|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
Thursday 06-06-2002 09:00 P.M. EDT
I Will Fear No Evil
Return to Index
Here Begin The A.F.H. postings
"Now see here, Eunice! If you hadn't played "My Last Duchess" to half the country, I wouldn't be having to repair the damage." (Internal dialogue, Johann to Eunice)
I remember the afternoon in English class when the teacher first read Browning's poem to us...and the thrill of horror that I got as the fate of the young wife was casually revealed. For those who want to read it again, here's a link, http://www.csua.berkeley.edu/~dxu/poetry/duchess.html
It deals with a young woman who smiled at everyone, who had no scale by which to judge the worth of a gesture or a gift; all were of equal importance to her. An angel? Not to a jealous and proud husband who wanted to possess her utterly.
Now I'm not suggesting that Joe _did_ have Eunice killed so that he could replace her with the less intelligent and more malleable Gigi...but it's something to think about <eg>
Eunice is a sometimes annoying, sometimes intriguing person. More so than with any other Heinlein character we get multiple POV's and judgments of her character and personality...few of which bear much resemblance to the only true picture we have of her which we see fleetingly during the ride home with Jake after Johann has told them of his plan. Her thoughts as she sits in the luxury car with the man who will shortly become her lover are the _only_ time she's free to be herself in the entire book, the only time there is no audience to seduce and play up to. You think she's honest when she's in Johann's head? More often than not maybe, but totally? Some habits are hard to break and I'd bet this is one that Eunice never even tried to shake off.
Those thoughts are worth looking at in detail. They tell us what Eunice is thinking and using that we can make a judgment about her that is uncluttered by her tricks and pretty smiles. She's a fighter and is unencumbered by loyalty to anyone but herself. Other women are competition (notice how she tells Johann that Winnie's hair is out of a bottle? Turns out not to be so...) men are prey, easily manipulated, present in abundance, never out of bounds.
This is a woman who is light years beyond Tamara, Maureen and Hilda; pure sex appeal, irresistible to just about anyone (two exceptions; a devout man and a sadist...go figure...).
Proof of her ability to camouflage is in the descriptions of her. Even after allowing for the reluctance we have to speak ill of the dead, they glow in technicolour...yet are tainted by patronage and condescension, especially when it comes to Jake. Who doesn't feel like whacking him over the head when he says indulgently about Eunice's savings,
"The little dear was smart about money - a nice sum, enough to keep him eating a couple of years, I think."That, 'little dear' had just got her salary doubled, a bonus of a million dollars and a seat on the board in the space of five minutes or so...
I also award him the winner of the most fatuous remark in the book when he says,
"I think Eunice had a romantic notion that she could give her body to her boss if she no longer needed it and not let him find out. Ridiculous but it fitted her sweet nature."<snicker>Sure she did...and I have a bargain on this little gold mine no one knows about...
OK, I have plans for other posts about the book from different angles but I thought concentrating on Eunice to start with might be fun...what do you all think of her? How does she stack up against other Heinlein heroes?
Jane -- http://www.heinleinsociety.org
"Jane Davitt" <jdavitt01@rogers.com>wrote in message news:3CF2A4E8.9050301@rogers.com... >Eunice is a sometimes annoying, sometimes intriguing person. More so >than with any other Heinlein character we get multiple POV's and >judgments of her character and personality...few of which bear much >resemblance to the only true picture we have of her which we see >fleetingly during the ride home with Jake after Johann has told them >of his plan. Her thoughts as she sits in the luxury car with the man >who will shortly become her lover are the _only_ time she's free to >be herself in the entire book, the only time there is no audience to >seduce and play up to. You think she's honest when she's in Johann's >head? More often than not maybe, but totally? Some habits are hard >to break and I'd bet this is one that Eunice never even tried to >shake off.
Isn't there some mention that they can see each other's thoughts once they've been stuck in the same skull? I seem to remember that Johann was thinking of something... a past lover perhaps?.. and Eunice saw the woman he was remembering. So if thoughts are readable in one direction, isn't it reasonable to think it'd work the other way? Does anyone remember an instance where Johann sees something Eunice is thinking about? If she thought of deceiving him, he'd "see" that she's thinking it. Enforced honesty by telepathy.
-- Oscagne, High Priest of Skeptics and Cynics To bypass the Atans guarding my mailbox, replace FornMin.tam with ev1.net
>> > >Isn't there some mention that they can see each other's thoughts once >they've been stuck in the same skull? I seem to remember that Johann was >thinking of something... a past lover perhaps?.. and Eunice saw the woman he >was remembering. So if thoughts are readable in one direction, isn't it >reasonable to think it'd work the other way? Does anyone remember an >instance where Johann sees something Eunice is thinking about? If she >thought of deceiving him, he'd "see" that she's thinking it. Enforced >honesty by telepathy.I don't recall that; can you quote? I think they can peek but I think they can also put up barriers too.
Jane -- http://www.heinleinsociety.org
>"Jane Davitt" <jdavitt01@rogers.com>wrote in message >news:3CF2A4E8.9050301@rogers.com... >>Eunice is a sometimes annoying, sometimes intriguing person. More so >>than with any other Heinlein character we get multiple POV's and >>judgments of her character and personality...few of which bear much >>resemblance to the only true picture we have of her which we see >>fleetingly during the ride home with Jake after Johann has told them >>of his plan. Her thoughts as she sits in the luxury car with the man >>who will shortly become her lover are the _only_ time she's free to >>be herself in the entire book, the only time there is no audience to >>seduce and play up to. You think she's honest when she's in Johann's >>head? More often than not maybe, but totally? Some habits are hard >>to break and I'd bet this is one that Eunice never even tried to >>shake off. > >Isn't there some mention that they can see each other's thoughts once >they've been stuck in the same skull? I seem to remember that Johann was >thinking of something... a past lover perhaps?.. and Eunice saw the woman he >was remembering. So if thoughts are readable in one direction, isn't it >reasonable to think it'd work the other way? Does anyone remember an >instance where Johann sees something Eunice is thinking about? If she >thought of deceiving him, he'd "see" that she's thinking it. Enforced >honesty by telepathy.
And yet, there are plenty of occasions when Johann doesn't know something until Eunice chooses to tell him. For example, her illegitimate baby, and how it was conceived.
[Brandon Ray]
>Isn't there some mention that they can see each other's thoughts once >they've been stuck in the same skull? I seem to remember that Johann was >thinking of something... a past lover perhaps?.. and Eunice saw the woman he >was remembering. So if thoughts are readable in one direction, isn't it >reasonable to think it'd work the other way?My recollection (theory?) is that Eunice can see what's going on in Johann's brain, as it's meat--but Eunice is only present in a truly disembodied state.
-- -denny- nocturnal curmudgeon, editor Never try to outstubborn a cat. - Lazarus Long
>"Now see here, Eunice! If you hadn't played "My Last Duchess" to >half the country, I wouldn't be having to repair the damage." <snip> >OK, I have plans for other posts about the book from different >angles but I thought concentrating on Eunice to start with might be >fun...what do you all think of her? How does she stack up against >other Heinlein heroes? > >JaneGoodness, food for thought there.
Taking into consideration that Eunice was born apparently without significant protection (money, family advantages) in a world as close to a toxic anarchy we'll hopefully see, she seems in many ways more a female Lazarus to me, using everything she has (beauty and brains in particular) to survive in a hard world. And yet, her sense of honour dictated taking what she must have known was a fair risk in order to save the life of another as a rare blood donor - not the act of a con artist surely.
Like Maureen, Eunice was "amoral" - working out her own set of rules to live by and be able to look herself in the mirror at night. Unlike Maureen, she wasn't living in an early 20th century Bible Belt community, but in a futuristic dystopia.
It might be fun to speculate what would have happened to Eunice had she not ended up the donor, and had instead received the million dollar legacy from Johann. As a woman of moderate wealth, a member of the board, and Jake's paramour, she would have been in a position to achieve success and security, while keeping Joe as a concubine of her own. Artist's model was a fun game while she was young, but could someone tutored by Jake the fixer and Johann the tycoon really be that unambitious?
Eunice's sexuality as herself seemed somewhat more reactive than active. Ever eager and receptive, without pushing the issue, perhaps the geisha (many of whom also ended up very financially comfortable)? Her keeping of Joe is the sticking point to the argument of a survivor Eunice, though. Was he more than a talented (genius?) pet? Certainly he isn't portrayed as an equal partner in the relationship, as he is illiterate and unaware of even where the money for his food comes from, almost a savant. Perhaps a surviving Eunice could have married Jake, set Joe up with Gigi and a comfortable life, with visiting privileges, and gone on to be a female Jubal.
[Carolyn Evans]
... >notice how she tells Johann that Winnie's hair is >out of a bottle? Turns out not to be so... ...IIRC, Winnie claims the colour is natural at one point - but I don't recall Joan confirming it. I'm more inclined to believe Eunice.
[Simon Jester]
>From: "Oscagne" >Isn't there some mention that they can see each other's thoughts once >they've been stuck in the same skull? INo, just the opposite. When they are going to open Johann's safe for spending money, he asks her if she can just lift the combination out of his head. She explains that no, neither one of them can just lift thoughts out, the thought has to be actively present for the other one to "hear" it.
>I seem to remember that Johann was >thinking of something... a past lover perhaps?.. and Eunice saw the woman he >was remembering.I don't remember this, or any other visualization, it was voice only.
-- Oldthinkers unbellyfeel Ingsoc. - from 1984 by George Orwell
>On Mon, 27 May 2002 17:41:32 -0500, "Oscagne" ><Oscagne@FornMin.tam.invalid>held forth, saying: > >>Isn't there some mention that they can see each other's thoughts once >>they've been stuck in the same skull? I seem to remember that Johann was >>thinking of something... a past lover perhaps?.. and Eunice saw the woman he >>was remembering. So if thoughts are readable in one direction, isn't it >>reasonable to think it'd work the other way? > >My recollection (theory?) is that Eunice can see what's going on in >Johann's brain, as it's meat--but Eunice is only present in a truly >disembodied state.My theory is that Eunice is a grief-driven hallucination on Johann's part.
[William Dennis]
>>From: "Oscagne" > >>Isn't there some mention that they can see each other's thoughts once >>they've been stuck in the same skull? I > >No, just the opposite. When they are going to open Johann's safe for spending >money, he asks her if she can just lift the combination out of his head. She >explains that no, neither one of them can just lift thoughts out, the thought >has to be actively present for the other one to "hear" it. > >>I seem to remember that Johann was >>thinking of something... a past lover perhaps?.. and Eunice saw the woman he >>was remembering. > >I don't remember this, or any other visualization, it was voice only.Perhaps. But in compliance with Jane's request I started re-reading today and found:
In the Ace 1987 edition on p. 150 Joan is trying to play the piano and can't. Johann is disgruntled at his newfound inability and Eunice is soothing him by telling him that if he really wants to learn they can start from scratch and, "It's in your head, I know; I could hear it." This looks like evidence of an unintentional transmission of information from Johann to Eunice, outside their speech to each other.
On p. 153 when Eunice is using their hands to work on "Betsy" she tells Johann just to think of Winnie so that he won't interfere with her task. After she's done she asks him if he did, he says yes, and she says, "I know you did, I was right with you. Joan, for a girl who is, in one sense at least, a virgin, you have an unusually low and vivid imagination." This may be the visualization I mentioned earlier.
My basic understanding of it is that they can read each other's thoughts. Not even necessarily "spoken" thoughts, just images, sounds, concepts that occur to them. They demonstrably cannot read each other's memories, or access each others' minds like hard drives or something. That'd be why she couldn't lift his safe combination from his head, he hadn't thought about it yet. To hide something from him, though, she'd have to not think about whatever she wanted to hide. But if she was making a conscious decision not to think about something, then she's thought about it. Ever try not to think about something? For example: _don't_ think of an airplane for the next ten seconds... %^)
Or it could be that she's a delusion. Or it could be that I'm a delusion and you're not really on the computer right now, but actually in the proverbial hospital in the proverbial wetpack.
-- Oscagne, High Priest of Skeptics and Cynics To bypass the Atans guarding my mailbox, replace FornMin.tam with ev1.net
> >"LV Poker Player" <lvpokerplayer@aol.com>wrote in message >news:20020528064116.28039.00001272@mb-fo.aol.com... >>>From: "Oscagne" (snip) >In the Ace 1987 edition on p. 150 Joan is trying to play the piano and >can't. Johann is disgruntled at his newfound inability and Eunice is >soothing him by telling him that if he really wants to learn they can start >from scratch and, "It's in your head, I know; I could hear it." This looks >like evidence of an unintentional transmission of information from Johann to >Eunice, outside their speech to each other. > >On p. 153 when Eunice is using their hands to work on "Betsy" she tells >Johann just to think of Winnie so that he won't interfere with her task. >After she's done she asks him if he did, he says yes, and she says, "I know >you did, I was right with you. Joan, for a girl who is, in one sense at >least, a virgin, you have an unusually low and vivid imagination." This may >be the visualization I mentioned earlier. > (snip) > >Or it could be that she's a delusion. Or it could be that I'm a delusion >and you're not really on the computer right now, but actually in the >proverbial hospital in the proverbial wetpack. >
The issue has been raised, both seriously and not so seriously, as to whether Eunice is a delusion of Johann's.
I have been re-reading the book, but have found nothing yet that would prove it one way or the other. With respect to all of the 'details' that 'Eunice' relates to him, up to this point they could be explained as Johann 'filling in details' of her life from what he knows.
The problems associated with the two paragraphs above about the piano and the secretarial machine, 'Betsy' are of a different nature. The lack of ability of the new body to play the piano is not surprising since it would indeed require training and conditioning of the hands, fingers, muscles and all that to translate the music in Johann's head to execution on the piano. Working with 'Betsy' is a totally different situation. True, it would involve training of the hands, fingers etc. to operate it, but there were indications that mental activity also went on as it involved setting up a search on the library net, (no widespread internet available at the time this was written), which I don't believe could be explained by simply have the hands etc trained. At the least, if Eunice was not really there, then the search would have involved her body's training plus mental activity from Johann, without his being aware of it.
In 'Elsewhen', Heinlein had Professor Frost going back along his timeline to re-occupy his body before he made the choice to quit school. In Piper's 'Time and Time Again', the protagonist was killed in a war and found himself back in his body at the age of 13 or so. In both cases, the backslider retained all of his memories up to the time of transfer. This could be a possible explanation of Johann and Eunice being in the same body, Johann arriving there by virture of the transplant and Eunice by the transferral method used in these stories. However, that still leaves the problem with Jake joining them at the end.
David Wright
>The issue has been raised, both seriously and not so seriously, as to >whether Eunice is a delusion of Johann's. **snip cogent support of this statement**I think we're talking to cross purposes, here. My last remark ("Or it could be that she's a delusion"...etc.) was meant to be facetious and humorous. I think Heinlein left the possibility intentionally ambiguous. Its meant to be a thought exercise IMO. None of the things I wrote were meant to support the idea that her soul absolutely had been implanted in Johann's mind.
What I was rebutting was Jane's hypothesis that Eunice was (or could have been) deceitful in her dealings with Johann inside Joan's head. Specifically when she wrote, "Her thoughts as she sits in the luxury car with the man who will shortly become her lover are the _only_ time she's free to be herself in the entire book, the only time there is no audience to seduce and play up to. You think she's honest when she's in Johann's head? More often than not maybe, but totally? Some habits are hard to break and I'd bet this is one that Eunice never even tried to shake off." My hypothesis was that because of the aforementioned passages I didn't think she'd be capable of the screening her mind or hiding her thoughts that would be necessary to deceive him.
-- Oscagne, High Priest of Skeptics and Cynics To bypass the Atans guarding my mailbox, replace FornMin.tam with ev1.net
>From: "Oscagne" Oscagne@FornMin.tam.invalid >What I was rebutting was Jane's hypothesis that Eunice was (or could have >been) deceitful in her dealings with Johann inside Joan's head. >Specifically when she wrote, "Her thoughts as she sits in the luxury car >with the man who will shortly become her lover are the _only_ time she's >free to be herself in the entire book, the only time there is no audience to >seduce and play up to. You think she's honest when she's in Johann's head? >More often than not maybe, but totally? Some habits are hard to break and >I'd bet this is one that Eunice never even tried to shake off." My >hypothesis was that because of the aforementioned passages I didn't think >she'd be capable of the screening her mind or hiding her thoughts that would >be necessary to deceive him.I agree that deliberate deception is impossible under those circumstances, but there is always self deception, and I think that was what Jane meant when mentioning old habits.
-- Oldthinkers unbellyfeel Ingsoc. - from 1984 by George Orwell
>
>"David Wright" <dwrighsr@alltel.net>wrote in message
>news:ad11oo$tbgsh$1@ID-53646.news.dfncis.de...
>>The issue has been raised, both seriously and not so seriously, as to
>>whether Eunice is a delusion of Johann's.
>**snip cogent support of this statement**
>
>I think we're talking to cross purposes, here. My last remark ("Or it could
>be that she's a delusion"...etc.) was meant to be facetious and humorous. I
>think Heinlein left the possibility intentionally ambiguous. Its meant to
>be a thought exercise IMO. None of the things I wrote were meant to support
>the idea that her soul absolutely had been implanted in Johann's mind.
>
I really wasn't commenting specifically on your post, but just on the
concept in general. Your post just happened to appear with a lead-in that
allowed me to comment. I didn't take your comments as being one way or the
other. I did know that you were being facetious.
David W.
(snip) >I did know that you were being facetious. >and humorous :)
DW
>The issue has been raised, both seriously and not so seriously, as to >whether Eunice is a delusion of Johann's. > >I have been re-reading the book, but have found nothing yet that would prove >it one way or the other.As it happens, the last correspondence I had with RAH was on just this point. I had written pointing out that Joan Eunice knew the pass combination to her apartment with Joe -- Blackbirds -- which is information that JE could have had only if Eunice was real and not a delusion. He wrote back noncommittally saying that was a good catch, but not confirming the conclusion. From passing comments I've seen relayed from other sources, I suspect that he wrote this book with several contradictory scenarios in mind and tried to make all of them equally plausible.
Bill
> >Isn't there some mention that they can see each other's thoughts once >they've been stuck in the same skull? I seem to remember that Johann was >thinking of something... a past lover perhaps?.. and Eunice saw the woman he >was remembering. So if thoughts are readable in one direction, isn't it >reasonable to think it'd work the other way? Does anyone remember an >instance where Johann sees something Eunice is thinking about? If she >thought of deceiving him, he'd "see" that she's thinking it. Enforced >honesty by telepathy.Actually, I believe that they had to verbalize their thoughts for each other to see them. I'm not sure...I'll have to re-read the book for you, but i'll mark it when i find it. ;)
tam
>From: "David Wright" >I really wasn't commenting specifically on your post,In the same vein, I have been giving this issue some thought. I tend to lean toward the hallucination view, but there is something to be said for the view that it really was Eunice.
As far as Eunice telling him things he could not know, is it really "impossible" for Johann to know something? It may be highly unlikely, but how is it impossible? Recently, Bill Patterson brought up Joe Branca's door code and how Johann got it from "Eunice" inside his head. Well, it does seem kind of unlikely that Johann would have known this in any way. But impossible? I don't see that. I'm betting that his mobile guards knew it. Before the operation, did they let it slip in his presence? Mabye, maybe not. Was it in the smoop summary he had done (today it would be called a background check)? Maybe.
So just on the basis of Eunice telling him things that he supposedly could not have known, I don't think we can decide one way or another.
If Eunice really was present and this was not hallucination, was anything supernatural involved? I don't think it is necessary to assume it was supernatural. How much of the personality and awareness is stored in the spinal column? Probably not all that much, but maybe enough to cause the dialogues related in IWFNE. Until we actually have a brain transplant done, I don't think we can really know how much the spinal column is involved. We know that he brain can survive more or less independently, since the neck can be broken but he person survives while being paralyzed. We do not know anything about the opposite, since at this point we might keep a body alive on life support without a functioning brain, but we have no way of communicating with the spinal column and asking it if it is still self aware.
This theory falls apart when Jake joins the awareness. It might be that Eunice survived in the spinal column, but Jake joining them was hallucination. Then again, they both might be hallucinations. I prefer to think Eunice really was there, but that they hallucinated Jake joining them.
Then again, the whole point of the novel might have been to leave this matter unresolved.
[LV Poker Player]
-- Oldthinkers unbellyfeel Ingsoc. - from 1984 by George Orwell
>I'm betting that his mobile guards knew it. Before the >operation, did they let it slip in his presence? Mabye, maybe not. Was it in >the smoop summary he had done (today it would be called a background check)? >Maybe.As you say, I'm sure the point of the novel was to leave the question unresolved -- but even if the mobile guards knew it (which I seem to regard as less likely than you) and even if it were in the background check (which I regard as highly unlikely, given the "permanent information" nature of background checks and the highly transitory nature of passwords), that does not therefore make it likely or probable that their employer knew that fact. This supposition has been raised before, but I regard it as piling improbability upon improbability. Moreover, I tend to be leery of coming up with extra-textual explanations for improbabilities -- particularly where there is an alternate textual explanation available. Yes, Heinlein could have argued in that fashion -- but he didn't.
Let's summarize and say this is an issue that, on net, is more easily explained by the "she's real" hypothesis. I still think RAH was trying to make several different interpretations credible.
Bill
>> > >As it happens, the last correspondence I had with RAH was on just this point. >I had written pointing out that Joan Eunice knew the pass combination to her >apartment with Joe -- Blackbirds -- which is information that JE could have had >only if Eunice was real and not a delusion. > >Bill, I'm confused. There was no pass code; when Joan goes to visit, Eunice tells her to just say, 'open up' to the door, which begins to unlock and then stops. Eventually Joe opens it. 'Blackbirds' was what Eunice said to Joe when she was setting up a session with the guards. It was 'short talk' for midnight. From what i gather, short talk could be personalised but wasn't that secret.
Jane -- http://www.heinleinsociety.org
> >I agree that deliberate deception is impossible under those circumstances, but >there is always self deception, and I think that was what Jane meant when >mentioning old habits. > >Sort of, yes. With _any_ audience, I don't think you got 100% Eunice. Maybe 90% when she was with Johann but it was still important for her to be someone he could love, possibly even more important once he couldn't see her (sort of).
I thought when I first read the book that Eunice and later Jake were really there in his head and I haven't changed my mind. If it's illusion, it's dull and I prefer it to be real. Heinlein wrote it so that we can all make up our own minds to suit. Clever.
Jane -- http://www.heinleinsociety.org
>I thought when I first read the book that Eunice and later Jake were >really there in his head and I haven't changed my mind. If it's >illusion, it's dull and I prefer it to be real. Heinlein wrote it so >that we can all make up our own minds to suit. Clever. Jane--I think it is even more clever than that. RAH put us in Johann's shoes pretty thoroughly: We search for evidence of Eunice's real existence and are never quite able to pin it down to proof positve, yet we believe. Somehow, we just "know" that Eunice is real. And having spent the whole book digesting that improbability, it is fairly easy to swallow Jake's entrance, with much less setup.
-Dee
>And yet, her sense of honour dictated taking what >she must have known was a fair risk in order to save the life of another as >a rare blood donor - not the act of a con artist surely.Yes; I was being a little provocative to start the debate :-)
> >Like Maureen, Eunice was "amoral" - working out her own set of rules to live >by and be able to look herself in the mirror at night. Unlike Maureen, she >wasn't living in an early 20th century Bible Belt community, but in a >futuristic dystopia.They have strong similarities; might be fun to look at that more closely. Maureen fans; how do you feel about Eunice?
> >It might be fun to speculate what would have happened to Eunice had she not >ended up the donor, and had instead received the million dollar legacy from >Johann.Oh , yes :-) She'd have ended up in charge one way or another...
> >Eunice's sexuality as herself seemed somewhat more reactive than active. >Ever eager and receptive, without pushing the issue, perhaps the geisha >(many of whom also ended up very financially comfortable)?Now here I disagree. She seemed to be dragging people into bed all over the place, with some amazingly convoluted cover ups for someone who was in 'open' relationships.
And am I the only one who started to count the number of times the mind twins told each other they had, 'dirty minds'? I ran out of fingers and toes after a while and gave up...that got tiresome.
Jane -- http://www.heinleinsociety.org
>Jane Davitt wrote: >... > >>notice how she tells Johann that Winnie's hair is >>out of a bottle? Turns out not to be so... >> >... > >IIRC, Winnie claims the colour is natural at one point - but I don't recall >Joan confirming it. I'm more inclined to believe Eunice. > > >Joan wouldn't know. I assume if Winnie dyes it, she dyes both ends in a society where nudity is oddly acceptable (I'd think that would go with greater sexual freedom and it does a little but Joan is still obsessive about keeping her affairs secret before and after marriage)so that wouldn't help.
We are told that Winnie has very white skin, can't sunbathe and has very pale eyebrows and lashes; that isn't conclusive but it makes me think she's a natural redhead.
Jane -- http://www.heinleinsociety.org
> >"Jane Davitt" <jdavitt01@rogers.com>wrote in message >news:3CF50652.8070603@rogers.com... >>I thought when I first read the book that Eunice and later Jake were >>really there in his head and I haven't changed my mind. If it's >>illusion, it's dull and I prefer it to be real. Heinlein wrote it so >>that we can all make up our own minds to suit. Clever. > >Jane-- > >I think it is even more clever than that. RAH put us in Johann's shoes >pretty thoroughly: We search for evidence of Eunice's real existence and >are never quite able to pin it down to proof positve, yet we believe. >Somehow, we just "know" that Eunice is real. And having spent the whole >book digesting that improbability, it is fairly easy to swallow Jake's >entrance, with much less setup. > >-DeeLike so much in Heinlein's books. I never questioned as to whether or not she was a delusion. I automatically assumed that she was real and until this discussion came along, I never bothered to look for proof 'fer or agin' the idea. He was the master at selling me on the premises of his stories. Good thing he never tried to offer me a deal in Spanish Prisoners. :)
David Wright
P.S. Does anyone know what the 'Spanish Prisoners' con was all about in TEFL?
>Bill, I'm confused. There was no pass code; when Joan goes to visit, >Eunice tells her to just say, 'open up' to the door, which begins to >unlock and then stops. Eventually Joe opens itPerhaps I'm the one that's confused. It's been long enough since I read the book that I no longer have a good grasp on the details.
Bill
> >"Jane Davitt" &llt;jdavitt01@rogers.com>wrote in message >news:3CF50652.8070603@rogers.com... >>I thought when I first read the book that Eunice and later Jake were >>really there in his head and I haven't changed my mind. If it's >>illusion, it's dull and I prefer it to be real. Heinlein wrote it so >>that we can all make up our own minds to suit. Clever. > >Jane-- > >I think it is even more clever than that. RAH put us in Johann's shoes >pretty thoroughly: We search for evidence of Eunice's real existence and >are never quite able to pin it down to proof positve, yet we believe. >Somehow, we just "know" that Eunice is real. And having spent the whole >book digesting that improbability, it is fairly easy to swallow Jake's >entrance, with much less setup.A book in which a man's brain is implanted into a dead woman's body, yet retains the woman's memories is a fantasy.
A book in which a man's brain is implanted into a dead woman's body, and he hallucinates that the woman's personality is alive, is a science fiction novel.
-- Bill Dennis http://billdennis.net
> snip > >A book in which a man's brain is implanted into a dead woman's body, yet >retains the woman's memories is a fantasy. > >A book in which a man's brain is implanted into a dead woman's body, and he >hallucinates that the woman's personality is alive, is a science fiction >novel. > > >-- >Bill Dennis >http://billdennis.net > >A book whose thesis is that "memory" is not all held in the brain, but perhaps is distributed partly through other parts of the nervous system is what then? Particularly since we know that at least some of what we call conscious behavior is simply the tale we tell ourselves to explain our reflexes, eg the fantasy that we moved our hand from the hot stove because we felt the heat, rather than the reality that the sensory input didn't even reach the brain till after our spinal cord reflex had taken care of the problem.
I know when I play piano or type for example, the actions are no longer requiring conscious monitoring. A lot of accustomed activity seems to be handled at the lowest possible level. So "the body"'s ability with yoga and the secretarial machine ring true to me, particularly since we are not sure if perhaps the surgeon may have retained for example the cerebellum for better motor control of the new body.
As to the "personality" implant, I know I have a very clear mental map of my husband after 18 years, what he will say and do in any given situation. (Not of course always accurate, which is a source of joy in itself!). And Johann was a man of fair experience with women in general, and apparently deeply loved Eunice, and spent much time watching her, speculating about her, and quite likely knew very well the details of her life. I'd say he may well have had the ability to run conversations between himself and "his Eunice" before the surgery in his mind in the dark lonely hours of the night, just as I can when my husband is away and I need his "advice". And of course, post surgery, there was no inconvenient real Eunice to contradict his version.
[Carolyn Evans]
> > >-- >Bill Dennis >http://billdennis.net >"Dee" <ke4lfgDELETETHIS@amsat.org>wrote in message >news:ufa4buojm44u5c@corp.supernews.com... >> (snip) >A book in which a man's brain is implanted into a dead woman's body, yet >retains the woman's memories is a fantasy. > >A book in which a man's brain is implanted into a dead woman's body, and he >hallucinates that the woman's personality is alive, is a science fiction >novel. > >Why? Because we know of no way that a person's personality can survive death of the body and re-appear when a new brain re-activates the body?
We also know of no way that spaceships can go flitting from star to star, overcoming or bypassing the limitations on the speed of light. We know no way that time travel can be done either linearly or multiplex.
We don't hesitate to call these stories science-fiction, do we?
Maybe none of them will ever come to pass, but I don't see the validity in making the distinction in this particular case.
David Wright
>A book in which a man's brain is implanted into a dead woman's body, yet >retains the woman's memories is a fantasy. > >A book in which a man's brain is implanted into a dead woman's body, and he >hallucinates that the woman's personality is alive, is a science fiction >novel.Heinlein wrote other fantasies.
-- Oscagne, High Priest of Skeptics and Cynics To bypass the Atans guarding my mailbox, replace FornMin.tam with ev1.net
> >"William Dennis" <william.dennis@insightbb.com>wrote in message >news:U5dJ8.143436$Po6.308938@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net... >>A book in which a man's brain is implanted into a dead woman's body, yet >>retains the woman's memories is a fantasy. >> >>A book in which a man's brain is implanted into a dead woman's body, and he >>hallucinates that the woman's personality is alive, is a science fiction >>novel. > >Heinlein wrote other fantasies.Such as "Waldo," another fantasy in science fiction clothing.
-- Bill Dennis http://billdennis.net
> >"William Dennis" <william.dennis@insightbb.com>wrote in message >news:U5dJ8.143436$Po6.308938@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net... >> >snip >> >>A book in which a man's brain is implanted into a dead woman's body, yet >>retains the woman's memories is a fantasy. >> >>A book in which a man's brain is implanted into a dead woman's body, and he >>hallucinates that the woman's personality is alive, is a science fiction >>novel. >> >> >>-- >>Bill Dennis >>http://billdennis.net >> >> >A book whose thesis is that "memory" is not all held in the brain, but >perhaps is distributed partly through other parts of the nervous system is >what then? Particularly since we know that at least some of what we call >conscious behavior is simply the tale we tell ourselves to explain our >reflexes, eg the fantasy that we moved our hand from the hot stove because >we felt the heat, rather than the reality that the sensory input didn't even >reach the brain till after our spinal cord reflex had taken care of the >problem. >I know when I play piano or type for example, the actions are no longer >requiring conscious monitoring. A lot of accustomed activity seems to be >handled at the lowest possible level. So "the body"'s ability with yoga and >the secretarial machine ring true to me, particularly since we are not sure >if perhaps the surgeon may have retained for example the cerebellum for >better motor control of the new body. > >As to the "personality" implant, I know I have a very clear mental map of my >husband after 18 years, what he will say and do in any given situation.(Not >of course always accurate, which is a source of joy in itself!). And Johann >was a man of fair experience with women in general, and apparently deeply >loved Eunice, and spent much time watching her, speculating about her, and >quite likely knew very well the details of her life. I'd say he may well >have had the ability to run conversations between himself and "his Eunice" >before the surgery in his mind in the dark lonely hours of the night, just >as I can when my husband is away and I need his "advice". And of course, >post surgery, there was no inconvenient real Eunice to contradict his >version.Ahhh, BUT -- When an arm is transplanted onto another body -- it's happened in real life -- that arn doesn't recall the ability to play the piano. ;-)
-- Bill Dennis http://billdennis.net
>Ahhh, BUT -- When an arm is transplanted onto another body -- it's happened >in real life -- that arn doesn't recall the ability to play the piano. ;-) > >There are no neural pathways from the arm to the spinal cord. It would have to be the whole body/brain transplant that would show the 'body' memory. We don't know how much of the spinal cord was included in Johann's transplant, but it would need to be a significant amount to include body memory.
Elizabeth
(speculating)
> > >-- >Bill Dennis >http://billdennis.net >"Carolyn Evans" <pcevans1@optushome.com.au>wrote in message >news:3cf567c7$0$31824$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au... >> >>"William Dennis" <william.dennis@insightbb.com>wrote in message >>news:U5dJ8.143436$Po6.308938@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net... >>> >>snip >>> >>>A book in which a man's brain is implanted into a dead woman's body, yet >>>retains the woman's memories is a fantasy. >>> >>>A book in which a man's brain is implanted into a dead woman's body, and he >>>hallucinates that the woman's personality is alive, is a science fiction >>>novel. >>> >>> >>>-- >>>Bill Dennis >>>http://billdennis.net >>> >>> >>A book whose thesis is that "memory" is not all held in the brain, but >>perhaps is distributed partly through other parts of the nervous system >is >>what then? Particularly since we know that at least some of what we call >>conscious behavior is simply the tale we tell ourselves to explain our >>reflexes, eg the fantasy that we moved our hand from the hot stove because >>we felt the heat, rather than the reality that the sensory input didn't even >>reach the brain till after our spinal cord reflex had taken care of the problem. >>I know when I play piano or type for example, the actions are no longer >>requiring conscious monitoring. A lot of accustomed activity seems to be >>handled at the lowest possible level. So "the body"'s ability with yoga and >>the secretarial machine ring true to me, particularly since we are not sure >>if perhaps the surgeon may have retained for example the cerebellum for >>better motor control of the new body. >> >>As to the "personality" implant, I know I have a very clear mental map of my >>husband after 18 years, what he will say and do in any given situation.(Not >>of course always accurate, which is a source of joy in itself!). And Johann >>was a man of fair experience with women in general, and apparently deeply >>loved Eunice, and spent much time watching her, speculating about her, and >>quite likely knew very well the details of her life. I'd say he may well >>have had the ability to run conversations between himself and "his Eunice" >>before the surgery in his mind in the dark lonely hours of the night, just >>as I can when my husband is away and I need his "advice". And of course, >>post surgery, there was no inconvenient real Eunice to contradict his >>version. > >Ahhh, BUT -- When an arm is transplanted onto another body -- it's happened >in real life -- that arn doesn't recall the ability to play the piano. ;-) > >When we're a little further advanced perhaps, and instead of arm we get arm plus brachial plexus, or cerebellar transplant, will we see the motor skills that relate to the donor's trained or innate responsiveness, or that of the recipient? Given that the spinal cord is a continuum with the brain, at what level would a transplant a la Eunice/Johann best serve the recipient's needs? Is Johann's identity in his whole central nervous system, in his motor regions, his frontal or temporal cortex? If you transplant only the areas responsible for conscious thought, what sort of personality overlay would you have?
[Carolyn Evans]
Jeanette--not recommending the movie
> >"William Dennis" <william.dennis@insightbb.com>wrote in message >news:U5dJ8.143436$Po6.308938@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net... >> >> >>-- >>Bill Dennis >>http://billdennis.net >>"Dee" <ke4lfgDELETETHIS@amsat.org>wrote in message >>news:ufa4buojm44u5c@corp.supernews.com... >>> > >(snip) > >>A book in which a man's brain is implanted into a dead woman's body, yet >>retains the woman's memories is a fantasy. >> >>A book in which a man's brain is implanted into a dead woman's body, and he >>hallucinates that the woman's personality is alive, is a science fiction >>novel. >> >> > >Why? Because we know of no way that a person's personality can survive death >of the body and re-appear when a new brain re-activates the body? > >We also know of no way that spaceships can go flitting from star to star, >overcoming or bypassing the limitations on the speed of light. We know no >way that time travel can be done either linearly or multiplex. > >We don't hesitate to call these stories science-fiction, do we? > >Maybe none of them will ever come to pass, but I don't see the validity in >making the distinction in this particular case.I hope I haven't accidentally rekindled that old argument over what IS and what ISN'T science fiction.
Well, here goes -- travel between worlds is theoretically possible. As a matter of fact, NASA is investigating potential methods of doing so. Human personalities been stored in the *body* rather than in the brain, and that personality communicating with a transplant brain, is rather beyond the realm of the possible. If Eunice is not an elaborate fantasy on Johann's part, and Eunice is *real,* then the book qualifies as fantasy. This is *not* a bad thing. TEFL works for me *either* way.
-- Bill Dennis http://billdennis.net
(snip) >I hope I haven't accidentally rekindled that old argument over what IS and >what ISN'T science fiction. >Only as a side issue :)
>Well, here goes -- travel between worlds is theoretically possible. As a >matter of fact, NASA is investigating potential methods of doing so.Ordinary travel between the planets and perhaps even the nearer stars using sub-light technologies. If you know of serious thought being given to practical methods of super-light travel, I'd like to hear about it.
>Human >personalities been stored in the *body* rather than in the brain, and that >personality communicating with a transplant brain, is rather beyond the >realm of the possible.I see where we are having trouble communicating. I am not speaking of personalities being stored in the body other than in the limited sense as demonstrated by the discussions on the piano and secretarial machine where the body retains or loses the facility to work with familiar/unfamiliar instruments.
What I am talking about is a theme which is present in many of Heinlein's works in that the personality exists not only in the brain, but in some fashion external to the body and brain. In such a case, the re-incarnation of that personality in a different body, (or in this case, the same body), makes some sort of sense in a hypothetical way. There is actually a hypothesis by Dunne which is used by both Heinlein and Piper, as I mentioned in an earlier post, involving n-dimensional geometry to account for this. As far as I know, there have never been any testable predictions or verifications of such a hypothesis, which prevents it from the status of becoming a theory, but it was a serious proposal and was not considered fantasy. Note that such a hypothesis can account for Jake's joining the group mind at the end, whereas the 'body memory' does not.
Is such re-incarnation real, is super-light star travel possible, is time travel possible. Frankly, I doubt, alas, all of them, but at this stage, I can't call any of them more or less fantasy than the others.
(snip)
Looking at other works of Heinlein, can we call his 'World-as-Myth' fantasy or not. It too is an extrapolation of time theories of Dunne and Ouspensky, especially Ouspensky as well as, perhaps, Everett's 'many-worlds' interpretation of quantum mechanics.
David W.
>This is reminding me of an almost forgotten movie about a man who has >the arm of a murderer attached to his body. The arm takes over.But, since we're talking brains here, how about:
"Donovan's Brain (1953)
Yet another version of Curt Siodmak's novel about an honest scientist who keeps the brain of a ruthless dead millionaire (Donovan) alive in a tank. Donovan manages to impose his powerful will on the scientist, and uses him to murder his enemies."
[Quoted from http://www.imdb.com]
>Jeanette--not recommending the movieI saw this one, as an Army brat, on an MSTS trip from Seattle to Yokohama. While it wasn't the worst thing about that "cruise", it was certainly well up in the final standings.
OJ III
[As should be obvious, not recommending this one either.]
I read IWFNW when it was first released in paperback, enjoyed it then moved on. Recently I came into possession of a couple of hardcopy first editions and immediately began rereading it. I am well aware that this is generally considered to be one of RAH's weaker works, however I thoroughly enjoyed the book. The re-reading awakened memories of the earlier reading; in fact, it was almost as enjoyable as TMIAHM.
Finally to the point. What is the basis for the criticisms? I'm aware that RAH was severely ill and unable to do the final edit and it was published without his final polish. If that is true, I'm even more impressed with the quality of a "draft"!
Anyone want to comment? have examples of the basis for the criticism?
Hadley V. Stacey
1. Mr. Minton told me that he had held a slot in his publishing schedule for that ms. aand needed it, or he woul dhave to substitute something else. 2. I needed the advance to help with the hospital bills.Mr. Minton (president of G. P. Putnam) told me that if I would allow someone to do the cutting, he would offer a large advance against royalties. But I knew that this was a special case, and that Robert would want to do the cutting himself. So the advance was cut by half, and the book was not cut by someone else.
It was as you see it today.
Ginny "Astyanax12" <astyanax12@aol.com>wrote in message news:20020601140612.28323.00001585@mb-mh.aol.com... >There were two reasons for me to put that ms. in the hands of his publishers: > >1. Mr. Minton told me that he had held a slot in his publishing schedule for >that ms. aand needed it, or he woul dhave to substitute something else. > >2. I needed the advance to help with the hospital bills. > >Mr. Minton (president of G. P. Putnam) told me that if I would allow someone to >do the cutting, he would offer a large advance against royalties. But I knew >that this was a special case, and that Robert would want to do the cutting >himself. So the advance was cut by half, and the book was not cut by someone >else. > >It was as you see it today. > >Ginny >Virginia Heinlein >Astyanax12@aol.comI for one, certainly am glad you proceeded as you did although I believe it was unconscienceable for the publisher to take advantage of the situation. As I said, I thoroughly enjoyed the book twenty years ago and last week.
Thanks for the insight and the comments. I certainly appreciate them. I know you have heard this many times but I have spent many, many pleasurable hours reading Robert's works from the earliest to latest. Two of my children are also avid fans.
Finally, I truly appreciate your comments on this group. It tends to keep it grounded and centered on the topic.
Hadley Stacey
I've started my 15-year-old daughter reading Robert's juveniles (actually, we started when she was 14 with the same one I started with in 1965, _Have Space Suit-Will Travel_). She pronounces them "awesome."
-- RDKirk "It's always socially unacceptable to be right too soon." -- RAH
>There were two reasons for me to put that ms. in the hands of his publishers:Of course, before it appeared in harcover it had appeared as a serial in one of Fred Pohl's stf magazines -- I think it was "If".
I suspect that this appearance was edited for length, and possibly content, by Pohl. However, I am courious. Was Pohl working from the same draft that was sent to Putnam or from an even earlier draft?
----------------------------------------------- Carrington Dixon (For email reply change "nospam" to "attbi.com"
>Finally to the point. What is the basis for the criticisms?I don't think there have actually been any real "criticisms" of the book: almost all of the negative comment has been of the "I didn't like the feel of it" variety or objections to its not being in current fashion of realistic/ironic novels.
The one comment I've seen which could be construed as verging on a technical criticism is that people were bored by the internal dialog. Others object generally to the somewhat "precious" portrayal of Joan Eunice's interior life. I found it quite convincing of a 90+ year old man learning how to be female.
Bill
>>Finally to the point. What is the basis for the criticisms? > >I don't think there have actually been any real "criticisms" of the book: >almost all of the negative comment has been of the "I didn't like the feel of >it" variety or objections to its not being in current fashion of >realistic/ironic novels. > >The one comment I've seen which could be construed as verging on a technical >criticism is that people were bored by the internal dialog. Others object >generally to the somewhat "precious" portrayal of Joan Eunice's interior life. >I found it quite convincing of a 90+ year old man learning how to be female. >Bill >Certainly the themes could be controversial, but the same was said about TMIAHM (Russian influence), Farnham's Freehold (racism, cannibalism, fidelity), and of course SIASL. The style of alternating first person dialogue was different at the time, but nowhere near as much as was later used in TNOTB and others.
I have never read any comments regard the "predictions" RAH made in the book. There are some striking similarities between the book's "news clips" and today's news.
I can understand people not liking a story or themes (there are several I don't care for), but that is no reason to call the book "weak", "uneven", etc.
hvs
> >"BPRAL22169" <bpral22169@aol.com>wrote in message >news:20020601150223.18066.00002185@mb-cu.aol.com... (snip) > >I can understand people not liking a story or themes (there are several I >don't care for), but that is no reason to call the book "weak", "uneven", >etc.I suspect that there are those who call it "weak", "uneven", etc because he didn't make a final edit. Had he done so, there are still some of those who would call it "weak", "uneven" etc, because it didn't fall into a some artificially chosen neat category. I'm *neither* of those, thank Bog. It's not my favorite Heinlein work, but I'll still take it over most everything else.
David Wright
[snip] > >I read IWFNW when it was first released in paperback, enjoyed it then moved >on. Recently I came into possession of a couple of hardcopy first editions >and immediately began rereading it. I am well aware that this is generally >considered to be one of RAH's weaker works, however I thoroughly enjoyed >the book. The re-reading awakened memories of the earlier reading; in fact, >it was almost as enjoyable as TMIAHM. >I never thought it weak: on the contrary, from 1970 when I read it soon after publication, I considered it a very strongly felt criticism of the false directions the author saw society taking. It's certainly didatic, however; and I think to most "critics" of didaticism, that damns it -- but that's not a weakness in my view -- I've read Heinlein for his didaticism since I was eleven and started with Rocket Ship Galileo. Perhaps the problem they have with it is it more directly states criticisms, not in an optimistic view of the future overcoming problems, but as problems overcoming our own future so much that it will squash it in squalor and anarchy. So the tone offends some. That was at cross-purposes with the view many if not most of the literati in 1970 had of their own contributions to society and the future: "we" were "solving" all society's ills, weren't "we," following our "summer of protest," our "questioning of all authority," our building of the "Great Society," our tearing down of the wisdom of dead white men (especially now that it was clear we were getting out of that horrible unjust war as soon as we could); but the portrait of the future notwithstanding all that "we" had one in I Will Fear No Evil *is* fearsome and very contrarian, isn't it?
Even the future's richest flee, unsuccessfuly, the effects on Earth of the trends already showing up of failures in democracy, capitalism, education, the legal system, social welfare, etc., -- not even the classic aimless ocean voyage of the no where of an utopia satisfies them -- by finally leaving Earth completely for a new birth. A very nasty theme of dissatisfaction. A real downer, dude!
It flew against "common wisdom" of the times. That's the criticism I've always heard of it. Readers didn't like being told their conceptions of their own beliefs were wrong. I felt the novel very effectively did that and on a wide variety of subjects.
>Finally to the point. What is the basis for the criticisms? I'm aware that >RAH was severely ill and unable to do the final edit and it was published >without his final polish. If that is true, I'm even more impressed with the >quality of a "draft"! > >Anyone want to comment? have examples of the basis for the criticism?The only criticism that ever completely mystified and challenged me was from a long-time Heinlein reader, an older woman I knew, who with her husband had been reading Heinlein since the very beginning. She felt something about the end was dispicable, and ceased reading Heinlein with that novel, refusing to discuss it with me -- it was plain as the nose on my face to her and she was surprised I didn't see it. Something about the final portrait of Jo-ann offended her. She and her husband were in their early seventies at the time, about ten years older than the author. Something in there mixed with her mindset like oil with water; and I'm still more than merely baffled about what it was.
She was a great fan of Twain, and a sophisticated woman, a mature person, who in fact was more than a little avant garde in her own life: in fact, it was in her home as a high-school student I first read a copy of "1603" (if that is the correct date used by Twain for his little sketch of the actual language used in the Elizabethan Court), so it couldn't have been the brief bit of blue language used by the character to describe her relationship with "Roberto," her surprise lover. I cannot think of anything else I've ever read written by Heinlein up to this time that would have surprised or offended her. Perhaps it was something in the concealled until the end affair with "Roberto" itself (yeah, yeah, I know there are teeny little hints); but that affair was only a surprising incident, not a departure from Jo-Ann's established character, at least to me. Was it the fact that "Roberto" is someone we are supposed to see as "Winnie's" partner and that Jo-ann didn't merely poach, so to speak, on Winnie's preserve, while simultaneously carrying on an on-going same sex sexual relationship with Winnie (and the rest of the 'cast of thousands, their name is Legion,' as Maureen later told us), but concealled her poaching (from us?), maybe the duplicity or preservation of the privacy rather than the polymorphous perversity of it?
I've always been puzzled by this one critic; but I've never been surprised that criticism based on disagreement with the social criticism portrayed in the book has been leveled at at -- that's human nature, and also invalid literary criticism, a matter called by some of mere "taste." And I know of no others that I can assess. Needed "tightening" doesn't amount to much to me, because I cannot imagine how one would do it. That's like the movie portrayal of Frederick in Amadeus complaining about too many notes. I enjoy all the notes -- which ones in I Will Fear No Evil should be taken out because they don't fit, I ask?
-- David M. Silver http://www.heinleinsociety.org http://www.readinggroupsonline.com/groups/heinlein.htm "The Lieutenant expects your names to shine!" Robert Anson Heinlein, USNA '29 Lt (jg)., USN R'td (1907-1988)
>but the portrait of the future notwithstanding all >that "we" had [d]one in I Will Fear No Evil *is* fearsome and very >contrarian, isn't it? >Another day, another typo.
-- David M. Silver http://www.heinleinsociety.org http://www.readinggroupsonline.com/groups/heinlein.htm "The Lieutenant expects your names to shine!" Robert Anson Heinlein, USNA '29 Lt (jg)., USN R'td (1907-1988)
>There were two reasons for me to put that ms. in the hands of his publishers: > >1. Mr. Minton told me that he had held a slot in his publishing schedule for >that ms. aand needed it, or he woul dhave to substitute something else. > >2. I needed the advance to help with the hospital bills. > >Mr. Minton (president of G. P. Putnam) told me that if I would allow someone to >do the cutting, he would offer a large advance against royalties. But I knew >that this was a special case, and that Robert would want to do the cutting >himself. So the advance was cut by half, and the book was not cut by someone else. > >It was as you see it today. > >GinnyIt's one of my favorites, Mrs. H. I've seen you take "the blame" for this book in the past, but as far as I am concerned you have nothing to apologize for.
-- Oscagne, High Priest of Skeptics and Cynics To bypass the Atans guarding my mailbox, replace FornMin.tam with ev1.net
He would go over a ms. changing a word here and there, or a paragraph, but he never did a "draft." Those mss. with his changes, are in the library at UCSC.
Ginny Virginia Heinlein Astyanax12@aol.com
This book, written about a decade after SIASL was published, has a common theme; the use of (fascinating) news snippets to illustrate contemporary attitudes. The reporting on Johann's trial is as nasty as any publicity that Mike received....and as slanted and untrue. Both Eunice and Jake both have the same dream; to get off planet and move to Luna. It's unusual that Johann doesn't; born too early (though about the same age as Heinlein?) he sees space travel as an expensive luxury and plays devil's advocate, allowing the other characters to make a shameless plug or two for the 'spin off' from space research.
But it truly was a book in which Heinlein took some savage swipes at trends in contemporary US society; something that gets overlooked in all the criticism.
Education for instance; the book has as characters many illiterates, including Gigi;
"Computer fouled up my pre-school test records and I was in sixth grade before anyone caught it. Then it was sort o' late to change tracks and I stayed on the 'practical'. There was talk of putting me through a remedial but the principal put his foot down. Said there wasn't enough budget to handle the ones that could benefit from it."
Scary..and a kick in the pants for kids reading the book who whine about homework. The thought of separating people out and not teaching them to read is horribly reminiscent not just of slavery but of most of history before the 19th century or so. Keeping the lower classes illiterate has always been handy for keeping them content in their ignorance.
Dishonesty;
Johann's butler is stealing from his employer...but is it stealing when Johann knows about it and condones it? Or a creative way to avoid paying taxes?
"If my butler is black-marketing two-thirds of what he buys for me and pocketing the proceeds - and he always has- then he's anxious to keep his job. Which means that he has to please _me_. Jake, can yo think of a cheaper way to buy the nearest thing to loyalty that can be bought?"
And when Jake replies,
"Bad precedent. Corrupts the country" he says,
"The country is corrupt. But it is "the only game in town'; we have no choice. The problem is always how to live in a decadent society."
Seems to me that it's this that caused the decline..and it's pure selfishness of Johann to cooperate in Hubert's moral lack of fibre.
Sexual freedom gone wild...this is my view of a bad thing as shown...and echoes a lot of what I didn't like about Maureen's lifestyle.
When a father can be applauded for putting his 13 year old daughter on the 'junior Pill' and that daughter can do her best to seduce a 70+ man without her father being concerned..there's something wrong. When the idea is that fidelity and honesty are lost causes within marriages..or so rare as to rival hens teeth..there's something wrong. A (pregnant) woman sleeping around on her honeymoon and a few hours after her husband dies..I'm supposes to cheer, 'Go Joan Eunice, you liberated woman, you?" Can't do it. Did Heinlein expect me to? Or is it a subtle swipe again? Ok, enough of me talking...
Jane -- http://www.heinleinsociety.org
[snip] >Sexual freedom gone wild...this is my view of a bad thing as >shown...and echoes a lot of what I didn't like about Maureen's >lifestyle.My view too. But I think Robert often toyed with the idea that a true sophisticate (I hate that word but it works) could escape the unnecessary taboo's against infidelity, and only rely on the necessary ones.
Proposition: Sex is a bodily function akin to eating (especially in a society that places a high value on eating with company; intimate company) and as such should be treated as such. He hinted in GR that he had a disdain for the American concept of "going steady." He (Oscar as narrator) said it was a way of preventing Saturday night from becoming the loneliest night of the /weak/ (IIRC). In other words, rather than having to /try/ to keep a mate happy, one only had to declare the effort officially over by announcing that a couple was "going steady." Lazy, that is. Unfruitful, that is.
Would any of us who are married, feel hurt and betrayal if our spouse decided to eat dinner out with a friend for the evening? No. Perhaps, we have a friend we'd like to eat dinner out with ourselves. No huhu. His question, albeit I always thought it was a strictly intellectual question, was how is this different than infidelity? Especially, if the spouse in question eats dinner at home every other night--"always brings it home" as I believe Heinlein said a few times, though it is a fairly common expression.
My problem with our culture in this regard is that it attempts, especially since the introduction of the Birth Control Pill (the first /practical/ form of Birth Control in 7-24,000 years of civilization), to divide Love, Sex and Reproduction into separate entities.
Personally, I don't mind them being divided up, theoretically, now that it is /possible/ to do so, it's just that we aren't and haven't done a very good job of it so far. Well, 50 or so years is nothing in terms of cultural change. Marriage, as Heinlein acknowledges in many other stories, is a mechanism or device that assumes all three entities are interconnected. And even with the BC pill, they /still/ are--despite opinions to the contrary--mostly because a better way, a better viewpoint, a better mechanism has not been discovered or synthesized. Robert seems to have seen the same things and speculated many different ways this problem might be solved.
>When a father can be applauded for putting his 13 year old daughter >on the 'junior Pill' and that daughter can do her best to seduce a >70+ man without her father being concerned..there's something wrong. >When the idea is that fidelity and honesty are lost causes within >marriages..or so rare as to rival hens teeth..there's something wrong. >A (pregnant) woman sleeping around on her honeymoon and a few hours >after her husband dies..I'm supposes to cheer, 'Go Joan Eunice, you >liberated woman, you?" Can't do it. Did Heinlein expect me to? Or is >it a subtle swipe again? >Ok, enough of me talking...I think it was both a swipe at the decadence and a swipe at our Puritan natures at the same time--though this is prob. not the right term for you guys on the other side of the Pond--didn't you push them all on us? :-) He disliked leaning on anything--convention or, one supposes, abrogating morality because it's just too hard. There's some phrase in the Bible about not clasping you hands over your belly and resting. That isn't for us--it's not our lot. This was certainly his motive in so many of his other speculations. Think man, think! Pretty well distills his message in his whole body of work.
--- Art
... >I think it was both a swipe at the decadence and a swipe at our Puritan >natures at the same time--though this is prob. not the right term for you >guys on the other side of the Pond--didn't you push them all on us? :-) ...Heck, no - you Puritans crossed the Pond to avoid religious intolerance of yourselves, and so you could practice religious intolerance of anyone else.
;-)
[Simon Jester]
>From: Jane Davitt >I'm still interested in what people think of Eunice, irrespective of >her reality or lack of, especially as compared to Maureen. I'm also >tempted to tie in my criticisms of her (which are legion) with a >swipe at the society in which she lives (which is awful).<Snipping some more stuff about Eunice>
It might be time to point out that Eunice's behavior might not have been what Heinlein himself approved of or advocated. I am thinking in particular of his non fiction essay concerning EE Smith, Larger than Life, in Expanded Universe. In it he compares the attitudes of pre WWI with the attitudes of 1979 when Heinlein wrote the essay. He thought the pre WWI attitudes were much more pro survival than the 1979 ones. Eunice was a lot closer to 1979 than she was to pre WWI.
[LV Poker Player] -- Oldthinkers unbellyfeel Ingsoc. - from 1984 by George Orwell
>There were two reasons for me to put that ms. in the hands of his publishers:And thank you for doing so, ma'am.
I never found anything wrong with the book; in fact, I was surprised to learn later on that a number of people did. Rereading it both before and after I learned that, I never found any evidence of the flaws that have been attributed to it. I have always found it to be an engaging story replete with the sort of teach-by-example lessons on life that are part of Heinlein's appeal.
Just by way of evidence that I am not lacking in critical faculties, I have the inverse experience with NOTB; I always did find it flawed, and even after reading an account of how it was actually purportedly doing something very sophisticated, upon rereading it was unable to find any evidence supporting the contention, even though I wanted to. Maybe it's just over my head, but that doesn't invalidate my opinion.
I'll spend time with Johann and Eunice any day. Which points up one of the attractive features of Heinlein: so many modern books have heroes (perhaps 'protagonists' would be more accurate) that one wouldn't want to meet in a dark alleyway, much less have over for dinner. But Heinlein's heroes are the sort of people that make you wonder where they've been all your life.
--Peter Scott
>It might be time to point out that Eunice's behavior might not have been what >Heinlein himself approved of or advocated.Considering that is impossible to reconcile Eunice which, say, Lazarus Long (or even Lazarus Long with himself) I would have to say this is probably true. Eunice is a character, nothing more. She makes darn good fiction of the didactic sort, but the didacticism isn't necessarily telling you what you /should/ believe, merely what you /could/ believe.
Alixtii.
>Sexual freedom gone wild...this is my view of a bad thing as >shown...and echoes a lot of what I didn't like about Maureen's >lifestyle. >When a father can be applauded for putting his 13 year old daughter >on the 'junior Pill' and that daughter can do her best to seduce a >70+ man without her father being concerned..there's something wrong. >When the idea is that fidelity and honesty are lost causes within >marriages..or so rare as to rival hens teeth..there's something wrong. >A (pregnant) woman sleeping around on her honeymoon and a few hours >after her husband dies..I'm supposes to cheer, 'Go Joan Eunice, you >liberated woman, you?" Can't do it.My interpretation is that here Heinlein is presenting people who love and value life so much that they are unwilling to spend any more of it feeling bad than absolutely necessary... and that they have either evolved to the point or put in the work necessary to get to the point where they can pass through grief, rage, despair, and all that other stuff much more rapidly than we're accustomed to.
Desirable? Debatable. But all of us have some reference point for "It's Later Than You Think," and not a few of us might wish, in retrospect, that we'd spent more time enjoying life than feeling run over by it. I think Heinlein is showing us what you get by taking that to an extreme, which is one of the functions of science fiction.
-- Peter Scott
>> > >My interpretation is that here Heinlein is presenting people who love >and value life so much that they are unwilling to spend any more of it >feeling bad than absolutely necessary... and that they have either >evolved to the point or put in the work necessary to get to the point >where they can pass through grief, rage, despair, and all that other >stuff much more rapidly than we're accustomed to. > >Desirable? Debatable. But all of us have some reference point for >"It's Later Than You Think," and not a few of us might wish, in retrospect, >that we'd spent more time enjoying life than feeling run over by it. >I think Heinlein is showing us what you get by taking that to an extreme, >which is one of the functions of science fiction. > >Well, Johann explained his calm over Jake's death by saying that when you get to his age, you deal with death better; "Death is an old friend; I know him well. I lived with him, ate with him, slept with him; to meet him again does not frighten me - death is as necessary as birth, as happy in its own way."
That's a nice bit...yet totally contrary to what LL might think, as he staves off death by every means possible for centuries until the flavour goes..only to be cheated out of emulating Johann's calm acceptance by Ira and pushed back on the treadmill.
But I just find it odd, even amusing, for grown people to be obsessing over sex to the exclusion of all else. Sheesh; it's fun, sure and I'm not knocking it. No way. It's high on my list of fun things to do...but for them it _is_ the list and it's a game that they insist on playing with as many people as they can. I was annoyed by the fact that Joan (or Eunice, whatever) notices that one man (Dr Hedrick) has a jealous wife...IOW, is in a relationship where infidelity is not acceptable as it was for Brian and Maureen...but still contemplates sleeping with him as a way of saying thank you for services rendered. Uh...flowers or a cheque do quite well too you know, dear. Might want to think about that before you endanger someone else's marriage on a whim.
Jane -- http://www.heinleinsociety.org
>>From: Jane Davitt >> > >>I'm still interested in what people think of Eunice, irrespective of >>her reality or lack of, especially as compared to Maureen. I'm also >>tempted to tie in my criticisms of her (which are legion) with a >>swipe at the society in which she lives (which is awful). >> > ><Snipping some more stuff about Eunice> > >It might be time to point out that Eunice's behavior might not have been what >Heinlein himself approved of or advocated. I am thinking in particular of his >non fiction essay concerning EE Smith, Larger than Life, in Expanded Universe. >In it he compares the attitudes of pre WWI with the attitudes of 1979 when >Heinlein wrote the essay. He thought the pre WWI attitudes were much more pro >survival than the 1979 ones. Eunice was a lot closer to 1979 than she was to >pre WWI. > >Oh, yes..we don't know what he thought, or at least I don't. As a reader do we need to? Should the author make it clear that a character is 'wrong' or is that up to us as readers to make our own judgment?
Jane -- http://www.heinleinsociety.org
>Peter Scott wrote: > > >>> >> (snip) > >Well, Johann explained his calm over Jake's death by saying that >when you get to his age, you deal with death better; >"Death is an old friend; I know him well. I lived with him, ate with >him, slept with him; to meet him again does not frighten me - death >is as necessary as birth, as happy in its own way." > >That's a nice bit...yet totally contrary to what LL might think, as >he staves off death by every means possible for centuries until the >flavour goes..only to be cheated out of emulating Johann's calm >acceptance by Ira and pushed back on the treadmill. >Jane, I don't think that you can validly compare the two. Johann knew that he was dying and had accepted that fate as he indicated. He didn't really expect the transplant to work and saw it as a way out.
Lazarus, OTOH, was dying only after he let himself get in that state by rejecting further rejuvenations because 'the flavour' had been lost, and in fact, said something later to Ira that was very similar to what Johann had said, IIRC, about hid feelings on death shortly before he was 'rescued' by Ira. When the flavor returned, he seemed just as anxious to escape death and only put himself into a dangerous position when he decided to do it 'for Maureen'.
David Wright
>LV Poker Player wrote: > >>>From: Jane Davitt >>> >> >>>I'm still interested in what people think of Eunice, irrespective of >>>her reality or lack of, especially as compared to Maureen. I'm also >>>tempted to tie in my criticisms of her (which are legion) with a >>>swipe at the society in which she lives (which is awful). >>> >> >>I don't think Heinlein had clear ideas of who was "right" and who was "wrong." I doubt one can say that say, LL was "right" and Eunice was "wrong" or vice versa. An author understands each character's worldview as a valid paradigm and "believes" it for the period that s/he is writing it. Heinlein was a great writer; just because he was didactic doesn't mean everything he wrote was the One Truth According to Heinlein. Heinlein had many Truths, most contradictory (re-read TNoLL).>> >>It might be time to point out that Eunice's behavior might not have been what >>Heinlein himself approved of or advocated. I am thinking in particular of his >>non fiction essay concerning EE Smith, Larger than Life, in Expanded Universe. >>In it he compares the attitudes of pre WWI with the attitudes of 1979 when >>Heinlein wrote the essay. He thought the pre WWI attitudes were much more pro >>survival than the 1979 ones. Eunice was a lot closer to 1979 than she was to >>pre WWI. >> >> > >Oh, yes..we don't know what he thought, or at least I don't. As a >reader do we need to? Should the author make it clear that a >character is 'wrong' or is that up to us as readers to make our own >judgment? > >Jane
What the point of this observation is, I'm not sure. Alixtii.
Such theories rank right up there with the interpretation of dreams, IMO, nevertheless, sometimes they are fun to write.
I made the mistake of replying to the post in the other thread with a flippant comment that I felt the theory about Lucas had the same validity as mine about Heinlein. I was asked in reply, to post it.
Here 'tis, for your enjoyment (in picking it apart):
An Angry Fabulist's Expression
of "Rejection Syndrome"
(c)1998, 2002 All rights reserved.
An essay by David M. Silver
I Will Fear No Evil
by Robert Anson Heinlein
The novel I Will Fear No Evil was almost fit for publication when in
January 1970, peritonitis almost ended Robert Heinlein's life. Just
before hospitalization, he completed the first cut of his draft. The
author gravely ill and unable to make business decisions, his wife and
agent exercised their authority over his affairs and decided upon
publication in unfinished form. The result is said by one commentator to
be "a rather rambling and murky story line that almost certainly would
have been shortened and tightened up considerably had Heinlein been able
to edit the draft before publication." Heinlein remained very ill and
underwent other surgeries for the entire next two years. Because it
lacks this supposed needed final polish and contains what many then and
now consider bizarre subject matter, it has been one of his least
appreciated works--a sad fate considering current social history and,
also, what I believe is its true intent.
It is not a part of the "Future History Series" but seems to exist further down the time line of Stranger In A Strange Land, which Jubal Harshaw in his brief encore appearance in To Sail Beyond The Sunset tells us is our very own.
The story occurs a half-century or so into the future.
Dramatis Personae:
Johann Sebastian Bach Smith is perhaps the richest man on an increasingly crowded Earth, a self-made, cantankerous very old coot who has made the final error. He has let himself fall into the clutches of the medical profession, and they will not let him die. Mentally as acute as ever, but permanently harnessed into life support gear afforded only the very rich, he has found a way to outwit the medicos by committing an elaborate suicide. A brilliant, unorthodox surgeon, considered charlatan by most, claims he has successfully transplanted brains from one chimpanzee to another--and there are films of the operation and both simians now climbing trees and eating bananas. Doubting whether a first attempt with a human will succeed, even were the operation not a fraud, Smith does not care--he's got no choice. The hopeless alternative is to accept increasingly mind-numbing narcotics to offset pain until a final vegetal state arrives.
He wagers not to wait and suffer mental or physical agony. All he needs is a body, recently dead; and, as it would make a wildly overoptimistic surgical team more willing to attempt this lunacy if the body has the same rare blood type as he--AB Negative, his solution is simple: advertise for a body!
Eunice Branca, a delightfully beautiful, young, nubile and intelligent woman, is Smith's recently promoted private secretary. She supports her husband, a body-painting artist, whose favorite canvas is his wife. She likes old Johann, appreciates his gallant efforts to evade the inevitable fate tied to his automated bedpan, and delights in exhibiting herself to this very old man in his last few days: Are those tights she's wearing, or just paint? Only Eunice, her husband, and the reader, know for sure.
Jake Salomon is Smith's private attorney, long-time friend, and co-conspirator against the medicos. One other thing: he's quite a "fixer." Organ transplants have become big business. Relying on precedents that a dead body is 'property' of the dead person's estate, Salomon has little difficulty in setting up a lawful offer to buy a recently dead one in 'prime' condition for his very rich client. It's simply a matter of awaiting some accident to provide a proper host for Johann's brain.
Joe Branca is the prototypical artist as a young man, seemingly a minor character, not very bright, but talented in an obscure area few would seriously believe is art: "body-painting?"! It's doubtful whether he would be able to live, let alone pursue this "art" without the effort and strong, loving support of his talented wife. He is offspring of an indolent cranky ungrateful mother, who, vicious, bigoted and stupid, lives on the largess of the country--a welfare drone, paradoxically grinding out bastard children who grind out bastard children ad infinitum and, amazingly, thinks herself neglected by and "better" than almost all others of her indulgent, troubled, decaying society.
Plot Synopsis:
To his surprise, Johann awakens from surgery. Memories of strange dreams under anesthesia did perturb him a bit; but he's delighted to find himself alive, without pain--for the first time in years. Numbness below the neck gradually wears off as his new body adjusts to the demands of its new brain. He's not even particularly shocked to find the young new body is female--no one thought to specify the sex of the donor. He's perfectly willing to try on his new life in that gender--it might be fascinating! A bit curious he has asked for a mirror, which they are bringing.
The tremendous shock caused by discovery that the face and body the mirror discloses are those of Eunice Branca would kill a lesser man. Then suddenly that which had been disturbing him during his time under anesthesia becomes manifest. Eunice is present in his consciousness. Since the operation she has always been there. She soothes his troubled mind. How can two "consciousnesses" exist in one brain, short of that conditions described in The Puppet Masters, i.e., parasitic enslavement and exploitation of one form by another, or what persons educated before the end of the 1970s then and the general public still calls "schizophrenia"?--for this is not an essay on the current labeling flavor of the day endorsed by an evolving profession. I leave that question for later.
The body and minds of this construct Johann-Eunice start a journey unlike any in the annuals of speculative fiction. First, there's the little matter of recovering legal control over self. During unconsciousness following surgery, to keep Johann's granddaughters from having him declared dead (and presumably inherit), Salome, er, Salomon did a legal dance to persuade the state to declare him guardian over Johann's head and Eunice's body. The granddaughters are offspring of his second and third wives, who each divorced Johann, but only after presenting him with children not biologically his; and, therefore, they are not granddaughters in any but the strict legal sense of being children of his presumed "daughters" who themselves also were born during wedlock.
And the only son this man ever had, an honorable man who died taking a worthless hill in a discredited war, was the result of yet another cuckolding whose mother, whom Johann truly loved, died giving him birth. But Johann, a gentleman, has and will never mention this knowledge (certain because of the blood types he knows his "children" possessed) to anyone except Eunice whom he finds now sharing his brain, even though control over the property and his corporate empires is at stake.
Salomon and Johann-Eunice will win the legal battles. A bewildering display of sub-plots intermixed with didactic social commentary occurs during this contest and following. Here I set most of the didacticism aside, since commentary on all the subjects raised by the author's agenda would require an essay far beyond the scope of this paper: however, as a first decision, Johann-Eunice ordains she will henceforth be called Joan, but pronounced "Yo-an" Smith.
First among the subplots: Johann was a sperm donor; and frozen sperm exists. As all of Johann's putative children from three wives were not biologically his (Johann was lucky in a "foolish fourth marriage," hoping to bring back something that had died in him with the death of his 'son' whom he loved, as it brought forth no issue, but merely cost a "chunk of money" to get shut of it), Johann-Eunice decide early on there shall be one; and secretly one of Yo-an's eggs is surgically implanted fertilized with his thawed genetic remnant, immediately before the next activities commence.
Next is this little matter of returning to an adult life--this time as a woman. First, to complicate things a bit, Yo-an seduces "Winnie." She is another prototypical character, a bright vivacious redhead, familiar to all Heinlein's readers, a type sometimes associated with Virginia (called by some "Ginny") Heinlein, his second wife. She is Yo-an's nurse, and now becomes female companion, that is, nursemaid. To complicate matters a bit more, Winnie has a boyfriend, the semi-mysterious Robert, or "Roberto," whose detailed associations with Winnie and profession are kept private and off-stage from us by the author, until mid-novel when we find he was one of the specialists charged originally with Yo-an's physical recovery. To complicate yet more, it turns out that Eunice, before her death, had an on-going affair with Jake Salomon, old Johann's "fixer" and only real friend. So Yo-an seduces Jake to assuage his grief and reveals to him her secret: the two minds that exist in her cortex. Then Yo-an visits Joe Branca, still struggling to produce 'art for art's sake,' and finds him in virtual poverty. He told the "fixer," Jake, to "kark in his hat" when offered a staggering sum for Eunice's body. Eunice was mugged and murdered while shortcutting through one of the many dangerous neighborhoods existing in this decaying world of walled and privately policed enclaves to save time getting to an emergency patient as an "Angel of Mercy," a rare blood donor. One of Joe's old models, "Gigi," whom Eunice knew and loved, has moved in and is trying to support them by, unknown to Joe, prostituting herself. Yo-an loves them both and arranges personally with the model to subsidize Joe. Joe's head is so far up in the clouds he does not ask about the source of money Gigi brings for food and shelter. Now the young struggling artist has an effective 'keeper' again! The plot is beginning to resemble one of Wagner's Ring-cycles--less some of the murders--well under way, isn't it?
Let's skip the rest of the complications, including much more sleeping around, er, loving. Jake marries Yo-an; and they sail away onto the only safe and secure place now existing on Earth, the open seas of the Pacific itself. Joe and the model, now married, and many other people come along on a large trimaran. Other complications ensue, including more love triangles. These complications interfere with Joe's art, so the couple decide to go ashore. During their helicopter departure, Jake, still strong and virile, tries to steady a swinging piece of heavy luggage being winched above, overtaxes his aged heart and immediately expires.
At that moment, Jake's consciousness enters Johann-Eunice's shared brain and body. Now they are a trinity. Curiouser and curiouser. Step aside Wagner--this author's just surpassed you and taken the teacake at this party of the mad!
Now to the finale: Johann-Eunice-Jake decides to immigrate to the Moon to escape Earth's soiled civilization entirely and ensure the soon-to-be-born child may be born in a world of hope. Reenter "Winnie" and boyfriend Dr. Roberto Garcia, who was responsible for the care of Johann-Eunice during her first convalescence. They accompany the emigrant Johann-Eunice-Jake as her personal servants (huge charitable donations would have gone elsewhere had the Lunar Authority not allowed that wild departure from its strict screening policies--the rich necessarily always play by 'different' rules) as that baby is very important and, by the way, there now appear some indications that the graft of nerve cells between brain and spinal cord is deteriorating--a situation called by the healers of this novel "rejection syndrome."
A hiatus intervenes. We are in Luna; and Johann-Eunice-Jake is in labor. Yo-an repeatedly insists to 'Winnie' that she promise that, if anything "happens," the baby will be named Eunice Jacob. And just as the expectant mother goes under, while an argument over NAMES occurs among the three in the brain, there is the following conversation between Yo-an and Winnie:
"I do promise you, Joan. Cross my heart." "My dear sweet Winsome. We've come a long way together, you and I and Roberto [The emphasis is not in the original]. "Yes, we have dear." "I'm ill. Am I not?" * * * * *And as she goes under, the "rejection syndrome" begins ... and Johann-Eunice-Jake begins to die while giving birth to a new life.
But then something shocking intervenes:
Between surgeries a conversation occurs between Yo-an and "Roberto" the putative doctor. In very erotic detail, Yo-an, using the classic and infamous Anglo-Saxon verb, thanks him for graphic acts of sex in which they have engaged. "Now wait just a minute," I said when I read this first edition hot off the presses, twenty-eight years ago, "This is the first time I've ever read anything like that in Heinlein. He doesn't exactly put asterisks in as in expurgated copies of Lady Chatterley's Lover but his writing is never like this. When did she have a chance to get in the sack with 'Roberto?' He faded into the woodwork as soon as the paralysis following the original transplant surgery wore off." Then I thought hard and remembered that among many beddings she and Winnie once swapped partners (Jake for "Roberto") after a night on the town. There was nothing remarkable then described about the sex that evening; but I shrugged off the seeming lack of a point--other than a severely ill-timed but understandable expression of gratitude--to this and read on. After all this is a Heinlein lady, and all Heinlein ladies are unique--to put it kindly--and quite tricky. Perhaps they found other times? I then read on to the bitter end in which at the instant of giving birth to new Eunice Jacob, that overburdened treble mind expires, leaving these last words:
"An old world vanished and then there was none."
Thematic Synopsis:
I used to consider the salient point in I Will Fear No Evil to be that Eunice's consciousness continues to exist in the donor body. I saw this novel, among other things, to be Heinlein's conscious examination of the one form of self-identity some believe exists, an identity so strong as to defy death, that is, an inquiry into the question: is there a "soul?" I reasoned he reasoned if Eunice's consciousness were present in the left-behind body after the death of her brain--and her brain was shattered beyond repair (declared "dead") in a mugging--then T.H. Huxley's scientifically unprovable and undisprovable enigma "how can a soul exist" necessarily needs re-examination. How this scientific-proof extrapolation to the "animus" occurred to the author is fairly easy to infer. He expressly writes here of the cellular memories of the flatworm, an inoffensive otherwise not very unusual early form of life we all recall from basic biology that has one unique property. Cut in two, each end grows the missing part. The tail grows a head (with a complete whatever passes for a brain in a flatworm), and the head grows a tail. Medicine considers "death" to occur when the brain is said to be "dead." Ah, but what if a body can regenerate the brain? Not yet? Maybe not; but way back down in our evolutionary chain, our DNA could! What made that happen, then, but not now? "Could that be the soul?" Heinlein is asking.
If a soul truly exists, then indeed David the King, my namesake who wrote the Psalm, and Robert Heinlein may honestly recite:
Yea, Thou I Walk In The Valley Of The Shadow Of Death I Will Fear No Evil For Thou Art With Me Thy Rod And Thy Staffand the symbolic old man with a beard both Eunice and Johann say they saw in their troubled dreams during their original recovery will indeed appear. That neatly accounts for the title.
Maybe so. But then there are these matters of wives supporting artists and all this business about names, particularly hyphenated ones, including the screwy argument over names at the end and interdependence of threesomes and of "split personalities," and "rejection syndrome." And then the mysterious stranger "Roberto," a one-night stand tucked in there with such significance to the lady with the hyphenated name that Heinlein (that 'nice Naval Academy graduate' even librarians named Mrs. Grundy used to love) actually writes purple prose to describe her gratitude. And we didn't get an afterlife here, did we? We got a version of the bubble ending from Mysterious Stranger, by Mark Twain, favorite author of mother Maureen Johnson Smith of Thebes (I almost said Butler), Missouri and grandfather Ira Johnson. Oops, sorry wrong Smith. It's Johann Sebastian Bach Smith here, not Woodrow Wilson Smith, isn't it?
But then we are reading about artists such as Joe in this book, not successful naval officers, leaders or politicians, aren't we?
One thing I learned a long time ago: Robert Anson Heinlein was a very tricky writer about many things, but most importantly about names. Look at Stranger In A Strange Land for example. Virtually every name in it has multiple resonances.
Take one here from the very beginning: Agnes, Johann's first wife, whom he loved for the short period they had together (like Poe's "Annabel Lee" as the author reminds us). She gave him the beloved 'son' who died in a discredited war. One meaning for Agnes is "Chaste." (Another is lamb in Latin, usually a victim or an innocent sacrifice when referred to in religious writings.) David, later the King and poet who wrote the Psalm, was a sacrifice as well, when they sent him to face Goliath. And we recall another David Lamb, don't we? "The Man Who Was Too Lazy To Fail," from Time Enough For Love? The son's blood type from the dog tags that were all that was left of him was "O+," impossibility for an AB-negative father. What is wrong here? Why that name is deliberately upside-down! Nothing in this novel is what it seems! Because it is not primarily a novel, I believe. On a major level it is the allegorical autobiography of Robert Anson Heinlein, born July 7, 1907, in Butler, Missouri, graduated United States Naval Academy, class of 1929, married briefly to a lady concerning whom little is known almost immediately after graduation, then divorced and remarried to Leslyn MacDonald who supported him after he was rejected from Naval Service because of tuberculosis; and probably while he was rejected a few times by publishers concerning those mysterious first efforts at writing which are now turned up by conscientious research, rejected by the voters in an election for the California State Assembly in 1938 in which as Johann tells Eunice "he" was put up to run by the party in an election they were going to lose anyway, because he could afford to pay for his own campaign (RAH took out a mortgage), and whom he mysteriously divorced in 1947 concerning whom there have been recurrent rumors of hospitalization for alcoholism and, perhaps, of a family history of bipolar disorder, finally thereafter married to the vivacious red haired woman who everyone calls "Ginnie," but he called "Ticky" until the day he died, who was and continues to be his "mouthpiece" to his adoring public and whose shared philosophies were the subject of heated rejections by 1969, in the midst of the draft-dodging, "Heigh, heigh, LBJ, how many kids did you kill today?" drop-out malaise then occurring. You remember, don't you? It was about the time some critics began to say his publicly acclaimed Starship Troopers had been awarded the Hugo in mistake, because the novel described a "fascist utopia"--a libel we read deliberately resurrected when Verhoeven's filmed abortion was released.
I can go on.... Three wives. Students at our service academies are still not permitted marriage until they graduate. In the 1920s, just as today, they were taught they already had Three Wives: Duty. Honor. Country. Above all else, these are the three precepts all of our service academies drum into the minds of their graduates. He did his Duty with Honor to his Country; and it rejected him when it discharged him despite the "cured" status of his tuberculosis, then rejected his persistent efforts to return when he "with a feeling of loss of personal honor such as I never expected myself to experience ... found myself sitting on a hilltop, in civilian clothes, with no battle station, and unable to fight, when it happened" on December 7, 1941. He nevertheless did the duty that was offered him during that war by his beloved old commander, now Admiral Ernest King--a bastard job which could just as easily have been done by a Lieutenant or Lieutenant Commander rather than a Mr. Heinlein, that included "unofficial" work as mediator between naval officers who respected that Class of 1929 ring on his hand and civilian scientists who respected him as the eminent artist in a field they revered. He did it just as Johann did his duty to what was presented him by unchaste Agnes. She gave Johann a bastard but died in the attempt, and the fine boy died in a discredited war. Whether it was Oscar Gordon's father's UnWar I (Korea), or Evelyn Cyril's own UnWar II (Vietnam), it does not matter; it was one of the rocks he found on Glory Road. Duty, Honor and Country. One died early, two divorced him, and three gave him bastards and, by 1969, some of their progeny was abusing and wasting needed resources and grasping greedily for more. The fourth wife that he divorced after he tried recommitment to a public service life for a year to revive his hopes. Politics? That cost him a heap of money to get shut of. He needed to sell that "first" short story, "Time-Line," to pay off the mortgage he took out for the ill-fated attempt at the California Assembly.
Filling in the remaining allegorical blanks is left as an exercise to the student, if you will.
"Roberto," you miserable sonofabitch suffering from "rejection syndrome," you've done it to us again. And it took me twenty-eight years to figure it out. I am so embarrassed I am going to vanish in a bubble ending.
David M. Silver
April 19, 1998, lightly revised June 5, 2002
-- David M. Silver http://www.heinleinsociety.org http://www.readinggroupsonline.com/groups/heinlein.htm "The Lieutenant expects your names to shine!" Robert Anson Heinlein, USNA '29 Lt (jg)., USN R'td (1907-1988)
(snip an absolutely magnificent essay that every fan or casual reader of RAH should read and learn from)
Oh, well done, David, well done indeed! Thank you.
Steve J -- "...everyone else my age is an adult, whereas I am merely in disguise." --Margaret Atwood
>Thematic Synopsis: > >I used to consider the salient point in I Will Fear No Evil to be that >Eunice's consciousness continues to exist in the donor body. I saw this >novel, among other things, to be Heinlein's conscious examination of the >one form of self-identity some believe exists, an identity so strong as >to defy death, that is, an inquiry into the question: is there a "soul?" >I reasoned he reasoned if Eunice's consciousness were present in the >left-behind body after the death of her brain--and her brain was >shattered beyond repair (declared "dead") in a mugging--then T.H. >Huxley's scientifically unprovable and undisprovable enigma "how can a >soul exist" necessarily needs re-examination. How this scientific-proof >extrapolation to the "animus" occurred to the author is fairly easy to >infer. He expressly writes here of the cellular memories of the >flatworm, an inoffensive otherwise not very unusual early form of life >we all recall from basic biology that has one unique property. Cut in >two, each end grows the missing part. The tail grows a head (with a >complete whatever passes for a brai