"Orphans Of The Sky"

Topic: The Future History novella: _Universe_ and _Common Sense_, originally published in _Astounding Science Fiction_ in May and October 1941, and subsequently republished as _Orphans of the Sky_ in 1963 (by Gollancz in Britain and G.P. Putnam in the United States).

Suggested additional reading: the short story "Columbus Was a Dope," from _The Menace from Earth Collection (1959) [a Baen reprint issued in 1999].

Written originally the same year as _Methuselah's Children_ the "novel," which is how the author referred to the two novella (_Universe_ and its sequel _Common Sense_) "Orphans" have truly become that, out-of-print for a number of years, and possibly the least read of any of Heinlein's works. That's odd, because it ranks well with his pre-World War II work. In fact, Common Sense was the last thing he wrote before the December 7, 1941, start for the United States of World War II, according to Gifford's RAH:ARC, although other previously written works were published on into 1942 under psuedonyms.

Because some may not yet have acquired a copy of Orphans, I'm going to do something here I usually wouldn't do. I'm going to put up a little teaser. It's from the April 1965 Signet paperback flyleaf--flyleafs are usually twaddle, but this one did tease fairly well ...

"Back beyond the memory of any living man there

was a great Mutiny in which the Captain and his

officers perished. From that time it has been the

duty of the scientists to promulgate the sublime

laws of Jordan's Plan, to interpret such sacred

books as _Basic Modern Physics_, to instruct the

young in the ways of the Ship.

"The Ship is a giant sealed cylinder five miles long

with concentric circles, labyrinthine passages,

acreas of farmland, living areas, and work space. To

novice scientist Hugh Hoyland it was the only world

that existed. Then one day he ventured into the

weightless regions where the monstrous 'muties' lived.

There he discovered the truth that had died with the

first Captain and Crew. He learned what the ship

really was ... ."

We already know what it was. We've read _Methuselah's Children_ and know that before the starship "New Beginnings" was built just in time for Lazarus Long to steal for the exodus that saved the Howard Families from extinction, another starship, the "Vanguard" had been built, and launched toward Alpha Centuri--a flight of exploration expected to last a few generations before arrival and return. This novel we're now reading is the story of the "Vanguard."

As always there is more than just the 'story' to talk about in Heinlein's works. I think I'll take a day or so to let someone else start with a few comments and questions. Imagine what you'd be doing if you'd been a decendant of what was left of that first Crew after the great Mutiny. How would you survive? What would survive? What wouldn't? Remember, the more questions and ideas posted here, the better our chats will be.

"Good eating!"

David M. Silver

AGplusone@aol.com

"I expect your names to shine!"

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: RAH-AIM chat notice 9/28 &30/00 Orphans of the Sky

Date: 09/18/2000

Author: Stephanie Vickers

>As always there is more than just the 'story' to talk about in Heinlein's

>works. I think I'll take a day or so to let someone else start with a few

>comments and questions. Imagine what you'd be doing if you'd been a decendant

>of what was left of that first Crew after the great Mutiny. How would you

>survive? What would survive? What wouldn't? Remember, the more questions and

>ideas posted here, the better our chats will be.

>"Good eating!"

>--

>David M. Silver

Either I did read this as a child, when I devoured all books with the little rocket ship sticker on the spine at the library, or some one else wrote a story very similar in theme. I don't remember the title as being one I read. All I know of the story is the follow up in TEFL, where it was mentioned that Vanguard was found, and her path backtracked across a highly intelligent, primitive, cannibalistic society. I'll be looking for a copy, as well as paying attention to the posts here.

Filly

http://hometown.aol.com/merfilly8/myhomepage

"One man with courage makes a majority."

--Andrew Jackson

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: RAH-AIM chat notice 9/28 &30/00 Orphans of the Sky

Date: 09/18/2000

Author: dwrighsr <dwrighsr@alltel.net>

Several random comments:

1) A precursor of the 'Fair Witness' concept as found in SIASL. 'The Witness' kept track of history, contracts etc among the ship's people.

2) I was struck by the similarity in the 'Lines From the Beginning' quoted by the apprentice 'Witness' and the Biblical story of creation.

3) Either Jim-Joe (Joe-Jim?) was a Howard descendant or he had also gained long life in the mutations that caused him. He speaks of having observed the situation for over 3 generations.

David

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: RAH-AIM chat notice 9/28 &30/00 Orphans of the Sky

Date: 09/18/2000

Author: jeanette wolf

Filly--Several years after reading Orphans I read a book with the same basic situation--the world was a starship.

Don't remember the title or the author and don't want to give away the end, which is different but the inhabitants kept sighting people who just seemed to disappear--maybe someone knows what I am talking about. It seems the ship was cylinders connected together.

I liked reading the book--hope someone has a better memory than I do.

Jeanette

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: RAH-AIM chat notice 9/28 &30/00 Orphans of the Sky

Date: 09/19/2000

Author: Nollaig MacKenzie <rahfan@amhuinnsuidhe.cx>

On 2000.09.18 22:29:08, the estimable jeanette wolf wrote:

>Filly--Several years after reading Orphans I read a book with the same

>basic situation--the world was a starship.

>Don't remember the title or the author and don't want to give away the

>end, which is different but the inhabitants kept sighting people who

>just seemed to disappear--maybe someone knows what I am talking about.

>It seems the ship was cylinders connected together.

This might fit Harry Harrison's _Captive Universe_. I don't want to describe it too much either - but does "Aztec" ring a bell?

>I liked reading the book--hope someone has a better memory than I do.

Cheers, N.

Nollaig MacKenzie :: rahfan@amhuinnsuidhe.cx::

http://www.amhuinnsuidhe.cx/rahfan

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: RAH-AIM chat notice 9/28 &30/00 Orphans of the Sky

Date: 09/19/2000

Author: Ogden Johnson III

wolfj@webtv.net(jeanette wolf) wrote:

>Filly--Several years after reading Orphans I read a book with the same

>basic situation--the world was a starship.

>Don't remember the title or the author and don't want to give away the

>end, which is different but the inhabitants kept sighting people who

>just seemed to disappear--maybe someone knows what I am talking about.

>It seems the ship was cylinders connected together.

>I liked reading the book--hope someone has a better memory than I do.

Can't speak to the specific book, but "Generation Ship" was a distinct sub-genre in SF for quite a while, particularly in the '50s/'60s.

OJ III

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: RAH-AIM chat notice 9/28 &30/00 Orphans of the Sky

Date: 09/18/2000

Author: ddavitt <ddavitt@netcom.ca>

One point I find interesting ( and I've mentioned before so forgive the repetition) is the comment by George Slusser in his critique, "The Classic Years of Robert A Heinlein",

"'Universe' and 'Common Sense' (1941) form a narrative whole. It is often regretted, however, that Heinlein wrote the sequel to the first story. 'Universe' is praised because it ends on a note of uncertainty. [....] Many feel that 'Common Sense' is not only a let down in aesthetic terms, but a betrayal: why carry the story of this ship/universe and its visionaries to such an end? The sequel, however, is quite consistent with Heinlein's Puritanical vision. Indeed it is essential to it: the elect must fulfill their destiny, and this second story merely provides (in typical fashion) for its ritualistic working-out."

I don't really understand the Puritan reference but I can see that, in some ways, ending it after Universe was more upbeat; the reader could be left to imagine Hugh converting ( no pun!) the whole ship, turning it towards its proper destination, freeing the colonists from their steel prison.

However, it seems to me that this would have been most unlikely and that Heinlein was right to show the events in a more realistic way. It was never going to happen that an ingrained religious belief would be overturned and power surrendered by those at the top.The population had sunk too low to be re-educated and the eventual resolution where only a few are saved is much more believable.

Jane

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: RAH-AIM chat notice 9/28 &30/00 Orphans of the Sky

Date: 09/19/2000

Author: dwrighsr <dwrighsr@alltel.net>

In article <39C6C628.906419E1@netcom.ca>, ddavitt <ddavitt@netcom.ca>wrote:

(snip)

>However, it seems to me that this would have been most unlikely and that Heinlein

>was right to show the events in a more realistic way. It was never going to happen

>that an ingrained religious belief would be overturned and power surrendered by

>those at the top.The population had sunk too low to be re educated and the eventual

>resolution where only a few are saved is much more believable.

>Jane

I agree totally,

However, your post sparked a recollection in me. Do you recall in 'Starman Jones' the comments about '..such a small colony would flicker and die by statistical probability unless every man jack of us works 20 hour days to help. Can we count on the crew?'. (that's a paraphrase from memory, rather than a direct quote).

From TEFL, we know that the Vanguard colony did survive. Makes me wonder how such a very tiny group were able to make it.

David

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: RAH-AIM chat notice 9/28 &30/00 Orphans of the Sky

Date: 09/19/2000

Author: ddavitt <ddavitt@netcom.ca>

dwrighsr@alltel.net wrote: >

>3) Either Jim-Joe (Joe-Jim?) was a Howard descendant or he had also

>gained long life in the mutations that caused him. He speaks of having

>observed the situation for over 3 generations.

The Witness is old too;

"I'm an old man. I knew your father's father, and his grandsire before that."

Looked at one way, being a colonist on such a long voyage would be a good career choice for a Howard but looked at from the perspective of keeping the 'secret" it would be a bad one; no way to relocate under a new identity when your peers started to die of old age. Probably a mutation then...

Jane

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: RAH-AIM chat notice 9/28 &30/00 Orphans of the Sky

Date: 09/19/2000

Author: ddavitt <ddavitt@netcom.ca>

dwrighsr@alltel.netwrote:

>However, your post sparked a recollection in me. Do you recall in

>'Starman Jones' the comments about '..such a small colony would flicker

>and die by statistical probability unless every man jack of us works 20

>hour days to help. Can we count on the crew?'. (that's a paraphrase from

>memory, rather than a direct quote).

>From TEFL, we know that the Vanguard colony did survive. Makes me wonder

>how such a very tiny group were able to make it.

>David

Yes; it's not really large enough on the face of it. Given their lack of experience with the outside world one encounter with a stobor type animal would finish them off. They are fighters and hunters but within a small space; I think a planet with wild animals would have been a far harsher test of their abilities. Have to put it down to plot necessity maybe?

Jane

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: RAH-AIM chat notice 9/28 &30/00 Orphans of the Sky

Date: 09/19/2000

Author: dwrighsr <dwrighsr@alltel.net> In article <39C783EE.B64840AF@netcom.ca>, ddavitt <>wrote: >dwrighsr@alltel.net wrote:

>>3) Either Jim-Joe (Joe-Jim?) was a Howard descendant or he had also

>>gained long life in the mutations that caused him. He speaks of having

>>observed the situation for over 3 generations.

>The Witness is old too;

>"I'm an old man. I knew your father's father, and his grandsire before

>that."

Yipes, I overlooked that one. That's 5 generations.

>Looked at one way, being a colonist on such a long voyage would be a good

>career choice for a Howard but looked at from the perspective of keeping

>the 'secret" it would be a bad one; no way to relocate under a new

>identity when your peers started to die of old age.

>Probably a mutation then...

>Jane

I suspect that you are right, It's probably a mutation and one that which wouldn't show up at birth and by the time that people begain to notice, he could possibly get away with being 'different' because of his value to the community.

OTOH, maybe the 'Witness' and Joe-Jim's ancestors were 'revealed Howards' and at the time of the launch of the Vanguard the prejudice wasn't so great that they would feel that they would have to do anything special to hide their ages.

David

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: RAH-AIM chat notice 9/28 &30/00 Orphans of the Sky

Date: 09/19/2000

Author: Chris Croughton <chris@keristor.dircon.co.uk>

On Tue, 19 Sep 2000 05:24:59 GMT, Nollaig MacKenzie <rahfan@amhuinnsuidhe.cxwrote:

>On 2000.09.18 22:29:08, the estimable

>jeanette wolf wrote:

>>Don't remember the title or the author and don't want to give away the

>>end, which is different but the inhabitants kept sighting people who

>>just seemed to disappear--maybe someone knows what I am talking about.

>>It seems the ship was cylinders connected together.

>This might fit Harry Harrison's _Captive Universe_.

>I don't want to describe it too much either - but

>does "Aztec" ring a bell?

That's the one I ws thinking of, for years I used to get the two confused and thought they were the same book because I read them both from the library at around the same time.

There were a few others using similar concepts as well, van Vogt's "Rogue Ship" being one I remember (odd use of Relativity and time and length dilation effects).

Chris C

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: RAH-AIM chat notice 9/28 &30/00 Orphans of the Sky

Date: 09/21/2000

Author: David M. Silver <agplusone@loop.com

Ogden Johnson III wrote:

>Can't speak to the specific book, but "Generation Ship" was a distinct

>sub-genre in SF for quite a while, particularly in the '50s/'60s.

It was, I agree.

But, ... there are a few themes here we haven't begun to explore: for example, this 'novel' "Orphans" is the third written in the short span of his then writing career, 1939-41 to explore the uses of "religion," politically (_"'If This Goes On …'"_ and the serial "Sixth Column," expanded in 1949 into a novel, are the two others); "Orphans" is the third to involve a rebellion, a "mutiny" against government (the same three). It's the fourth to examine deadly oppression, the extermination of minorities (the same three and _Methuselah's Children_).

And it's also at least the second work in those two years, together with "The Roads Must Roll," to deal directly with man's misuse of 'logic' or 'rationality.'

Later, in another 'universe' far, far away, one of Heinlein's more interesting young ladies will return to this theme and bitingly say to another character, also an accused 'romantic': "You used 'logic' again. What you call 'logic,' Rod. You use the stuff the way some people use dope. Why don't you use your head instead?"

Man is a rationalizing machine. All of the Young Engineers in "Orphans" are rationalists. Sometimes those rationales is insane. Look at what Ford was about to do in MC, the last novel we read. He'd decided that the presence of the Howards amounted to a psychic death for the short-lived vast majority of humanity and, accordingly, started to decide what would be a more humane fate for the Howards, death or sterilization. It seemed, in the words of Rodenberry's Spock, "perfectly logical," for mechanics on the Roads to be able to quit without notice for any reason. After all, any other result would amount 'logically' to slavery, forced servitude, illegal under the Constitution, for whatever period pertains. The PanAsians learned in their conquest of India they had no end of problems with attempts to regulate the religions of their new subjects so, accordingly, perfectly rational and strictly obeyed orders issued to allow and not interfere with any slave religion. Those who did interfere knew they had no recourse but to join their ancestors. In "Orphans" RAH takes a 'leader' fully willing to consolidate his power by purges and warfare. All of which is perfectly rational to any leader so determined; but what was Commander Phineas Narby's coup other than an equivalent to any conducted by Hitler or Stalin? What was the war of consolidation thereafter conducted on his behalf by Joe-Jim, other than equivalent to the Lebensraum for a "Greater Germany," or Italy's conquest of Ethiopia, Soviet Russia's partnership in the partition of Poland and annexation of the Baltic states, or Japan's conquest of Manchuria and expansion into China for a "Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere"?

And, funny thing is, because of those echoes of concurrent events in Europe and Asia, this is the third novel, I think, to sound dire warnings about that imminent war about to touch upon the United States. All three, "Orphans," "Sixth Column," and ITGO also deal with war as a rational means to a solution. A 'mutiny' is merely an unsuccessful rebellion against authority. A revolution is one that succeeds. The winner applies the label and writes the history.

Look again at "Universe." Compare these two: "The Earth is flat. The Earth is the center of the Universe. The sun, moon and stars move around it." Imagine there were never sun, moon, nor stars to see. Common Sense (or logic) would tell us our 'earth' is the full extent of the "Universe," and celestial nothing moves, and assuming we thought about it at all.

The thing was: in "Orphans" a 'romantic,' a single idealist, Hugh Hoyland, spoke out against it, lacking common sense of course. In a conscious imitation of Galileo by Heinlein, he maintained after his trial for heresy, "Nevertheless -- Nevertheless -- it still moves."

In 1925, the year Heinlein attended one year of college in Kansas City, preparatory to entrance into Annapolis, there was another heresy trial of enormous magnitude. The U.S. Army amid great national publicity court-martialed a brigadier general who had the temerity publicly to accuse his superiors of derelictions amounting to treason in failing to prepare proper national defenses. The general was convicted of conduct unbecoming an officer and prejudicial to good order and discipline, suspended from all pay and allowances for five years, and immediately resigned. One charge the general had made publicly involved America's impregnable fortress in the Pacific. The general postulated an attack for which he deemed that fortress unprepared that would go something like this: before dawn a carrier task force would launch an attack by air from the north, splitting into several streams of attack that would simultaneously arrive in the early morning hours to attack the huge concentrations of warships, naval and military airfields and installations located in and around that impregnable fortress--a surprise attack that would devastate U.S. forces in the Pacific for years. This idealist's plan, lacking in common sense as it was, nevertheless became known, after the court-martial, as "Plan 14" and was studied by officers of the military and naval services assigned to the Pacific. It was the basis of wargaming. Common sense defenses against it were planned and tested to the satisfaction of those officers.

In November 1941, when "Common Sense" was published, many of Heinlein's Annapolis classmates were stationed aboard ships and shore installations at that impregnable fortress in the Pacific, well-warned against a surprise air attack by the convicted heretic's predictions.

Less than one month later, before dawn on the morning of December 7th, the carrier task force charged with destruction of the United States Pacific Fleet began launching aircraft approximately 305 nautical miles north of Pearl Harbor. These aircraft proceeded in a single stream until they were about 125 miles north, where the stream split into two. Fifty miles from Oahu, the left column divided again into three more streams. The first two streams turned right and headed for Pearl Harbor across the island, the third stream continued on course beyond the tip of the island, then turned back toward the center of Oahu and made its approach from the sea. These multiple attacks all hit that Sunday morning at 0755 hours as church call was about to sound aboard the ships and at installations of the naval and military forces stationed in and around Pearl.

Meanwhile the right stream of aircraft divided into two as it approached. One stream crossed the coastline and made for Pearl Harbor, on the other side of the island. The second continued on course pass the island, and then turned back to attack from the open sea as well. This second round of coordinated attacks began at 0900 hours.

All these attacks went smoothly and as planned. The surprise attack found all the battleships of the U.S. Pacific Fleet at anchor and sunk or severely damaged most of them. More than 2,700 military and navy were killed, there were tremendous numbers of wounded, enormous damage to naval, military, and air installations.

At 1030 hours the task force radioed "Tora, Tora, Tora" to Imperial Japanese Headquarters. It signified success. World War II had begun for the United States.

The Brigadier General's name was William Mitchell. An interesting on-line bio is at /http://www.calong.dircon.co.uk/personal.mitchell.html/ His heresy, like Galileo's before him, and Heinlein's Hugh Hoyland, defied "common sense."

Do you think it possible or likely Heinlein thought about Mitchell when he wrote "Common Sense"? What about the next month when he started petitioning the Department of the Navy to allow him to return to service?

David

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: RAH-AIM chat notice 9/28 &30/00 Orphans of the Sky

Date: 09/22/2000

Author: Nuclear Waste <babybear@2z.net

"ddavitt" <ddavitt@netcom.cawrote in message news:39C784A7.650B42E8@netcom.ca...

>dwrighsr@alltel.netwrote:

>>However, your post sparked a recollection in me. Do you recall in

>>'Starman Jones' the comments about '..such a small colony would flicker

>>and die by statistical probability unless every man jack of us works 20

>>hour days to help. Can we count on the crew?'. (that's a paraphrase from

>>memory, rather than a direct quote).

>>From TEFL, we know that the Vanguard colony did survive. Makes me wonder

>>how such a very tiny group were able to make it.

>>David

>>Yes; it's not really large enough on the face of it. Given their lack of

>experience with the outside world one encounter with a stobor type animal

>would finish them off. They are fighters and hunters but within a small

>space; I think a planet with wild animals would have been a far harsher test

>of their abilities.

>Have to put it down to plot necessity maybe?

They were also intelligent and resourceful>Admittedly, it would take some luck, but it is also pointed out that close inbreeding, with thorough weeding of the "culls" results in a stabilized line rather quickly. In this case, one suited to survival on that planet.

I wonder how many generations it would take to come up with this stable genome and culture? Any takers?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: RAH-AIM chat notice 9/28 &30/00 Orphans of the Sky

Date: 09/22/2000

Author: Gaeltach <gaeltach@fan.net.au

Just thought I would bring this into the correct year etc. <time-travel mode: OFF>

Sean

Gaeltach wrote:

>AGplusone wrote (on another thread):

><snippins>

>>Welcome to the club! Anyone having any luck yet with "Hoyland" which is the

>>surname of the major character in Orphans? While reading it I remembered that

>>the name of the traitor in the short story "Free Men" (in _Extended Universe_)

>>is "Moyland" and will refrain from comments about 'toyland.'

>I have taken the liberty of transferring this to the relevant thread. A little

>research shows that a "Hoy" can be:

>1. A small sloop-rigged coasting ship.

>2. A heavy barge used for freight.

>3. A word used to attract attention.

>4. A small coaster vessel, usually sloop-rigged, used in conveying passengers and

>goods from place to place, or as a tender to larger vessels in port.

>5. A boat with a flat bottom for carrying heavy loads (especially on canals) .

>Basically a nautical term for a type of vessel. I guess it doesn't need too much

>imagination to see how this could be an origin for "Hoyland", especially if you

>think of it as a Hoy-Land.

>Sean

>gaeltach@fan.net.au

>***************

>.... and now for something completely different:

>Hoy.......Oh!

>***************

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: RAH-AIM chat notice 9/28 &30/00 Orphans of the Sky

Date: 09/22/2000

Author: AGplusone <agplusone@aol.com

Sean writes:

>A little

>>research shows that a "Hoy" can be:

[snip]

>>3. A word used to attract attention.

Such as a sailor in a small boat approaching uses when he says, "Ahoy ... the ship" while hailing it to attract attention from the watch. I got that far, Sean, but they don't say "Ahoy ... land" to announce a sighting of new land, do they (They say "land, ho!")? In that case the name might be a slight pun ... Hugh is 'a Hoyland' spotter. Heinlein wouldn't do that to us, would he? --

David M. Silver

AGplusone@aol.com

"I expect your names to shine!"

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: RAH-AIM chat notice 9/28 &30/00 Orphans of the Sky

Date: 09/24/2000

Author: Sean Gaeltach <gaeltach@fan.net.au

David wrote:

>Sean writes:

>>A little

>>>research shows that a "Hoy" can be:

>>>

>[snip]

>>>3. A word used to attract attention.

>Such as a sailor in a small boat approaching uses when he says, "Ahoy ... the

>ship" while hailing it to attract attention from the watch. I got that far,

>Sean, but they don't say "Ahoy ... land" to announce a sighting of new and, do

>they (They say "land, ho!")? In that case the name might be a slight pun ...

>Hugh is 'a Hoyland' spotter. Heinlein wouldn't do that to us, would he?

I dunno........ possibly. BTW, the definitions of "Hoy" are courtesy of Dictionary.com and I just copied them. Hoy seems to be an abbreviation of "ahoy", which is well known through such sayings as "ship-ahoy" etc. And I'm almost sure I've heard Hollywood sailers crying "land-ahoy" as well. Perhaps some old saltys around here can confirm, and I also assumed "ho" to be a similar abbreviation of "ahoy"?

As far as "Hugh", there might be some significance since RAH used this name again in _Farnham's Freehold_. Did he just like the sound of it?

Sean

gaeltach@fan.net.au

*******************

.... and now for something completely different:

Oh no! Don Ho!

*******************

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: RAH-AIM chat notice 9/28 &30/00 Orphans of the Sky

Date: 09/24/2000

Author: Ogden Johnson III <ojiii@home.com

Sean Gaeltach wrote:

>And I'm almost sure I've heard Hollywood sailers crying "land-ahoy" as

>well. Perhaps some old saltys around here can confirm, and I also

assumed "ho" to be a similar abbreviation of "ahoy"?

There is a little know clause in the Hollywood Filmmaker's Creed which requires every movie involving sailing ships to include a scene, verbatim, as follows:

[From sailor in Crow's Nest]

SiCN: "Land, ho!"

Captain: "Where away?"

SiCN: "Three points off the starboard bow"

It is *always* "three points* and *always* "the starboard bow". Some sort of totem I guess.

The only movie I ever saw that didn't follow this policy was one of the ST-TNG ones. But there were reasons. Technically, it wasn't a sailing ship movie, the sailing ship scene was a holodeck bit. And Jean Luc got called away to save the Galaxy before any land could be sighted. I guess that exempted it from the Creed.

OJ III

[Besides, moviegoers would *never* understand "larboard bow", or either "starboard" or "larboard" quarter.]

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: RAH-AIM chat notice 9/28 &30/00 Orphans of the Sky

Date: 09/25/2000

Author: ddavitt <ddavitt@netcom.ca>

Anyone think that the character of Joe-Jim might have inspired Adams' Zaphod Beeblebrox? Maybe not....

It occurs to me that Orphans is one story where the putative hero ( Hugh) is both overshadowed by a secondary character ( Joe-Jim) and not all that likeable anyway. We've discussed the set up on the ship and the way the society evolved ( if that's the right word) into a set up that can't but offend most modern readers. Whether it's likely or not is open to debate and I'm not exactly blaming Hugh for being as he is...but I can't like him much. I admire his determination, I'm moved by his reactions when the Truth is revealed....but he doesn't ever really engage my sympathies.

It's also surprising how much got by the editors; having two wives for instance. Obviously Orphans wasn't marketed as a juvenile. I can't see Scribners allowing this. Nor the violence.

Another theme which Heinlein would hammer home over and over in later books, is that logic is far from a firm support. See how the "rational" people in power deal with the sight of the stars; they are way too clever to fall for all the religious aspects of Jordan and the Trip....and far too clever to accept the real truth of things as they are. As the treacherous Narby smugly points out, "When an apparent fact runs contrary to logic and common sense, it's obvious that you have failed to interpret the fact correctly. The most obvious fact of nature is the reality of the Ship itself, solid, immutable, complete. Any so-called fact which appears to dispute that is bound to be an illusion. Knowing that, i looked for the trick behind the illusion and found it." "Wait," said Ertz, "Do you mean that you have been on the other side of the glass in the Captain's veranda and seen those trick light you talk about?" "No," admitted Narby, "it wasn't necessary. No doubt it would be easy enough to do so, but it isn't necessary. I don't have to cut myself to know that knives are sharp."

Oh boy.....whenever someone uses "common sense" as an argument clincher in a Heinlein book you just know they've labelled themselves as an idiot...

Jane

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: RAH-AIM chat notice 9/28 &30/00 Orphans of the Sky

Forum: alt.fan.heinlein

Date: 09/27/2000

Author: jeanette wolf <>

I just finished reading ROGUE SHIP by A.E. van Vogt that Chris C. suggested might be the generation ship book I remember from years ago. It was not the book--but people who enjoy ORPHANS OF THE SKY would find it interesting. I am not giving much away by saying that the beginning shows the first generations in a ship that could be the same as the one in ORPHANS. It came out a few years after Orphans but the two are dissimilar enough that van Vogt may not have read it--he certainly did not copy the story.

Nollaig suggested CAPTIVE UNIVERSE might be the book--but after further hints, I don't think so--I have it on order at the library.

I am still missing posts--so if anybody had other suggestions, I have not seen them.

Jeanette--who also finds Joe-Jim one of RAH's most interesting characters

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: RAH-AIM chat notice 9/28 &30/00 Orphans of the Sky

Forum: alt.fan.heinlein

Date: 09/28/2000

Author: Andrew Foley

jeanette wolf wrote in message <10264-39D2E031-87@storefull-145.iap.bryant.webtv.net>...

<Nollaig suggested CAPTIVE UNIVERSE might be the book--but after further hints, I don't think so--I have it on order at the library.>>

Another "generation starship" book that you might try is _Non-Stop_ by Brian Aldiss. It may not be the one you're looking for either, but it's worth reading. In the US it was given the title _Starship_.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: RAH-AIM chat notice 9/28 &30/00 Orphans of the Sky

Forum: alt.fan.heinlein

Date: 09/28/2000

Author: labert

ddavitt wrote in message

snip

>but he doesn't ever really engage my sympathies.

snip

>Another theme which Heinlein would hammer home over and over in later books, is

>that logic is far from a firm support. See how the "rational" people in power deal

>with the sight of the stars; they are way too clever to fall for all the religious

>aspects of Jordan and the Trip....and far too clever to accept the real truth of

>things as they are.

snip

>Oh boy.....whenever someone uses "common sense" as an argument clincher in a

>Heinlein book you just know they've labelled themselves as an idiot...

>Jane

I see this somewhat differently, Jane. Hugh represents the "correct" way to be rational, while the "scientists" show that a faith in reason can be delusional, if one doesn't abide by all the precepts necessary. One cannot take preconceptions into the process of observation and data gathering. They do, and cannot therefore apply reason to come to an answer that accomodates the real facts. Hugh, without "sufficient" pre-programming by the scientist class, uses an open mind in interpreting the data, and arrives at a conclusion that sets aside society's ideas, and strikes a new path. Such leaps were necessary for Galileo and Darwin as well.

Thus, RAH validates reason, rather than criticizing it. IMO, of course.

labert

"Nothing is the reason we are here, oh nothin at all. . ."

- Big Head Todd and the Monsters: "Circle"

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: RAH-AIM chat notice 9/28 &30/00 Orphans of the Sky

Forum: alt.fan.heinlein

Date: 09/28/2000

Author: ddavitt <ddavitt@netcom.ca>

labert wrote:

>I see this somewhat differently, Jane. Hugh represents the "correct" way

>to be rational, while the "scientists" show that a faith in reason can be

>delusional, if one doesn't abide by all the precepts necessary. One cannot

>take preconceptions into the process of observation and data gathering.

>They do, and cannot therefore apply reason to come to an answer that

>accomodates the real facts. Hugh, without "sufficient" pre-programming by

>the scientist class, uses an open mind in interpreting the data, and arrives

>at a conclusion that sets aside society's ideas, and strikes a new path.

>Such leaps were necessary for Galileo and Darwin as well.

>Thus, RAH validates reason, rather than criticizing it. IMO, of course.

Oh, I agree with you....but those scientists would have been certain that their logic was pure and unsullied and therefore their conclusions were valid. In some ways you can see their point; Hugh makes a leap of faith it seems to me; they could have been tiny light bulbs after all...the error the scientists made was not checking but assuming. As Heinlein put it in Red Planet, "the "common sense" mind does not stoop to logic." This is interesting when you consider that in other books, like Tunnel, he's equally scathing about logic as a reasoning tool.... Hugh was correct as it happens but he's going off what Joe-Jim tell him ( side note; should that be 'tells' him? Hmm...one person or two?). I don't think he really works it out for himself all that much, it's the idea and the adventure that appeal to him.

Jane

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Go To Current A.F.H. Postings
Go To Discussion Log
Here Begins The Previous 'Orphans Of the Sky' thread From A.F.H.
9/18/2000 12:08:03 PM Opening "System Log 9/18/2000 (preOrph)"
Subject: Orphans of the Sky
From: "Jim Bilbrey" toby@hsonline.net
Date: Fri, Aug 18, 2000 10:31 PM
Message-id: <399e64f2$0$61813$7bbe8f7d@news.hsonline.net>
Dear fellow Heinlein fans,
I hadn't read Orphans of the Sky for about 15 or twenty years, and just picked it off my bookshelf for my bedtime reading the other day. I guess I was too young when I read it the first time to appreciate what an amazing book it was. Why don't we hear folks raving about it more?
Jim Bilbrey
-----------------
Jim Bilbrey, Ph.D.
www.geocities.com/westhollywood/4254.care.htm
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Orphans of the Sky
From: ddavitt ddavitt@netcom.ca
Date: Sat, Aug 19, 2000 5:05 AM
Message-id: <399E77F0.54C48485@netcom.ca>
Jim Bilbrey wrote:
>Dear fellow Heinlein fans,
> I hadn't read Orphans of the Sky for about 15 or twenty years, and just
>picked it off my bookshelf for my bedtime reading the other day. I guess I
>was too young when I read it the first time to appreciate what an amazing
>book it was. Why don't we hear folks raving about it more?
>Jim Bilbrey
>
What bits about it did you particularly enjoy Jim? I liked the premise and the sense of wonder Hugh feels when the truth dawns on him - and some of the characters are great. However, I've always had a problem accepting the rapid slide into a primitive society and the treatment of women in general and by Hugh in particular.
Some critics have said it should have stopped after Universe and that adding on Common Sense weakened it; what do you think of that opinion?
Jane
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Orphans of the Sky
From: bpral22169@aol.com (BPRAL22169)
Date: Sun, Aug 20, 2000 11:31 AM
Message-id: <20000820143108.08157.00000089@ng-fd1.aol.com>
>I've always had a problem accepting the rapid
>slide into a primitive society
What rapid? The stories are set quite some time -- possibly even hundreds of years -- after the mutiny caused the basis of their society to be lost. Historically, cultural changes can happen very very rapidly. I think the Horse culture in north america, for example, started, flourished, and died off in a period of about 50 years.
Bill
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Orphans of the Sky
From: prnzofthvs1@aol.comspamkill (Steve)
Date: Sun, Aug 20, 2000 2:13 PM
Message-id: <20000820171344.22246.00000039@ng-fg1.aol.com>
Bill said:
>I think the Horse
>culture in north america, for example, started, flourished, and died off in a
>period of about 50 years.
>Bill
>
How do you define the "horse culture?" the Indians used them for decades, if not centuries, as a principle mode of swift travel. The white people who came to America used them as an invaluable asset for even longer. From the earliest settlers in Virginia (the so-called "cavalier" class) up until the late 19th century, horses were the preferred mode for personal travel.
Steve
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Orphans of the Sky
From: bpral22169@aol.com (BPRAL22169)
Date: Sun, Aug 20, 2000 5:00 PM
Message-id: <20000820200049.27535.00000334@ng-co1.aol.com>
"Horse culture" is a specific anthropology term for a specific culture that flourished briefly among Amerinds in the American plains shortly after the Spanish reintroduced horses into North America (they were indigenous here but the native strains had died out). What I've said is almost everything I know about it, though I could ask a knowledgeable friend if there is interest in exploring it further.
Bill
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Orphans of the Sky
From: Gordon G. Sollars gsollars@pobox.com
Date: Sun, Aug 20, 2000 6:19 PM
Message-id: <MPG.140a4d8222c5ea4c98969f@news.nji.com>
In article <20000820200049.27535.00000334@ng-co1.aol.com>, BPRAL22169 writes...
>"Horse culture" is a specific anthropology term for a specific culture that
I thought it was a culture that lead to jokes like, "She was a rancher's daughter, so all the horsemen knew her!"
--
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Orphans of the Sky
From: prnzofthvs1@aol.comspamkill (Steve)
Date: Mon, Aug 21, 2000 12:08 AM
Message-id: <20000821030808.04529.00000734@ng-bd1.aol.com>
Bill said:
<snip>
>What I've said is almost everything I know
>about it, though I could ask a knowledgeable friend if there is interest in
>exploring it further.
Bill, unless others wish to pursue it further, don't do so on my account. I just wanted to be clear about what you meant specifically with the term. Thanks for the info!
I am kind of perplexed at the short period of time cited, though.
Steve
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Orphans of the Sky
From: Debbie Cusick dacusick@us.ibm.com
Date: Mon, Aug 21, 2000 10:05 AM
Message-id: <39A16167.6ED12549@us.ibm.com>
BPRAL22169 wrote:
>
>"Horse culture" is a specific anthropology term for a specific culture that
>flourished briefly among Amerinds in the American plains shortly after the
>Spanish reintroduced horses into North America (they were indigenous here but
>the native strains had died out).
From www.brittanica.com:
"Great Basin Indians of the early historic period (1800-50) were divided into horse-using and non-horse-using groups. Horse-using groups generally occupied the northern and eastern sections of the Great Basin culture area. The Southern Ute and Eastern Shoshoni were among the first Indians north of the Spanish settlements of New Mexico to obtain horses, perhaps as early as 1680. There is some evidence that these bands acted as middlemen in the transmission of horses and horse culture from New Mexico to the northern Plains in the 1700s. As the Northern Shoshoni of Idaho obtained horses in the 18th century, they were joined by Northern Paiute speakers from eastern Oregon and northern Nevada to form the Shohoni-Bannock bands of historic times. By 1800, the Southern and Northern Ute, the Ute of central Utah, the Eastern Shoshoni, the Lemhi Shoshoni, and the Shoshoni-Bannock were well equipped with horses, lived in skin tepees, and were oriented toward the Great Plains, the pursuit of bison, and warfare with other tribes. To the south and west in the Great Basin proper and on the western Colorado Plateau, the people did not take up the use of horses until 1850-60. The Washo did not use horses prior to white settlement, and rarely used them thereafter."
So it appears that for the last people to obtain horses the horse culture probably lasted no more than 50 years, but for the earliest horse adopters it was closer to 200+ years, and the later adopters of the horse probably had the earlier adopters as examples to follow. Nonetheless, it was still a fairly short-lived culture.
--
Debbie
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Orphans of the Sky
From: bpral22169@aol.com (BPRAL22169)
Date: Mon, Aug 21, 2000 8:25 PM
Message-id: <20000821232500.28945.00000075@ng-fe1.aol.com>
Thanks very much for the info, Debbie. I think the 200 year maximum length doesn't vitiate my main point, which was that cultures can establish themselves very quickly.
Bill
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Orphans of the Sky
From: prnzofthvs1@aol.comspamkill (Steve)
Date: Mon, Aug 21, 2000 11:30 PM
Message-id: <20000822023056.19287.00000096@ng-cm1.aol.com>
>Thanks very much for the info, Debbie. I think the 200 year maximum length
>doesn't vitiate my main point, which was that cultures can establish
>themselves
>very quickly.
>Bill
>
A case in point is the story of the "Thui," (sp?) a little known and quite small tribe in Africa. Through the machinations of the politicans and businessmen in their country, they were moved from their ancient tribal lands, which were quite bountiful in flora and fauna, and resettled to a desolate, hard-scrabble area. Almost no government assistance was provided to help them adjust to their lot, and none to provide them with means of feeding themselves in this barren land. Within only 2-3 generations, they had regressed to the point that the word for *love* had disappeared from their vocabulary, it was everyone for him/herself, and children as young as 6 were thrust out to make their own way. Adversity is said to build character, but with no viable hope for anything better in the future, that character quickly crumbles into savagery.
Steve
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Orphans of the Sky
From: willreich_77@my-deja.com
Date: Sun, Aug 20, 2000 8:33 PM
Message-id: <8nq7tu$486$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
In article <20000820171344.22246.00000039@ng-fg1.aol.com>, prnzofthvs1@aol.comspamkill (Steve) wrote:
>Bill said:
>
>>I think the Horse
>>culture in north america, for example, started, flourished, and died off in a
>>period of about 50 years.
>>Bill
>>
>
>How do you define the "horse culture?" the Indians used them for decades, if
>not centuries, as a principle mode of swift travel. The white people who came
>to America used them as an invaluable asset for even longer. From the earliest
>settlers in Virginia (the so-called "cavalier" class) up until the late 19th
>century, horses were the preferred mode for personal travel.
>
>Steve
I would imagine that we are talking about the bison-hunting horse culture of the plains tribes here. That would have started in the Eighteenth Century as horses got away from and were 'liberated' from Spanish settlements in northern Mexico and the southwest. One could put a symbolic end to it at Wounded Knee. That would make it a very short- lived culture but nowhere NEAR as brief as fifty years. Several generations were born, lived and died thinking of it as their traditional way of life. The Lakota of the late Nineteenth Century really believed that their burial grounds in the Black Hills were ancient, even though any Lakota who went there in 1720 would have been killed or driven away by the tribes whom they later displaced. It all depends on your conception of ancient. We have NO old buildings in New Haven by British standards. However, I have friends from the far west who think of New Haven as quaint and old. I hope they don't think I am quaint and old.
--
Will
On being told by a fellow pallbearer that he would sure love a cold beer: "So would the Babe" - Jumping Joe Dugan at Ruth's funeral
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Orphans of the Sky
From: ddavitt ddavitt@netcom.ca
Date: Sun, Aug 20, 2000 5:50 PM
Message-id: <39A07CD3.680B3B07@netcom.ca>
BPRAL22169 wrote:
>>I've always had a problem accepting the rapid
>>slide into a primitive society
>
>What rapid? The stories are set quite some time -- possibly even hundreds of
>years -- after the mutiny caused the basis of their society to be lost.
>Historically, cultural changes can happen very very rapidly. I think the Horse
>culture in north america, for example, started, flourished, and died off in a
>period of about 50 years.
>Bill
I don't know if it says how long it's been...I'd have to browse through the book. My point is that this was a ship which set off with men and women being equal ( this is based on the fact that we know a little about the earth at the time it was launched). I cannot see _why_ this would change because of the mutiny. Radiation affecting brains maybe?
I recall a bit where someone who knows the truth watches as people around him ( presumably children born on board) gradually lose track of the truth of the ship's nature and the purpose of the trip; this indicates that the change in attitudes began quite quickly but of course we don't know how long it took for the society to become as it is at the start of the book; static, petrified and ultimately doomed. I get the impression that things have been the way they are for a long time; why did it move in one direction then freeze?
It is of course, a closed system; it's interesting to compare this set up and the treatment of women with those in MIAHM and Logic of Empire. In the latter two stories the system is not so closed but women are in short supply. In Moon they are treated with reverence, in Logic it's not so clear cut. However, in neither have women become nameless chattels.
Perhaps I'm harping on this too much but I wonder why Heinlein chose to depict the society this way; to emphasise how things had deteriorated? Hugh, the potential liberator, is no better than the rest; he only manages to save a handful of people from the ship and there is no indication that the life of a female is going to be any better on the new planet. As we find out in TEFL, there is no glittering future for them or their descendants...maybe this is why I don't read it often; it's a little depressing.
Jane
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Orphans of the Sky
From: prnzofthvs1@aol.comspamkill (Steve)
Date: Mon, Aug 21, 2000 12:50 AM
Message-id: <20000821035047.04529.00000739@ng-bd1.aol.com>
Jane pondered:
>I don't know if it says how long it's been...I'd have to browse through the
>book.
I just finished re-reading this one yesterday. (ah, the joys of being retired and having lots of spare time!) At the time of the story, there had been no specified number of generations, but the impression was that it had been quite a few (perhaps as many as several dozens).
>My point is that this was a ship which set off with men and women being equal
>(this is based on the fact that we know a little about the earth at the time
>it was launched).
By the time the story takes place, the society on board had regressed to the point of our own feudalistic times, IMO. The only folks who had ANY real knowledge of the sciences and, one would think, the history of their race, were the scientists, who were actually quite like feudal lords. Even these "enlightened" folk had gotten to the point that they regarded the scientific writings to be rituals and religious trappings, with no real basis in reality.
>I cannot see _why_ this would change because of the mutiny. Radiation
>affecting brains maybe?
Perhaps a return to the old hunter-gatherer mode of society? Certainly, with the Muties around, the largest and strongest would predominate in the society. The women would naturally sink to second-level status, in such a society, being smaller and weaker physically. (not my preference, mind you, just an observation - no feminist flames, please!)
Also, the last captain who remembered the start of the journey, took over command after the mutiny and the resulting chaos. He was, at the time of the mutiny, a "Storekeeper Ordinary." If one relates this to present day military ranks, he would have been only a couple levels above the lowest enlisted rank. As a storekeeper, (again drawing from my own Navy experience) he would not have been, usually, a person of high intelligence. (I know, there are SK's in the Navy who are quite bright; the majority, however, are not) Having a leader who had no scientific or scholarly background would have put everyone at a great disadvantage. All of the officers had been killed, one would assume, and there was no pool of highly trained and skilled personnel left. Left to fend for themselves, in a survival situation, "book-larnin" would have naturally been a low priority subject for almost all the survivors.
Compare to the quick degeneration of society and education in the excellent book "Earth Abides." By the time the protaganist dies, that society has regressed to primitives, barely managing to eke out an existence, and totally illiterate. Also, most of the books had been donated to the converter to provide power.
<p;snip>
>we don't know how long it took for the society to
>become as it is at the start of the book; static, petrified and ultimately
>doomed.
>I get the impression that things have been the way they are for a long time;
>why did it move in one direction then freeze?
Perhaps because there were no real challenges to the society. The Muties only took an occasional child or a few head of livestock; they weren't a tremendous threat, and therefore didn't stimulate progress in ways to wipe them out. Also, the strangle hold of the scientists, who had a vested interest in keeping the majority subservient and syphoning off the intelligent individuals, doesn't allow for the majority to have any chance at developing intellectually.
<snip>
>Hugh, the potential
>liberator, is no better than the rest; he only manages to save a handful of
>people
>from the ship and there is no indication that the life of a female is going
>to be
>any better on the new planet.
Hugh is a product of his environment. He advances mentally, but sees no reason to change his attitudes socially. *This is the way it works, why change it?* Of course, once they reach the new planet, there is hope that their society will, in time, progress socially, as well as intellectually, as ours has here on earth. There will be new challenges to stimulate both types of change.
>As we find out in TEFL, there is no glittering future
>for them or their descendants...maybe this is why I don't read it often; it's
>a little depressing.
No, there is no glittering future; there is, however, a new freedom. They have a chance to conquer a new world, face new hazards, develop new ways of dealing with those hazards and challenges. I find it no more depressing than studying the history of our own planet. They won't be living in suburban estates for a long, long time, but the opportunity to reach that state is wide open!
Steve
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Orphans of the Sky
From: ddavitt ddavitt@netcom.ca
Date: Mon, Aug 21, 2000 9:25 AM
Message-id: <39A157FB.6570E886@netcom.ca>
Steve wrote:big snips
>
>
>Perhaps a return to the old hunter-gatherer mode of society? Certainly, with
>the Muties around, the largest and strongest would predominate in the society.
>The women would naturally sink to second-level status, in such a society, being
>smaller and weaker physically. (not my preference, mind you, just an
>observation - no feminist flames, please!)
>
>Also, the last captain who remembered the start of the journey, took over
>command after the mutiny and the resulting chaos. He was, at the time of the
>mutiny, a "Storekeeper Ordinary." snip
>Having a leader who had no scientific or scholarly background would have put
>everyone at a great disadvantage. All of the officers had been killed, one
>would assume, and there was no pool of highly trained and skilled personnel
>left. Left to fend for themselves, in a survival situation, "book-larnin" would
>have naturally been a low priority subject for almost all the survivors.
>
>Compare to the quick degeneration of society and education in the excellent
>book "Earth Abides." By the time the protaganist dies, that society has
>regressed to primitives, barely managing to eke out an existence, and totally
>illiterate. Also, most of the books had been donated to the converter to
>provide power.
>
>
You make some good points Steve and I agree with what you're saying. What I don't ( and won't!) accept is that the slide back was inevitable. As we see in Tunnel, women are quite capable of being hunters themselves. Suppose the Captain had been female and had survived; might we have ended up with the situation turned on its head? Idle speculation maybe....
I remember Earth Abides; haven't read it for a long time though; I might go and dig it off the shelves, it was a good book.
Jane
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Orphans of the Sky
From: William Hughes _lsc2838r@flash.net
Date: Mon, Aug 21, 2000 5:30 PM
Message-id: <mbi3qsgvvagoujk1vlasti3jvka7s8l833@4ax.com>
On Mon, 21 Aug 2000 12:25:31 -0400, in alt.fan.heinlein ddavitt <ddavitt@netcom.ca>wrote:
>You make some good points Steve and I agree with what you're saying. What I don't (
>and won't!) accept is that the slide back was inevitable. As we see in Tunnel,
>women are quite capable of being hunters themselves. Suppose the Captain had been
>female and had survived; might we have ended up with the situation turned on its
>head? Idle speculation maybe....
Jane, the women in Tunnel were trained survival experts -- they were lost on their final exam, after all. On the other hand, the women from Orphans had no known skills what-so-ever. Makes a difference, IMO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Orphans of the Sky
From: "Nuclear Waste" babybear@2z.net
Date: Mon, Aug 21, 2000 7:03 PM
Message-id: <39a1df82@news.2z.net>
"William Hughes" <_lsc2838r@flash.net>wrote in message news:mbi3qsgvvagoujk1vlasti3jvka7s8l833@4ax.com...
>On Mon, 21 Aug 2000 12:25:31 -0400, in alt.fan.heinlein ddavitt
><ddavitt@netcom.ca>wrote:
>
>>You make some good points Steve and I agree with what you're saying.
>>What I don't (and won't!) accept is that the slide back was inevitable. As we see in Tunnel,
>>women are quite capable of being hunters themselves. Suppose the Captain had been
>>female and had survived; might we have ended up with the situation turned on its
>>head? Idle speculation maybe....
>
>Jane, the women in Tunnel were trained survival experts -- they were lost on
>their final exam, after all. On the other hand, the women from Orphans had no
>known skills what-so-ever. Makes a difference, IMO.
I see what you are saying, however, do you really think the original women (as they were selected for intelligence and utility as crewmembers) would not have passed any skills on to their daughters?
NW
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Orphans of the Sky
From: William Hughes _lsc2838r@flash.net
Date: Tue, Aug 22, 2000 3:21 AM
Message-id: <6ok4qssvj4g6toev5ll1fe3b8ji3hoc8an@4ax.com>
On Mon, 21 Aug 2000 21:03:21 -0500, in alt.fan.heinlein "Nuclear Waste" <babybear@2z.net>wrote:
>"William Hughes" <_lsc2838r@flash.net>wrote in message
>news:mbi3qsgvvagoujk1vlasti3jvka7s8l833@4ax.com...
>>On Mon, 21 Aug 2000 12:25:31 -0400, in alt.fan.heinlein ddavitt
>><ddavitt@netcom.ca>wrote:
>>
>>>You make some good points Steve and I agree with what you're saying.
>>>What I don't (and won't!) accept is that the slide back was inevitable. As we see in Tunnel,
>>>women are quite capable of being hunters themselves. Suppose the Captain had been
>>>female and had survived; might we have ended up with the situation turned on its
>>>head? Idle speculation maybe....
>>
>>Jane, the women in Tunnel were trained survival experts -- they were lost on
>>their final exam, after all. On the other hand, the women from Orphans had no
>>known skills what-so-ever. Makes a difference, IMO.
>
>I see what you are saying, however, do you really think the original women
>(as they were selected for intelligence and utility as crewmembers) would
>not have passed any skills on to their daughters?
To their daughters, possibly. To their g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-granddaughters, unlikely. Having intelligence is one thing, but having the ability to effectively use that intelligence in the face of a strictly patriarchal society (and the threat of the Converter if found to be "deviant") is something else. The women of Orphans - and the men, for that matter - had not far to fall to become the savages rediscovered umpteen more generations later.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Orphans of the Sky
From: ddavitt ddavitt@netcom.ca
Date: Tue, Aug 22, 2000 9:54 AM
Message-id: <39A2B05C.1B7CE852@netcom.ca>
William Hughes wrote:
>>
>>I see what you are saying, however, do you really think the original women
>>(as they were selected for intelligence and utility as crewmembers) would
>>not have passed any skills on to their daughters?
>
>To their daughters, possibly. To their g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-granddaughters,
>unlikely. Having intelligence is one thing, but having the ability to
>effectively use that intelligence in the face of a strictly patriarchal society
>(and the threat of the Converter if found to be "deviant") is something else.
>The women of Orphans - and the men, for that matter - had not far to fall to
>become the savages rediscovered umpteen more generations later.
You're missing the point. The original women pass it on to their daughters. Who pass it on to their daughters...and so on. There would inevitably be some corruption of the message but how did it _get_ to be patriarchal? What got passed onto the sons that made them change? What caused the change? This is what no one seems able to answer. The Mutiny, the radiation, the loss of the concept that they were on a ship are all factors but without them are you saying that the change would still have taken place?
Jane
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Orphans of the Sky
From: William Hughes _lsc2838r@flash.net
Date: Tue, Aug 22, 2000 5:09 PM
Message-id: <lf56qs4irnkufu7j635ikmn9i2451skq51@4ax.com> On Tue, 22 Aug 2000 12:54:52 -0400, in alt.fan.heinlein ddavitt <ddavitt@netcom.ca>wrote:
>William Hughes wrote:
>
>>>
>>>I see what you are saying, however, do you really think the original women
>>>(as they were selected for intelligence and utility as crewmembers) would
>>>not have passed any skills on to their daughters?
>>
>>To their daughters, possibly. To their g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-granddaughters,
>>unlikely. Having intelligence is one thing, but having the ability to
>>effectively use that intelligence in the face of a strictly patriarchal society
>>(and the threat of the Converter if found to be "deviant") is something else.
>>The women of Orphans - and the men, for that matter - had not far to fall to
>>become the savages rediscovered umpteen more generations later.
>
>You're missing the point. The original women pass it on to their daughters. Who
>pass it on to their daughters...and so on. There would inevitably be some
>corruption of the message but how did it _get_ to be patriarchal? What got passed
>onto the sons that made them change? What caused the change? This is what no one
>seems able to answer. The Mutiny, the radiation, the loss of the concept that they
>were on a ship are all factors but without them are you saying that the change
>would still have taken place?
>
>Jane
Sorry. I was talking about the degeneration of the planetary colony, not the ship.
As far as the ship goes, I would assume that the radiation problems led to the classic case that the women had to be protected for their breeding ability - therefore not permitted to take any risks. Eventually, they become a totally subservient class.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Orphans of the Sky
From: prnzofthvs1@aol.comspamkill (Steve)
Date: Tue, Aug 22, 2000 1:23 AM
Message-id: <20000822042316.19287.00000113@ng-cm1.aol.com>
Monsieur Hughes stated:
>Jane, the women in Tunnel were trained survival experts -- they were lost on
>their final exam, after all. On the other hand, the women from Orphans had no
>known skills what-so-ever. Makes a difference, IMO.
I beg to disagree; I'm sure that many of the original female members of the company were quite educated and skilled, if for no other reason than that the progenitors of the expedition would want to send along good breeding stock, of both genders. They were on a colonization expedition, not just a ride in the park for sightseeing.
You don't have prize thoroughbreds mating with glue-factory candidates.
Steve
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Orphans of the Sky
From: William Hughes _lsc2838r@flash.net
Date: Tue, Aug 22, 2000 3:30 AM
Message-id: <86l4qsoqledbt1l81a9mgod6hf3mi03vlh@4ax.com>
On 22 Aug 2000 08:23:16 GMT, in alt.fan.heinlein prnzofthvs1@aol.comspamkill (Steve) wrote:
>Monsieur Hughes stated:
>
>>Jane, the women in Tunnel were trained survival experts -- they were lost on
>>their final exam, after all. On the other hand, the women from Orphans had no
>>known skills what-so-ever. Makes a difference, IMO.
>
>I beg to disagree; I'm sure that many of the original female members of the
>company were quite educated and skilled, if for no other reason than that the
>progenitors of the expedition would want to send along good breeding stock, of
>both genders. They were on a colonization expedition, not just a ride in the
>park for sightseeing.
>
>You don't have prize thoroughbreds mating with glue-factory candidates.
I agree that the women of Orphans were intelligent, but they had no chance to exercise that intelligence in the face of the society that evolved on board the ship. Once marooned on the lpanet, they had no skills to retain, so a regression to pure survival was inevitable.
Most of the people on this newsgroup are highly intelligent, but how many could retain a civilisation if dumped on an alien planet with little to no supplies? Pure survival takes a lot of effort, particularly given the small seed group.
I'd be interested in a follow-up visit to the colony after another thousand years or so - maybe by then a new civilisation would have arisen.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Orphans of the Sky
From: Jon Patton Ogden II jon@ogdenco.net
Date: Mon, Aug 21, 2000 9:37 PM
Message-id: <rgKiOaSZd2mVSzstxU8fBdr6raEB@4ax.com>
On the Mon, 21 Aug 2000 12:25:31 -0400, ddavitt <ddavitt@netcom.ca> told us all:
>
>
>You make some good points Steve and I agree with what you're saying. What I don't (
>and won't!) accept is that the slide back was inevitable. As we see in Tunnel,
>women are quite capable of being hunters themselves. Suppose the Captain had been
>female and had survived; might we have ended up with the situation turned on its
>head? Idle speculation maybe....
If women cannot turn off their ability to reproduce, that will keep them from being effective hunters relatively quickly, won't it?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Orphans of the Sky
From: ddavitt ddavitt@netcom.ca
Date: Tue, Aug 22, 2000 9:50 AM
Message-id: <39A2AF51.339C26E2@netcom.ca>
Jon Patton Ogden II wrote:
>
>
>If women cannot turn off their ability to reproduce, that will keep
>them from being effective hunters relatively quickly, won't it?
How do we know they couldn't? This was a generation starship, designed to be many years on its voyage but I can't believe that they would have allowed unlimited reproduction; they needed children but some form of birth control would have been required to preserve a balance. I accept that anything like the Pill or condoms would have been used up eventually but the rhythm method is always available. It's chancy but if used correctly it would at least have cut down on unplanned pregnancies. The knowledge would certainly have been there at the start of the trip and this is the sort of thing that gets passed down by mothers to daughters when all other knowledge is lost.
Besides, what hunting? We're on a ship; they had farms but they hardly had wide open tracts of forest filled with dangerous animals......the muties were a danger but they seemed to keep to themselves mostly.
Jane
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Orphans of the Sky
From: Jon Patton Ogden II jon@ogdenco.net
Date: Tue, Aug 22, 2000 4:43 PM
Message-id: <XA2jOYILW9lZyHqtoukMczZgYSTl@4ax.com>
On the Tue, 22 Aug 2000 12:50:25 -0400, ddavitt <ddavitt@netcom.ca> told us all:
>Jon Patton Ogden II wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>If women cannot turn off their ability to reproduce, that will keep
>>them from being effective hunters relatively quickly, won't it?
>
>How do we know they couldn't? This was a generation starship, designed to be many years
>on its voyage but I can't believe that they would have allowed unlimited reproduction;
>they needed children but some form of birth control would have been required to preserve
>a balance. I accept that anything like the Pill or condoms would have been used up
>eventually but the rhythm method is always available. It's chancy but if used correctly
>it would at least have cut down on unplanned pregnancies.
The medical term for women who use the rhythm method is "mother." As a form of birth-control, a doctor told me that it ranked right up there with coca-cola douches.
>The knowledge would certainly
>have been there at the start of the trip and this is the sort of thing that gets passed
>down by mothers to daughters when all other knowledge is lost.
>
>Besides, what hunting?
The hunting you brought into the conversation when you said: " As we see in Tunnel, women are quite capable of being hunters themselves." However, I was using it as a metaphor for all of the things that require dexterity, strength, and long-term undistracted focus. Pregnant and nursing women need to have interference run for them, or there won't be any mothers or daughters.
>We're on a ship; they had farms but they hardly had wide open
>tracts of forest filled with dangerous animals......the muties were a danger but they
>seemed to keep to themselves mostly.
Could be -- and maybe it was the warriors amonth the men who taught the muties to keep to themselves? Unless of course the mutuation including non-combativeness -- in which case, the Muties would have gone the way of the Neanderthals, wouldn't they?
Jon
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Orphans of the Sky
From: ddavitt ddavitt@netcom.ca
Date: Tue, Aug 22, 2000 7:21 PM
Message-id: <39A33544.22A415B7@netcom.ca>
Jon Patton Ogden II wrote:
On the Tue, 22 Aug 2000 12:50:25 -0400, ddavitt <ddavitt@netcom.ca>
>told us all:
>I accept that anything like the Pill or condoms would have been used up
>>eventually but the rhythm method is always available. It's chancy but if used correctly
>>it would at least have cut down on unplanned pregnancies.
>
>The medical term for women who use the rhythm method is "mother." As a
>form of birth-control, a doctor told me that it ranked right up there
>with coca-cola douches.
>
>
>
>Jon
Nonsense. This would mean that a woman was fertile all day every day; simply not the case. There are times in the menstrual cycle when you just aren't going to get pregnant. Knowing when they are is what has helped me _get_ pregnant, very quickly, 5 times. I worked out the days and ...well...we don't need all the details do we?
It's chancy, as I said, because someone who doesn't have regular periods can't calculate the days with any reliability. I would never advocate using it as a way of contraception for someone desperate to avoid pregnancy but it's better than nothing ( which is what a lot of women in the world sadly have) and it does work under the right circumstances. I'd be interested in just when it was fully understood; certainly all those Victorian mothers of 13 might have benefited from it.
Jane
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Orphans of the Sky
From: prnzofthvs1@aol.comspamkill (Steve)
Date: Tue, Aug 22, 2000 10:39 PM
Message-id: <20000823013918.20011.00000126@ng-fg1.aol.com>
Jane said:
>Nonsense. This would mean that a woman was fertile all day every day; simply
>not the case.
>There are times in the menstrual cycle when you just aren't going to get
>pregnant. Knowing
>when they are is what has helped me _get_ pregnant, very quickly, 5 times. I
>worked out the days and
One thing you have that the women on the ship didn't have is clocks and calendars. Also, how do we know what effect the radiation had on the menstrual cycle? There are women today who have highly irregular cycles, even with all the medical technology in existence.
Another thing: in the beginning of the book, we learn right away that counting is a skill that is very rare, except for those who are training for the priesthood, er, I mean, to be scientists. Alan is very proud, as a fully mature male, that he can count to ten.
Steve
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Orphans of the Sky
From: Jamie Hart jamie@niche-cs.com
Date: Wed, Aug 23, 2000 2:09 AM
Message-id: <dt47qssnbk6rcn2ko9hruu8rmunr7keljp@4ax.com>
>I'd be
>interested in just when it was fully understood; certainly all those Victorian mothers of 13
>might have benefited from it.
Didn't Maureen mention this in tSBtS? I don't have access to my books here but I remember a mention of finding out about it after her second (third?) child and thereafter never failing to "ring the cash register" if they wanted to.
I seem to remember that she also worked out a chart for one of her daughters (Nancy?).
No doubt someone with the book to hand can find the exact passage.
>
>Jane
>
Jamie
-----------------------------
4A 61 6D 69 65 20 48 61 72 74
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Orphans of the Sky
From: Jon Patton Ogden II jon@ogdenco.net
Date: Wed, Aug 23, 2000 3:29 AM
Message-id: <+KSjOT2c7dNt0IVU378bY8bduE+w@4ax.com>
On the Tue, 22 Aug 2000 22:21:56 -0400, ddavitt <ddavitt@netcom.ca> told us all:
>Jon Patton Ogden II wrote:
>
>>On the Tue, 22 Aug 2000 12:50:25 -0400, ddavitt <ddavitt@netcom.ca>
>>told us all:
>> I accept that anything like the Pill or condoms would have been used up
>>>eventually but the rhythm method is always available. It's chancy but if used correctly
>>>it would at least have cut down on unplanned pregnancies.
>>
>>The medical term for women who use the rhythm method is "mother." As a
>>form of birth-control, a doctor told me that it ranked right up there
>>with coca-cola douches.
>>
>>
>>
>>Jon
>
>Nonsense. This would mean that a woman was fertile all day every day; simply not the case.
Nope, it simply means that there is a very real chance that a woman will miscalculate. She does not have to be fertile all day every day -- just for part of the time within a day or so after she has sexual congress.
>There are times in the menstrual cycle when you just aren't going to get pregnant. Knowing
>when they are is what has helped me _get_ pregnant, very quickly, 5 times. I worked out the
>days and ...well...we don't need all the details do we?
>
>It's chancy, as I said, because someone who doesn't have regular periods can't calculate the
>days with any reliability.
The odds of surviving any particular round of Russian Roulette are in one's favor, but the technical term for someone who plays it month in and month out is "corpse."
>I would never advocate using it as a way of contraception for
>someone desperate to avoid pregnancy but it's better than nothing ( which is what a lot of
>women in the world sadly have) and it does work under the right circumstances.
So do coca-cola douches, Jane and they are - or at least were 30 years ago
I'd be interested in just when it was fully understood; certainly all those Victorian mothers of 13
>might have benefited from it.
I am quite sure that the Victorians understood the menstrual cycle quite well. And I know they had better means of contraception available. What they didn't have that we do is abortion on demand. in the U.S., 25% of all pregnancies are terminated by choice. otherwise we'd have a helluvalot of 13 year old mothers.
Jon
who doesn't think that disliking facts make them nonsense.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Orphans of the Sky
From: ddavitt ddavitt@netcom.ca
Date: Wed, Aug 23, 2000 8:55 AM
Message-id: <39A3F3D5.90C55945@netcom.ca>
Jamie Hart wrote:
>
>Didn't Maureen mention this in tSBtS? I don't have access to my books
>here but I remember a mention of finding out about it after her second
>(third?) child and thereafter never failing to "ring the cash
>register" if they wanted to.
>
>I seem to remember that she also worked out a chart for one of her daughters (Nancy?).
>
>No doubt someone with the book to hand can find the exact passage.
>
>
Yes, you're right but Lazarus tells her so I'm not sure if it's knowledge that was available at the time or not. If it was, I would imagine Maureen would have already been aware of it. That said, Heinlein may not have researched it either...
"Do you remember the thumb rule I gave you to ensure, uh, 'ringing the cash register,' you called it?"
"Yes, indeed. You said to count fourteen days from onset of menses, then hit that day. And the day before and the day after if possible."
"Yes, that is how to get pregnant, a thumb rule. But it works the other way too. How not to get pregnant. If a woman is regular. If she is not abnormal in some way. Is Carol regular?"
"Like a pendulum. Twenty - eight days."
snip
" - if so, Carol can't get pregnant this week....and I'll be on the high seas the next time she is fertile. But this week a whole platoon of marines could not knock her up."
Jane
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Orphans of the Sky
From: prnzofthvs1@aol.comspamkill (Steve)
Date: Tue, Aug 22, 2000 1:20 AM
Message-id: <20000822042001.19287.00000112@ng-cm1.aol.com>
Jane said:
>You make some good points Steve and I agree with what you're saying. What I don't
>(and won't!) accept is that the slide back was inevitable.
I didn't state that it was inevitable; merely postulated some possible causes for it. Perhaps there were many other factors which the Master didn't feel the need to inform us about. (cheap trick, maybe, but he WAS writing a short novella type of story, not an opus manificus. - is that a word?) :o) <snip>
>Suppose the Captain had been
>female and had survived; might we have ended up with the situation turned on
>its head? Idle speculation maybe....
suppose, indeed; I think this could very well have occurred. If the female officers had been the majority of the surviving pool of expertise, why not?
>I remember Earth Abides; haven't read it for a long time though; I might go and dig
>it off the shelves, it was a good book.
I hope you've forgotten lots of it, as I had between first and second reading. It's one of those that is a treat to discover.
Steve
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Orphans of the Sky
From: Sean Gaeltach gaeltach@fan.net.au
Date: Mon, Aug 21, 2000 3:57 AM
Message-id: <8nr1v3$gn$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
Jane wrote: <snippins>
>It is of course, a closed system; it's interesting to compare this set up and the
>treatment of women with those in MIAHM and Logic of Empire.
Also, although it's not a closed system (but in a way it is), it would be interesting to speculate if the society in _Tunnel_ would have followed a similar path if they had not been rescued. I think probably not, but the elements were there for both mutiny, and descent into primitive beliefs. They had little in the way of books etc. certainly less than on the Vanguard. Even so, the society with Rod as mayor looked reasonably promising in the long-term. But who could say for sure if this would continue? I would have no difficulty in imagining Rod's great great grandson to be very similar in attitude to Hugh (if things deteriorated). Some of Rod's initial thoughts about women were not overly favourable after all (but he got better).
>Perhaps I'm harping on this too much but I wonder why Heinlein chose to depict the
>society this way; to emphasise how things had deteriorated? Hugh, the potential
>liberator, is no better than the rest; he only manages to save a handful of people
>from the ship and there is no indication that the life of a female is going to be
>any better on the new planet. As we find out in TEFL, there is no glittering future
>for them or their descendants...maybe this is why I don't read it often; it's a little depressing.
As much as I enjoy uplifting themes, I also appreciate more somber moments in Heinlein's stories. I think it adds beautiful balance, and drives home some important themes about what it takes to survive, or what it takes to be human, even in adversity. I think in Orphans however, we do catch a glimpse of women eventually coming into their own. The wild second wife of Hugh (the un-named one) has a certain streak in her which looks promising. Many centuries may have passed before the mention in TEFL, and who knows what may have happened before this?
Great thoughts Jane! I'm still thinking :-)
Sean
gaeltach@fan.net.au
**********************
.... and now for something completely different:
Are we not drawn onward, we few, drawn onward to new era?
**********************
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Orphans of the Sky
From: ddavitt ddavitt@netcom.ca
Date: Mon, Aug 21, 2000 9:36 AM
Message-id: <39A15A7D.D8B2796B@netcom.ca>
Sean Gaeltach wrote:
>Jane wrote:
>
><snippins>
>
>>It is of course, a closed system; it's interesting to compare this set up and the
>>treatment of women with those in MIAHM and Logic of Empire.
>
>Also, although it's not a closed system (but in a way it is), it
>would be interesting to speculate if the society in _Tunnel_ would have
>followed a similar path if they had not been rescued. I think
>probably not, but the elements were there for both mutiny, and descent
>into primitive beliefs. They had little in the way of books etc.
>certainly less than on the Vanguard. Even so, the society with Rod as
>mayor looked reasonably promising in the long-term. But who could say
>for sure if this would continue? I would have no difficulty in imagining
>Rod's great great grandson to be very similar in attitude to Hugh (if
>things deteriorated). Some of Rod's initial thoughts about women were
>not overly favourable after all (but he got better).
>
>
Yes, I'd forgotten that one Sean; good point. I'd like to think that the group would have remained in touch with their upbringing but as you say, who knows what would have happened with successive generations if there had been no rescue. It would all depend on the education and passing down of knowledge. They were certainly off to a good start but another disaster could have had a profound effect....interesting to speculate.
One other series that comes to mind is the Pern one where the colonists forget their origins and become rather feudal. Women in the Pern books have a better status than in OOTS but there has been a definite change in attitudes. I'd like to see a series where a scientific, intelligent bunch colonise a planet and keep on improving....maybe that wouldn't sell....
Jane
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Orphans of the Sky
From: prnzofthvs1@aol.comspamkill (Steve)
Date: Mon, Aug 21, 2000 11:54 PM
Message-id: <20000822025446.19287.00000102@ng-cm1.aol.com>
Jane said:
<snip>
>One other series that comes to mind is the Pern one where the colonists
>forget their origins and become rather feudal. Women in the Pern books have
>a better status than in OOTS but there has been a definite change in
>attitudes. I'd like to see a series where a scientific, intelligent bunch
>colonise a planet and keep on improving....maybe that wouldn't sell....
>
>
>Jane
If you haven't read them yet, Jane, jump on over to McCaffery's (sp?) series about the planet "Freedom." As far as I know, they have sold quite well.
Steve
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Orphans of the Sky
From: ddavitt ddavitt@netcom.ca
Date: Tue, Aug 22, 2000 9:43 AM
Message-id: <39A2ADCD.CF1B2BD7@netcom.ca>
Steve wrote:
>
>
>If you haven't read them yet, Jane, jump on over to McCaffery's (sp?) series
>about the planet "Freedom." As far as I know, they have sold quite well.
>
>Steve
They are based on an old short story; when an author starts to do this I have an uneasy feeling that it's the beginning of the end...I read the first one, couldn't get into it.
Jane
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Orphans of the Sky
From: prnzofthvs1@aol.comspamkill (Steve)
Date: Mon, Aug 21, 2000 11:52 PM
Message-id: <20000822025224.19287.00000101@ng-cm1.aol.com>
Sean said:
<snip>
>Also, although it's not a closed system (but in a way it is), it
>would be interesting to speculate if the society in _Tunnel_ would have
>followed a similar path if they had not been rescued.
I like to think that the folks in *Tunnel* had a better chance of remaining, at least in some important fashion, civilized. A major factor was the lack of harmful mutation caused by the radiation in *Orphans*. Another could be the overall high intelligence of the group in *Tunnel*, as opposed to the liberal sprinkling of not-so-bright people in *Orphans*.
<snip>
>Some of Rod's initial thoughts about women were
>not overly favourable after all (but he got better).
Ah, yes; but Rod's attitudes were the norm for teen-age boys in the society in which Heinlein lived when he wrote the book. I think he can be excused for being a typical young man of the era. I hasten to add that RAH himself very probably had these same attitudes as a lad.
Steve
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Orphans of the Sky
From: Gaeltach gaeltach@fan.net.au
Date: Thu, Aug 24, 2000 12:05 AM
Message-id: <39A4C932.C98C5A22@fan.net.au>
Steve wrote:
>Sean said:
><snip>
>
>>Some of Rod's initial thoughts about women were
>>not overly favourable after all (but he got better).
>
>Ah, yes; but Rod's attitudes were the norm for teen-age boys in the society in
>which Heinlein lived when he wrote the book. I think he can be excused for
>being a typical young man of the era. I hasten to add that RAH himself very
>probably had these same attitudes as a lad.
As a lad, probably yes. But Tunnel was published in 1955 and Heinlein was approaching 50. IMO the change in Rod's attitude to women was not an accident, nor merely a reflection of the young Heinlein's attitudes, but a deliberate theme designed to show young boys the error of treating females as inferior. Orphans on the other hand was first published in 1941 when Heinlein was approaching his mid-thirtys. As they say, with age comes wisdom.......
Sean
gaeltach@fan.net.au
***************
.... and now for something completely different:
Tunnel - la fallen nut.
***************
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Orphans of the Sky
From: princeofbaja@aol.comjunkbloc (PrinceOfBaja)
Date: Thu, Aug 24, 2000 10:52 PM
Message-id: <20000825015217.24723.00000800@ng-fz1.aol.com>
Sean said:
>As a lad, probably yes. But Tunnel was published in 1955 and Heinlein was approaching 50.
I didn't go far enough in my original post. In 1955, boys of Rod's age still predominantly had the same attitude toward their female counterparts. "Girls" were nice, sweet, shy, and eminently desirable for certain activities; however, you wouldn't want to have one along in a survival situation. I know this was the prevailing attitude still in 1963, when I was a lad of 18.
P of B
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Orphans of the Sky
From: Sean Gaeltach gaeltach@fan.net.au
Date: Sun, Aug 27, 2000 5:17 AM
Message-id: <8ob0s3$4lk$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
Steve wrote:
>Sean said:
>
>>As a lad, probably yes. But Tunnel was published in 1955 and Heinlein was approaching 50.
>
>I didn't go far enough in my original post. In 1955, boys of Rod's age still
>predominantly had the same attitude toward their female counterparts. "Girls"
>were nice, sweet, shy, and eminently desirable for certain activities; however,
>you wouldn't want to have one along in a survival situation. I know this was
>the prevailing attitude still in 1963, when I was a lad of 18.
This may be your experience Steve, but the way I see it, this was not what Heinlein was endorsing as the case. He was in fact saying that these attitudes were wrong (at least in the society of Tunnel). Throughout Tunnel, Rod is repeatedly shown the error of his ways in regarding females as inferior in a survival situation. Now before you take issue with this (?), I think it interesting to speculate why Heinlein might do this if the prevailing attitudes in society at the time (1950's) were different. Either he was merely projecting what he thought could be the case with females in a future society, or he really had experience with highly competent females who would hold their own in a survival situation. Perhaps a bit of both?
--
gaeltach@fan.net.au
**********************
.... and now for something completely different:
Are we not drawn onward, we few, drawn onward to new era?
**********************
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Orphans of the Sky
From: princeofbaja@aol.comjunkbloc (PrinceOfBaja)
Date: Sun, Aug 27, 2000 6:07 AM
Message-id: <20000827090740.07926.00000023@ng-bj1.aol.com>
Sean said:
>This may be your experience Steve, but the way I see it, this was not
>what Heinlein was endorsing as the case.
Sean, please re-read my post; I never said he was *endorsing* it. I simply stated that it was the way late-teen-age boys were in 1963. I suspect the majority of such boys are much the same today; I don't know for certain.
>He was in fact saying that
>these attitudes were wrong (at least in the society of Tunnel).
And this I am supposed to have disagreed with in my post? Where, please?
>Throughout Tunnel, Rod is repeatedly shown the error of his ways in
>regarding females as inferior in a survival situation.
As happens today, with like-minded young lads, frequently.
>Now before you take issue with this (?)
Why. pray tell, would I take issue with it? I *never* said it was the right way to be.
>I think it interesting to speculate why
>Heinlein might do this if the prevailing attitudes in society at the
>time (1950's) were different.
They weren't; it was, and is, like that.
>Either he was merely projecting what he
>thought could be the case with females in a future society, or he really
>had experience with highly competent females who would hold their own in
>a survival situation. Perhaps a bit of both?
I'm sure he had, or could at least postulate that such women were around. I would imagine he had seen his own dear Virginia demonstrating very high levels of competence in many ways, and realized that the old stereotype was dead wrong.
P of B
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Orphans of the Sky
From: Gaeltach gaeltach@fan.net.au
Date: Sun, Aug 27, 2000 6:55 AM
Message-id: <39A91DC2.A607E52B@fan.net.au>
Steve wrote:
>Sean said:
>
>>This may be your experience Steve, but the way I see it, this was not
>>what Heinlein was endorsing as the case.
>
>Sean, please re-read my post; I never said he was *endorsing* it. I simply
>stated that it was the way late-teen-age boys were in 1963. I suspect the
>majority of such boys are much the same today; I don't know for certain.
Well, I never said you said he was *endorsing* it. I just wanted to make my point clear. Forgive me for any confusion. When I said that Rod did not initially have a high regard for females in Tunnel, you mentioned that these attitudes might probably have been held by Heinlein as a lad, as well as being the norm for boys at the time of writing (and perhaps later). I have no problem with the point you make, however I made a distinction that the author was showing this as a flawed opinion, rather than using his own early attitudes merely as a template for Rod's behaviour. If you agree with this, then there obviously is no argument.
>>He was in fact saying that
>>these attitudes were wrong (at least in the society of Tunnel).
>
>And this I am supposed to have disagreed with in my post? Where, please?
Not to make a big thing of it (and I seem to have lost the original post), but didn't you say Rod could be excused for having those attitudes, because they would have been the prevailing attitudes at the time of writing? I guess I was pointing out that rather than being an excusable thing, they were in fact deliberately invoked (and knocked down). You probably see my need for clarification as argumentative, which I didn't intend.
>>Throughout Tunnel, Rod is repeatedly shown the error of his ways in
>>regarding females as inferior in a survival situation.
>
>As happens today, with like-minded young lads, frequently.
>
>>Now before you take issue with this (?)
>
>Why. pray tell, would I take issue with it? I *never* said it was the right way to be.
And that is why I had the (?).
>>I think it interesting to speculate why
>>Heinlein might do this if the prevailing attitudes in society at the
>>time (1950's) were different.
>
>They weren't; it was, and is, like that.
>
>>Either he was merely projecting what he
>>thought could be the case with females in a future society, or he really
>>had experience with highly competent females who would hold their own in
>>a survival situation. Perhaps a bit of both?
>
>I'm sure he had, or could at least postulate that such women were around. I
>would imagine he had seen his own dear Virginia demonstrating very high levels
>of competence in many ways, and realized that the old stereotype was dead wrong.
Complete agreement. Cheers!
Sean
gaeltach@fan.net.au
***************
.... and now for something completely different:
Baja - a jab.
***************
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Orphans of the Sky
From: princeofbaja@aol.comjunkbloc (PrinceOfBaja)
Date: Thu, Aug 24, 2000 10:54 PM
Message-id: <20000825015426.24723.00000801@ng-fz1.aol.com>
Sean said:
<snip>
>As they say, with age comes wisdom.......
The only thing guaranteed to come with age is oldness. the Wisdom of Age is another of those old wives' tales (I've never known *whose* wives) that should be laid to rest. Some people seem able to get old without ever learning a damn thing.
P of B
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Orphans of the Sky
From: Yisroel Markov ysm@my-deja.com
Date: Mon, Aug 21, 2000 2:15 PM
Message-id: <8ns65b$cab$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
In article <39A07CD3.680B3B07@netcom.ca>, ddavitt <ddavitt@netcom.ca>wrote:
>BPRAL22169 wrote:
>
>>>I've always had a problem accepting the rapid
>>>slide into a primitive society
To me, one of the best points of the book is this: the orthodox traditionalists believe that their Ship, although the only physical entity in the Universe, is a part of some cosmic plan. The young radicals dismiss all that as superstitious crap and claim that there's nothing but the Ship. And both are wrong, albeit in different ways. Rather reminds one of the "dialogue" some theists have with some atheists.
>>What rapid? The stories are set quite some time -- possibly even hundreds of
>>years -- after the mutiny caused the basis of their society to be lost.
>>Historically, cultural changes can happen very very rapidly. I think the Horse
>>culture in north america, for example, started, flourished, and died off in a
>>period of about 50 years.
>>Bill
>
>I don't know if it says how long it's been...I'd have to browse through the book.
They have arrived at their destination coasting, after the drive went off, and no one remembered it ever being on. This indicates a long time.
>My point is that this was a ship which set off with men and women being equal
>(this is based on the fact that we know a little about the earth at the time it was
>launched). I cannot see _why_ this would change because of the mutiny. Radiation
>affecting brains maybe?
I think that RAH is making a not-very-subtle point that decent treatment of women is the hallmark of a civilized society!
>I recall a bit where someone who knows the truth watches as people around him (
>presumably children born on board) gradually lose track of the truth of the ship's
>nature and the purpose of the trip; this indicates that the change in attitudes
>began quite quickly but of course we don't know how long it took for the society to
>become as it is at the start of the book; static, petrified and ultimately doomed.
>I get the impression that things have been the way they are for a long time; why
>did it move in one direction then freeze?
This apparently was the rock-bottom supported by existing technology. Had things actually started breaking, the downward slide would've probably resumed.
>It is of course, a closed system; it's interesting to compare this set up and the
>treatment of women with those in MIAHM and Logic of Empire. In the latter two
>stories the system is not so closed but women are in short supply. In Moon they are
>treated with reverence, in Logic it's not so clear cut. However, in neither have
>women become nameless chattels.
On this subject I remember the very good book by J. Neil Schulman "The Rainbow Cadenza". He depicts a society with a 7-1 male-female ratio. There's no reverence towards women there. They have equal social status, but, e.g., the society has seen it fit to conscript every woman for a 3-year term of forced prostitution (called "The Peace Corps").
>Perhaps I'm harping on this too much but I wonder why Heinlein chose to depict the
>society this way; to emphasise how things had deteriorated? Hugh, the potential
>liberator, is no better than the rest; he only manages to save a handful of people
>from the ship and there is no indication that the life of a female is going to be
>any better on the new planet. As we find out in TEFL, there is no glittering future
>for them or their descendants...maybe this is why I don't read it often; it's a
>little depressing.
They seem to have done quite all right. BTW, Steve, I have to dispute your point about "Storekeeper Ordinary". In TEFL LL says that all the descendants of the Vanguard had genius IQs. There may have been much less of an intellectual difference between storekeeper and captain on the Vanguard than on USS Nimitz.
Yisroel Markov
Boston, MA
Member DNRC
www.reason.com -- for unbiased analysis of the world
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"It may indeed prove to be far the most difficult and not the least
important task for human reason rationally to comprehend its own
limitations." -- Friedrich von Hayek
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Orphans of the Sky
From: "Nuclear Waste" babybear@2z.net
Date: Mon, Aug 21, 2000 7:01 PM
Message-id: <39a1df29@news.2z.net>
"Yisroel Markov" wrote in message news:8ns65b$cab$1@nnrp1.deja.com...
>On this subject I remember the very good book by J. Neil Schulman "The
>Rainbow Cadenza". He depicts a society with a 7-1 male-female ratio. There's
>no reverence towards women there. They have equal social status, but, e.g.,
>the society has seen it fit to conscript every woman for a 3-year term of
>forced prostitution (called "The Peace Corps").
Are you certain of the spelling? And what a horrible pun in any event.
>
>>Perhaps I'm harping on this too much but I wonder why Heinlein chose to depict the
>>society this way; to emphasise how things had deteriorated? Hugh, the potential
>>liberator, is no better than the rest; he only manages to save a handful of people
>>from the ship and there is no indication that the life of a female is going to be
>>any better on the new planet. As we find out in TEFL, there is no glittering future
>>for them or their descendants...maybe this is why I don't read it often; it's a little depressing.
>
>They seem to have done quite all right. BTW, Steve, I have to dispute your
>point about "Storekeeper Ordinary". In TEFL LL says that all the descendants
>of the Vanguard had genius IQs. There may have been much less of an
>intellectual difference between storekeeper and captain on the Vanguard than
>on USS Nimitz.
The SK rating might have surprised you Yisroel, but the point is well taken. Next time substitute Boatswains Mates. Or sea service Marines...
NW
(Looking for a spot behind the bar with Jani before OJ reads this.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Orphans of the Sky
From: prnzofthvs1@aol.comspamkill (Steve)
Date: Mon, Aug 21, 2000 11:57 PM
Message-id: <20000822025747.19287.00000103@ng-cm1.aol.com>
Jim wrote:
<snip>
>The SK rating might have surprised you Yisroel, but the point is well taken.
>Next time substitute Boatswains Mates. Or sea service Marines...
>
>NW
>(Looking for a spot behind the bar with Jani before OJ reads this.)
No worries, mate; he was an airdale, not a Fleetie.
Steve
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Orphans of the Sky
From: Ogden Johnson III ojiii@home.com
Date: Tue, Aug 22, 2000 11:07 AM
Message-id: <2jf5qs4sf6n5cshe0iipja771hrf4j4r1i@4ax.com>
prnzofthvs1@aol.comspamkill (Steve) wrote:
>Jim wrote:
><snip>
>>The SK rating might have surprised you Yisroel, but the point is well taken.
>>Next time substitute Boatswains Mates. Or sea service Marines...
>>
>>NW
>>(Looking for a spot behind the bar with Jani before OJ reads this.)
>No worries, mate; he was an airdale, not a Fleetie.
No worries, right. But *not* because I was an airedale [which count as "Fleetie"s, since both the wing and division {along with FSSG, nee Force Troops} are part of the Marine Forces Lant/Pac, nee FMFLant/FMFPac], but because the ship's detachments that constituted the Sea Duty Marines are no more. Thus, their defense lies in the historic record they wrote. It needs no defense from me.
OJ III
[Besides, I am only 5'6", you had to be 5'10" for Sea Duty or duty at 8th & I. Short guys like me could only do Recruiting, DI, or Embassy Duty. Thanks but no thanks - the furthest away I ever wanted to be from my Company or Squadron was on leave. ;->] [Embassy duty could be neat, but you had to do the first half of your, nominal, three years at a "hardship" embassy - the evil empire, Bulgaria, Outer Mongolia, or whichever African or Middle Eastern country was touchy at a given time. And agree to stay single for the entire tour. And local "friendships" were/are frowned upon {can anyone say Lonetree?}].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Orphans of the Sky
From: prnzofthvs1@aol.comspamkill (Steve)
Date: Tue, Aug 22, 2000 9:46 PM
Message-id: <20000823004624.20011.00000118@ng-fg1.aol.com>
OJIII mentioned:
<snip>
>... but because the ship's detachments that constituted
>the Sea Duty Marines are no more. Thus, their defense lies in the
>historic record they wrote. It needs no defense from me.
>
Well said. I know I never took a chance getting in their way in the passageway, when they were alerted, even if it was only a drill.
Steve
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Orphans of the Sky
From: Randy cryon@my-deja.com
Date: Fri, Aug 25, 2000 6:34 PM
Message-id: <8o76s3$4vo$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
In article <399E77F0.54C48485@netcom.ca>, ddavitt <ddavitt@netcom.ca>wrote:
>Jim Bilbrey wrote:
>
>>Dear fellow Heinlein fans,
>>I hadn't read Orphans of the Sky for about 15 or twenty years, and just
>>picked it off my bookshelf for my bedtime reading the other day. I guess I
>>was too young when I read it the first time to appreciate what an amazing
>>book it was. Why don't we hear folks raving about it more?
>>Jim Bilbrey
>>
>
>What bits about it did you particularly enjoy Jim? I liked the premise and the
>sense of wonder Hugh feels when the truth dawns on him
Yes, that feeling of being privy to something that few in a society knew about--special knowledge-- is one of my favorite themes in SF, and also one of my favorite ideas in Orphans. The idea of fighting for some special belief when all everyone else (but a special elite) is arrayed against you--what a great concept.
--
Cryonics: Gateway to the Future?
http://www.cryonet.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Orphans of the Sky
From: "Jani" jani@ossar.freeuk.com
Date: Sat, Aug 26, 2000 11:18 AM
Message-id: <CSTp5.5798$D%4.462111@nnrp3.clara.net>
Randy wrote in message news:8o76s3$4vo$1@nnrp1.deja.com...
>In article <399E77F0.54C48485@netcom.ca>,
> ddavitt <ddavitt@netcom.ca>wrote:
>>Jim Bilbrey wrote:
>>
>>>Dear fellow Heinlein fans,
>>> I hadn't read Orphans of the Sky for about 15 or twenty years, and just
>>>picked it off my bookshelf for my bedtime reading the other day. I guess I
>>>was too young when I read it the first time to appreciate what an amazing
>>>book it was. Why don't we hear folks raving about it more?
>>>Jim Bilbrey
>>>
>>
>>What bits about it did you particularly enjoy Jim? I liked the
>premise and the
>>sense of wonder Hugh feels when the truth dawns on him
>
>Yes, that feeling of being privy to something that few in a society
>knew about--special knowledge-- is one of my favorite themes in SF, and
>also one of my favorite ideas in Orphans. The idea of fighting for some
>special belief when all everyone else (but a special elite) is arrayed
>against you--what a great concept.
Almost religious in tone, isn't it? :)
Jani
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Orphans of the Sky
From: Sean Gaeltach gaeltach@fan.net.au
Date: Sat, Aug 19, 2000 5:00 AM
Message-id: <8nlst0$hu9$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
Jim Bilbrey wrote:
>Dear fellow Heinlein fans,
> I hadn't read Orphans of the Sky for about 15 or twenty years, and just
>picked it off my bookshelf for my bedtime reading the other day. I guess I
>was too young when I read it the first time to appreciate what an amazing
>book it was. Why don't we hear folks raving about it more?
Yes Jim. I think it is an amazing book as well. Actually it was 2 novellas when originally published in Astounding in 1941, but that is beside the point. I'm sure it has been discussed here at great length before, but there is always room for further discussion of any Heinlein work. I think most would agree to the breath-taking imagination and technical aspects of _Orphans_, but you may find some argument with the portrayal and treatment of women. Tell us what you enjoyed most about it, and this may lead to more discussion and "raving":-)
Sean
gaeltach@fan.net.au
**********************
.... and now for something completely different:
Are we not drawn onward, we few, drawn onward to new era?
**********************
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9/18/2000 12:21:19 PM Closing "System Log 9/18/2000 (preOrph)"

Go To Previous A.F.H. Postings
Here Begins The Discussion Log

You have just entered room "Heinlein Readers Group chat."
AGplusone has entered the room.
AGplusone: Hi, Dave.
ddavitt has entered the room.
dwrighsr: Hi. Sorry. I was in the other room. Hi Jane
ddavitt: Hello all
AGplusone: Hi, Jane ...
ddavitt: What other room? Have we been building on an extension/ :-)
dwrighsr: My living room. I was watching a Stephen King bio
ddavitt: Ah...a real room....OK
markjmills has entered the room.
AGplusone: Hi, Mark
markjmills: Good evening, all.
Eeyore3061 has entered the room.
ddavitt: Just catching up on afh; AG do you think that was Randy posting? It didn't sound like him somehow
ddavitt: Hi there
AGplusone: Evening, eeyore ... Cyro can sound human.
Eeyore3061: Hi everyone, you caught me in a file transfer.
ddavitt: Sure...but he usually uses his name or an easily spotted alias. There is another cryonics person on the sff group who seems OK
Eeyore3061: Give me about half an hour, I have to run to the store also.
ddavitt: But I don't _think_ he's Randy
AGplusone: He once made a very thoughtful post about Beowulf ... so long as he's off his hobby horse he's probably as human as *I* am ...
Eeyore3061 has left the room.
AGplusone: :-)
ddavitt: Well, I wouldn't go THAT far! :-)
AGplusone: We're talking about an occasional character who posts AFH ...
AGplusone: what makes you think it's *that* far, Jane?
ddavitt: With a bee in his bonnet
ddavitt: I'm not saying nothing....<g>
AGplusone: I may be human only to 4 significant figures ... consider my love for "Jerry Was A Man"
ddavitt: Besides, chalk it up to my charming child like innocence and naiveity :-):-):-)
bisaacz has entered the room.
AGplusone: That's why you and Eleanor get along so nicely.
dwrighsr: I've got all of the a.f.h. pre-posts to this discussion and the earlier 'Orphans' posts that David mention up and running on my web site. It is at Orphans Link This is the same URL that will contain tonight's discussion as soon as its over and I ...
dwrighsr: it edited.
AGplusone: Hi, Bisaacz ... Heinlein Reading Group meeting?
bisaacz: Yes
AGplusone: Great, David ... you managed to translate what I sent then?
ddavitt: Once the red mist cleared I thought it was quite funny actually.
AGplusone: Welcome then! Nice to have you here. We're just chatting before the meeting starts ... introduce yourself if you wish. I'm David.
dwrighsr: No problem with it. My only problem has been trying to recover 2 crashed servers hit by lightning last Thursday night and my time has been very limited
ddavitt: It seems we've done a lot of Orphans chat before it became the official topic...maybe that's why there weren't so many posts
ddavitt: I'm Jane
AGplusone: That was part of it ... then again, I may have gotten tired of 'showing off' <veg> ....
dwrighsr: The earlier posts that David sent me were about 10 times more than the current ones, at a gues
AGplusone: About forty good ones in there ...
ddavitt: Yes...it was quite a long thread IIRC
dwrighsr: Hi. I'm David also. DaveW or dwrighsr
ddavitt: I also remember a very heated one last year
ddavitt: That was good fun and stayed polite but energetic
AGplusone: I was facinated, btw, with Alexandre's latest on "Chicken Heart" ....
markjmills: Too many Davids...we need to shoot every other one.
Major oz has entered the room.
Major oz: evenin' all
SAcademy has entered the room.
AGplusone: And here's the man to do it, hi, Oz ... evening Duchess ...
markjmills: Hi Oz.
dwrighsr: Hi Ginny
Major oz: Good Evening SA
ddavitt: Yes, shame the poor thing died...but I got the impression it may have been neglect rather than natural causes
SAcademy: Hello, all.
ddavitt: Hi SA, Oz
markjmills: Hi, SA.
Major oz: ....do what ?????? David
Major oz: NEVER volunteer
ddavitt: Shoot the odd David
dwrighsr: Shoot every other David. we have too many
AGplusone: We're debating shoting the extra David ...
markjmills: Lazurus/Woodrow did, and look where it got him!
Major oz: Just the lawyer ones
ddavitt: I think my way of phrasing it would have better results :-)
markjmills: Ouch, Oz!
AGplusone: You can either shoot your glorious leader or nice David Wright Sr ... me, I could use a 'shot' today.
dwrighsr: Who ever said I was 'nice' :-)
AGplusone: Of course, I'd have to treat shoting as 'mutiny' which transitions nicely into Orphans, doesn't it?
AGplusone: shooting ...
Major oz: booooooo
markjmills: Good eating, everybody!
ddavitt: Why did they mutiny? Seems to me that argues bad crew selection...
ddavitt: They couldn't cope with the reality of the trip.
AGplusone: It's sort of fun numbering the various stories involving 'mutiny' ... much more common that you might expect in history ....
ddavitt: Why no cold sleep like the New Frontiers?
Major oz: What later novel was the ship mentioned in ?
ddavitt: TEFL
AGplusone: Columbus on first voyage had to put down a mutiny ... his crew and his subordinate Captains.
ddavitt: All dead....
ddavitt: Diminishing returns I think; fed too much into the Converter or didn't understand it properly
AGplusone: Hudson not only had a mutiny but they marooned him in a small boat ... and no white man ever saw him again ...
AGplusone: And then of course, there was Captain Bligh ... a pretty good sailor ...
SAcademy: Yes, they told us that on the NW passage trip
SAcademy: Along with his 13-year old son.
AGplusone: 'mutiny' seems historically to go hand in glove with exploration and voyages of discovery ...
ddavitt: Maybe there's a limit to how long humans can be cooped up together without going crazy
markjmills: So why does the idea of mutiny hold so much resonance in literatue?
AGplusone: I'd say the odds of not having one especially in a generation trip are very low.
BPRAL22169 has entered the room.
ddavitt: Overthrow of authority is always dangerous...could happen off the ship in society at large
Major oz: I spent two years in Micronesia with those who consider themselves the best navigators in the world -- the Chuukeese (from Truk, ne: Chuuk)
dwrighsr: Hi Bill.
BPRAL22169: Hello, all
AGplusone: 'mutiny' is a metaphore, some ways, for all sorts of revolution ...
ddavitt: Hi Bill
Major oz: yo, bill
SAcademy: Hello, Bill.
AGplusone: Hi, Bill.
ddavitt: Is it ever justified?
BPRAL22169: Hello. Have we been going for some time? I thought I would get here at the start.
ddavitt: I'm thinking of the first Hornblower; wasn't there a mini mutiny against a very brutal officer?
Major oz: Someone recently posted that mutinies are rebellions that do NOT succeed, where revolutions are those that DO.
AGplusone: Was the Caine Mutiny justified? Just started on first topic ... mutiny (in Heinlein, in literature, in life, in history) ...
ddavitt: Not long Bill
BPRAL22169: OK
bisaacz has left the room.
ddavitt: Yes, success covers up a multitude of sins
AGplusone: There was, and also there was a mutiny at Spithead in Admiral Hornblower ...
ddavitt: If you can rewrite history it comes in handy
Major oz: Beggs the question, David; if it is mutiny, it is never justified. If it is a responsable usurpation of command it is OK
BPRAL22169: Problem is, they decide that afterwards.
ddavitt: There was one sort of in NOTB
Major oz: indeed
ddavitt: Which went into this subject at length
AGplusone: For any leader ... I'd think 'mutiny' might be a paramount consideration in any dangerous mission, whether it's a voyage or not ...
AGplusone: And, there's the 'open boat' mutiny by Duckie in Farnham's Freehold ...
SAcademy: Wasn't the ounty Mutiny successful?
ddavitt: On the Vanguard though there were no pressed men; all volunteers, intelligent, knoew the score; does this mean they had less excuse?
AGplusone: What Libby does in "Misfit" is a mutiny in a sense ...
dwrighsr: I recall that Zeb made preparations for a mutiny before setting out in Gay Deceiver
ddavitt: Yes and implements them when jake turns nasty
markjmills: What difference, if any, is there in a mutiny and a revolution, another favorite RAH storyline?
BPRAL22169: I think that's only "insubordination," rather than mutiny, David.
dwrighsr: I don't agree that a mutiny is a failed rebellion. In my terminology, they are related types of thing, but not equivalent.
AGplusone: Any of these other 'generation voyages' written that have been mentioned involve a mutiny ...
Major oz: Yes, SA; the Bounty mutiny was successful. Unfortunately, they were forced onto a horrible island. But, I guess it was better than hanging.
AGplusone: Well, then, how 'bout what Johnnie Dahlquist does ... if Tower had won, his after-action report would have mentioned having to execute a few mutineers ...
AGplusone: In "The Long Watch" ...
BPRAL22169: Nope -- Tower's orders were illegal. Johnny D was not in mutiny.
SAcademy: What about the Captain, Bligh, in Men against the Sea?
dwrighsr: Both are obviously 'opposing (lawful) authority', but I think scale and environment make the difference.
ddavitt: Can an individual mutiny? i see it as more of a group effort
ddavitt: Individually it's just disobeying orders and can be dealt with. If a large part of the crew is involved it's more serious
SAcademy: Mutiny is aconspiracy.
BPRAL22169: Command is more complex a notion than simply issuing and obeying an order.
ddavitt: Yes; like in Time for the Stars
AGplusone: One individual can mutiny ... usually ones that don't succeed ... in inciting the rest to follow. The Secretary of the Army's son was once hanged aboard an American ship for mutiny.
Major oz: I guess, David, that you follow your conscience.
AGplusone: Melville wrote Billy Budd in protest over it.
ddavitt: I can't see in orphans exactly what happens; Huff sends an ultimatum but why? Do they want to turn around and go back to earth?
SAcademy: Can't turn a spaceship around like that.
Major oz: That's part of the mystery, Jane; we never know why Huff does as he does.
Major oz: Maybe the Captain went nuts and started affecting the crew.
ddavitt: I would imagine that was it though; hadn't realised how long the trip would be.
Major oz: It is up to us to imagine these things, I would guess.
AGplusone: We don't know ... but perhaps that's a likely scenario ... query: how do we know that the colony of cannibals they found weren't people who didn't mutiny and take the other seven ships ... of people who fled while the mutiny was going on ...
ddavitt: Reading the log it all seemed normal until Huff started calling himself Captain
AGplusone: rather than the decendants of the characters in Orphans?
ddavitt: They could be...
ddavitt: Have to say, it's more likely that Hugh and co all died
Major oz: That is one of the distinguishing hallmarks of Heinlein's work. We get to fill in many of the cracks ourselves, but, if we can't, it does not diminish the story.
AGplusone: Except for distance ... those would have to be pretty well-stocked ships boats ....
ddavitt: But they died knowing the truth...sort of
Major oz: that is different from some of the avant-garde hacks who have secret codes, words, situations, that are INTENDED to confuse.
BPRAL22169: I like the fact that Heinlein doesn't sugar-coat the improbabilities at the end...they were multiply lucky.
AGplusone: Seemed to me that when Baldwin went out to face Huff, she couldn't have altered the course or speed of the ship yet, so they couldn't have been more than half way, 30 years or less into the flight.
Major oz: And it is the only time that I can recall, Bill, where he announces, specificaly, to the reader, that he is taking artistic license.
ddavitt: Reading it again I think it's hit me how much damage was done when they lost their radiation shield during the Mutiny; it could explain a lot about the rapid descent of the society
markjmills: "Multiply lucky?" I couldn't imagine trying to calculate the odds...that always struck me as the stries weakest point.
AGplusone: So it's less than likely that the cannibals were mutineers or refugees from the mutiny, but ... that isn't 'impossible'...
BPRAL22169: True, and Heinlein makes no attempt to deal with that. He couldn't.
ddavitt: Left 2119, mutiny 2172
AGplusone: I liked that part, though, Oz ... he can't deal with it otherwise ...
Major oz: Does anyone recall His having done so elsewhere?
BPRAL22169: A modern writer would try handwaving and do violence to the story logic. Heinlein has more faith in story logic.
AGplusone: Okay, then how come the ship kept going ... they don't slow it down until more than 58 years after starting?
BPRAL22169: I think it's off course.
ddavitt: Dunno...just telling you what it says...
AGplusone: Why would it go off course ...
Major oz: ....slow it down....? Where do we infer that?
BPRAL22169: It hasn't been maintained for 60 years. if there are no course corrections, no turnaround . . .
AGplusone: someone fools with the controls ... ? Need pilots and engineers for that ...
BPRAL22169: Wherever it was originally going, it's long past corrections necessary to get there.
AGplusone: maybe
ddavitt: It was going to proxima Centauri
BPRAL22169: Thanks. I had forgotten.
AGplusone: Oh, yes ... just cruised through Centauri ... and onwards somewhere.
Major oz: Anyone got a map ? How far is Cantauras?
BPRAL22169: And by the time of the story the very concept of "destination" has been lost.
AGplusone: Is that in the trajectory?
BPRAL22169: Proxima centauri is 4.3 light years.
SAcademy: Four light years
AGplusone: I wondered what was in the same trajectory ... if anything ...
Major oz: And this was a generation ship? Mutiny at 58 years. That was one slow mutha.
markjmills: The ship could have slowed significantly over time due to interstellar friction, however small the coefficient (geez, sounds almost as though I know what I'm talking about!).
AGplusone: for them to reach by life-boat ... Pnther5o5 has entered the room.
BPRAL22169: I've got a dimensional star map around here somewhere - I don't recall anything special that direction for about 60 light years.
ddavitt: Still think they should've had cold sleep...
AGplusone: Hi, John. LTNC.
ddavitt: After that long, all the crew would've been replacements of originals surely? Pnther5o5: Hello. I'll be flipping back and forth. It looks like the book is hitting stands and I've got another chat chewing on my ear.
AGplusone: I think you know everyone except Mark. Mark: John Ringo ...
dwrighsr: Why do we assume that the ship was traveling at any appreciable fraction of light speed.
ddavitt: Hi john
Major oz: but 60 years to go 4 LR.............we have better tech today than that.
Dehede011 has entered the room.
ddavitt: Hi Ron
markjmills: Hi, John.
dwrighsr: But, not necessarily thought out in 1941 !
ddavitt: Good news john
BPRAL22169: No, we don't.
Dehede011: Good Evening Everyone. For the first time I didn't have to ask for help
Dehede011: Hi Jane
AGplusone: You have another book out, John? ... Hi, Ron.
dwrighsr: Great Ron.
Dehede011: Bill, Dave,
BPRAL22169: That's a top velocity of about 17% of C
SAcademy: Hello, Ron
Dehede011: Good Evening Ma'am.
Major oz: I get 1/15 C Pnther5o5: This is the "first". But this is not my chat. It takes a _long_ time for books to hit the street.
Major oz: 4 / 60 = 1/15
AGplusone: Could you make that flight and not start slowing down until about year 59, Bill? Anyone?
BPRAL22169: You're right. I inverted the fraction.
AGplusone: I suppose so ...
ddavitt: It seems a badly planned operation to me.
BPRAL22169: The typical way is to boost to 2x the average speed, then start decelerating at the halfway mark.
ddavitt: Was the New Froniers planned with the same voyage in mind?
dwrighsr: I recall that the regular main drive of the New Frontiers was considerably better than the Vanguard
BPRAL22169: But with a constant boost -- implied by the converters running all the time -- it could be a very small acceleration.
dwrighsr: Of course, that was before Libby got into the picture.
ddavitt: It was a bit later on wasn't it?
Major oz: I think the implication is a fusion reaction.
AGplusone: Yes, but could you boost to get to 1/15 C (and decelerate in the same time) ... within one year, and then run 58 years with no acceleration ... ?
BPRAL22169: I designed a ship by coiling a pair of particle accelerators around a spindle-shaped asteroid. Very small acceleration, but constant so it makes a generation trip possible.
ddavitt: Don't have MC handy; when did they leave?
Major oz: who
Major oz: ?
ddavitt: Like Holly ....
ddavitt: LL and pals; they grabbed the NF just before it was about to leave
ddavitt: Wondered how long after the Orphans ship that was
BPRAL22169: Off the top of my head, wasn't that about 150 years from now?
Major oz: 'twas the same universe, yes?
ddavitt: Hang on, I'll go get it
ddavitt: LL is 213 old, born in 1912
AGplusone: 2136
ddavitt: And vanguard left 2119
AGplusone: That's an error ... contradicted by the date given later.
ddavitt: Yes, but close enough
AGplusone: Meeting of 2125 what when they decide to disclose they exist, eleven years before books starts.
ddavitt: So about 17 years to improve things...
AGplusone: was when
BPRAL22169: There are minor inconsistencies scattered throughout -- sometimes deliberate, I'm sure (like Jubal Harshaw's birthdate given at one point as 1903 and in another as 1904)
AGplusone: And Lazarus underestimates his age in MC ...
ddavitt: As we discovered trying to match dates a few chats back
Dehede011: Why the deliberate inconsistancy, Bill?
ddavitt: Doesn't work
BPRAL22169: He fiddled with the chronology in a major way at least twice.
Major oz: Q: did anyone, see, as did I, Joe-Jim's conversations as a progenitor or the conversations between LL and Zeb in NOTB?
Major oz: "for the conversations....."
ddavitt: Still think he's Zaphod Beeblebrox....
AGplusone: No, I didn't Oz. How so?
Major oz: The risk taker vs. the rational thinker, etc.
ddavitt: Do LL and Zeb say much to each other?
Major oz: Control
AGplusone: (I found the change in personality between the two stories interesting ... )
ddavitt: Which 2 stories david?
AGplusone: Or at least POV we have of the respective two ...
AGplusone: Universe we find ourselves in accord with Joe ...
AGplusone: Common Sense with Jim
ddavitt: Is LL a risk taker?
Major oz: only if he must
ddavitt: Zeb is supposed to be too cautious
Major oz: Zeb seems more so
Major oz: LL will stack the deck
AGplusone: So will Joe!
Major oz: my point
AGplusone: Jim accuses him of being deceitful
AGplusone: Okay ... good point.
AGplusone: Which makes me wonder: we have, what? three other sets of twins in RAH's books to look at ....
AGplusone: Is one of each pair obviously more deceitful, lazier, etc., each time?
Dehede011: LL as Woodrow was a pilot and a fairly typical one. A risk taker but first he does a good pre-flight and counts the rivets to boot.
ddavitt: Cas/Pol, Tom/Pat, Laz/Lor?
AGplusone: Yeah.
Major oz: Also, I am wondering about myself, in that two of my favorite characters are Bobo and Buck (Tale of the Adopted Daughter)
ddavitt: Cand P pretty similar
ddavitt: As are L and L
AGplusone: Except Castor is more of a con-artist ...
ddavitt: T and P, hmm....probably similar too cometo think of it
ddavitt: But it's not a marked difference
AGplusone: T and P are set up as passive-agressive at the beginning as are C and P
ddavitt: Are Joe/Jim twins though? Seems to me they're unique case; not even exactly Siamese twins
AGplusone: I mean the "P" or each is passive-agressive
ddavitt: Not two bodies linked, one body, two minds
AGplusone: Don't see the difference.
ddavitt: Hard to put into words....they were never two entities
Major oz: Well (he said) I'm of two minds about that...........
ddavitt: Born as one
AGplusone: Jim-Joe are the most interesting, the most mature of the four sets ...
ddavitt: Oz!
ddavitt: Genuises...
Major oz: They are the closest
Major oz: they have to be
ddavitt: Are they more the hero than Hugh?
AGplusone: That too
Major oz: they have the same support system
Dehede011: What was the name of the pair in TIME FOR THE STARS
AGplusone: In a way, they do the Sam, the Dahlquist
AGplusone: Tom and Pat
Major oz: they are the sacrificial hero
ddavitt: He was the motivator, they provided him with the reason to be motivated
Dehede011: Thx
Major oz: where Hugh is the epic hero
ddavitt: And Bobo
Major oz: yes, bobo
ddavitt: He's a sacrifice too...
Major oz: No!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
ddavitt: No what?
Major oz: You must be aware that you are sacrificing to be a sacrifice
AGplusone: I loed the way Joe-Jim had Bobo handle the one 'mutiny' they faced .... thunk, "Good eating!"
AGplusone: loved
ddavitt: Maybe...
Major oz: Just as the fearless cannot be courageous
ddavitt: But they escaped because of him....within his limitations he was loyal and brave.
AGplusone: Without a doubt ...
Major oz: loyal, but had no concept of bravery
ddavitt: He had an instinct for self preservation which meant that he was capable of courage
AGplusone: Buck and Bobo ...
ddavitt: But I agree, it was probably prety instinctive with him
Major oz: Oh, yes, he had courage. I'm saying he was not sacrificial
Major oz: ...as he didn't realize what he was doing
Major oz: yes, buck and bobo
ddavitt: Ok
Major oz: my guys
AGplusone: But 'responsible' isn't sacrificial ... duty as he saw it ... sometimes we win and have good eating, and sometimes we get et.
Major oz: he didn't stand "at the bridge" He got cut while climbing
AGplusone: During the ambush
ddavitt: He bit off his captors face and got stabbed
Major oz: And was bleeding to death after JJ took the knife from the ribs and mercifuly cut his throat
ddavitt: Joe/Jim not a sacrifice either; once Joe was dead Jim had no interest in living
AGplusone: Andre Norton has a scene in her Star Rangers books "grace" ...
Major oz: JJ was the quintessential sacrifice. He stood of the bad guys while the heros got away.
AGplusone: Horatio ...
AGplusone: or Leonidas and the 300
Major oz: yes -- "at the bridge"
ddavitt: I disagree....if Joe hadn't been dead would he?
ddavitt: they?
Major oz: yes, he would
ddavitt: You don't know that....
Major oz: He knew he was too much a freak to go with them./
AGplusone: If it came to that ... perhaps.
ddavitt: OK, they were blood brothers but why should JJ be the one to die? Alan was less useful
AGplusone: Why ... I always wondered why Joe-Jim didn't take the four armed armorer ... blacksmith with him.
Major oz: He chose to
Major oz: Yeah, with a sword in each hand
ddavitt: Don't think he thought of himself as a freak
AGplusone: Everyone else got to round up their wives ...
Major oz: He did only in the context of those getting away.
ddavitt: And Hugh was used to him and the concept of muties
AGplusone: Hugh used Joe-Jim ...
Major oz: Who knows, he was probably sterile.
Major oz: Not at the end, he didn't
AGplusone: and Joe-Jim knew it
AGplusone: No, but in the mid-part he did.
Major oz: yes
Major oz: to the credit of both
Major oz: no us-them dicho-whatever
BPRAL22169: Slight change of subject; itjust occurred to me that the cultural relativism we take for granted now was a hot new subject in 1940-41
AGplusone: Anyone think that Ford from MC and Narby were the same character almost?
ddavitt: No way!
AGplusone: "just"?
ddavitt: Ford was nice
Major oz: no
ddavitt: Narby was a slimy creep
Major oz: ford was a good guy in a bad situation
AGplusone: Both experienced politicians .... thought the same way ...
Major oz: Narby was a bad guy in a good situation
ddavitt: What is cultural relativism?
AGplusone: two sides of same coin?
ddavitt: No, no no, tell you three times :-)
Major oz: yes two sides -- thus different
ddavitt: I liked Ford....
Major oz: neither can see the other
Dehede011: Jane, according to Csikszentmihalyi it is a discredited concept
BPRAL22169: the idea that cultures grow according to happenstances in the environment and are not genetically determined. Franz Boas pioineered the notion.
Major oz: .....how far can we carry this......?
ddavitt: How does that relate to Orphans?
Major oz: Ah, yess, the first deconstructionist.
BPRAL22169: Any given culture embodies only a tiny fraction of the entire range of human possiblities.
ddavitt: Isn't it too small a sample?
Major oz: that's a "duh" moment.
Major oz: Of course
Major oz: Limited by cultural norms
BPRAL22169: The idea that culture of the ship could diverge that rapidly is relativist. The whole of the FH was relativist in that sense.
Major oz: Why Boaz was given credit for noticing the sun rises in the morning is beyond me.
BPRAL22169: The victorian idea was that culture was inbred -- there were superior (and inferior) races.
ddavitt: well i spent ages on afh saying the decline wasn't likely but I'd forgotten the radiation effect which provides a good enough reason
ddavitt: Would radiation count as a happenstance?
BPRAL22169: cultural relativism was the major opposition to rassenwissenschaft.
Major oz: De Toquiville (sp) noticed that 200 years earlier.
AGplusone: That's Spenglerism ...
ddavitt: That threw the 'normal' genetic progress off track
ddavitt: Well this is all new to lil old me so I'm floundering a bit here
AGplusone: What exists between the two viewpoints ...
BPRAL22169: And of course he (RAH) used a lot of these ideas in Stranger.
Major oz: We are just pointing out which practicioners of omthaloskepsis out snoot each other.
ddavitt: Yes but you're using all these big words...<g>
AGplusone: You have two theories: cultural change is 'genetic' and cultural change is 'environmental' is that it?
Major oz: "Omthaloskepsis" one of my favorite words
ddavitt: Translate it please
AGplusone: [belly button shield]
Major oz: I say cultural change "is"
Major oz: It means navel gazing
ddavitt: Very Zen
Major oz: but sounds oh, so impressive
BPRAL22169: I thought the navel was "omphalos" in Greek.
Major oz: yes
ddavitt: So do we change because we want o or because we'd made that way you mean?
AGplusone: I'm asking is there an alternative to the two theories and "is" or nothing else thought of ...
Major oz: Both, but usually in response to outside stimuli
AGplusone: How many generations would it take to 'sink' to savagery ... ?
Major oz: In this case, radiation made the muties and neglect made the ignorance.
Dehede011: No long.
BPRAL22169: I say doctors and engineers are never more than a year away from turning into a priesthood!
Dehede011: not long
Major oz: Well, the hack who wrote Lord of the flies thought it could happen in one.
ddavitt: They were children...different species entirely
AGplusone: Maybe they're all affected by radiation ... throwing anyone into the converter would seem to result in a decline ... especially if you throw ones whose heads are too big.
Major oz: And yes, Golding is a hack <objective opinion>
ddavitt: It's specifically stated that the shield is lost and the mutations begin soon after
AGplusone: a couple weeks if you're a British public school boy
Major oz: But I forget if the mutiny or the shield loss happened first.
Dehede011: There are examples of that sequence in American History. From a Doctorate to running wild in the woods illiterate in three generations
ddavitt: They lose the main converter in the mutiny and that means the anti radiation shield fails
AGplusone: The storekeepers log implies it happened as a consequence of the mutiny ...
Major oz: Interesting how the mutations were toward the center of the ship, while the "normals" lived near the shell.
Major oz: ....exactly the opposite of what is expected.
AGplusone: VEry interesting ...
ddavitt: No one can fix it because most of the crew is dead and as I said, by now we're dealing with people who are mostly second generation
AGplusone: And it's noted that a lot of the 'muties' could pass ...
AGplusone: Nasby plans to enslove those who pass ...
ddavitt: Prett soon, within the lifetime of the man keeping the log, there are illiterates on board
Major oz: The only female mutie mentioned was the armorer.
ddavitt: But females don't get mentioned much now do they?
ddavitt: Or they're called wenches...
AGplusone: Naw, who wants to have goils in the club ....
Major oz: It isn't mentioned whether there is a mutie "population / culture"
ddavitt: <sniff>
ddavitt: They seem to have a code of honour
Major oz: they are mentioned enough to illustrate that generations abide.
AGplusone: And a lot more freedom ...
BPRAL22169: The muties seem atomistic to me -- contrast with the commonsense ship's culture.
ddavitt: More individualistic but kind of like an underworld of criminals
Major oz: but the muties don't mention them. Perhaps fems are stolen from the crew.
ddavitt: internal rules
Dehede011 has left the room.
BPRAL22169: adventitious cooperation rather than culture per se.
ddavitt: Mad max Thunderdome sort of thing
Major oz: ????
AGplusone: Small tribes
AGplusone: 'gangs' ala the Stone Gang on Luna
Major oz: Oh, yeah -- there is mention of a number of gangs.
ddavitt: Acceptance of strangeness, loyalty within the group
AGplusone: 'family values' :-)
AGplusone: STRONG family values
Major oz: ........except in cases of rape or incest......
Major oz: :-)
ddavitt: They are more tolerant
AGplusone: What was the percentage lost in the mutiny?
Major oz: seemed like a BUNCH
BPRAL22169: So maybe he's portraying a tribal culture in contrast to an urban-agrarian "civilization"?
ddavitt: 90 % of personnel die
AGplusone: So ... what's the population back to ... ?
ddavitt: Don't know if there is a division between crew and colonists
Major oz: 14th century France
AGplusone: The muties may be decendants of the crew ...
ddavitt: That's what i don;t get; the original colonists would be dead by the time they got there...
AGplusone: The farmers decendants of the colonists.
Major oz: That's the idea of a generation ship, Jane.
ddavitt: Why no provision for education of future generations?
Major oz: There was
ddavitt: No fail safes
Major oz: It was the culture that broke down
AGplusone: They would ... there was ... books went into the Converter
Major oz: Thereby negating all the preparations.
AGplusone: The storekeeper was only five when they left ...
Major oz: fail safes work for "things" not for peepull
Dehede011 has entered the room.
AGplusone: He's probably a senior NCO (petty officer) about to retire when the mutiny hits ...
Dehede011: Sorry, I got bumped
ddavitt: He tries to tell them about earth...but they won't listen...that surprises me
Major oz: <.....and you know how they are....>
Major oz: Who, Jane?
ddavitt: Surely the parents would have told their children? 60 years isn't that long...
Major oz: the survivor?
ddavitt: Yes
ddavitt: Theodor mawson
Major oz: Oh, but we are eons beyond that 60 year point, at the time of the story
AGplusone: generations ...
ddavitt: No we aren't; this is what he says in the log that Hugh finds
ddavitt: maybe 20 or so years after the mutiny
SAcademy has left the room.
AGplusone: At time Hugh ... generations beyond Mawson ...
Major oz: ....that things are deteriorating......yes
Major oz: but not yet to where Hugh's generation is -- far from it.
ddavitt: He seems to be the only one left who was born on earth
Major oz: as he says, he was five when he boarded.
Major oz: or four
Dehede011: Is he the first long lifer?
ddavitt: But that's too soon to forget isn't it? Unless the radiation scrambled their brains...
BPRAL22169: Maybe they were just too busy surviving for a long time.
Major oz: Don't understand the Q, de
BPRAL22169: And didn't have max Jones along with them.
ddavitt: I mean, it's a huge fact to forget, not like forgetting a few French verbs.....to forget that you are on a spaceship that came from a planet ...
AGplusone: No, I think Heinlein plainly intends to portray a third and fourth generation that plainly doesn't believe or doesn't care about the stories of earth ... remember what Thorby, the slave boy, thinks ??
AGplusone: He hardly believed the tales about Earth.
Major oz: With 90% of the total dead, I imagine food production was problematic. There seems to have been pressing problems -- culture
maintenance wasn
ddavitt: By the time of Hugh, fair enough but that's not what we're talking about
Major oz: 'nt one of them.
AGplusone: Imagine, frozen water falling from the sky. Caster and Pollus don't really believe in swimming ...
ddavitt: Mawson says he can't tell the rest of the ship about earth anymore; can't be more than 80 years since they left
AGplusone: Pollux
BPRAL22169: And Podkayne considers Earth unsuitable for human habitation.
ddavitt: Seems too quick...
ddavitt: That's a funny bit....
ddavitt: She has a point though :-)
Major oz: Think of Germany from 1919 to 1939
AGplusone: Well, in the case of Mannie, the heavy gravity nearly kills him ...
Major oz: only 20 years
Major oz: Or Uganda in the 70's
AGplusone: Pretty good psychometricians, eh, Oz.
BPRAL22169: Maybe it's supposed to be a "mass delusion" kind of thing.
Major oz: yo
AGplusone: No sun, no sky, no stars to guide by.
ddavitt: Mawson decided it was a kindness not to remind them....big mistake
maybe
Major oz: "All I need is a (something) ship, and a star to steer her by"
ddavitt: With a bit of effort they could have rescued the situation
ddavitt: tall ship
AGplusone: Imagine the dearth of intellectual thought that would create.
ddavitt: Apathetic lot!
AGplusone: Sealed in a box.
ddavitt: And with women not in control..well....
Major oz: That's why tyrants survive
Major oz: ONLY through apathy
BPRAL22169: "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."
Major oz: "It still moves"
ddavitt: Mawson wasn't a tyrant; do gooder, even worse ,tongue in cheek>
ddavitt: That's exactly what Hugh says...
Major oz: And The Italian Guy :-)
Dehede011: Can I give an historical example of how fast that can happen?
Major oz: sure
ddavitt: Obvious parallel
Major oz: ga
AGplusone: Go ...
BPRAL22169: Well -- Hugh is Galileo. So "eppur si muove" is very appropriate.
ddavitt: Sure
AGplusone: Sí
Dehede011: My ancestor Thomas Harrison had a DD from Trinity College in Dublin
Dehede011: His grandson my ancestor Jeremiah Harrison was illiterate and running wild in the woods in colonial America
AGplusone: 3 generations ...
Dehede011: Yes,
ddavitt: So would hope baxter have grown up beleiving in earth?
AGplusone: did he plant crops by the quarters of the Moon ...
AGplusone: Probably not!
Dehede011: I don't know that he knew that much
ddavitt: But was that just him? Or a general occurence?
AGplusone: A fairy tale like Santa Claus ... my mommie and daddy made it up to make me feel good.
Dehede011: He was not a stupid man but a man in a world where book learning had little purpose
Dehede011: More like a general occurance.
ddavitt: Well Eleanor told me I was a silly billy when I pointed at the moon and said we'd sent a rocket there...
Major oz: Who is Hope Baxter?
BPRAL22169: Knowledge is actually fairly fragile; my grandmother knew lots about kitchen gardening tht is just lost to m,y generation.
ddavitt: Yet she believes wallace and Grommit visited it...
ddavitt: From Tunnel
ddavitt: Carmen and bob's kid
AGplusone: Everyone knows the moon is made of green cheese.
ddavitt: "It's like no cheese i've ever tasted.."
ddavitt: Off at a tangent...
AGplusone: I have to look up in books how to get stains out of rugs ... my mother or my grandmother know from their childhood ...
ddavitt: Does the Witness' song remind people of longfellow?
Major oz: Today, in Russia and the Baltics, learned professionals will not position furniture in a room until they have consulted a (somtbody) who is in touch with "force flows" and all that crap.
AGplusone: Less so than the opening of New Beginnings ... but some.
ddavitt: The Lines From The Beginning?
BPRAL22169: Feng Shui
Major oz: Like that, but more primitive.
Dehede011: Yeah, Oz and Bill, my neighbor does that and he is a psychologist.
AGplusone: Doing that in L.A. Oz ... realtors have gone bananas
Major oz: But is is not just a trendy yuppie thing -- it is a hard belief.
ddavitt has left the room.
BPRAL22169: I have friends who lived in Fairfield IA --a major TM center -- whocould not sell theirhome because the front door faced north.
AGplusone: Latest yuppie craze ...
BPRAL22169: It's institutionalized Chinese superstitions -- avoiding the demon pathways through the house. Just nuts.
AGplusone: All over Brentwood they're rearranging furniture and moving doors and windows ...
Major oz: I understand, for instance, the Navajo hogan doors facing a certain way. It is a center point of their spirituality. But this "feel the force" crap among people that should know better.............
BPRAL22169: We have a very poorly educated populace right now.
ddavitt has entered the room.
ddavitt: Sorry; froze up again..
AGplusone: Or it's time to cull again ...
Dehede011: Yes, but often among Indians the location of the tepee is in accordance with their clan structure. That way outsiders coming into the village know where to go to find their kinfold
Major oz: I may be bumped any time soon -- I'm approaching the two hour capacity of the propane bottles that power my ISP.
BPRAL22169: This is not the same, Ron.
Dehede011: I know, Bill.
ddavitt: I never used to get bumped; now it seems to happen every time.
AGplusone: So it would be rather easy, we might say, to sell the shaman's controlling lies in a few generations ....
Dehede011: But being a bit Cherokee I didn't want anyone to get us confused with them
BPRAL22169: One of the major principles of Feng Shui is literally that demons can only travel in straight lines -- so you offset entrances, etc.
Dehede011: :-)
ddavitt: I try and write something and it just doesn't show, then it goes grey at the bottom of the screen
AGplusone: Go out, restart, and come back in ...
BPRAL22169: *sigh*
AGplusone: We see it Jane
dwrighsr: You might need to reboot entirely, Jane.
Major oz: Feng Shui is the Xtal of the 90's. This, too, shall pass, as did bellbottoms.
ddavitt: I'm back; didn't swiitch off, jy=ust exited the net. i'm OK aren't I?
BPRAL22169: Ah, but platform shoes are back! And uglier than ever.
AGplusone: I think so ...
dwrighsr: You look ok at this end.
ddavitt: Thanks.
Dehede011: And bare midriffs with pot bellies
BPRAL22169: Everything looks fine on this end, Jane.
AGplusone: Human to at least four significant figures ...
ddavitt: :-)
BPRAL22169: There must be some Gresham's law about bad ideas driving out good!
ddavitt: dDid anyone answer my Longfellow query/ and who wrote that poetry anyhow?
Major oz: What was that?
Dehede011: At least hemlines and the openness of shoes follow the stock
market.
AGplusone: What's the name of the early book, Bill, by Norton that deals with what a small colony does to survive
ddavitt: It's a good way of keeping knowledge alive; shame they didn't come up with it earlier
AGplusone: I said that the opening of New Beginnings reminded me more of Longfellow ...
ddavitt: Yes it does but Hiawatha rhythm is present in the Orphans bit too i think
Dehede011: RAH seemed to like that heavy beat in a poem
BPRAL22169: It has Heinlein's hand on it.
ddavitt: I tried to get a Kipling match but couldn't
ddavitt: Yes; very catchy
ddavitt: easy to memorise
BPRAL22169: I regret to say that subtly was not Heinlein's forte in verse.
BPRAL22169: (He had other virtues)
ddavitt: Poets are different from people who can write verse
AGplusone: I think the scheme is a little different ...
Dehede011: I wrote one poem in that beat. It was a good poem, she was a very pretty lady and I forgot the poem before I could drive to get a pen
Major oz: Oh, BTW, my copy of OOTS is a small hardback that says First American Edition 1964, but the pages are ragged, like a bookclub edition. Could it be a bona-fide FE?
ddavitt: 1963 it came out
BPRAL22169: The first edition was British -- Gollancz, I think.
ddavitt: According to my pb
BPRAL22169: Then Putnam's brought it out within a few months slightly rewritten.
Major oz: right -- it says cr 1963
ddavitt: Yes, Gollancz, copyright heinlein 63
dwrighsr: Mine's a GP Putnams, 1964
BPRAL22169: The Book Club edition also has "First American Edition" on the indicta.
AGplusone: c c / c / c / ... /casara/ ... / c / c / / c /
ddavitt: I'm getting envious now...
ddavitt: On a sidenote, Jim G has the year books david and said he'll post H's comments on perrault to afh
AGplusone: or, rather c c / c / c / c / ...
dwrighsr: You did notice that Orphans had the first pre-cursor of SIASL's 'Fair Witness'
BPRAL22169: A very strange idea.
ddavitt: He was rather wasn't he?
AGplusone: I liked the old man .... but that was typical of medieval times ...
ddavitt: Ultimate arbitrator; very powerful position
Major oz has left the room.
ddavitt: Notice how the younger generation just wasn't as good though...
AGplusone: There was a practice they followed ... called "beating the bounds" in England ... they'd take a boy around and show him all the boundry markers for property, then beat him at each spot so he'd remember.
dwrighsr: They never are :-)
AGplusone: Years later, he'd be the person to solve property disputes.
dwrighsr: 3.14159265358979323846264327
BPRAL22169: Those darned English!
ddavitt: Still..if hegot it wrong who would know?
ddavitt: watch it1 :-)
AGplusone: May have been a lucrative rewarding occupation ... what's a few beatings when you're a kid, eh?
BPRAL22169: I've only got six significant figures memorized.
dwrighsr: Thinking of memorizing reminded me that I fell in love with that mention of pi in Starman Jones and I memorized it in 1953. Still remember it, thought wasn't sure of last 2 digits.
dwrighsr: though... not thought
ddavitt: But has it ever come in handy?:-)
BPRAL22169: Hey - maybe the ship's culture is what you get after a few years of Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451.
dwrighsr: Never
ddavitt: figures...
dwrighsr: But a fact should be loved for itself alone.
AGplusone: Not a bad analogy ...
Dehede011: What is the super accurate fraction for pi? 553/322?
BPRAL22169: What do you mean? you just amazed and astounded 8 people in this room.
AGplusone: books into the converter probably go up at 451
BPRAL22169: Is this not useful?
ddavitt: 6 people....
Dehede011: five
ddavitt: But yes, i'm impressed
BPRAL22169: I take it we were not amazed and astounded?
BPRAL22169: Oh, how jaded we have become!
ddavitt: maikosh and dw can't be counted
ddavitt: they already knew :-)
AGplusone: WE're about mid-way ... cat feeding break time? Be back at 50 past the hour? With new questions?
Dehede011: Will do.
ddavitt: Ok but I may go soon; getting tired.
AGplusone: [kiss, slap and tickle time for me. Wife just came home] afk
dwrighsr: in case you missed the earlier mention. I have the current afh postings and the earlier ones that David (AG) mentioned on my web-site. The link is Orphans, this is the same link that will hold tonight's log as soon as I get it edited.
AGplusone: And there are a few questions in there we might look into Saturday ...
AGplusone: [I kissed her and then tickled, so she slapped me!]
dwrighsr: That's why I wanted to get it up as soon as possible, but my timetable got fouled up with a lightning strike taking out two of my biggest servers last Thursday. Haven't had much time since then to get it in shape. Just finished tonight.
Major oz has entered the room.
Major oz: had to refill the bottle
AGplusone: Lightning strikes must be a thrill ...
Major oz: fun, fun, fun
dwrighsr: There was no apparent damage to the servers, but in both my Novell and Unix boxes, the main partitions got so badly corrupted that we had to re-install both systems.
AGplusone: Btw, Oz, Ginny says that the genealogy might be on a brown sheet of paper, like a paper bag ... although she thinks RAH may have clean copied it and then thrown away the paper bag ... an aunt did it for him when he went to his dad's funeral.
Major oz: ....and I'm limited to 31,6K by local phone lines
Major oz: you mean at Butler?
AGplusone: Yeah ... Ginny thinks whatever exists may be at Santa Cruz, but she's not sure.
Major oz: hokay
Major oz: Is there any rivalry between the library at SC and the site at Butler?
AGplusone: Not that I know of ... Bill?
BPRAL22169: not as far as I know
ddavitt: Ok, eyelids drooping, see you on Saturday hopefully
Major oz: Also, while I was gone, did you settle the question of: does an edition have to be the first ANYWHERE to be a real-live FE?
BPRAL22169: Butler has an endowment and some copyrights assigned to it; UCSC has all the papers and books.
AGplusone: Are you planning a trip to SCruz in the near future, Bill?
ddavitt has left the room.
dwrighsr: so long. jane
BPRAL22169: End of October probably -- I thought we'd talk about that on Saturday.
dwrighsr: aarg, not fast enought
AGplusone: Hokay ...
Major oz: ....catching, ain't it?
AGplusone: uh-huh ....
BPRAL22169: I've got some doctor's visits that will preclude my going sooner. however, that will probably be a road trip if you're interested.
AGplusone: I might be ... depends on how Dannielle's doing.
AGplusone: What went on, if anything, that was exciting at Chi Con? Pnther5o5: I sat next to Mercedes Lackey at dinner.
AGplusone: Hope she's a pretty lady <g> Pnther5o5: And Larry Niven was there, too.
BPRAL22169: It was kind of hard to meet people there. Very complicated arrangement of the spaces with 3 towers and two sublevels.
BPRAL22169: I attended more paneling than I ever have at a worldcon before, was interviewed about RAH for a documentary maker. Pnther5o5: Gotta go. Long day tomorrow. Pnther5o5: Sorry I haven't been more present.
AGplusone: Funny thing, Bill: somebody told me that Verhoeven hangs out at Rose Cafe ... John, do you have that website of yours?
Major oz: c ya Pnther5o5: See y'all later. Pnther5o5: www.johnringo.com
AGplusone: the URL ... okay, is that the one with the Baen publicity? Pnther5o5: No, that's on the Baen site under "news". Pnther5o5: www.baen.com
AGplusone: Thanks ... okay.
AGplusone: Great ... thanks for coming. Pnther5o5: Night all. Pnther5o5 has left the room.
BPRAL22169: I wish I had known he was going to be there -- I would have arranged to meet.
BPRAL22169: The "Forthcoming from Baen" event was in a room too small by half the audience.
AGplusone: What subject/approach on documentary ... ? And by whom?
Major oz: I apologize: who is John Ringo?
AGplusone: He's a writer of sci-fi ...
Major oz: recent
Major oz: ?
AGplusone: seems military related and currently writing ... I haven't read any yet. Looked at my bookstore recently and they had nothing by him in stock.
Dehede011: Guys, I must say good night now. Bye.
Dehede011 has left the room.
AGplusone: I'll look again next time I'm in ...
Major oz: hokay -- thanx
dwrighsr: Has there been any discussion on the fact that the 'Witness' and 'Joe-Jim' were apparently long-lifers, either due to the mutation or they might have been Howards
AGplusone: He occasionally posts AFH ...
AGplusone: I recall the post ... but I really don't buy it ... possible, but ...
dwrighsr: Buy which. that they were long-lifers or that they might have been Howards?
AGplusone: that five generations can be read two ways, and there's always Tom Parr
Major oz: neither
AGplusone: That they were Howards
Major oz: no evidence or allusion either way
BPRAL22169: The Documentary was about the Grand Master Nebula Winners -- Brian Aldiss (blyech!) was installed this year.
Major oz: I think it is reaching.
AGplusone: It's fairly clear that he's older than most, but that might be only fifty or so ...
dwrighsr: Joe-Jim said that he had seen 3 generations and the Witness said that he had been around for at least 5.
AGplusone: The witness's statement is ambiguous
AGplusone: could be read to say only 3 too
BPRAL22169: Incidentally, I looked up the chart in PTT; the Universe prolog is about 2125+ and the stories are supposedly set according to Gifford in about 2600
Major oz: Interesting line: when Hugh comes down after his "kndnapping", Ertz remarks on his "grey hair"
AGplusone: And, figuring they probably breed at menache, five generations could be as few as sixty years
BPRAL22169: So the mutiny would have taken place around 2200 ad
Major oz: I wonder how "meaured time" would have put these people. Apprentice at 30, master at 50, etc.?
AGplusone: I noticed that ... then I thought, my uncle went ashore Guadalcanal at 17 ... at 18 he was stone gray ...
Major oz: How bout at 20?
AGplusone: STill gray ... and he still has it 'all' ... that side of the family doesn't suffer male pattern baldness
Major oz: anyhoo, back to the Q: how long was Hugh gone. Or was he a "kid" at 30?
dwrighsr: You're right, the Witness's statement could be read as 4 or 5 generations. Just checked it.
BPRAL22169: A few hundred years ago, journeymen were graduated at 17-20.
Major oz: yeah, but I'm trying to account for the grey hair.
AGplusone: My father was 18 when he took his journeyman ticket ...
AGplusone: apprenticed at 11 - 1/2
AGplusone: I think a few years are what I'd assume, Oz ...
AGplusone: Because Ertz is described as jowly, etc., too
AGplusone: That was 1925, Bill ...
AGplusone: The most striking thing to me was the oppressive living in a box these people had to put up with ... I'd think it would stiffle imagination ...
Major oz: evidently
Major oz: I find it strange that there were no viewports
AGplusone: Very few "ah-hah" experiences a la Clarke and Kubrick's 2001 ...
Major oz: anywhere
dwrighsr: But it was a BIG box, mostly empty. Even most of the rooms were empty as I recall because they had fed
AGplusone: Except the Captain's Lounge ...
dwrighsr: 'unneeded' things to the converter
Major oz: yes, but the CL was at the axis
Major oz: I would expect viewports at the shell
AGplusone: I would too ... why not? Shielding?
dwrighsr: Like in 'Farmer'. in the floor plates of the outer level?
Major oz: leaded glass is better than normal metal.
AGplusone: If the cadets in Space Cadet get them ... and Farmer ... why box in 10,000 colonists.
AGplusone: ?
dwrighsr: You mean viewports?
AGplusone: I felt that the 'shield' was more of a field than armor ... yes.
Major oz: I am aided in my conceptual view of this ship by thinking of Clarke's Rama stuffed with 10 x 10 x 10 boxes
AGplusone: the field dependent on the Main Converter
dwrighsr: However, what's there to see, most of the time?
AGplusone: Same thing we look at, minus moons.
AGplusone: Stars
dwrighsr: Plot necessity :-)
AGplusone: Imagine how much longer it would have taken men to develop the concept of planets absent that moon up there ...
dwrighsr: But that makes me think. The starts at the Captain's Veranda would have to have been revolving as the ship was turning, yet there was no indication of that was there?
Major oz: In fact, now that I think of it, it would be very much in line with the failsafes, only a psychological failsafe (that I denied so preemtorially with Jane)
dwrighsr: the stars... not starts
AGplusone: Unless they hung it on a gimbel ...
Major oz: Yes, Dave, there was.
dwrighsr: Or was the CV counter-rotating like the free-fall gym in Space Cadets?
Major oz: It specificaly stated revolving stars
dwrighsr: OK. I missed that
AGplusone: So they'd have a notion of rotation anyway ...
Major oz: Just watched Marion Jones do gold in the 200 -- artistic beauty
Major oz: Anyway.......I am in the uncomfortable position of: the more I analyze this book, the less respect I have for it.
AGplusone: movement ... "eppur si muove" as Bill quoted Galileo a while ago
dwrighsr: Wasn't that a reference to the ship's forward movement?
AGplusone: What makes you unconfortable ... ?
AGplusone: com ...
Major oz: This whole failsafe thing. Viewports would have stopped much of the cultural decline
AGplusone: It was for Hugh ... for Galileo it was referring to the planets (if he actually said it) ...
BPRAL22169: Hugh was referring to the motion of the ship -- the world moving through space.
Major oz: The time spent on mechanical failsafes presupposes a consideration of psychological misshap.
AGplusone: I would think so ... but then they didn't want to put a port in the Gemini (?) until the Seven insisted
Major oz: non sequitor
AGplusone: Engineers and scientists sometimes design thinks that don't exactly work
AGplusone: things
Major oz: true
Major oz: but they usually do
Major oz: I play the odds
BPRAL22169: Human factors engineering was in its infancy in 1941.
Major oz: Hawthorne?
AGplusone: Should we consult cultural anthropologists to engineer our spaceships ... ?
Major oz: not to "engineer" them
AGplusone: sorry ... 'design'
Major oz: but to "anthropologize" them
BPRAL22169: Ifyou are planning to take a small society along with you, it seems a logical idea to me.
AGplusone: Compare all the business at the beginning of Stranger re selection ...
BPRAL22169: But the hard fact is you cannot plan for the collapse of a culture.
BPRAL22169: You have to rely on some infrastructure.
AGplusone: It would seem to me that history would say: expect a mutiny in 60 years
Major oz: A true colonial ship would work only under VERY strict military style authority -- complete with sidearms and summary justice.
AGplusone: If Columbus had one before he found land .... etc.
dwrighsr: But, I thought we settled it that the mutiny happened fairly close to the beginning of the trip?
AGplusone: That's why they hired Captain John Smith ....
AGplusone: No, I think it was near the end ... surely after half-way
Major oz: 58-60 years
Major oz: What is "the trip"
Major oz: What was intended
Major oz: Or where they wound up.
Major oz: ?
AGplusone: didn't really need defense from the Indians as much as keeping the disappointed gold-seekers hoeing them weeds to grow crops ...
AGplusone: so they wouldn't starve.
dwrighsr: Ah. I see your thinking now, I think. About the timing.
AGplusone: I think Heinlein is saying, mainly, expect mutiny, disorder, decline, and lots of Roanokes ...
Major oz: My take is that the 60 year point is approx half way into the INTENDED journey, but eons ago in the resulting journey.
AGplusone: Unless we have FTL
Major oz: The Aztek "generation ship" story is more to the point of how a successful one would be run.
AGplusone: Which one is that?
Major oz: Can't remember the author. Two tribes. Taboo cross-breeding(as genes have been implanted that shouldn't meet before the end of the trip). God(robot) roaming the no-mans line between tribes. Artificial sun.......lots of things.
Major oz: Our hero finds that the sun is phoney and the control declines.
AGplusone: then, a revolution, and ...
Major oz: Also he impregnates a lady from the other tribe, and a genius evolves.
Major oz: Kind of a space age "Survivor"
Major oz: :-)
AGplusone: Be interesting to compare all the generation novels and see what common threads and who's out ahead of the curve.
Major oz: Anyway, tight control is built in, which is my allegation.
AGplusone: I'd presume they thought they had control too ... Ginny mentioned something to me: said Robert said mutiny is the greatest fear of a naval or ship's officer
AGplusone: which may be why he kept going back to that theme
Major oz: Do you suppose that Rama was a generation ship?
Major oz: I agree -- there is no place to run.
dwrighsr: I think that over-tight control would probably increase the chances of mutiny
AGplusone: Exactly ...
Major oz: Not if they started ignorant.
AGplusone: particularly if combined with a deception that will fail
Major oz: If they are ignorant, deception is a null concept/
AGplusone: Gotta be pretty damned ignorant ...
Major oz: All you want is a gene carrier to last to the goal.
dwrighsr: You lost me. Who is ignorant, the original colonists?
Major oz: So come down here -- I can give you hundreds..............
AGplusone: Oz says they bred them down in this story he has ...
AGplusone: at least that's what I infer
Major oz: .....but with complimentary genes in the two tribes.
AGplusone: Sort of like Memtok ...
Major oz: But that isn't my general point. The bodies that carry the genes (the only important cargo) must be rigidly ruled.
AGplusone: Sounds like James Blish and his Seeding Stars ...
Major oz: yo
Major oz: wasn't there an "L" in that?
Major oz: ...or did I just scan it in when I read it?
AGplusone: Yes, probably ... been forty years at least
AGplusone: Seedling
dwrighsr: Hogan had an interesting take on that in 'Voyage from Yesteryear'. He encoded the people into the computer and then had then regenerated by robots when the ship reached it's destination.
Major oz: hokay
Major oz: but that went awry, didn't it?
CannyLass has entered the room.
dwrighsr: Actually, no.
AGplusone: Well, we have a long time ago visitor ... about to join us. Hi, Elizabeth!
Major oz: ....a little cosmic radiation on a circuit board, and: presto -- a race of robots
BPRAL22169: This transhuman stuff has become quite popular recently. Most writers don't bother to reconstitute -- just live inside the computer.
dwrighsr: It just didn't turnout the way the later arrivals expected it to.
CannyLass: Hi David, and everyone. Yes, I plan on being very late to my own funeral.
AGplusone: We're talking about generation ship novels in general.
Major oz: Once again, RAH was ahead of his time
AGplusone: You know Oz, do you know the rest?
AGplusone: Think you know Bill too ...
dwrighsr: I'm half of the Davids here, Davew as opposed to David Silver.
BPRAL22169: Howdy - in another lifetime, I think.
dwrighsr: ??
Major oz: Dave Gold, or Dave Bronze?
dwrighsr: Gold, of course, :-)
BPRAL22169: You've been watching too much olympics.
dwrighsr: Happy to meet you.
Major oz: sorry, while chatting, I am switching NBC, CNBC, and PMSNBC
Major oz: aha, good evening.
CannyLass: and you dw
AGplusone: So, read Orphans lately ...
AGplusone: Ginny was here earlier btw ...
BPRAL22169: They've got two hurricane alerts, so she may have had to power down for thunderstorms.
AGplusone: In Florida now?
CannyLass: about 2 weeks ago I had it in my hands again. I'm sorry I missed Ginny...haven't heard from her lately so I must assume she is still busy with the manuscript work.
BPRAL22169: She's shivering the timbers of pirates. And making quince jelly in her spare time.
AGplusone: Right! And this year I get a jar!
markjmills has left the room.
CannyLass: I'll take earthquakes over hurricanes anyday <shuddering with memories of Galveston TX>
BPRAL22169: She puts them up in pints.
BPRAL22169: My choice, too -- but Ginny seems to prefer it.
AGplusone: [if you come down to Santa Monica, Elisha, Bill and I will share our quince jelly with you ... if you leave the Scotsman home)
BPRAL22169: The way I look at it, we may or may not get an earthquake in California any given year -- but she's certain to get one or more hurricanes.
CannyLass: you're no fun anymore AG
AGplusone: [he looks like he'd disapprove of us ... or me, anyway]
BPRAL22169: I can bring a jar Saturday.
CannyLass: Exactly BP!
Major oz: It's snowing bloddy hell in my home (before I moved here)
Major oz: Laramie
AGplusone: Shiver
Major oz: Snow at Frenchglen this week also -- one of my top five fishing places.
Major oz: that's just inside OR
Major oz: ahhhh, youth
CannyLass: what with the ahhhh youth comment?
AGplusone: We have a transit strike ... best sobstories paper came out with so far is the nannies for the rich folk in Beverly Hills are missing their buses.
AGplusone: Gives you a far idea of how stratified the use of our buses are ...
AGplusone: fair
BPRAL22169: I'mhaving to go to the hospital downtown -- the taxi fare costs twice as much as the hospital appointment.
AGplusone: Try takin the 10 from Santa Monica ... freeway flyer.
BPRAL22169: And take as much time as the bus -- 40 minute waits for a taxi on each end.
AGplusone: They're not striking ... not MTA
CannyLass: Had to grab the phone. Thank you for looking out for me, David <kiss>
AGplusone: [that's two kisses, right?]
BPRAL22169: I see it's 9:00 p.m. Are we done?
CannyLass: three if you're nice!
AGplusone: Yep ... just about ...
BPRAL22169: Ok I'm taking off. Sei gut alles.
AGplusone: I can try ...
BPRAL22169: ciao.
AGplusone: See you Saturday for Brunch
BPRAL22169 has left the room.
Major oz: bye
Major oz: 1600 EDT sat ?
dwrighsr: 1700 EDT
AGplusone: 1400 PDT
Major oz: hokay
CannyLass: Goodnight everyone!
dwrighsr: Night.
AGplusone: Night all ... stop in Saturday if you have time!
Major oz: So, it is now my Saint's day.
Major oz: And time for me to go.
Major oz: c ya
dwrighsr: Which Saint?
CannyLass: I'll try for Saturday
Major oz: <secret>
AGplusone: Thursday, September 28, 2000, at 8:59:11 PM PDT, Closing log
Major oz: 29 sep
Major oz: clue
Major oz has left the room.
AGplusone: Didn't know there was a St. Oswald ...
AGplusone: Nite Dave
AGplusone: Thanks again.
dwrighsr: Nite Chet
AGplusone: And Good Night for NBC News.
CannyLass: Well, it's been fun even though I missed everything <sniff, sniff>
AGplusone: Come back Saturday!
AGplusone: We'll even give you some wine ...
dwrighsr: Hang on a minute Cassy.
CannyLass: I will do my best, but we are doing a bit of remodeling around here. Make it a Newcastle Brown and I will try harder!!!
dwrighsr: I'll have the log up in a half hour including all of the pre posts.
AGplusone: Newcastle Brown it is ...
dwrighsr: pre-posts are already there, but I have to edit this log and insert it. It will take about 15-30 minutes
AGplusone: Nice to see you again ... !
CannyLass: I have problems with AIM links, would you mind mailing the link to me? Pretty please?
AGplusone: http://dwrighsr.tripod.com/heinlein/OOTS_AIM_09-28-2000.html
CannyLass: I am...I never get to the boards and rarely post in afh - but I am around
AGplusone: G'nite, all ... now going to kiss my wife and have dinner. :-P
dwrighsr: Good night again to you both.
CannyLass: Good for you! Oidche Mhath {goon night}
CannyLass: good night, not goon night!
dwrighsr: s'pokoijni nochi
CannyLass: I'm impressed!
dwrighsr: goon is more appropriate around here :-)
Final End Of Discussion Log

Return to Index

©2001-2007 The Heinlein Society
PO Box 1254
Venice, California 90294-1254

The Heinlein Society was founded by Virginia Heinlein on behalf of her husband, science fiction author Robert Anson Heinlein, to "pay forward" the legacy of Robert A. Heinlein to future generations of "Heinlein's Children."

Heinlein Reader's Discussion Group Thursday 09/28/2000 9:00 P.M. EDT "Orphans Of The Sky" Return to Index

Heinlein Reader's Discussion Group
Thursday 09/28/2000 9:00 P.M. EDT
"Orphans Of The Sky"

Return to Index