the Beast and I Will Fear No Evil.  I just enjoy them. 
:    They take me back to old friends I wouldn't mind meeting in RL.

The general trend for me is that the later in his writing career one goes, the less I enjoyed the books. But that's only a general trend, not an ironclad rule.

-- 
"It's over now, or so they say.
 But sometimes it don't work out that way.
 And you're never the same when you've been under fire."
              -- Huey Lewis and the News "Walking On A Thin Line"

At the moment, I don't like

Rocketship Galileo
        I just didn't get the hang of it. I couldn't distinguish
        the main characters, I didn't find the story to be pretty
        consistent, I just read it to "have read it".

For us the Living
        Interesting ideas, but too simple in it's essence.
        And boring and forseeable in parts. (When that lady entered
        the rocket it was so obvious that she was to be grilled.)

Friday
        I liked it at first, but can't stand it any more.
        I find the storyline to be inconsistent and Friday to be
        incredibly stupid.

Glory Road
        Well, annoying characters, annoying dialogues, no real
        story in between. "Spank me, mylord hero!"
        (I know that for its time the book was pretty strong stuff,
        but as I can't go back there and read it then, I have to
        stick to what it has to offer me *now*...)

-- 
Regards
Oliver

Today's Teaser:
There are two sides to every question, politicians take both.

> Dee wrote...
> (in <36g60sF517b1dU1@individual.net>)
> 
> 
>>So, anybody else want to go for some casual conversation and personal
>>opinion, as oposed to erudite literary review?
> 
> 
> Nicely put :-)
> (Though isn't a review just a personal opinion, too? What else could
> it be?)

> At the moment, I don't like

> Friday
>         I liked it at first, but can't stand it any more.
>         I find the storyline to be inconsistent and Friday to be
>         incredibly stupid.

--Dee

:Oliver Gampe wrote:
:> 
:> Nicely put :-)
:> (Though isn't a review just a personal opinion, too? What else could
:> it be?)
:
:	I cannot explain the ifference nearly as well as David and Bill P. and 
:others can, but lit. crit. is something moch more than just a subjective 
:statement of what I liked or disliked.  

It's rather like the difference between giving a physical and just appraising her looks.

-- 
"Well, I met a girl in West Hollywood.  I ain't naming names.
 She really worked me over good.  She was just like Jesse James.
 She really worked me over good.  She was a credit to her gender.
 She put me through some changes, Lord.  
 Sort of like a Waring blender."
                  -- Warren Zevon, "Poor, Poor, Pitiful Me"

> Dee <ke4lfg@amsat.org> wrote:
>
> :Oliver Gampe wrote:
> :>
> :> Nicely put :-)
> :> (Though isn't a review just a personal opinion, too? What else could
> :> it be?)
> :
> : I cannot explain the ifference nearly as well as David and Bill P. and
> :others can, but lit. crit. is something moch more than just a subjective
> :statement of what I liked or disliked.
>
> Literary criticism is supposed to be based on some sort of
> professional assessment of the author and the writing.
>
> It's rather like the difference between giving a physical and just
> appraising her looks.
>
> --
> "Well, I met a girl in West Hollywood.  I ain't naming names.
>  She really worked me over good.  She was just like Jesse James.
>  She really worked me over good.  She was a credit to her gender.
>  She put me through some changes, Lord.
>  Sort of like a Waring blender."
>                   -- Warren Zevon, "Poor, Poor, Pitiful Me"

L.N.C.

:"Fred J. McCall" <fmccall@earthlink.net> wrote in message
:news:0r970196smpqs6ohe3bgurclrk2pikhpm1@4ax.com...
:> Dee <ke4lfg@amsat.org> wrote:
:>
:> :Oliver Gampe wrote:
:> :>
:> :> Nicely put :-)
:> :> (Though isn't a review just a personal opinion, too? What else could
:> :> it be?)
:> :
:> : I cannot explain the ifference nearly as well as David and Bill P. and
:> :others can, but lit. crit. is something moch more than just a subjective
:> :statement of what I liked or disliked.
:>
:> Literary criticism is supposed to be based on some sort of
:> professional assessment of the author and the writing.
:>
:> It's rather like the difference between giving a physical and just
:> appraising her looks.
:
:For the people who missed that because they've got him sequestered behind
:software, Fred said, "it's like the difference between telling her hello and
:suggesting that she'd ever have any interest in a loud-mouthed,
:overly-opinionated, off-color, generally-clueless masher like you." 

No surprise here.

-- 
"False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the
 soul with evil."

> Oliver Gampe wrote:
>> Dee wrote...
>>> So, anybody else want to go for some casual conversation and
>>> personal opinion, as oposed to erudite literary review?
>> (Though isn't a review just a personal opinion, too? What else could
>> it be?)
> 	I cannot explain the ifference nearly as well as David and Bill P.
> and others can, but lit. crit. is something moch more than just a
> subjective statement of what I liked or disliked.

A review I see as just some kind of elaborate comment about how one liked or disliked some certain work, but a critique has to be a lot more solid and should really go into the depths to explain why certain aspects did or didn't appeal to the critic.

The last step I would see in an analysis, which would have to be totally unbiased and completely based on "scientific" evidence.

But as I can't make up the words as I go along (well, I could, but it wouldn't really help ;-), how do /you/ normally differentiate between those different levels of "that's what I wanted to say about this"?

>> At the moment, I don't like
>> Friday
>>         I liked it at first, but can't stand it any more.
>>         I find the storyline to be inconsistent and Friday to be
>>         incredibly stupid.
> Well, Friday is pretty damned smart in some senses, and stupid in
> others.  She is not very people-smart, a0dn she is blinded by her own
> insecurity about her AP status.  It is at the same time, aggravating
> and endearing.  But without that flaw, she woudl have been boringly
> superhuman -- pretty, smart, strong, fast, sexually uninhibited.

> I
> like FRIDAY, and I think I would probaby like Friday if I ever got to
> meet her.  But I can see how she could be very irritating with that
> "stupidity" you mention.  Make you either want to comfort her, or
> give her a good hard shake!

-- 
Regards
Oliver

Today's Teaser:
Never retreat.  Never explain.  Get it done and let them howl.

> OK, I think I now see were my problem is: for me, there is a big
> difference between a critique and a review. This might be some kind
> of translation problem...

> 
> A review I see as just some kind of elaborate comment about how one
> liked or disliked some certain work, but a critique has to be a lot
> more solid and should really go into the depths to explain why
> certain aspects did or didn't appeal to the critic.

> The last step I would see in an analysis, which would have to be
> totally unbiased and completely based on "scientific" evidence.

> 
> But as I can't make up the words as I go along (well, I could, but
> it wouldn't really help ;-), how do /you/ normally differentiate
> between those different levels of "that's what I wanted to say about
> this"?

The pertinent definitions from online dictionary:

review: a critical evaluation (as of a book or play.)

criticism: the scientific investigation of literary documents (as the Bible) in regard to such matters as origin, text, composition, or history.

So I submit that there is more to a "review" than bare personal opinion, but even more to criticism.

>>>At the moment, I don't like
>>>Friday
>>>        I liked it at first, but can't stand it any more.
>>>        I find the storyline to be inconsistent and Friday to be
>>>        incredibly stupid.
>>
>>Well, Friday is pretty damned smart in some senses, and stupid in
>>others.  She is not very people-smart, a0dn she is blinded by her own
>>insecurity about her AP status.  It is at the same time, aggravating
>>and endearing.  But without that flaw, she woudl have been boringly
>>superhuman -- pretty, smart, strong, fast, sexually uninhibited.
> 
> 
> I had a problem with merging those two views of her, I think. It
> probably is why I felt the book inconsistent, too. There were those
> two persons in one, but the strong part made her weak part look even
> more stupid. I guess I felt she was too clever to be so dumb.
> Something like that.

>>I
>>like FRIDAY, and I think I would probaby like Friday if I ever got to
>>meet her.  But I can see how she could be very irritating with that
>>"stupidity" you mention.  Make you either want to comfort her, or
>>give her a good hard shake!
> 
> 
> In trying the latter I would be afraid to lose both arms and maybe
> some other... vital organs a little lower. ;-)

--Dee

Hope this isn't a duplicate...didn't see my previous response.

My least favorite is Job. Oh, there are interesting scenes, but of all RAH's works, it feels like it was written by a committee, or by throwing device. I recognize entropy will eventually win, but there he gave it a running start.

>From: Dee

>My very least favorite is Orphans in the Sky, 

> and my second is Beyond is 
>Horizon.

I tried The Unpleasant Profession of Jonathan Hoag a while back, and I think I would rate that one as a least favorite. I just don't get it.

>Oddly enough, two of my favorites are two that many people 
>bemoan--Number of the Beast and I Will Fear No Evil.  I just enjoy them. 
>    They take me back to old friends I wouldn't mind meeting in RL.

-- 
When cleaning computer, do not use abrasives or immerse in water.

> Folks, I am not qualified for serious literary review, and htta is not 
> the pont of this thread.  I am just interested in which Heinlein work(s) 
> you like least, and why.

It was so dark and depressing, with all of the edgy racist underpinnings, urgh!

> So, anybody else want to go for some casual conversation and personal 
> opinion, as oposed to erudite literary review?

-- 
Sean
(...)
RAH Expanded Universe: "It is utterly impossible that the United States
will start a 'preventive war'.  We will fight when attacked, either directly
or in a territory we have guaranteed to defend." 

>
>> So, anybody else want to go for some casual conversation and personal 
>> opinion, as oposed to erudite literary review?
>
> Least favourite: Anything after 1970. I will re-read, no problem, just 
> don't get as much thrill-factor out of them.
>
> -- 
> Sean
> (...)
> RAH Expanded Universe: "It is utterly impossible that the United States
> will start a 'preventive war'.  We will fight when attacked, either 
> directly
> or in a territory we have guaranteed to defend."
>

> Sean, I mean no disrespect, but can you clarify " Thrill Factor" for me?
> :-[ )

Sometime around or shortly after 1970 (or perhaps even before then), his emphasis on "hard SF" diminished, and for me so did the thrill factor. He seemed to want to talk about other things, which was fine, he had left quite enough inspiration for me with his earlier works.

-- 
Sean
(...)
RAH Expanded Universe: "It is utterly impossible that the United States
will start a 'preventive war'.  We will fight when attacked, either directly
or in a territory we have guaranteed to defend." 

> "Big_Fella"
> 
>> Sean, I mean no disrespect, but can you clarify " Thrill Factor" for me?
>> :-[ )
> 
> Sure. The thrill factor for me is related to the time I began reading
> Heinlein. I was a young boy during the Apollo missions, and my 8th
> birthday was just nine days before Armstrong set foot on the moon. Not so
> long after that I found Heinlein's juveniles in my school library. I was
> one of those kids who collected cards in serial boxes, and sent away for
> the poster to stick them on. The cards were of the Apollo missions and to
> me they were the most fantastic pictures I had ever seen. For me, at that
> particular time, and at that particular age, I had discovered an author
> who was talking directly to me about something I loved dearly. Through
> Heinlein I not only went to the moon with the Apollo astronauts, but
> beyond, to other planets and stars. He showed me how it was done, through
> the nuts and bolts of "hard SF", and it was so real. The thrill factor was
> huge.

Good health, my friend,

-- 
Pete LaGrange

>On Sat, 05 Feb 2005 14:03:50 +1000, Sean wrote:
>
>> "Big_Fella"
>> 
>>> Sean, I mean no disrespect, but can you clarify " Thrill Factor" for me?
>>> :-[ )
>> 
>> Sure. The thrill factor for me is related to the time I began reading
>> Heinlein. I was a young boy during the Apollo missions, and my 8th
>> birthday was just nine days before Armstrong set foot on the moon. Not so
>> long after that I found Heinlein's juveniles in my school library. I was
>> one of those kids who collected cards in serial boxes, and sent away for
>> the poster to stick them on. The cards were of the Apollo missions and to
>> me they were the most fantastic pictures I had ever seen. For me, at that
>> particular time, and at that particular age, I had discovered an author
>> who was talking directly to me about something I loved dearly. Through
>> Heinlein I not only went to the moon with the Apollo astronauts, but
>> beyond, to other planets and stars. He showed me how it was done, through
>> the nuts and bolts of "hard SF", and it was so real. The thrill factor was
>> huge.
>
>Change the birthday by five weeks and I could have written the above. I
>had no idea we shared so much, considering the seeming polar opposite
>positions we take on some things. I remember that night quite clearly,
>alternating between the TV and the front lawn (convinced that, if I just
>looked hard enough, I could see them). In any case, please have a drink on
>my tab, if my credit's still good around here.

Far as I'm concerned, your credit's always good around here... and here's one for you too.

<slide><slide>

-- 
~teresa~
 AFH Barwench

    ^..^  "Never try to outstubborn a cat."  Robert A. Heinlein  ^..^
    http://www.heinleinsociety.org/    http://pixelmeow.com/  
    http://pixelmeow.com/Book_Exchange/index.htm
    http://www.storesonline.com/site/rowanmystic/
    aim: pixelmeow  msn:pixelmeow@passport.com
    my first name at pixelmeow dot com

> <looks around>
> 
> Far as I'm concerned, your credit's always good around here...  and here's
> one for you too.
> 
> <slide><slide>

-- 
Pete LaGrange

> On Sat, 05 Feb 2005 14:03:50 +1000, Sean wrote:
> 
>> "Big_Fella"
>> 
>>> Sean, I mean no disrespect, but can you clarify " Thrill Factor" for me?
>>> :-[ )
>> 
>> Sure. The thrill factor for me is related to the time I began reading
>> Heinlein. I was a young boy during the Apollo missions, and my 8th
>> birthday was just nine days before Armstrong set foot on the moon. Not so
>> long after that I found Heinlein's juveniles in my school library. I was
>> one of those kids who collected cards in serial boxes, and sent away for
>> the poster to stick them on. The cards were of the Apollo missions and to
>> me they were the most fantastic pictures I had ever seen. For me, at that
>> particular time, and at that particular age, I had discovered an author
>> who was talking directly to me about something I loved dearly. Through
>> Heinlein I not only went to the moon with the Apollo astronauts, but
>> beyond, to other planets and stars. He showed me how it was done, through
>> the nuts and bolts of "hard SF", and it was so real. The thrill factor was
>> huge.
> 
> Change the birthday by five weeks and I could have written the above. I
> had no idea we shared so much, considering the seeming polar opposite
> positions we take on some things. I remember that night quite clearly,
> alternating between the TV and the front lawn (convinced that, if I just
> looked hard enough, I could see them). In any case, please have a drink on
> my tab, if my credit's still good around here.
> 

While I've saved lots of magazines and newspaper articles over the years, they've been of some bit of useful information. But I have a bunch of the major magazines from the week of the moon landing, because it was just something to go out and buy at that point, and keep.

Michael

> So did you have the painting of the three astronauts, in a cheap plastic
> frame?  I have no idea how widespread those were, or where they
> originated, but around that time I bought one (or had it bought for me) at
> the local grocery store.  I'm sure I've seen the same "painting" in a
> movie at some point.

 
> While I've saved lots of magazines and newspaper articles over the
> years, they've been of some bit of useful information.  But I have a
> bunch of the major magazines from the week of the moon landing, because
> it was just something to go out and buy at that point, and keep.

-- 
Pete LaGrange

:On Sat, 05 Feb 2005 06:18:38 +0000, Michael Black wrote:
:
:> So did you have the painting of the three astronauts, in a cheap plastic
:> frame?  I have no idea how widespread those were, or where they
:> originated, but around that time I bought one (or had it bought for me) at
:> the local grocery store.  I'm sure I've seen the same "painting" in a
:> movie at some point.
:
:I didn't. My folks were of the opinion that "all that money" could have
:been spent better elsewhere, hence no souvenirs.

-- 
You are 
What you do 
When it counts.

> Pete LaGrange <oldman1961@hotmail.com> wrote:
> 
> :On Sat, 05 Feb 2005 06:18:38 +0000, Michael Black wrote:
> :
> :> So did you have the painting of the three astronauts, in a cheap
> :> plastic frame?  I have no idea how widespread those were, or where they
> :> originated, but around that time I bought one (or had it bought for me)
> :> at the local grocery store.  I'm sure I've seen the same "painting" in
> :> a movie at some point.
> :
> :I didn't. My folks were of the opinion that "all that money" could have
> :been spent better elsewhere, hence no souvenirs.
> 
> Mine felt that way, too, but it didn't stop them from supporting my
> interest when I was little.

-- 
Pete LaGrange

:On Sat, 05 Feb 2005 16:08:47 +0000, Fred J. McCall wrote:
:
:> Pete LaGrange <oldman1961@hotmail.com> wrote:
:> 
:> :On Sat, 05 Feb 2005 06:18:38 +0000, Michael Black wrote:
:> :
:> :> So did you have the painting of the three astronauts, in a cheap
:> :> plastic frame?  I have no idea how widespread those were, or where they
:> :> originated, but around that time I bought one (or had it bought for me)
:> :> at the local grocery store.  I'm sure I've seen the same "painting" in
:> :> a movie at some point.
:> :
:> :I didn't. My folks were of the opinion that "all that money" could have
:> :been spent better elsewhere, hence no souvenirs.
:> 
:> Mine felt that way, too, but it didn't stop them from supporting my
:> interest when I was little.
:
:Well. I'd count myself lucky, were I you.

-- 
"Just consider me your friend.  I am until the end.
 Can I guarantee you life?  I don't think I can.
 This isn't the life for me.  This isn't the way I want to be.
 And let me tell you, Death will come when I'm good and ready."
                              -- Godsmack, "I Am"

<snip>

> Change the birthday by five weeks and I could have written the above. I
> had no idea we shared so much, considering the seeming polar opposite
> positions we take on some things. I remember that night quite clearly,
> alternating between the TV and the front lawn (convinced that, if I just
> looked hard enough, I could see them). In any case, please have a drink on
> my tab, if my credit's still good around here.
>
> Good health, my friend,

-- 
Sean
(...)
RAH Expanded Universe: "It is utterly impossible that the United States
will start a 'preventive war'.  We will fight when attacked, either directly
or in a territory we have guaranteed to defend." 

> Growing up as a kid in the
> sixties was certainly interesting, for me at least.

Oh wait, you meant the moon thing... :->

-- 
Pete LaGrange

> "Big_Fella"
>
>> Sean, I mean no disrespect, but can you clarify " Thrill Factor" for me?
>> :-[ )
>
> Sure. The thrill factor for me is related to the time I began reading 
> Heinlein. I was a young boy during the Apollo missions, and my 8th 
> birthday was just nine days before Armstrong set foot on the moon. Not so 
> long after that I found Heinlein's juveniles in my school library. I was 
> one of those kids who collected cards in serial boxes, and sent away for 
> the poster to stick them on. The cards were of the Apollo missions and to 
> me they were the most fantastic pictures I had ever seen. For me, at that 
> particular time, and at that particular age, I had discovered an author 
> who was talking directly to me about something I loved dearly. Through 
> Heinlein I not only went to the moon with the Apollo astronauts, but 
> beyond, to other planets and stars. He showed me how it was done, through 
> the nuts and bolts of "hard SF", and it was so real. The thrill factor was 
> huge.
>
> Sometime around or shortly after 1970 (or perhaps even before then), his 
> emphasis on "hard SF" diminished, and for me so did the thrill factor. He 
> seemed to want to talk about other things, which was fine, he had left 
> quite enough inspiration for me with his earlier works.
>
> -- 
> Sean
> (...)
> RAH Expanded Universe: "It is utterly impossible that the United States
> will start a 'preventive war'.  We will fight when attacked, either 
> directly
> or in a territory we have guaranteed to defend."
>

:-[ )

> "Big_Fella"
> 
>> Sean, I mean no disrespect, but can you clarify " Thrill Factor" for me?
>> :-[ )
> 
> Sure. The thrill factor for me is related to the time I began reading 
> Heinlein. I was a young boy during the Apollo missions, and my 8th birthday 
> was just nine days before Armstrong set foot on the moon. Not so long after 
> that I found Heinlein's juveniles in my school library. I was one of those 
> kids who collected cards in serial boxes, and sent away for the poster to 
> stick them on. The cards were of the Apollo missions and to me they were the 
> most fantastic pictures I had ever seen. For me, at that particular time, 
> and at that particular age, I had discovered an author who was talking 
> directly to me about something I loved dearly. Through Heinlein I not only 
> went to the moon with the Apollo astronauts, but beyond, to other planets 
> and stars. He showed me how it was done, through the nuts and bolts of "hard 
> SF", and it was so real. The thrill factor was huge.
> 

Yes, most of the juveniles are "real" because the characters weren't all that different from me. The stories seemed to take place in the future, yet not all that far. We could so easily fit into the stories, because Kip was playing with electronics, or the guys in Rocket Ship Galileo had all kinds of scientific hobbies. You sand bikes in The Rolling Stones seemed so real, because I read the book around the time I got a bike.

The more adult books, there was far less connection between you and the people in the books. I can't imagine myself having a revolution on the moon, even though i do like that book a lot.

Michael

> Sometime around or shortly after 1970 (or perhaps even before then), his 
> emphasis on "hard SF" diminished, and for me so did the thrill factor. He 
> seemed to want to talk about other things, which was fine, he had left quite 
> enough inspiration for me with his earlier works.
> 
> -- 
> Sean
> (...)
> RAH Expanded Universe: "It is utterly impossible that the United States
> will start a 'preventive war'.  We will fight when attacked, either directly
> or in a territory we have guaranteed to defend." 
> 
> 

>"Big_Fella"
>
>> Sean, I mean no disrespect, but can you clarify " Thrill Factor" for me?
>> :-[ )
>
>Sure. The thrill factor for me is related to the time I began reading 
>Heinlein. I was a young boy during the Apollo missions, and my 8th birthday 
>was just nine days before Armstrong set foot on the moon. Not so long after 
>that I found Heinlein's juveniles in my school library. I was one of those 
>kids who collected cards in serial boxes, and sent away for the poster to 
>stick them on. The cards were of the Apollo missions and to me they were the 
>most fantastic pictures I had ever seen. For me, at that particular time, 
>and at that particular age, I had discovered an author who was talking 
>directly to me about something I loved dearly. Through Heinlein I not only 
>went to the moon with the Apollo astronauts, but beyond, to other planets 
>and stars. He showed me how it was done, through the nuts and bolts of "hard 
>SF", and it was so real. The thrill factor was huge.
>
>Sometime around or shortly after 1970 (or perhaps even before then), his 
>emphasis on "hard SF" diminished, and for me so did the thrill factor. He 
>seemed to want to talk about other things, which was fine, he had left quite 
>enough inspiration for me with his earlier works.

--
Nancy Lebovitz     http://www.nancybuttons.com
"We've tamed the lightning and taught sand to give error messages."
http://livejournal.com/users/nancylebov

Nancy Lebovitz wrote:
> In article <36iutlF4u9fneU1@individual.net>,
> Sean <hcatleag@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> 
>>"Big_Fella"
>>
>>
>>>Sean, I mean no disrespect, but can you clarify " Thrill Factor" for me?
>>>:-[ )
>>
>>Sure. The thrill factor for me is related to the time I began reading 
>>Heinlein. I was a young boy during the Apollo missions, and my 8th birthday 
>>was just nine days before Armstrong set foot on the moon. Not so long after 
>>that I found Heinlein's juveniles in my school library. I was one of those 
>>kids who collected cards in serial boxes, and sent away for the poster to 
>>stick them on. The cards were of the Apollo missions and to me they were the 
>>most fantastic pictures I had ever seen. For me, at that particular time, 
>>and at that particular age, I had discovered an author who was talking 
>>directly to me about something I loved dearly. Through Heinlein I not only 
>>went to the moon with the Apollo astronauts, but beyond, to other planets 
>>and stars. He showed me how it was done, through the nuts and bolts of "hard 
>>SF", and it was so real. The thrill factor was huge.
>>
>>Sometime around or shortly after 1970 (or perhaps even before then), his 
>>emphasis on "hard SF" diminished, and for me so did the thrill factor. He 
>>seemed to want to talk about other things, which was fine, he had left quite 
>>enough inspiration for me with his earlier works.
> 
> 
> Hmm--I wonder if there's something kind of claustrophobic about late
> Heinlein. Even when he gets the story off earth, you don't find anything
> out there but what's in the usual human imagination. 

His later books are more explorations into the motivations of his characters.

We know more about how the City of Chillicothe worked than we do about how Dora worked, but we knew much more about why Dora was named that, and how she felt about it.

> Nancy Lebovitz wrote:
> > In article <36iutlF4u9fneU1@individual.net>,
> > Sean <hcatleag@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> > 
> >>"Big_Fella"
> >>
> >>
> >>>Sean, I mean no disrespect, but can you clarify " Thrill Factor" for me?
> >>>:-[ )
> >>
> >>Sure. The thrill factor for me is related to the time I began reading 
> >>Heinlein. I was a young boy during the Apollo missions, and my 8th birthday 
> >>was just nine days before Armstrong set foot on the moon. Not so long after 
> >>that I found Heinlein's juveniles in my school library. I was one of those 
> >>kids who collected cards in serial boxes, and sent away for the poster to 
> >>stick them on. The cards were of the Apollo missions and to me they were 
> >>the 
> >>most fantastic pictures I had ever seen. For me, at that particular time, 
> >>and at that particular age, I had discovered an author who was talking 
> >>directly to me about something I loved dearly. Through Heinlein I not only 
> >>went to the moon with the Apollo astronauts, but beyond, to other planets 
> >>and stars. He showed me how it was done, through the nuts and bolts of 
> >>"hard 
> >>SF", and it was so real. The thrill factor was huge.
> >>
> >>Sometime around or shortly after 1970 (or perhaps even before then), his 
> >>emphasis on "hard SF" diminished, and for me so did the thrill factor. He 
> >>seemed to want to talk about other things, which was fine, he had left 
> >>quite 
> >>enough inspiration for me with his earlier works.
> > 
> > 
> > Hmm--I wonder if there's something kind of claustrophobic about late
> > Heinlein. Even when he gets the story off earth, you don't find anything
> > out there but what's in the usual human imagination. 
> 
> I think his emphasis moved from the how to the why.
> 
> His later books are more explorations into the motivations of his 
> characters.
> 
> We know more about how the City of Chillicothe worked than we do about 
> how Dora worked, but we knew much more about why Dora was named that, 
> and how she felt about it.

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

>Folks, I am not qualified for serious literary review, and htta is not 
>the pont of this thread.  I am just interested in which Heinlein work(s) 
>you like least, and why.
>
>My very least favorite is Orphans in the Sky, and my second is Beyond is 
>Horizon.  And it has been so long since I read tehm, I don''t even 
>remember why.  I do remember thatI had to force myself to stick with 
>Orphans, and that BYT fell copletely flat with me, so much so that I 
>have never had any desire to re-read it.  Of course, maybe I should 
>re-read them both, or try to, if only to see if my tastes have changed 
>with time.

I rather like 'Horizon'--not so much as many others, but more than several.

>Oddly enough, two of my favorites are two that many people 
>bemoan--Number of the Beast and I Will Fear No Evil.  I just enjoy them. 
>    They take me back to old friends I wouldn't mind meeting in RL.

>So, anybody else want to go for some casual conversation and personal 
>opinion, as oposed to erudite literary review?

I keep thinking of adding 'Job' here--certainly I wasn't overkeen on it at first reading, and still wouldn't call it a favorite, but it's grown on me a bit.

-denny-
--
"...our dignity, our free institutions and the peace and
welfare of this and coming generations of Americans will be
secure only as we cling to the watchword of true patriotism:
'Our country--when right to be kept right; when wrong to be put
right.'"  -  Carl Schurz, in 1899

> Folks, I am not qualified for serious literary review, and htta is not 
> the pont of this thread.  I am just interested in which Heinlein 
> work(s) you like least, and why.
>

E!

Least favorite: TNOTB. It's the only one I don't like. Didn't like it when I first read it. Read it again years later to see if I had a different opinion, still didn't like it. Years later, read various essays on what RAH was up to in it, layers of meaning etc, read it again to see if I could appreciate it then, still didn't like it.

OTOH, completely the reverse with IWFNE. Liked it the first time I read it. Re-read it several times over the years before hearing about others' experience, didn't understand what the fuss was about. Read it again to see whether I could see evidence of alleged poor editing; couldn't. Read it again since then to see if time and exposure to yet more criticisms had changed my opinion, still liked it.

-- 
Peter Scott

> Folks, I am not qualified for serious literary review, and htta is not 
> the pont of this thread.  I am just interested in which Heinlein work(s) 
> you like least, and why.
> 
> My very least favorite is Orphans in the Sky, and my second is Beyond is 
> Horizon.  And it has been so long since I read tehm, I don''t even 
> remember why.  I do remember thatI had to force myself to stick with 
> Orphans, and that BYT fell copletely flat with me, so much so that I 
> have never had any desire to re-read it.  Of course, maybe I should 
> re-read them both, or try to, if only to see if my tastes have changed 
> with time.
> 
> Oddly enough, two of my favorites are two that many people 
> bemoan--Number of the Beast and I Will Fear No Evil.  I just enjoy them. 
>    They take me back to old friends I wouldn't mind meeting in RL.
> 
> So, anybody else want to go for some casual conversation and personal 
> opinion, as oposed to erudite literary review?
> 
> --Dee

I happen to really like the later books, and I love Number of the Beast. I'm not too sure why, I just do.

~*~Jackie~*~

> Dee wrote:
> 
>> Folks, I am not qualified for serious literary review, and htta is not 
>> the pont of this thread.  I am just interested in which Heinlein 
>> work(s) you like least, and why.
>>
>> My very least favorite is Orphans in the Sky, and my second is Beyond 
>> is Horizon.  And it has been so long since I read tehm, I don''t even 
>> remember why.  I do remember thatI had to force myself to stick with 
>> Orphans, and that BYT fell copletely flat with me, so much so that I 
>> have never had any desire to re-read it.  Of course, maybe I should 
>> re-read them both, or try to, if only to see if my tastes have changed 
>> with time.
>>
>> Oddly enough, two of my favorites are two that many people 
>> bemoan--Number of the Beast and I Will Fear No Evil.  I just enjoy 
>> them.    They take me back to old friends I wouldn't mind meeting in RL.
>>
>> So, anybody else want to go for some casual conversation and personal 
>> opinion, as oposed to erudite literary review?
>>
>> --Dee
> 
> 
> I'm not to sure.  I'm inclined to say that Orphans in the Sky ranks 
> somewhere down there, but I only read it once, and that was a while ago, 
> so I don't recall what I did or didn't like about it.  I also don't 
> really like "Successful Operation (from Expanded Universe).  I've reread 
> that book lots of times, but I often skip that one story.
> 
> I happen to really like the later books, and I love Number of the Beast. 
>  I'm not too sure why, I just do.
> 
> ~*~Jackie~*~

~*~Jackie~*~

> Dee wrote:
>> Folks, I am not qualified for serious literary review, and htta is not 
>> the pont of this thread.  I am just interested in which Heinlein work(s) 
>> you like least, and why.
>> 
>> My very least favorite is Orphans in the Sky, and my second is Beyond is 
>> Horizon.  And it has been so long since I read tehm, I don''t even 
>> remember why.  I do remember thatI had to force myself to stick with 
>> Orphans, and that BYT fell copletely flat with me, so much so that I 
>> have never had any desire to re-read it.  Of course, maybe I should 
>> re-read them both, or try to, if only to see if my tastes have changed 
>> with time.
>> 
>> Oddly enough, two of my favorites are two that many people 
>> bemoan--Number of the Beast and I Will Fear No Evil.  I just enjoy them. 
>>    They take me back to old friends I wouldn't mind meeting in RL.
>> 
>> So, anybody else want to go for some casual conversation and personal 
>> opinion, as oposed to erudite literary review?
>> 
>> --Dee
> 
> I'm not to sure.  I'm inclined to say that Orphans in the Sky ranks 
> somewhere down there, but I only read it once, and that was a while ago, 
> so I don't recall what I did or didn't like about it.  I also don't 
> really like "Successful Operation (from Expanded Universe).  I've reread 
> that book lots of times, but I often skip that one story.
> 

The characters are fairly different from the rest of the books, not really typical Heinlein characters. For everyone who was put off by "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" initially, because of the language structure, eventually you see traditional Heinlein characters. IN Orphans, in some ways they keep being relative simpletons. Or at least that's my recollection of the book, I reread it sometime in the past six months, meshed with trying to explain why I read it less than many of the other books.

Michael

> I happen to really like the later books, and I love Number of the Beast. 
>   I'm not too sure why, I just do.
> 
> ~*~Jackie~*~

>>> My very least favorite is Orphans in the Sky, and my second is Beyond is 
>>> Horizon.  And it has been so long since I read tehm, I don''t even 
>>> remember why.  I do remember thatI had to force myself to stick with 
>>> Orphans, and that BYT fell copletely flat with me, so much so that I 
>>> have never had any desire to re-read it.  Of course, maybe I should 
>>> re-read them both, or try to, if only to see if my tastes have changed 
>>> with time.

>> I'm not to sure.  I'm inclined to say that Orphans in the Sky ranks 
>> somewhere down there, but I only read it once, and that was a while ago, 
>> so I don't recall what I did or didn't like about it.  I also don't 
>> really like "Successful Operation (from Expanded Universe).  I've reread 
>> that book lots of times, but I often skip that one story.
 
>"Orphan in the Sky" may be less successful because it has a different
>venue than many of the rest of the books.
>
>The characters are fairly different from the rest of the books, not
>really typical Heinlein characters.  For everyone who was put off by
>"The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" initially, because of the  language
>structure, eventually you see traditional Heinlein characters.  IN
>Orphans, in some ways they keep being relative simpletons.  Or at
>least that's my recollection of the book, I reread it sometime in
>the past six months, meshed with trying to explain why I read it less
>than many of the other books.

Why? Not the venue, a lot of Heinlein books/stories had "a different venue than many of the rest of the books"/stories.

The same can be said of the characters. Again, while there are "typical Heinlein characters", in a lot of those "rest of the books" he also had atypical characters.

What it boils down to is that I'd read too many "generation ship" stories, including those involving disasters/reversion to ignorance of what lay outside the "world", in my early SF days that I was, perhaps, jaded even when I read OitS the first time. Plus, they never were a favorite SF theme. So, although memory-impaired nostalgia drove me to spend $6.99 [less B&N discount] for a trip down memory lane, in the event, I aborted the voyage short of its finish.

In juxtaposition to OitS, one of my other ... ... ... ... less than favorite SF themes was Sword and Sorcery. After my first few exposures, I left, and still leave, S&S sitting on the shelves where I find them. Even Glory Road when it first came out, and for several years thereafter. Finally read it, liked it, and have read it several times since. Certainly not my favorite Heinlein by far, but right there in the middle with most of them. Certainly the book I've read nearly a dozen times wasn't the book I saw in that *.edu/rasfw ass's review. But maybe it was bad Sword and Sorcery, since it certainly didn't change my outlook towards that subgenre of SF. ;->

-- 
OJ III
[Email to Yahoo address may be burned before reading.
Lower and crunch the sig and you'll net me at comcast.]

     < snipped >
> 
> The same can be said of the characters.  Again, while there are
> "typical Heinlein characters", in a lot of those "rest of the
> books" he also had atypical characters.
> 
> What it boils down to is that I'd read too many "generation ship"
> stories, including those involving disasters/reversion to
> ignorance of what lay outside the "world", in my early SF days
> that I was, perhaps, jaded even when I read OitS the first time.
> Plus, they never were a favorite SF theme.  So, although
> memory-impaired nostalgia drove me to spend $6.99 [less B&N
> discount] for a trip down memory lane, in the event, I aborted
> the voyage short of its finish.
> 

I agree that the idea has been done better but, it seems to me, modern authors, standing on the shoulders of The Master, have an advantage.

OitS seems rather "dark" as compared with other RAH; perhaps this is the reason it's low on the esteem list for many people. And, although I wouldn't have listed it among "leas favorites", it must be one of them; I don't think I even own a copy at this time.

Norm
-- 
--
To reply, change domain to an adult feline.

>I've also read several "generation ship" novels and stories but, so far 
>as I know, OitS is the earliest. 

-- 
When cleaning computer, do not use abrasives or immerse in water.

>>I've also read several "generation ship" novels and stories but, so far 
>>as I know, OitS is the earliest. 
> 
> 
> I am unable to find it in Google, but I once posted this and someone pointed
> out an earlier example, but I cannot remember the title or author.  Can someone
> else come up with this?
> 

http://www.bewilderingstories.com/issue94/generation_ships.html mentions "Don Wilcox’s “The Voyage that Lasted 600 Years” (Amazing, October 1940)" as the first, but also acknowledges that "The template for all such plots is Robert A. Heinlein’s classic “Universe” (Astounding, May 1941)." Universe + Common Sense = Orphans in the Sky. Generation ships used to be know as "Universe" ships in the fan community.

> LV Poker Player wrote:
> 
>>> I've also read several "generation ship" novels and stories but, so 
>>> far as I know, OitS is the earliest. 
>>
>>
>>
>> I am unable to find it in Google, but I once posted this and someone 
>> pointed
>> out an earlier example, but I cannot remember the title or author.  
>> Can someone
>> else come up with this?
>>
> 
> This site
> 
> http://www.bewilderingstories.com/issue94/generation_ships.html
> 
> mentions "Don Wilcox’s “The Voyage that Lasted 600 Years” (Amazing, 
> October 1940)" as the first, but also acknowledges that "The template 
> for all such plots is Robert A. Heinlein’s classic “Universe” 
> (Astounding, May 1941)."  Universe + Common Sense = Orphans in the Sky. 
>  Generation ships used to be know as "Universe" ships in the fan community.

-- 
--
To reply, change domain to an adult feline.

>>I've also read several "generation ship" novels and stories but, so far 
>>as I know, OitS is the earliest. 
>
>I am unable to find it in Google, but I once posted this and someone pointed
>out an earlier example, but I cannot remember the title or author.  Can someone
>else come up with this?

The ship that the Howards steal is intended as such, and is the sister-ship of the one in "Orphans". There's even a comment at one point about Howards being "natural" space pioneers because of their longer lives.

	-Chris Zakes
		Texas

Butterflies are not insects, they are self-propelled flowers.

	-Captain John Sterling in "The Cat Who Walks Through Walls" by Robert Heinlein

>Ogden Johnson III wrote:

>     < snipped >
 
>> What it boils down to is that I'd read too many "generation ship"
>> stories, including those involving disasters/reversion to
>> ignorance of what lay outside the "world", in my early SF days
>> that I was, perhaps, jaded even when I read OitS the first time.
>> Plus, they never were a favorite SF theme.  So, although
>> memory-impaired nostalgia drove me to spend $6.99 [less B&N
>> discount] for a trip down memory lane, in the event, I aborted
>> the voyage short of its finish.

>I've also read several "generation ship" novels and stories but, so far 
>as I know, OitS is the earliest. And I'm pretty sure that it was the 
>first of these that I read. (Is this an SF theme that RAH invented?) So 
>when I read a "generation ship" story, I compare it against OitS.