Heinlein Reader’s Discussion Group Thursday 06-06-2002 09:00 P.M. EDT I Will Fear No Evil

Heinlein Reader’s Discussion Group

Thursday 06-06-2002 09:00 P.M. EDT

I Will Fear No Evil

Click Here to Return to Index

Here Begin The A.F.H. postings

“Now see here, Eunice! If you hadn’t played “My Last Duchess” to
half the country, I wouldn’t be having to repair the damage.”
(Internal dialogue, Johann to Eunice)

I remember the afternoon in English class when the teacher first read Browning’s poem to us…and the thrill of horror that I got as the fate of the young wife was casually revealed. For those who want to read it again, here’s a link, http://www.csua.berkeley.edu/~dxu/poetry/duchess.html

It deals with a young woman who smiled at everyone, who had no scale by which to judge the worth of a gesture or a gift; all were of equal importance to her. An angel? Not to a jealous and proud husband who wanted to possess her utterly.

Now I’m not suggesting that Joe _did_ have Eunice killed so that he could replace her with the less intelligent and more malleable Gigi…but it’s something to think about

Eunice is a sometimes annoying, sometimes intriguing person. More so than with any other Heinlein character we get multiple POV’s and judgments of her character and personality…few of which bear much resemblance to the only true picture we have of her which we see fleetingly during the ride home with Jake after Johann has told them of his plan. Her thoughts as she sits in the luxury car with the man who will shortly become her lover are the _only_ time she’s free to be herself in the entire book, the only time there is no audience to seduce and play up to. You think she’s honest when she’s in Johann’s head? More often than not maybe, but totally? Some habits are hard to break and I’d bet this is one that Eunice never even tried to shake off.

Those thoughts are worth looking at in detail. They tell us what Eunice is thinking and using that we can make a judgment about her that is uncluttered by her tricks and pretty smiles. She’s a fighter and is unencumbered by loyalty to anyone but herself. Other women are competition (notice how she tells Johann that Winnie’s hair is out of a bottle? Turns out not to be so…) men are prey, easily manipulated, present in abundance, never out of bounds.

This is a woman who is light years beyond Tamara, Maureen and Hilda; pure sex appeal, irresistible to just about anyone (two exceptions; a devout man and a sadist…go figure…).

Proof of her ability to camouflage is in the descriptions of her. Even after allowing for the reluctance we have to speak ill of the dead, they glow in technicolour…yet are tainted by patronage and condescension, especially when it comes to Jake. Who doesn’t feel like whacking him over the head when he says indulgently about Eunice’s savings,

“The little dear was smart about money – a nice sum, enough to keep
him eating a couple of years, I think.”

That, ‘little dear’ had just got her salary doubled, a bonus of a million dollars and a seat on the board in the space of five minutes or so…

I also award him the winner of the most fatuous remark in the book when he says,

“I think Eunice had a romantic notion that she could give her body
to her boss if she no longer needed it and not let him find out.
Ridiculous but it fitted her sweet nature.”

Sure she did…and I have a bargain on this little gold mine no one knows about…

OK, I have plans for other posts about the book from different angles but I thought concentrating on Eunice to start with might be fun…what do you all think of her? How does she stack up against other Heinlein heroes?

Jane


http://www.heinleinsociety.org

“Jane Davitt” wrote in message
news:
>Eunice is a sometimes annoying, sometimes intriguing person. More so
>than with any other Heinlein character we get multiple POV’s and
>judgments of her character and personality…few of which bear much
>resemblance to the only true picture we have of her which we see
>fleetingly during the ride home with Jake after Johann has told them
>of his plan. Her thoughts as she sits in the luxury car with the man
>who will shortly become her lover are the _only_ time she’s free to
>be herself in the entire book, the only time there is no audience to
>seduce and play up to. You think she’s honest when she’s in Johann’s
>head? More often than not maybe, but totally? Some habits are hard
>to break and I’d bet this is one that Eunice never even tried to
>shake off.

Isn’t there some mention that they can see each other’s thoughts once they’ve been stuck in the same skull? I seem to remember that Johann was thinking of something… a past lover perhaps?.. and Eunice saw the woman he was remembering. So if thoughts are readable in one direction, isn’t it reasonable to think it’d work the other way? Does anyone remember an instance where Johann sees something Eunice is thinking about? If she thought of deceiving him, he’d “see” that she’s thinking it. Enforced honesty by telepathy.


Oscagne, High Priest of Skeptics and Cynics
To bypass the Atans guarding my mailbox, replace FornMin.tam with ev1.net

Oscagne wrote:

>>
>
>Isn’t there some mention that they can see each other’s thoughts once
>they’ve been stuck in the same skull? I seem to remember that Johann was
>thinking of something… a past lover perhaps?.. and Eunice saw the woman he
>was remembering. So if thoughts are readable in one direction, isn’t it
>reasonable to think it’d work the other way? Does anyone remember an
>instance where Johann sees something Eunice is thinking about? If she
>thought of deceiving him, he’d “see” that she’s thinking it. Enforced
>honesty by telepathy.

I don’t recall that; can you quote? I think they can peek but I think they can also put up barriers too.

Jane


http://www.heinleinsociety.org

Oscagne wrote:

>”Jane Davitt” wrote in message
>news:
>>Eunice is a sometimes annoying, sometimes intriguing person. More so
>>than with any other Heinlein character we get multiple POV’s and
>>judgments of her character and personality…few of which bear much
>>resemblance to the only true picture we have of her which we see
>>fleetingly during the ride home with Jake after Johann has told them
>>of his plan. Her thoughts as she sits in the luxury car with the man
>>who will shortly become her lover are the _only_ time she’s free to
>>be herself in the entire book, the only time there is no audience to
>>seduce and play up to. You think she’s honest when she’s in Johann’s
>>head? More often than not maybe, but totally? Some habits are hard
>>to break and I’d bet this is one that Eunice never even tried to
>>shake off.
>
>Isn’t there some mention that they can see each other’s thoughts once
>they’ve been stuck in the same skull? I seem to remember that Johann was
>thinking of something… a past lover perhaps?.. and Eunice saw the woman he
>was remembering. So if thoughts are readable in one direction, isn’t it
>reasonable to think it’d work the other way? Does anyone remember an
>instance where Johann sees something Eunice is thinking about? If she
>thought of deceiving him, he’d “see” that she’s thinking it. Enforced
>honesty by telepathy.

And yet, there are plenty of occasions when Johann doesn’t know something until Eunice chooses to tell him. For example, her illegitimate baby, and how it was conceived.

[Brandon Ray]
On Mon, 27 May 2002 17:41:32 -0500, “Oscagne”held forth, saying:

>Isn’t there some mention that they can see each other’s thoughts once
>they’ve been stuck in the same skull? I seem to remember that Johann was
>thinking of something… a past lover perhaps?.. and Eunice saw the woman he
>was remembering. So if thoughts are readable in one direction, isn’t it
>reasonable to think it’d work the other way?

My recollection (theory?) is that Eunice can see what’s going on in Johann’s brain, as it’s meat–but Eunice is only present in a truly disembodied state.


-denny-
nocturnal curmudgeon, editor

Never try to outstubborn a cat. – Lazarus Long

“Jane Davitt”wrote in message news:

>”Now see here, Eunice! If you hadn’t played “My Last Duchess” to
>half the country, I wouldn’t be having to repair the damage.”

>OK, I have plans for other posts about the book from different
>angles but I thought concentrating on Eunice to start with might be
>fun…what do you all think of her? How does she stack up against
>other Heinlein heroes?
>
>Jane

Goodness, food for thought there.

Taking into consideration that Eunice was born apparently without significant protection (money, family advantages) in a world as close to a toxic anarchy we’ll hopefully see, she seems in many ways more a female Lazarus to me, using everything she has (beauty and brains in particular) to survive in a hard world. And yet, her sense of honour dictated taking what she must have known was a fair risk in order to save the life of another as a rare blood donor – not the act of a con artist surely.

Like Maureen, Eunice was “amoral” – working out her own set of rules to live by and be able to look herself in the mirror at night. Unlike Maureen, she wasn’t living in an early 20th century Bible Belt community, but in a futuristic dystopia.

It might be fun to speculate what would have happened to Eunice had she not ended up the donor, and had instead received the million dollar legacy from Johann. As a woman of moderate wealth, a member of the board, and Jake’s paramour, she would have been in a position to achieve success and security, while keeping Joe as a concubine of her own. Artist’s model was a fun game while she was young, but could someone tutored by Jake the fixer and Johann the tycoon really be that unambitious?

Eunice’s sexuality as herself seemed somewhat more reactive than active. Ever eager and receptive, without pushing the issue, perhaps the geisha (many of whom also ended up very financially comfortable)? Her keeping of Joe is the sticking point to the argument of a survivor Eunice, though. Was he more than a talented (genius?) pet? Certainly he isn’t portrayed as an equal partner in the relationship, as he is illiterate and unaware of even where the money for his food comes from, almost a savant. Perhaps a surviving Eunice could have married Jake, set Joe up with Gigi and a comfortable life, with visiting privileges, and gone on to be a female Jubal.

[Carolyn Evans]
Jane Davitt wrote:


>notice how she tells Johann that Winnie’s hair is
>out of a bottle? Turns out not to be so…

IIRC, Winnie claims the colour is natural at one point – but I don’t recall Joan confirming it. I’m more inclined to believe Eunice.

[Simon Jester]

>From: “Oscagne”

>Isn’t there some mention that they can see each other’s thoughts once
>they’ve been stuck in the same skull? I

No, just the opposite. When they are going to open Johann’s safe for spending money, he asks her if she can just lift the combination out of his head. She explains that no, neither one of them can just lift thoughts out, the thought has to be actively present for the other one to “hear” it.

>I seem to remember that Johann was
>thinking of something… a past lover perhaps?.. and Eunice saw the woman he
>was remembering.

I don’t remember this, or any other visualization, it was voice only.


Oldthinkers unbellyfeel Ingsoc. – from 1984 by George Orwell

wrote in message news:

>On Mon, 27 May 2002 17:41:32 -0500, “Oscagne”
>held forth, saying:
>
>>Isn’t there some mention that they can see each other’s thoughts once
>>they’ve been stuck in the same skull? I seem to remember that Johann was
>>thinking of something… a past lover perhaps?.. and Eunice saw the woman he
>>was remembering. So if thoughts are readable in one direction, isn’t it
>>reasonable to think it’d work the other way?
>
>My recollection (theory?) is that Eunice can see what’s going on in
>Johann’s brain, as it’s meat–but Eunice is only present in a truly
>disembodied state.

My theory is that Eunice is a grief-driven hallucination on Johann’s part.

[William Dennis]
“LV Poker Player”wrote in message news:

>>From: “Oscagne”
>
>>Isn’t there some mention that they can see each other’s thoughts once
>>they’ve been stuck in the same skull? I
>
>No, just the opposite. When they are going to open Johann’s safe for spending
>money, he asks her if she can just lift the combination out of his head. She
>explains that no, neither one of them can just lift thoughts out, the thought
>has to be actively present for the other one to “hear” it.
>
>>I seem to remember that Johann was
>>thinking of something… a past lover perhaps?.. and Eunice saw the woman he
>>was remembering.
>
>I don’t remember this, or any other visualization, it was voice only.

Perhaps. But in compliance with Jane’s request I started re-reading today and found:

In the Ace 1987 edition on p. 150 Joan is trying to play the piano and can’t. Johann is disgruntled at his newfound inability and Eunice is soothing him by telling him that if he really wants to learn they can start from scratch and, “It’s in your head, I know; I could hear it.” This looks like evidence of an unintentional transmission of information from Johann to Eunice, outside their speech to each other.

On p. 153 when Eunice is using their hands to work on “Betsy” she tells Johann just to think of Winnie so that he won’t interfere with her task. After she’s done she asks him if he did, he says yes, and she says, “I know you did, I was right with you. Joan, for a girl who is, in one sense at least, a virgin, you have an unusually low and vivid imagination.” This may be the visualization I mentioned earlier.

My basic understanding of it is that they can read each other’s thoughts. Not even necessarily “spoken” thoughts, just images, sounds, concepts that occur to them. They demonstrably cannot read each other’s memories, or access each others’ minds like hard drives or something. That’d be why she couldn’t lift his safe combination from his head, he hadn’t thought about it yet. To hide something from him, though, she’d have to not think about whatever she wanted to hide. But if she was making a conscious decision not to think about something, then she’s thought about it. Ever try not to think about something? For example: _don’t_ think of an airplane for the next ten seconds… %^)

Or it could be that she’s a delusion. Or it could be that I’m a delusion and you’re not really on the computer right now, but actually in the proverbial hospital in the proverbial wetpack.


Oscagne, High Priest of Skeptics and Cynics
To bypass the Atans guarding my mailbox, replace FornMin.tam with ev1.net

“Oscagne”wrote in message news:

>
>”LV Poker Player” wrote in message
>news:
>>>From: “Oscagne”

(snip)

>In the Ace 1987 edition on p. 150 Joan is trying to play the piano and
>can’t. Johann is disgruntled at his newfound inability and Eunice is
>soothing him by telling him that if he really wants to learn they can start
>from scratch and, “It’s in your head, I know; I could hear it.” This looks
>like evidence of an unintentional transmission of information from Johann to
>Eunice, outside their speech to each other.
>
>On p. 153 when Eunice is using their hands to work on “Betsy” she tells
>Johann just to think of Winnie so that he won’t interfere with her task.
>After she’s done she asks him if he did, he says yes, and she says, “I know
>you did, I was right with you. Joan, for a girl who is, in one sense at
>least, a virgin, you have an unusually low and vivid imagination.” This may
>be the visualization I mentioned earlier.
>

(snip)

>
>Or it could be that she’s a delusion. Or it could be that I’m a delusion
>and you’re not really on the computer right now, but actually in the
>proverbial hospital in the proverbial wetpack.
>

The issue has been raised, both seriously and not so seriously, as to whether Eunice is a delusion of Johann’s.

I have been re-reading the book, but have found nothing yet that would prove it one way or the other. With respect to all of the ‘details’ that ‘Eunice’ relates to him, up to this point they could be explained as Johann ‘filling in details’ of her life from what he knows.

The problems associated with the two paragraphs above about the piano and the secretarial machine, ‘Betsy’ are of a different nature. The lack of ability of the new body to play the piano is not surprising since it would indeed require training and conditioning of the hands, fingers, muscles and all that to translate the music in Johann’s head to execution on the piano. Working with ‘Betsy’ is a totally different situation. True, it would involve training of the hands, fingers etc. to operate it, but there were indications that mental activity also went on as it involved setting up a search on the library net, (no widespread internet available at the time this was written), which I don’t believe could be explained by simply have the hands etc trained. At the least, if Eunice was not really there, then the search would have involved her body’s training plus mental activity from Johann, without his being aware of it.

In ‘Elsewhen’, Heinlein had Professor Frost going back along his timeline to re-occupy his body before he made the choice to quit school. In Piper’s ‘Time and Time Again’, the protagonist was killed in a war and found himself back in his body at the age of 13 or so. In both cases, the backslider retained all of his memories up to the time of transfer. This could be a possible explanation of Johann and Eunice being in the same body, Johann arriving there by virture of the transplant and Eunice by the transferral method used in these stories. However, that still leaves the problem with Jake joining them at the end.

David Wright
“David Wright”wrote in message news:ad11oo$tbgsh$

>The issue has been raised, both seriously and not so seriously, as to
>whether Eunice is a delusion of Johann’s.
**snip cogent support of this statement**

I think we’re talking to cross purposes, here. My last remark (“Or it could be that she’s a delusion”…etc.) was meant to be facetious and humorous. I think Heinlein left the possibility intentionally ambiguous. Its meant to be a thought exercise IMO. None of the things I wrote were meant to support the idea that her soul absolutely had been implanted in Johann’s mind.

What I was rebutting was Jane’s hypothesis that Eunice was (or could have been) deceitful in her dealings with Johann inside Joan’s head. Specifically when she wrote, “Her thoughts as she sits in the luxury car with the man who will shortly become her lover are the _only_ time she’s free to be herself in the entire book, the only time there is no audience to seduce and play up to. You think she’s honest when she’s in Johann’s head? More often than not maybe, but totally? Some habits are hard to break and I’d bet this is one that Eunice never even tried to shake off.” My hypothesis was that because of the aforementioned passages I didn’t think she’d be capable of the screening her mind or hiding her thoughts that would be necessary to deceive him.


Oscagne, High Priest of Skeptics and Cynics
To bypass the Atans guarding my mailbox, replace FornMin.tam with ev1.net

>From: “Oscagne” d

>What I was rebutting was Jane’s hypothesis that Eunice was (or could have
>been) deceitful in her dealings with Johann inside Joan’s head.
>Specifically when she wrote, “Her thoughts as she sits in the luxury car
>with the man who will shortly become her lover are the _only_ time she’s
>free to be herself in the entire book, the only time there is no audience to
>seduce and play up to. You think she’s honest when she’s in Johann’s head?
>More often than not maybe, but totally? Some habits are hard to break and
>I’d bet this is one that Eunice never even tried to shake off.” My
>hypothesis was that because of the aforementioned passages I didn’t think
>she’d be capable of the screening her mind or hiding her thoughts that would
>be necessary to deceive him.

I agree that deliberate deception is impossible under those circumstances, but there is always self deception, and I think that was what Jane meant when mentioning old habits.


Oldthinkers unbellyfeel Ingsoc. – from 1984 by George Orwell

“Oscagne”wrote in message news:

>
>”David Wright” wrote in message
>news:ad11oo$tbgsh$
>>The issue has been raised, both seriously and not so seriously, as to
>>whether Eunice is a delusion of Johann’s.
>**snip cogent support of this statement**
>
>I think we’re talking to cross purposes, here. My last remark (“Or it could
>be that she’s a delusion”…etc.) was meant to be facetious and humorous. I
>think Heinlein left the possibility intentionally ambiguous. Its meant to
>be a thought exercise IMO. None of the things I wrote were meant to support
>the idea that her soul absolutely had been implanted in Johann’s mind.
>

I really wasn’t commenting specifically on your post, but just on the concept in general. Your post just happened to appear with a lead-in that allowed me to comment. I didn’t take your comments as being one way or the other. I did know that you were being facetious.

David W.
“David Wright”wrote in message news:ad1dhv$tn4ph$

(snip)

>I did know that you were being facetious.
>

and humorous :)

DW

>The issue has been raised, both seriously and not so seriously, as to
>whether Eunice is a delusion of Johann’s.
>
>I have been re-reading the book, but have found nothing yet that would prove
>it one way or the other.

As it happens, the last correspondence I had with RAH was on just this point. I had written pointing out that Joan Eunice knew the pass combination to her apartment with Joe — Blackbirds — which is information that JE could have had only if Eunice was real and not a delusion. He wrote back noncommittally saying that was a good catch, but not confirming the conclusion. From passing comments I’ve seen relayed from other sources, I suspect that he wrote this book with several contradictory scenarios in mind and tried to make all of them equally plausible.

Bill
“Oscagne”wrote in message

>
>Isn’t there some mention that they can see each other’s thoughts once
>they’ve been stuck in the same skull? I seem to remember that Johann was
>thinking of something… a past lover perhaps?.. and Eunice saw the woman he
>was remembering. So if thoughts are readable in one direction, isn’t it
>reasonable to think it’d work the other way? Does anyone remember an
>instance where Johann sees something Eunice is thinking about? If she
>thought of deceiving him, he’d “see” that she’s thinking it. Enforced
>honesty by telepathy.

Actually, I believe that they had to verbalize their thoughts for each other to see them. I’m not sure…I’ll have to re-read the book for you, but i’ll mark it when i find it. 😉

tam

>From: “David Wright”

>I really wasn’t commenting specifically on your post,

In the same vein, I have been giving this issue some thought. I tend to lean toward the hallucination view, but there is something to be said for the view that it really was Eunice.

As far as Eunice telling him things he could not know, is it really “impossible” for Johann to know something? It may be highly unlikely, but how is it impossible? Recently, Bill Patterson brought up Joe Branca’s door code and how Johann got it from “Eunice” inside his head. Well, it does seem kind of unlikely that Johann would have known this in any way. But impossible? I don’t see that. I’m betting that his mobile guards knew it. Before the operation, did they let it slip in his presence? Mabye, maybe not. Was it in the smoop summary he had done (today it would be called a background check)? Maybe.

So just on the basis of Eunice telling him things that he supposedly could not have known, I don’t think we can decide one way or another.

If Eunice really was present and this was not hallucination, was anything supernatural involved? I don’t think it is necessary to assume it was supernatural. How much of the personality and awareness is stored in the spinal column? Probably not all that much, but maybe enough to cause the dialogues related in IWFNE. Until we actually have a brain transplant done, I don’t think we can really know how much the spinal column is involved. We know that he brain can survive more or less independently, since the neck can be broken but he person survives while being paralyzed. We do not know anything about the opposite, since at this point we might keep a body alive on life support without a functioning brain, but we have no way of communicating with the spinal column and asking it if it is still self aware.

This theory falls apart when Jake joins the awareness. It might be that Eunice survived in the spinal column, but Jake joining them was hallucination. Then again, they both might be hallucinations. I prefer to think Eunice really was there, but that they hallucinated Jake joining them.

Then again, the whole point of the novel might have been to leave this matter unresolved.

[LV Poker Player]


Oldthinkers unbellyfeel Ingsoc. – from 1984 by George Orwell

>I’m betting that his mobile guards knew it. Before the
>operation, did they let it slip in his presence? Mabye, maybe not. Was it in
>the smoop summary he had done (today it would be called a background check)?
>Maybe.

As you say, I’m sure the point of the novel was to leave the question unresolved — but even if the mobile guards knew it (which I seem to regard as less likely than you) and even if it were in the background check (which I regard as highly unlikely, given the “permanent information” nature of background checks and the highly transitory nature of passwords), that does not therefore make it likely or probable that their employer knew that fact. This supposition has been raised before, but I regard it as piling improbability upon improbability. Moreover, I tend to be leery of coming up with extra-textual explanations for improbabilities — particularly where there is an alternate textual explanation available. Yes, Heinlein could have argued in that fashion — but he didn’t.

Let’s summarize and say this is an issue that, on net, is more easily explained by the “she’s real” hypothesis. I still think RAH was trying to make several different interpretations credible.

Bill
BPRAL22169 wrote:

>>
>
>As it happens, the last correspondence I had with RAH was on just this point.
>I had written pointing out that Joan Eunice knew the pass combination to her
>apartment with Joe — Blackbirds — which is information that JE could have had
>only if Eunice was real and not a delusion.
>
>

Bill, I’m confused. There was no pass code; when Joan goes to visit, Eunice tells her to just say, ‘open up’ to the door, which begins to unlock and then stops. Eventually Joe opens it. ‘Blackbirds’ was what Eunice said to Joe when she was setting up a session with the guards. It was ‘short talk’ for midnight. From what i gather, short talk could be personalised but wasn’t that secret.

Jane


http://www.heinleinsociety.org

LV Poker Player wrote:

>
>I agree that deliberate deception is impossible under those circumstances, but
>there is always self deception, and I think that was what Jane meant when
>mentioning old habits.
>
>

Sort of, yes. With _any_ audience, I don’t think you got 100% Eunice. Maybe 90% when she was with Johann but it was still important for her to be someone he could love, possibly even more important once he couldn’t see her (sort of).

I thought when I first read the book that Eunice and later Jake were really there in his head and I haven’t changed my mind. If it’s illusion, it’s dull and I prefer it to be real. Heinlein wrote it so that we can all make up our own minds to suit. Clever.

Jane


http://www.heinleinsociety.org

“Jane Davitt”wrote in message news:

>I thought when I first read the book that Eunice and later Jake were
>really there in his head and I haven’t changed my mind. If it’s
>illusion, it’s dull and I prefer it to be real. Heinlein wrote it so
>that we can all make up our own minds to suit. Clever.

Jane–

I think it is even more clever than that. RAH put us in Johann’s shoes pretty thoroughly: We search for evidence of Eunice’s real existence and are never quite able to pin it down to proof positve, yet we believe. Somehow, we just “know” that Eunice is real. And having spent the whole book digesting that improbability, it is fairly easy to swallow Jake’s entrance, with much less setup.

-Dee
Carolyn Evans wrote:

>And yet, her sense of honour dictated taking what
>she must have known was a fair risk in order to save the life of another as
>a rare blood donor – not the act of a con artist surely.

Yes; I was being a little provocative to start the debate :-)

>
>Like Maureen, Eunice was “amoral” – working out her own set of rules to live
>by and be able to look herself in the mirror at night. Unlike Maureen, she
>wasn’t living in an early 20th century Bible Belt community, but in a
>futuristic dystopia.

They have strong similarities; might be fun to look at that more closely. Maureen fans; how do you feel about Eunice?

>
>It might be fun to speculate what would have happened to Eunice had she not
>ended up the donor, and had instead received the million dollar legacy from
>Johann.

Oh , yes :-) She’d have ended up in charge one way or another…

>
>Eunice’s sexuality as herself seemed somewhat more reactive than active.
>Ever eager and receptive, without pushing the issue, perhaps the geisha
>(many of whom also ended up very financially comfortable)?

Now here I disagree. She seemed to be dragging people into bed all over the place, with some amazingly convoluted cover ups for someone who was in ‘open’ relationships.

And am I the only one who started to count the number of times the mind twins told each other they had, ‘dirty minds’? I ran out of fingers and toes after a while and gave up…that got tiresome.

Jane


http://www.heinleinsociety.org

Simon Jester wrote:

>Jane Davitt wrote:
>…
>
>>notice how she tells Johann that Winnie’s hair is
>>out of a bottle? Turns out not to be so…
>>
>…
>
>IIRC, Winnie claims the colour is natural at one point – but I don’t recall
>Joan confirming it. I’m more inclined to believe Eunice.
>
>
>

Joan wouldn’t know. I assume if Winnie dyes it, she dyes both ends in a society where nudity is oddly acceptable (I’d think that would go with greater sexual freedom and it does a little but Joan is still obsessive about keeping her affairs secret before and after marriage)so that wouldn’t help.

We are told that Winnie has very white skin, can’t sunbathe and has very pale eyebrows and lashes; that isn’t conclusive but it makes me think she’s a natural redhead.

Jane


http://www.heinleinsociety.org

“Dee”wrote in message news:

>
>”Jane Davitt” wrote in message
>news:
>>I thought when I first read the book that Eunice and later Jake were
>>really there in his head and I haven’t changed my mind. If it’s
>>illusion, it’s dull and I prefer it to be real. Heinlein wrote it so
>>that we can all make up our own minds to suit. Clever.
>
>Jane–
>
>I think it is even more clever than that. RAH put us in Johann’s shoes
>pretty thoroughly: We search for evidence of Eunice’s real existence and
>are never quite able to pin it down to proof positve, yet we believe.
>Somehow, we just “know” that Eunice is real. And having spent the whole
>book digesting that improbability, it is fairly easy to swallow Jake’s
>entrance, with much less setup.
>
>-Dee

Like so much in Heinlein’s books. I never questioned as to whether or not she was a delusion. I automatically assumed that she was real and until this discussion came along, I never bothered to look for proof ‘fer or agin’ the idea. He was the master at selling me on the premises of his stories. Good thing he never tried to offer me a deal in Spanish Prisoners. :)

David Wright

P.S. Does anyone know what the ‘Spanish Prisoners’ con was all about in TEFL?

>Bill, I’m confused. There was no pass code; when Joan goes to visit,
>Eunice tells her to just say, ‘open up’ to the door, which begins to
>unlock and then stops. Eventually Joe opens it

Perhaps I’m the one that’s confused. It’s been long enough since I read the book that I no longer have a good grasp on the details.

Bill
— Bill Dennis http://billdennis.net “Dee”wrote in message news:

>
>”Jane Davitt” &llt;>wrote in message
>news:
>>I thought when I first read the book that Eunice and later Jake were
>>really there in his head and I haven’t changed my mind. If it’s
>>illusion, it’s dull and I prefer it to be real. Heinlein wrote it so
>>that we can all make up our own minds to suit. Clever.
>
>Jane–
>
>I think it is even more clever than that. RAH put us in Johann’s shoes
>pretty thoroughly: We search for evidence of Eunice’s real existence and
>are never quite able to pin it down to proof positve, yet we believe.
>Somehow, we just “know” that Eunice is real. And having spent the whole
>book digesting that improbability, it is fairly easy to swallow Jake’s
>entrance, with much less setup.

A book in which a man’s brain is implanted into a dead woman’s body, yet retains the woman’s memories is a fantasy.

A book in which a man’s brain is implanted into a dead woman’s body, and he hallucinates that the woman’s personality is alive, is a science fiction novel.


Bill Dennis
http://billdennis.net

“William Dennis”wrote in message news:U5dJ8.143436$

>
snip
>
>A book in which a man’s brain is implanted into a dead woman’s body, yet
>retains the woman’s memories is a fantasy.
>
>A book in which a man’s brain is implanted into a dead woman’s body, and he
>hallucinates that the woman’s personality is alive, is a science fiction
>novel.
>
>
>–
>Bill Dennis
>http://billdennis.net
>
>

A book whose thesis is that “memory” is not all held in the brain, but perhaps is distributed partly through other parts of the nervous system is what then? Particularly since we know that at least some of what we call conscious behavior is simply the tale we tell ourselves to explain our reflexes, eg the fantasy that we moved our hand from the hot stove because we felt the heat, rather than the reality that the sensory input didn’t even reach the brain till after our spinal cord reflex had taken care of the problem.

I know when I play piano or type for example, the actions are no longer requiring conscious monitoring. A lot of accustomed activity seems to be handled at the lowest possible level. So “the body”‘s ability with yoga and the secretarial machine ring true to me, particularly since we are not sure if perhaps the surgeon may have retained for example the cerebellum for better motor control of the new body.

As to the “personality” implant, I know I have a very clear mental map of my husband after 18 years, what he will say and do in any given situation. (Not of course always accurate, which is a source of joy in itself!). And Johann was a man of fair experience with women in general, and apparently deeply loved Eunice, and spent much time watching her, speculating about her, and quite likely knew very well the details of her life. I’d say he may well have had the ability to run conversations between himself and “his Eunice” before the surgery in his mind in the dark lonely hours of the night, just as I can when my husband is away and I need his “advice”. And of course, post surgery, there was no inconvenient real Eunice to contradict his version.

[Carolyn Evans]
“William Dennis”wrote in message news:U5dJ8.143436$

>
>
>–
>Bill Dennis
>http://billdennis.net
>”Dee” wrote in message
>news:
>>

(snip)

>A book in which a man’s brain is implanted into a dead woman’s body, yet
>retains the woman’s memories is a fantasy.
>
>A book in which a man’s brain is implanted into a dead woman’s body, and he
>hallucinates that the woman’s personality is alive, is a science fiction
>novel.
>
>

Why? Because we know of no way that a person’s personality can survive death of the body and re-appear when a new brain re-activates the body?

We also know of no way that spaceships can go flitting from star to star, overcoming or bypassing the limitations on the speed of light. We know no way that time travel can be done either linearly or multiplex.

We don’t hesitate to call these stories science-fiction, do we?

Maybe none of them will ever come to pass, but I don’t see the validity in making the distinction in this particular case.

David Wright
“William Dennis”wrote in message news:U5dJ8.143436$

>A book in which a man’s brain is implanted into a dead woman’s body, yet
>retains the woman’s memories is a fantasy.
>
>A book in which a man’s brain is implanted into a dead woman’s body, and he
>hallucinates that the woman’s personality is alive, is a science fiction
>novel.

Heinlein wrote other fantasies.


Oscagne, High Priest of Skeptics and Cynics
To bypass the Atans guarding my mailbox, replace FornMin.tam with ev1.net

“Oscagne”wrote in message news:3cf58d1d$

>
>”William Dennis” wrote in message
>news:U5dJ8.143436$
>>A book in which a man’s brain is implanted into a dead woman’s body, yet
>>retains the woman’s memories is a fantasy.
>>
>>A book in which a man’s brain is implanted into a dead woman’s body, and he
>>hallucinates that the woman’s personality is alive, is a science fiction
>>novel.
>
>Heinlein wrote other fantasies.

Such as “Waldo,” another fantasy in science fiction clothing.


Bill Dennis
http://billdennis.net

“Carolyn Evans”wrote in message news:3cf567c7$0$31824$

>
>”William Dennis” wrote in message
>news:U5dJ8.143436$
>>
>snip
>>
>>A book in which a man’s brain is implanted into a dead woman’s body, yet
>>retains the woman’s memories is a fantasy.
>>
>>A book in which a man’s brain is implanted into a dead woman’s body, and he
>>hallucinates that the woman’s personality is alive, is a science fiction
>>novel.
>>
>>
>>–
>>Bill Dennis
>>http://billdennis.net
>>
>>
>A book whose thesis is that “memory” is not all held in the brain, but
>perhaps is distributed partly through other parts of the nervous system is
>what then? Particularly since we know that at least some of what we call
>conscious behavior is simply the tale we tell ourselves to explain our
>reflexes, eg the fantasy that we moved our hand from the hot stove because
>we felt the heat, rather than the reality that the sensory input didn’t even
>reach the brain till after our spinal cord reflex had taken care of the
>problem.
>I know when I play piano or type for example, the actions are no longer
>requiring conscious monitoring. A lot of accustomed activity seems to be
>handled at the lowest possible level. So “the body”‘s ability with yoga and
>the secretarial machine ring true to me, particularly since we are not sure
>if perhaps the surgeon may have retained for example the cerebellum for
>better motor control of the new body.
>
>As to the “personality” implant, I know I have a very clear mental map of my
>husband after 18 years, what he will say and do in any given situation.(Not
>of course always accurate, which is a source of joy in itself!). And Johann
>was a man of fair experience with women in general, and apparently deeply
>loved Eunice, and spent much time watching her, speculating about her, and
>quite likely knew very well the details of her life. I’d say he may well
>have had the ability to run conversations between himself and “his Eunice”
>before the surgery in his mind in the dark lonely hours of the night, just
>as I can when my husband is away and I need his “advice”. And of course,
>post surgery, there was no inconvenient real Eunice to contradict his
>version.

Ahhh, BUT — When an arm is transplanted onto another body — it’s happened in real life — that arn doesn’t recall the ability to play the piano. 😉


Bill Dennis
http://billdennis.net

“William Dennis” writes:

>Ahhh, BUT — When an arm is transplanted onto another body — it’s happened
>in real life — that arn doesn’t recall the ability to play the piano. 😉
>
>

There are no neural pathways from the arm to the spinal cord. It would have to be the whole body/brain transplant that would show the ‘body’ memory. We don’t know how much of the spinal cord was included in Johann’s transplant, but it would need to be a significant amount to include body memory.

Elizabeth

(speculating)
“William Dennis”wrote in message news:NsgJ8.145446$

>
>
>–
>Bill Dennis
>http://billdennis.net
>”Carolyn Evans” wrote in message
>news:3cf567c7$0$31824$
>>
>>”William Dennis” wrote in message
>>news:U5dJ8.143436$
>>>
>>snip
>>>
>>>A book in which a man’s brain is implanted into a dead woman’s body, yet
>>>retains the woman’s memories is a fantasy.
>>>
>>>A book in which a man’s brain is implanted into a dead woman’s body, and he
>>>hallucinates that the woman’s personality is alive, is a science fiction
>>>novel.
>>>
>>>
>>>–
>>>Bill Dennis
>>>http://billdennis.net
>>>
>>>
>>A book whose thesis is that “memory” is not all held in the brain, but
>>perhaps is distributed partly through other parts of the nervous system
>is
>>what then? Particularly since we know that at least some of what we call
>>conscious behavior is simply the tale we tell ourselves to explain our
>>reflexes, eg the fantasy that we moved our hand from the hot stove because
>>we felt the heat, rather than the reality that the sensory input didn’t even
>>reach the brain till after our spinal cord reflex had taken care of the problem.
>>I know when I play piano or type for example, the actions are no longer
>>requiring conscious monitoring. A lot of accustomed activity seems to be
>>handled at the lowest possible level. So “the body”‘s ability with yoga and
>>the secretarial machine ring true to me, particularly since we are not sure
>>if perhaps the surgeon may have retained for example the cerebellum for
>>better motor control of the new body.
>>
>>As to the “personality” implant, I know I have a very clear mental map of my
>>husband after 18 years, what he will say and do in any given situation.(Not
>>of course always accurate, which is a source of joy in itself!). And Johann
>>was a man of fair experience with women in general, and apparently deeply
>>loved Eunice, and spent much time watching her, speculating about her, and
>>quite likely knew very well the details of her life. I’d say he may well
>>have had the ability to run conversations between himself and “his Eunice”
>>before the surgery in his mind in the dark lonely hours of the night, just
>>as I can when my husband is away and I need his “advice”. And of course,
>>post surgery, there was no inconvenient real Eunice to contradict his
>>version.
>
>Ahhh, BUT — When an arm is transplanted onto another body — it’s happened
>in real life — that arn doesn’t recall the ability to play the piano. 😉
>
>

When we’re a little further advanced perhaps, and instead of arm we get arm plus brachial plexus, or cerebellar transplant, will we see the motor skills that relate to the donor’s trained or innate responsiveness, or that of the recipient? Given that the spinal cord is a continuum with the brain, at what level would a transplant a la Eunice/Johann best serve the recipient’s needs? Is Johann’s identity in his whole central nervous system, in his motor regions, his frontal or temporal cortex? If you transplant only the areas responsible for conscious thought, what sort of personality overlay would you have?

[Carolyn Evans]
This is reminding me of an almost forgotten movie about a man who has the arm of a murderer attached to his body. The arm takes over.

Jeanette–not recommending the movie
“David Wright”wrote in message news:ad3pjj$u2fra$

>
>”William Dennis” wrote in message
>news:U5dJ8.143436$
>>
>>
>>–
>>Bill Dennis
>>http://billdennis.net
>>”Dee” wrote in message
>>news:
>>>
>
>(snip)
>
>>A book in which a man’s brain is implanted into a dead woman’s body, yet
>>retains the woman’s memories is a fantasy.
>>
>>A book in which a man’s brain is implanted into a dead woman’s body, and he
>>hallucinates that the woman’s personality is alive, is a science fiction
>>novel.
>>
>>
>
>Why? Because we know of no way that a person’s personality can survive death
>of the body and re-appear when a new brain re-activates the body?
>
>We also know of no way that spaceships can go flitting from star to star,
>overcoming or bypassing the limitations on the speed of light. We know no
>way that time travel can be done either linearly or multiplex.
>
>We don’t hesitate to call these stories science-fiction, do we?
>
>Maybe none of them will ever come to pass, but I don’t see the validity in
>making the distinction in this particular case.

I hope I haven’t accidentally rekindled that old argument over what IS and what ISN’T science fiction.

Well, here goes — travel between worlds is theoretically possible. As a matter of fact, NASA is investigating potential methods of doing so. Human personalities been stored in the *body* rather than in the brain, and that personality communicating with a transplant brain, is rather beyond the realm of the possible. If Eunice is not an elaborate fantasy on Johann’s part, and Eunice is *real,* then the book qualifies as fantasy. This is *not* a bad thing. TEFL works for me *either* way.


Bill Dennis
http://billdennis.net

“William Dennis”wrote in message news:zxgJ8.112882$L76.188517@rwcrnsc53…

(snip)

>I hope I haven’t accidentally rekindled that old argument over what IS and
>what ISN’T science fiction.
>

Only as a side issue :)

>Well, here goes — travel between worlds is theoretically possible. As a
>matter of fact, NASA is investigating potential methods of doing so.

Ordinary travel between the planets and perhaps even the nearer stars using sub-light technologies. If you know of serious thought being given to practical methods of super-light travel, I’d like to hear about it.

>Human
>personalities been stored in the *body* rather than in the brain, and that
>personality communicating with a transplant brain, is rather beyond the
>realm of the possible.

I see where we are having trouble communicating. I am not speaking of personalities being stored in the body other than in the limited sense as demonstrated by the discussions on the piano and secretarial machine where the body retains or loses the facility to work with familiar/unfamiliar instruments.

What I am talking about is a theme which is present in many of Heinlein’s works in that the personality exists not only in the brain, but in some fashion external to the body and brain. In such a case, the re-incarnation of that personality in a different body, (or in this case, the same body), makes some sort of sense in a hypothetical way. There is actually a hypothesis by Dunne which is used by both Heinlein and Piper, as I mentioned in an earlier post, involving n-dimensional geometry to account for this. As far as I know, there have never been any testable predictions or verifications of such a hypothesis, which prevents it from the status of becoming a theory, but it was a serious proposal and was not considered fantasy. Note that such a hypothesis can account for Jake’s joining the group mind at the end, whereas the ‘body memory’ does not.

Is such re-incarnation real, is super-light star travel possible, is time travel possible. Frankly, I doubt, alas, all of them, but at this stage, I can’t call any of them more or less fantasy than the others.

(snip)

Looking at other works of Heinlein, can we call his ‘World-as-Myth’ fantasy or not. It too is an extrapolation of time theories of Dunne and Ouspensky, especially Ouspensky as well as, perhaps, Everett’s ‘many-worlds’ interpretation of quantum mechanics.

David W.
(jeanette) wrote:

>This is reminding me of an almost forgotten movie about a man who has
>the arm of a murderer attached to his body. The arm takes over.

But, since we’re talking brains here, how about:

“Donovan’s Brain (1953)

Yet another version of Curt Siodmak’s novel about an honest scientist who keeps the brain of a ruthless dead millionaire (Donovan) alive in a tank. Donovan manages to impose his powerful will on the scientist, and uses him to murder his enemies.”

[Quoted from http://www.imdb.com]

>Jeanette–not recommending the movie

I saw this one, as an Army brat, on an MSTS trip from Seattle to Yokohama. While it wasn’t the worst thing about that “cruise”, it was certainly well up in the final standings.

OJ III

[As should be obvious, not recommending this one either.]
I’ve been lurking on this board for some time now, thoroughly enjoying the considered discussions, distressing when the “flames”, “rants”, and “trolls” dominate the discussion. In the past couple of years I’ve began rereading most of RAH’s works, starting with “Grumbles..” and RAH:ARC from Nitrosyncretic press. I had read most of them before (starting with Boys Life version of Farm in the Sky), but didn’t have strong memories on any but a few of the later work.

I read IWFNW when it was first released in paperback, enjoyed it then moved on. Recently I came into possession of a couple of hardcopy first editions and immediately began rereading it. I am well aware that this is generally considered to be one of RAH’s weaker works, however I thoroughly enjoyed the book. The re-reading awakened memories of the earlier reading; in fact, it was almost as enjoyable as TMIAHM.

Finally to the point. What is the basis for the criticisms? I’m aware that RAH was severely ill and unable to do the final edit and it was published without his final polish. If that is true, I’m even more impressed with the quality of a “draft”!

Anyone want to comment? have examples of the basis for the criticism?

Hadley V. Stacey
There were two reasons for me to put that ms. in the hands of his publishers:

1. Mr. Minton told me that he had held a slot in his publishing schedule for
that ms. aand needed it, or he woul dhave to substitute something else.

2. I needed the advance to help with the hospital bills.

Mr. Minton (president of G. P. Putnam) told me that if I would allow someone to do the cutting, he would offer a large advance against royalties. But I knew that this was a special case, and that Robert would want to do the cutting himself. So the advance was cut by half, and the book was not cut by someone else.

It was as you see it today.

Ginny
“Astyanax12” wrote in message
news:
>There were two reasons for me to put that ms. in the hands of his publishers:
>
>1. Mr. Minton told me that he had held a slot in his publishing schedule for
>that ms. aand needed it, or he woul dhave to substitute something else.
>
>2. I needed the advance to help with the hospital bills.
>
>Mr. Minton (president of G. P. Putnam) told me that if I would allow someone to
>do the cutting, he would offer a large advance against royalties. But I knew
>that this was a special case, and that Robert would want to do the cutting
>himself. So the advance was cut by half, and the book was not cut by someone
>else.
>
>It was as you see it today.
>
>Ginny
>Virginia Heinlein
>

I for one, certainly am glad you proceeded as you did although I believe it was unconscienceable for the publisher to take advantage of the situation. As I said, I thoroughly enjoyed the book twenty years ago and last week.

Thanks for the insight and the comments. I certainly appreciate them. I know you have heard this many times but I have spent many, many pleasurable hours reading Robert’s works from the earliest to latest. Two of my children are also avid fans.

Finally, I truly appreciate your comments on this group. It tends to keep it grounded and centered on the topic.

Hadley Stacey
BTW, Mrs Heinlein,

I’ve started my 15-year-old daughter reading Robert’s juveniles (actually, we started when she was 14 with the same one I started with in 1965, _Have Space Suit-Will Travel_). She pronounces them “awesome.”


RDKirk
“It’s always socially unacceptable to be right too soon.” — RAH

On 01 Jun 2002 18:06:12 GMT, (Astyanax12) wrote:

>There were two reasons for me to put that ms. in the hands of his publishers:

Of course, before it appeared in harcover it had appeared as a serial in one of Fred Pohl’s stf magazines — I think it was “If”.

I suspect that this appearance was edited for length, and possibly content, by Pohl. However, I am courious. Was Pohl working from the same draft that was sent to Putnam or from an even earlier draft?

———————————————–
Carrington Dixon
(For email reply change “nospam” to “attbi.com”

>Finally to the point. What is the basis for the criticisms?

I don’t think there have actually been any real “criticisms” of the book: almost all of the negative comment has been of the “I didn’t like the feel of it” variety or objections to its not being in current fashion of realistic/ironic novels.

The one comment I’ve seen which could be construed as verging on a technical criticism is that people were bored by the internal dialog. Others object generally to the somewhat “precious” portrayal of Joan Eunice’s interior life. I found it quite convincing of a 90+ year old man learning how to be female.

Bill
“BPRAL22169″wrote in message news:

>>Finally to the point. What is the basis for the criticisms?
>
>I don’t think there have actually been any real “criticisms” of the book:
>almost all of the negative comment has been of the “I didn’t like the feel of
>it” variety or objections to its not being in current fashion of
>realistic/ironic novels.
>
>The one comment I’ve seen which could be construed as verging on a technical
>criticism is that people were bored by the internal dialog. Others object
>generally to the somewhat “precious” portrayal of Joan Eunice’s interior life.
>I found it quite convincing of a 90+ year old man learning how to be female.
>Bill
>

Certainly the themes could be controversial, but the same was said about TMIAHM (Russian influence), Farnham’s Freehold (racism, cannibalism, fidelity), and of course SIASL. The style of alternating first person dialogue was different at the time, but nowhere near as much as was later used in TNOTB and others.

I have never read any comments regard the “predictions” RAH made in the book. There are some striking similarities between the book’s “news clips” and today’s news.

I can understand people not liking a story or themes (there are several I don’t care for), but that is no reason to call the book “weak”, “uneven”, etc.

hvs
“Hadley V Stacey”wrote in message news:Dh9K8.263$

>
>”BPRAL22169” wrote in message
>news:

(snip)

>
>I can understand people not liking a story or themes (there are several I
>don’t care for), but that is no reason to call the book “weak”, “uneven”,
>etc.

I suspect that there are those who call it “weak”, “uneven”, etc because he didn’t make a final edit. Had he done so, there are still some of those who would call it “weak”, “uneven” etc, because it didn’t fall into a some artificially chosen neat category. I’m *neither* of those, thank Bog. It’s not my favorite Heinlein work, but I’ll still take it over most everything else.

David Wright
Hadley V Stacey wrote:

[snip]
>
>I read IWFNW when it was first released in paperback, enjoyed it then moved
>on. Recently I came into possession of a couple of hardcopy first editions
>and immediately began rereading it. I am well aware that this is generally
>considered to be one of RAH’s weaker works, however I thoroughly enjoyed
>the book. The re-reading awakened memories of the earlier reading; in fact,
>it was almost as enjoyable as TMIAHM.
>

I never thought it weak: on the contrary, from 1970 when I read it soon after publication, I considered it a very strongly felt criticism of the false directions the author saw society taking. It’s certainly didatic, however; and I think to most “critics” of didaticism, that damns it — but that’s not a weakness in my view — I’ve read Heinlein for his didaticism since I was eleven and started with Rocket Ship Galileo. Perhaps the problem they have with it is it more directly states criticisms, not in an optimistic view of the future overcoming problems, but as problems overcoming our own future so much that it will squash it in squalor and anarchy. So the tone offends some. That was at cross-purposes with the view many if not most of the literati in 1970 had of their own contributions to society and the future: “we” were “solving” all society’s ills, weren’t “we,” following our “summer of protest,” our “questioning of all authority,” our building of the “Great Society,” our tearing down of the wisdom of dead white men (especially now that it was clear we were getting out of that horrible unjust war as soon as we could); but the portrait of the future notwithstanding all that “we” had one in I Will Fear No Evil *is* fearsome and very contrarian, isn’t it?

Even the future’s richest flee, unsuccessfuly, the effects on Earth of the trends already showing up of failures in democracy, capitalism, education, the legal system, social welfare, etc., — not even the classic aimless ocean voyage of the no where of an utopia satisfies them — by finally leaving Earth completely for a new birth. A very nasty theme of dissatisfaction. A real downer, dude!

It flew against “common wisdom” of the times. That’s the criticism I’ve always heard of it. Readers didn’t like being told their conceptions of their own beliefs were wrong. I felt the novel very effectively did that and on a wide variety of subjects.

>Finally to the point. What is the basis for the criticisms? I’m aware that
>RAH was severely ill and unable to do the final edit and it was published
>without his final polish. If that is true, I’m even more impressed with the
>quality of a “draft”!
>
>Anyone want to comment? have examples of the basis for the criticism?

The only criticism that ever completely mystified and challenged me was from a long-time Heinlein reader, an older woman I knew, who with her husband had been reading Heinlein since the very beginning. She felt something about the end was dispicable, and ceased reading Heinlein with that novel, refusing to discuss it with me — it was plain as the nose on my face to her and she was surprised I didn’t see it. Something about the final portrait of Jo-ann offended her. She and her husband were in their early seventies at the time, about ten years older than the author. Something in there mixed with her mindset like oil with water; and I’m still more than merely baffled about what it was.

She was a great fan of Twain, and a sophisticated woman, a mature person, who in fact was more than a little avant garde in her own life: in fact, it was in her home as a high-school student I first read a copy of “1603” (if that is the correct date used by Twain for his little sketch of the actual language used in the Elizabethan Court), so it couldn’t have been the brief bit of blue language used by the character to describe her relationship with “Roberto,” her surprise lover. I cannot think of anything else I’ve ever read written by Heinlein up to this time that would have surprised or offended her. Perhaps it was something in the concealled until the end affair with “Roberto” itself (yeah, yeah, I know there are teeny little hints); but that affair was only a surprising incident, not a departure from Jo-Ann’s established character, at least to me. Was it the fact that “Roberto” is someone we are supposed to see as “Winnie’s” partner and that Jo-ann didn’t merely poach, so to speak, on Winnie’s preserve, while simultaneously carrying on an on-going same sex sexual relationship with Winnie (and the rest of the ‘cast of thousands, their name is Legion,’ as Maureen later told us), but concealled her poaching (from us?), maybe the duplicity or preservation of the privacy rather than the polymorphous perversity of it?

I’ve always been puzzled by this one critic; but I’ve never been surprised that criticism based on disagreement with the social criticism portrayed in the book has been leveled at at — that’s human nature, and also invalid literary criticism, a matter called by some of mere “taste.” And I know of no others that I can assess. Needed “tightening” doesn’t amount to much to me, because I cannot imagine how one would do it. That’s like the movie portrayal of Frederick in Amadeus complaining about too many notes. I enjoy all the notes — which ones in I Will Fear No Evil should be taken out because they don’t fit, I ask?


David M. Silver
http://www.heinleinsociety.org
http://www.readinggroupsonline.com/groups/heinlein.htm
“The Lieutenant expects your names to shine!”
Robert Anson Heinlein, USNA ’29
Lt (jg)., USN R’td (1907-1988)

David Silver wrote:

>but the portrait of the future notwithstanding all
>that “we” had [d]one in I Will Fear No Evil *is* fearsome and very
>contrarian, isn’t it?
>

Another day, another typo.


David M. Silver
http://www.heinleinsociety.org
http://www.readinggroupsonline.com/groups/heinlein.htm
“The Lieutenant expects your names to shine!”
Robert Anson Heinlein, USNA ’29
Lt (jg)., USN R’td (1907-1988)

“Astyanax12″wrote in message news:

>There were two reasons for me to put that ms. in the hands of his publishers:
>
>1. Mr. Minton told me that he had held a slot in his publishing schedule for
>that ms. aand needed it, or he woul dhave to substitute something else.
>
>2. I needed the advance to help with the hospital bills.
>
>Mr. Minton (president of G. P. Putnam) told me that if I would allow someone to
>do the cutting, he would offer a large advance against royalties. But I knew
>that this was a special case, and that Robert would want to do the cutting
>himself. So the advance was cut by half, and the book was not cut by someone else.
>
>It was as you see it today.
>
>Ginny

It’s one of my favorites, Mrs. H. I’ve seen you take “the blame” for this book in the past, but as far as I am concerned you have nothing to apologize for.


Oscagne, High Priest of Skeptics and Cynics
To bypass the Atans guarding my mailbox, replace FornMin.tam with ev1.net

Mr. Heinlein did not do drafts of his stories. His motto was: “Do it right the first time.”

He would go over a ms. changing a word here and there, or a paragraph, but he never did a “draft.” Those mss. with his changes, are in the library at UCSC.

Ginny
Virginia Heinlein

I’m still interested in what people think of Eunice, irrespective of her reality or lack of, especially as compared to Maureen. I’m also tempted to tie in my criticisms of her (which are legion) with a swipe at the society in which she lives (which is awful).

This book, written about a decade after SIASL was published, has a common theme; the use of (fascinating) news snippets to illustrate contemporary attitudes. The reporting on Johann’s trial is as nasty as any publicity that Mike received….and as slanted and untrue. Both Eunice and Jake both have the same dream; to get off planet and move to Luna. It’s unusual that Johann doesn’t; born too early (though about the same age as Heinlein?) he sees space travel as an expensive luxury and plays devil’s advocate, allowing the other characters to make a shameless plug or two for the ‘spin off’ from space research.

But it truly was a book in which Heinlein took some savage swipes at trends in contemporary US society; something that gets overlooked in all the criticism.

Education for instance; the book has as characters many illiterates, including Gigi;

“Computer fouled up my pre-school test records and I was in sixth grade before anyone caught it. Then it was sort o’ late to change tracks and I stayed on the ‘practical’. There was talk of putting me through a remedial but the principal put his foot down. Said there wasn’t enough budget to handle the ones that could benefit from it.”

Scary..and a kick in the pants for kids reading the book who whine about homework. The thought of separating people out and not teaching them to read is horribly reminiscent not just of slavery but of most of history before the 19th century or so. Keeping the lower classes illiterate has always been handy for keeping them content in their ignorance.

Dishonesty;

Johann’s butler is stealing from his employer…but is it stealing when Johann knows about it and condones it? Or a creative way to avoid paying taxes?

“If my butler is black-marketing two-thirds of what he buys for me and pocketing the proceeds – and he always has- then he’s anxious to keep his job. Which means that he has to please _me_. Jake, can yo think of a cheaper way to buy the nearest thing to loyalty that can be bought?”

And when Jake replies,

“Bad precedent. Corrupts the country” he says,

“The country is corrupt. But it is “the only game in town’; we have no choice. The problem is always how to live in a decadent society.”

Seems to me that it’s this that caused the decline..and it’s pure selfishness of Johann to cooperate in Hubert’s moral lack of fibre.

Sexual freedom gone wild…this is my view of a bad thing as shown…and echoes a lot of what I didn’t like about Maureen’s lifestyle.

When a father can be applauded for putting his 13 year old daughter on the ‘junior Pill’ and that daughter can do her best to seduce a 70+ man without her father being concerned..there’s something wrong. When the idea is that fidelity and honesty are lost causes within marriages..or so rare as to rival hens teeth..there’s something wrong. A (pregnant) woman sleeping around on her honeymoon and a few hours after her husband dies..I’m supposes to cheer, ‘Go Joan Eunice, you liberated woman, you?” Can’t do it. Did Heinlein expect me to? Or is it a subtle swipe again? Ok, enough of me talking…

Jane


http://www.heinleinsociety.org

in article , Jane Davitt at wrote on 6/2/02 8:00 PM:

[snip]
>Sexual freedom gone wild…this is my view of a bad thing as
>shown…and echoes a lot of what I didn’t like about Maureen’s
>lifestyle.

My view too. But I think Robert often toyed with the idea that a true sophisticate (I hate that word but it works) could escape the unnecessary taboo’s against infidelity, and only rely on the necessary ones.

Proposition: Sex is a bodily function akin to eating (especially in a society that places a high value on eating with company; intimate company) and as such should be treated as such. He hinted in GR that he had a disdain for the American concept of “going steady.” He (Oscar as narrator) said it was a way of preventing Saturday night from becoming the loneliest night of the /weak/ (IIRC). In other words, rather than having to /try/ to keep a mate happy, one only had to declare the effort officially over by announcing that a couple was “going steady.” Lazy, that is. Unfruitful, that is.

Would any of us who are married, feel hurt and betrayal if our spouse decided to eat dinner out with a friend for the evening? No. Perhaps, we have a friend we’d like to eat dinner out with ourselves. No huhu. His question, albeit I always thought it was a strictly intellectual question, was how is this different than infidelity? Especially, if the spouse in question eats dinner at home every other night–“always brings it home” as I believe Heinlein said a few times, though it is a fairly common expression.

My problem with our culture in this regard is that it attempts, especially since the introduction of the Birth Control Pill (the first /practical/ form of Birth Control in 7-24,000 years of civilization), to divide Love, Sex and Reproduction into separate entities.

Personally, I don’t mind them being divided up, theoretically, now that it is /possible/ to do so, it’s just that we aren’t and haven’t done a very good job of it so far. Well, 50 or so years is nothing in terms of cultural change. Marriage, as Heinlein acknowledges in many other stories, is a mechanism or device that assumes all three entities are interconnected. And even with the BC pill, they /still/ are–despite opinions to the contrary–mostly because a better way, a better viewpoint, a better mechanism has not been discovered or synthesized. Robert seems to have seen the same things and speculated many different ways this problem might be solved.

>When a father can be applauded for putting his 13 year old daughter
>on the ‘junior Pill’ and that daughter can do her best to seduce a
>70+ man without her father being concerned..there’s something wrong.
>When the idea is that fidelity and honesty are lost causes within
>marriages..or so rare as to rival hens teeth..there’s something wrong.
>A (pregnant) woman sleeping around on her honeymoon and a few hours
>after her husband dies..I’m supposes to cheer, ‘Go Joan Eunice, you
>liberated woman, you?” Can’t do it. Did Heinlein expect me to? Or is
>it a subtle swipe again?
>Ok, enough of me talking…

I think it was both a swipe at the decadence and a swipe at our Puritan natures at the same time–though this is prob. not the right term for you guys on the other side of the Pond–didn’t you push them all on us? :-) He disliked leaning on anything–convention or, one supposes, abrogating morality because it’s just too hard. There’s some phrase in the Bible about not clasping you hands over your belly and resting. That isn’t for us–it’s not our lot. This was certainly his motive in so many of his other speculations. Think man, think! Pretty well distills his message in his whole body of work.


Art

Art McNutt wrote:


>I think it was both a swipe at the decadence and a swipe at our Puritan
>natures at the same time–though this is prob. not the right term for you
>guys on the other side of the Pond–didn’t you push them all on us? :-)

Heck, no – you Puritans crossed the Pond to avoid religious intolerance of yourselves, and so you could practice religious intolerance of anyone else.

😉

[Simon Jester]

>From: Jane Davitt

>I’m still interested in what people think of Eunice, irrespective of
>her reality or lack of, especially as compared to Maureen. I’m also
>tempted to tie in my criticisms of her (which are legion) with a
>swipe at the society in which she lives (which is awful).

 

It might be time to point out that Eunice’s behavior might not have been what Heinlein himself approved of or advocated. I am thinking in particular of his non fiction essay concerning EE Smith, Larger than Life, in Expanded Universe. In it he compares the attitudes of pre WWI with the attitudes of 1979 when Heinlein wrote the essay. He thought the pre WWI attitudes were much more pro survival than the 1979 ones. Eunice was a lot closer to 1979 than she was to pre WWI.

[LV Poker Player]

Oldthinkers unbellyfeel Ingsoc. – from 1984 by George Orwell

In article, (Astyanax12) writes:

>There were two reasons for me to put that ms. in the hands of his publishers:

And thank you for doing so, ma’am.

I never found anything wrong with the book; in fact, I was surprised to learn later on that a number of people did. Rereading it both before and after I learned that, I never found any evidence of the flaws that have been attributed to it. I have always found it to be an engaging story replete with the sort of teach-by-example lessons on life that are part of Heinlein’s appeal.

Just by way of evidence that I am not lacking in critical faculties, I have the inverse experience with NOTB; I always did find it flawed, and even after reading an account of how it was actually purportedly doing something very sophisticated, upon rereading it was unable to find any evidence supporting the contention, even though I wanted to. Maybe it’s just over my head, but that doesn’t invalidate my opinion.

I’ll spend time with Johann and Eunice any day. Which points up one of the attractive features of Heinlein: so many modern books have heroes (perhaps ‘protagonists’ would be more accurate) that one wouldn’t want to meet in a dark alleyway, much less have over for dinner. But Heinlein’s heroes are the sort of people that make you wonder where they’ve been all your life.

Peter Scott

>It might be time to point out that Eunice’s behavior might not have been what
>Heinlein himself approved of or advocated.

Considering that is impossible to reconcile Eunice which, say, Lazarus Long (or even Lazarus Long with himself) I would have to say this is probably true. Eunice is a character, nothing more. She makes darn good fiction of the didactic sort, but the didacticism isn’t necessarily telling you what you /should/ believe, merely what you /could/ believe.

Alixtii.
In article, Jane Davittwrites:

>Sexual freedom gone wild…this is my view of a bad thing as
>shown…and echoes a lot of what I didn’t like about Maureen’s
>lifestyle.
>When a father can be applauded for putting his 13 year old daughter
>on the ‘junior Pill’ and that daughter can do her best to seduce a
>70+ man without her father being concerned..there’s something wrong.
>When the idea is that fidelity and honesty are lost causes within
>marriages..or so rare as to rival hens teeth..there’s something wrong.
>A (pregnant) woman sleeping around on her honeymoon and a few hours
>after her husband dies..I’m supposes to cheer, ‘Go Joan Eunice, you
>liberated woman, you?” Can’t do it.

My interpretation is that here Heinlein is presenting people who love and value life so much that they are unwilling to spend any more of it feeling bad than absolutely necessary… and that they have either evolved to the point or put in the work necessary to get to the point where they can pass through grief, rage, despair, and all that other stuff much more rapidly than we’re accustomed to.

Desirable? Debatable. But all of us have some reference point for “It’s Later Than You Think,” and not a few of us might wish, in retrospect, that we’d spent more time enjoying life than feeling run over by it. I think Heinlein is showing us what you get by taking that to an extreme, which is one of the functions of science fiction.


Peter Scott

Peter Scott wrote:

>>
>
>My interpretation is that here Heinlein is presenting people who love
>and value life so much that they are unwilling to spend any more of it
>feeling bad than absolutely necessary… and that they have either
>evolved to the point or put in the work necessary to get to the point
>where they can pass through grief, rage, despair, and all that other
>stuff much more rapidly than we’re accustomed to.
>
>Desirable? Debatable. But all of us have some reference point for
>”It’s Later Than You Think,” and not a few of us might wish, in retrospect,
>that we’d spent more time enjoying life than feeling run over by it.
>I think Heinlein is showing us what you get by taking that to an extreme,
>which is one of the functions of science fiction.
>
>

Well, Johann explained his calm over Jake’s death by saying that when you get to his age, you deal with death better; “Death is an old friend; I know him well. I lived with him, ate with him, slept with him; to meet him again does not frighten me – death is as necessary as birth, as happy in its own way.”

That’s a nice bit…yet totally contrary to what LL might think, as he staves off death by every means possible for centuries until the flavour goes..only to be cheated out of emulating Johann’s calm acceptance by Ira and pushed back on the treadmill.

But I just find it odd, even amusing, for grown people to be obsessing over sex to the exclusion of all else. Sheesh; it’s fun, sure and I’m not knocking it. No way. It’s high on my list of fun things to do…but for them it _is_ the list and it’s a game that they insist on playing with as many people as they can. I was annoyed by the fact that Joan (or Eunice, whatever) notices that one man (Dr Hedrick) has a jealous wife…IOW, is in a relationship where infidelity is not acceptable as it was for Brian and Maureen…but still contemplates sleeping with him as a way of saying thank you for services rendered. Uh…flowers or a cheque do quite well too you know, dear. Might want to think about that before you endanger someone else’s marriage on a whim.

Jane


http://www.heinleinsociety.org

LV Poker Player wrote:

>>From: Jane Davitt
>>
>
>>I’m still interested in what people think of Eunice, irrespective of
>>her reality or lack of, especially as compared to Maureen. I’m also
>>tempted to tie in my criticisms of her (which are legion) with a
>>swipe at the society in which she lives (which is awful).
>>
>
>
>
>It might be time to point out that Eunice’s behavior might not have been what
>Heinlein himself approved of or advocated. I am thinking in particular of his
>non fiction essay concerning EE Smith, Larger than Life, in Expanded Universe.
>In it he compares the attitudes of pre WWI with the attitudes of 1979 when
>Heinlein wrote the essay. He thought the pre WWI attitudes were much more pro
>survival than the 1979 ones. Eunice was a lot closer to 1979 than she was to
>pre WWI.
>
>

Oh, yes..we don’t know what he thought, or at least I don’t. As a reader do we need to? Should the author make it clear that a character is ‘wrong’ or is that up to us as readers to make our own judgment?

Jane


http://www.heinleinsociety.org

“Jane Davitt”wrote in message news:

>Peter Scott wrote:
>
>
>>>
>>
(snip)
>
>Well, Johann explained his calm over Jake’s death by saying that
>when you get to his age, you deal with death better;
>”Death is an old friend; I know him well. I lived with him, ate with
>him, slept with him; to meet him again does not frighten me – death
>is as necessary as birth, as happy in its own way.”
>
>That’s a nice bit…yet totally contrary to what LL might think, as
>he staves off death by every means possible for centuries until the
>flavour goes..only to be cheated out of emulating Johann’s calm
>acceptance by Ira and pushed back on the treadmill.
>

Jane, I don’t think that you can validly compare the two. Johann knew that he was dying and had accepted that fate as he indicated. He didn’t really expect the transplant to work and saw it as a way out.

Lazarus, OTOH, was dying only after he let himself get in that state by rejecting further rejuvenations because ‘the flavour’ had been lost, and in fact, said something later to Ira that was very similar to what Johann had said, IIRC, about hid feelings on death shortly before he was ‘rescued’ by Ira. When the flavor returned, he seemed just as anxious to escape death and only put himself into a dangerous position when he decided to do it ‘for Maureen’.

David Wright
Jane wrote:

>LV Poker Player wrote:
>
>>>From: Jane Davitt
>>>
>>
>>>I’m still interested in what people think of Eunice, irrespective of
>>>her reality or lack of, especially as compared to Maureen. I’m also
>>>tempted to tie in my criticisms of her (which are legion) with a
>>>swipe at the society in which she lives (which is awful).
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>It might be time to point out that Eunice’s behavior might not have been what
>>Heinlein himself approved of or advocated. I am thinking in particular of his
>>non fiction essay concerning EE Smith, Larger than Life, in Expanded Universe.
>>In it he compares the attitudes of pre WWI with the attitudes of 1979 when
>>Heinlein wrote the essay. He thought the pre WWI attitudes were much more pro
>>survival than the 1979 ones. Eunice was a lot closer to 1979 than she was to
>>pre WWI.
>>
>>
>
>Oh, yes..we don’t know what he thought, or at least I don’t. As a
>reader do we need to? Should the author make it clear that a
>character is ‘wrong’ or is that up to us as readers to make our own
>judgment?
>
>Jane

I don’t think Heinlein had clear ideas of who was “right” and who was “wrong.” I doubt one can say that say, LL was “right” and Eunice was “wrong” or vice versa. An author understands each character’s worldview as a valid paradigm and “believes” it for the period that s/he is writing it. Heinlein was a great writer; just because he was didactic doesn’t mean everything he wrote was the One Truth According to Heinlein. Heinlein had many Truths, most contradictory (re-read TNoLL).

What the point of this observation is, I’m not sure. Alixtii.
In another thread, it was suggested that the Star Wars series might be seen by some as an allegorical biography of George Lucas. I once wrote an essay suggesting I Will Fear No Evil might be such an allegorial biography of its author, Robert Heinlein.

Such theories rank right up there with the interpretation of dreams, IMO, nevertheless, sometimes they are fun to write.

I made the mistake of replying to the post in the other thread with a flippant comment that I felt the theory about Lucas had the same validity as mine about Heinlein. I was asked in reply, to post it.

Here ’tis, for your enjoyment (in picking it apart):

An Angry Fabulist’s Expression
of “Rejection Syndrome”
(c)1998, 2002 All rights reserved.
An essay by David M. Silver
I Will Fear No Evil
by Robert Anson Heinlein

The novel I Will Fear No Evil was almost fit for publication when in January 1970, peritonitis almost ended Robert Heinlein’s life. Just before hospitalization, he completed the first cut of his draft. The author gravely ill and unable to make business decisions, his wife and agent exercised their authority over his affairs and decided upon publication in unfinished form. The result is said by one commentator to be “a rather rambling and murky story line that almost certainly would have been shortened and tightened up considerably had Heinlein been able to edit the draft before publication.” Heinlein remained very ill and underwent other surgeries for the entire next two years. Because it lacks this supposed needed final polish and contains what many then and now consider bizarre subject matter, it has been one of his least appreciated works–a sad fate considering current social history and, also, what I believe is its true intent.

It is not a part of the “Future History Series” but seems to exist further down the time line of Stranger In A Strange Land, which Jubal Harshaw in his brief encore appearance in To Sail Beyond The Sunset tells us is our very own.

The story occurs a half-century or so into the future.

Dramatis Personae:

Johann Sebastian Bach Smith is perhaps the richest man on an increasingly crowded Earth, a self-made, cantankerous very old coot who has made the final error. He has let himself fall into the clutches of the medical profession, and they will not let him die. Mentally as acute as ever, but permanently harnessed into life support gear afforded only the very rich, he has found a way to outwit the medicos by committing an elaborate suicide. A brilliant, unorthodox surgeon, considered charlatan by most, claims he has successfully transplanted brains from one chimpanzee to another–and there are films of the operation and both simians now climbing trees and eating bananas. Doubting whether a first attempt with a human will succeed, even were the operation not a fraud, Smith does not care–he’s got no choice. The hopeless alternative is to accept increasingly mind-numbing narcotics to offset pain until a final vegetal state arrives.

He wagers not to wait and suffer mental or physical agony. All he needs is a body, recently dead; and, as it would make a wildly overoptimistic surgical team more willing to attempt this lunacy if the body has the same rare blood type as he–AB Negative, his solution is simple: advertise for a body!

Eunice Branca, a delightfully beautiful, young, nubile and intelligent woman, is Smith’s recently promoted private secretary. She supports her husband, a body-painting artist, whose favorite canvas is his wife. She likes old Johann, appreciates his gallant efforts to evade the inevitable fate tied to his automated bedpan, and delights in exhibiting herself to this very old man in his last few days: Are those tights she’s wearing, or just paint? Only Eunice, her husband, and the reader, know for sure.

Jake Salomon is Smith’s private attorney, long-time friend, and co-conspirator against the medicos. One other thing: he’s quite a “fixer.” Organ transplants have become big business. Relying on precedents that a dead body is ‘property’ of the dead person’s estate, Salomon has little difficulty in setting up a lawful offer to buy a recently dead one in ‘prime’ condition for his very rich client. It’s simply a matter of awaiting some accident to provide a proper host for Johann’s brain.

Joe Branca is the prototypical artist as a young man, seemingly a minor character, not very bright, but talented in an obscure area few would seriously believe is art: “body-painting?”! It’s doubtful whether he would be able to live, let alone pursue this “art” without the effort and strong, loving support of his talented wife. He is offspring of an indolent cranky ungrateful mother, who, vicious, bigoted and stupid, lives on the largess of the country–a welfare drone, paradoxically grinding out bastard children who grind out bastard children ad infinitum and, amazingly, thinks herself neglected by and “better” than almost all others of her indulgent, troubled, decaying society.

Plot Synopsis:

To his surprise, Johann awakens from surgery. Memories of strange dreams under anesthesia did perturb him a bit; but he’s delighted to find himself alive, without pain–for the first time in years. Numbness below the neck gradually wears off as his new body adjusts to the demands of its new brain. He’s not even particularly shocked to find the young new body is female–no one thought to specify the sex of the donor. He’s perfectly willing to try on his new life in that gender–it might be fascinating! A bit curious he has asked for a mirror, which they are bringing.

The tremendous shock caused by discovery that the face and body the mirror discloses are those of Eunice Branca would kill a lesser man. Then suddenly that which had been disturbing him during his time under anesthesia becomes manifest. Eunice is present in his consciousness. Since the operation she has always been there. She soothes his troubled mind. How can two “consciousnesses” exist in one brain, short of that conditions described in The Puppet Masters, i.e., parasitic enslavement and exploitation of one form by another, or what persons educated before the end of the 1970s then and the general public still calls “schizophrenia”?–for this is not an essay on the current labeling flavor of the day endorsed by an evolving profession. I leave that question for later.

The body and minds of this construct Johann-Eunice start a journey unlike any in the annuals of speculative fiction. First, there’s the little matter of recovering legal control over self. During unconsciousness following surgery, to keep Johann’s granddaughters from having him declared dead (and presumably inherit), Salome, er, Salomon did a legal dance to persuade the state to declare him guardian over Johann’s head and Eunice’s body. The granddaughters are offspring of his second and third wives, who each divorced Johann, but only after presenting him with children not biologically his; and, therefore, they are not granddaughters in any but the strict legal sense of being children of his presumed “daughters” who themselves also were born during wedlock.

And the only son this man ever had, an honorable man who died taking a worthless hill in a discredited war, was the result of yet another cuckolding whose mother, whom Johann truly loved, died giving him birth. But Johann, a gentleman, has and will never mention this knowledge (certain because of the blood types he knows his “children” possessed) to anyone except Eunice whom he finds now sharing his brain, even though control over the property and his corporate empires is at stake.

Salomon and Johann-Eunice will win the legal battles. A bewildering display of sub-plots intermixed with didactic social commentary occurs during this contest and following. Here I set most of the didacticism aside, since commentary on all the subjects raised by the author’s agenda would require an essay far beyond the scope of this paper: however, as a first decision, Johann-Eunice ordains she will henceforth be called Joan, but pronounced “Yo-an” Smith.

First among the subplots: Johann was a sperm donor; and frozen sperm exists. As all of Johann’s putative children from three wives were not biologically his (Johann was lucky in a “foolish fourth marriage,” hoping to bring back something that had died in him with the death of his ‘son’ whom he loved, as it brought forth no issue, but merely cost a “chunk of money” to get shut of it), Johann-Eunice decide early on there shall be one; and secretly one of Yo-an’s eggs is surgically implanted fertilized with his thawed genetic remnant, immediately before the next activities commence.

Next is this little matter of returning to an adult life–this time as a woman. First, to complicate things a bit, Yo-an seduces “Winnie.” She is another prototypical character, a bright vivacious redhead, familiar to all Heinlein’s readers, a type sometimes associated with Virginia (called by some “Ginny”) Heinlein, his second wife. She is Yo-an’s nurse, and now becomes female companion, that is, nursemaid. To complicate matters a bit more, Winnie has a boyfriend, the semi-mysterious Robert, or “Roberto,” whose detailed associations with Winnie and profession are kept private and off-stage from us by the author, until mid-novel when we find he was one of the specialists charged originally with Yo-an’s physical recovery. To complicate yet more, it turns out that Eunice, before her death, had an on-going affair with Jake Salomon, old Johann’s “fixer” and only real friend. So Yo-an seduces Jake to assuage his grief and reveals to him her secret: the two minds that exist in her cortex. Then Yo-an visits Joe Branca, still struggling to produce ‘art for art’s sake,’ and finds him in virtual poverty. He told the “fixer,” Jake, to “kark in his hat” when offered a staggering sum for Eunice’s body. Eunice was mugged and murdered while shortcutting through one of the many dangerous neighborhoods existing in this decaying world of walled and privately policed enclaves to save time getting to an emergency patient as an “Angel of Mercy,” a rare blood donor. One of Joe’s old models, “Gigi,” whom Eunice knew and loved, has moved in and is trying to support them by, unknown to Joe, prostituting herself. Yo-an loves them both and arranges personally with the model to subsidize Joe. Joe’s head is so far up in the clouds he does not ask about the source of money Gigi brings for food and shelter. Now the young struggling artist has an effective ‘keeper’ again! The plot is beginning to resemble one of Wagner’s Ring-cycles–less some of the murders–well under way, isn’t it?

Let’s skip the rest of the complications, including much more sleeping around, er, loving. Jake marries Yo-an; and they sail away onto the only safe and secure place now existing on Earth, the open seas of the Pacific itself. Joe and the model, now married, and many other people come along on a large trimaran. Other complications ensue, including more love triangles. These complications interfere with Joe’s art, so the couple decide to go ashore. During their helicopter departure, Jake, still strong and virile, tries to steady a swinging piece of heavy luggage being winched above, overtaxes his aged heart and immediately expires.

At that moment, Jake’s consciousness enters Johann-Eunice’s shared brain and body. Now they are a trinity. Curiouser and curiouser. Step aside Wagner–this author’s just surpassed you and taken the teacake at this party of the mad!

Now to the finale: Johann-Eunice-Jake decides to immigrate to the Moon to escape Earth’s soiled civilization entirely and ensure the soon-to-be-born child may be born in a world of hope. Reenter “Winnie” and boyfriend Dr. Roberto Garcia, who was responsible for the care of Johann-Eunice during her first convalescence. They accompany the emigrant Johann-Eunice-Jake as her personal servants (huge charitable donations would have gone elsewhere had the Lunar Authority not allowed that wild departure from its strict screening policies–the rich necessarily always play by ‘different’ rules) as that baby is very important and, by the way, there now appear some indications that the graft of nerve cells between brain and spinal cord is deteriorating–a situation called by the healers of this novel “rejection syndrome.”

A hiatus intervenes. We are in Luna; and Johann-Eunice-Jake is in labor. Yo-an repeatedly insists to ‘Winnie’ that she promise that, if anything “happens,” the baby will be named Eunice Jacob. And just as the expectant mother goes under, while an argument over NAMES occurs among the three in the brain, there is the following conversation between Yo-an and Winnie:

“I do promise you, Joan. Cross my heart.”

“My dear sweet Winsome. We’ve come a long way together, you and I and
Roberto [The emphasis is not in the original].

“Yes, we have dear.”
“I’m ill. Am I not?”
* * * * *

And as she goes under, the “rejection syndrome” begins … and Johann-Eunice-Jake begins to die while giving birth to a new life.

But then something shocking intervenes:

Between surgeries a conversation occurs between Yo-an and “Roberto” the putative doctor. In very erotic detail, Yo-an, using the classic and infamous Anglo-Saxon verb, thanks him for graphic acts of sex in which they have engaged. “Now wait just a minute,” I said when I read this first edition hot off the presses, twenty-eight years ago, “This is the first time I’ve ever read anything like that in Heinlein. He doesn’t exactly put asterisks in as in expurgated copies of Lady Chatterley’s Lover but his writing is never like this. When did she have a chance to get in the sack with ‘Roberto?’ He faded into the woodwork as soon as the paralysis following the original transplant surgery wore off.” Then I thought hard and remembered that among many beddings she and Winnie once swapped partners (Jake for “Roberto”) after a night on the town. There was nothing remarkable then described about the sex that evening; but I shrugged off the seeming lack of a point–other than a severely ill-timed but understandable expression of gratitude–to this and read on. After all this is a Heinlein lady, and all Heinlein ladies are unique–to put it kindly–and quite tricky. Perhaps they found other times? I then read on to the bitter end in which at the instant of giving birth to new Eunice Jacob, that overburdened treble mind expires, leaving these last words:

“An old world vanished and then there was none.”

Thematic Synopsis:

I used to consider the salient point in I Will Fear No Evil to be that Eunice’s consciousness continues to exist in the donor body. I saw this novel, among other things, to be Heinlein’s conscious examination of the one form of self-identity some believe exists, an identity so strong as to defy death, that is, an inquiry into the question: is there a “soul?” I reasoned he reasoned if Eunice’s consciousness were present in the left-behind body after the death of her brain–and her brain was shattered beyond repair (declared “dead”) in a mugging–then T.H. Huxley’s scientifically unprovable and undisprovable enigma “how can a soul exist” necessarily needs re-examination. How this scientific-proof extrapolation to the “animus” occurred to the author is fairly easy to infer. He expressly writes here of the cellular memories of the flatworm, an inoffensive otherwise not very unusual early form of life we all recall from basic biology that has one unique property. Cut in two, each end grows the missing part. The tail grows a head (with a complete whatever passes for a brain in a flatworm), and the head grows a tail. Medicine considers “death” to occur when the brain is said to be “dead.” Ah, but what if a body can regenerate the brain? Not yet? Maybe not; but way back down in our evolutionary chain, our DNA could! What made that happen, then, but not now? “Could that be the soul?” Heinlein is asking.

If a soul truly exists, then indeed David the King, my namesake who wrote the Psalm, and Robert Heinlein may honestly recite:

Yea, Thou I Walk
In The Valley Of
The Shadow Of Death
I Will Fear No Evil
For Thou Art With Me
Thy Rod And Thy Staff

and the symbolic old man with a beard both Eunice and Johann say they saw in their troubled dreams during their original recovery will indeed appear. That neatly accounts for the title.

Maybe so. But then there are these matters of wives supporting artists and all this business about names, particularly hyphenated ones, including the screwy argument over names at the end and interdependence of threesomes and of “split personalities,” and “rejection syndrome.” And then the mysterious stranger “Roberto,” a one-night stand tucked in there with such significance to the lady with the hyphenated name that Heinlein (that ‘nice Naval Academy graduate’ even librarians named Mrs. Grundy used to love) actually writes purple prose to describe her gratitude. And we didn’t get an afterlife here, did we? We got a version of the bubble ending from Mysterious Stranger, by Mark Twain, favorite author of mother Maureen Johnson Smith of Thebes (I almost said Butler), Missouri and grandfather Ira Johnson. Oops, sorry wrong Smith. It’s Johann Sebastian Bach Smith here, not Woodrow Wilson Smith, isn’t it?

But then we are reading about artists such as Joe in this book, not successful naval officers, leaders or politicians, aren’t we?

One thing I learned a long time ago: Robert Anson Heinlein was a very tricky writer about many things, but most importantly about names. Look at Stranger In A Strange Land for example. Virtually every name in it has multiple resonances.

Take one here from the very beginning: Agnes, Johann’s first wife, whom he loved for the short period they had together (like Poe’s “Annabel Lee” as the author reminds us). She gave him the beloved ‘son’ who died in a discredited war. One meaning for Agnes is “Chaste.” (Another is lamb in Latin, usually a victim or an innocent sacrifice when referred to in religious writings.) David, later the King and poet who wrote the Psalm, was a sacrifice as well, when they sent him to face Goliath. And we recall another David Lamb, don’t we? “The Man Who Was Too Lazy To Fail,” from Time Enough For Love? The son’s blood type from the dog tags that were all that was left of him was “O+,” impossibility for an AB-negative father. What is wrong here? Why that name is deliberately upside-down! Nothing in this novel is what it seems! Because it is not primarily a novel, I believe. On a major level it is the allegorical autobiography of Robert Anson Heinlein, born July 7, 1907, in Butler, Missouri, graduated United States Naval Academy, class of 1929, married briefly to a lady concerning whom little is known almost immediately after graduation, then divorced and remarried to Leslyn MacDonald who supported him after he was rejected from Naval Service because of tuberculosis; and probably while he was rejected a few times by publishers concerning those mysterious first efforts at writing which are now turned up by conscientious research, rejected by the voters in an election for the California State Assembly in 1938 in which as Johann tells Eunice “he” was put up to run by the party in an election they were going to lose anyway, because he could afford to pay for his own campaign (RAH took out a mortgage), and whom he mysteriously divorced in 1947 concerning whom there have been recurrent rumors of hospitalization for alcoholism and, perhaps, of a family history of bipolar disorder, finally thereafter married to the vivacious red haired woman who everyone calls “Ginnie,” but he called “Ticky” until the day he died, who was and continues to be his “mouthpiece” to his adoring public and whose shared philosophies were the subject of heated rejections by 1969, in the midst of the draft-dodging, “Heigh, heigh, LBJ, how many kids did you kill today?” drop-out malaise then occurring. You remember, don’t you? It was about the time some critics began to say his publicly acclaimed Starship Troopers had been awarded the Hugo in mistake, because the novel described a “fascist utopia”–a libel we read deliberately resurrected when Verhoeven’s filmed abortion was released.

I can go on…. Three wives. Students at our service academies are still not permitted marriage until they graduate. In the 1920s, just as today, they were taught they already had Three Wives: Duty. Honor. Country. Above all else, these are the three precepts all of our service academies drum into the minds of their graduates. He did his Duty with Honor to his Country; and it rejected him when it discharged him despite the “cured” status of his tuberculosis, then rejected his persistent efforts to return when he “with a feeling of loss of personal honor such as I never expected myself to experience … found myself sitting on a hilltop, in civilian clothes, with no battle station, and unable to fight, when it happened” on December 7, 1941. He nevertheless did the duty that was offered him during that war by his beloved old commander, now Admiral Ernest King–a bastard job which could just as easily have been done by a Lieutenant or Lieutenant Commander rather than a Mr. Heinlein, that included “unofficial” work as mediator between naval officers who respected that Class of 1929 ring on his hand and civilian scientists who respected him as the eminent artist in a field they revered. He did it just as Johann did his duty to what was presented him by unchaste Agnes. She gave Johann a bastard but died in the attempt, and the fine boy died in a discredited war. Whether it was Oscar Gordon’s father’s UnWar I (Korea), or Evelyn Cyril’s own UnWar II (Vietnam), it does not matter; it was one of the rocks he found on Glory Road. Duty, Honor and Country. One died early, two divorced him, and three gave him bastards and, by 1969, some of their progeny was abusing and wasting needed resources and grasping greedily for more. The fourth wife that he divorced after he tried recommitment to a public service life for a year to revive his hopes. Politics? That cost him a heap of money to get shut of. He needed to sell that “first” short story, “Time-Line,” to pay off the mortgage he took out for the ill-fated attempt at the California Assembly.

Filling in the remaining allegorical blanks is left as an exercise to the student, if you will.

“Roberto,” you miserable sonofabitch suffering from “rejection syndrome,” you’ve done it to us again. And it took me twenty-eight years to figure it out. I am so embarrassed I am going to vanish in a bubble ending.

David M. Silver

April 19, 1998, lightly revised June 5, 2002


David M. Silver
http://www.heinleinsociety.org
http://www.readinggroupsonline.com/groups/heinlein.htm
“The Lieutenant expects your names to shine!”
Robert Anson Heinlein, USNA ’29
Lt (jg)., USN R’td (1907-1988)

On June 5, David Silver wrote:

(snip an absolutely magnificent essay that every fan or casual reader of RAH should read and learn from)

Oh, well done, David, well done indeed! Thank you.

Steve J

“…everyone else my age is an adult, whereas I am merely in disguise.”
–Margaret Atwood

“David Silver”wrote in message news:

>Thematic Synopsis:
>
>I used to consider the salient point in I Will Fear No Evil to be that
>Eunice’s consciousness continues to exist in the donor body. I saw this
>novel, among other things, to be Heinlein’s conscious examination of the
>one form of self-identity some believe exists, an identity so strong as
>to defy death, that is, an inquiry into the question: is there a “soul?”
>I reasoned he reasoned if Eunice’s consciousness were present in the
>left-behind body after the death of her brain–and her brain was
>shattered beyond repair (declared “dead”) in a mugging–then T.H.
>Huxley’s scientifically unprovable and undisprovable enigma “how can a
>soul exist” necessarily needs re-examination. How this scientific-proof
>extrapolation to the “animus” occurred to the author is fairly easy to
>infer. He expressly writes here of the cellular memories of the
>flatworm, an inoffensive otherwise not very unusual early form of life
>we all recall from basic biology that has one unique property. Cut in
>two, each end grows the missing part. The tail grows a head (with a
>complete whatever passes for a brain in a flatworm), and the head grows
>a tail. Medicine considers “death” to occur when the brain is said to be
>”dead.” Ah, but what if a body can regenerate the brain? Not yet? Maybe
>not; but way back down in our evolutionary chain, our DNA could! What
>made that happen, then, but not now? “Could that be the soul?” Heinlein
>is asking.

Dave,

Really, this is a terrible book. An embarassment. Something the author’s wife admits was released at a time of dire financial need. A blight on a body of work that’s otherwise pretty much okay as popular fiction goes and among the best scifi around. I read it once when it came out, obligated to do so because I’d read everything else he’d written, and I think it was the thing that finally made me look critically at the rest of his writing. Before it, I enjoyed the paternalistic escapism; after it, everything was in a new, clay-footed context.

I’m disappointed you didn’t put “scientific proof,” above, inside quotes. Sure, you didn’t claim it was “scientific proof” but it’s really strained to use “scientific” in the same sentence with this “proof.” Flatworms? The body eventually being able to regenerate the brain with the implication being that the flatworm is a “higher” life form than the human? The soul as a thing with substance? It’s so thin, it’s laughable; but I’m not laughing at you. I’m laughing at the missed connection and maybe suggesting I know why your friend got miffed enough when she read this abomination that she quit Heinlein.

Now, I don’t know souls from Shinola and I’ll be the first to confess. I do know, though, that there’s a spiritual. I’ll be the first to confess, too, that what I know about the spiritual, I know about the spiritual and will never claim that what I know about it applies to anybody else. Just me, see? What I know (that works for me) Bob almost hit–and then he did his little a-guy’s-gotta-come-up-with-something-empirical-or-his-credibility’s-shot bullshit and the flatworms crawled off the petrie plate.

There’s intellect and emotion and physicality. They don’t exist, of course, apart from each other because they can’t. There’s a way, I think, to bring them all together at the same time. It can’t be done alone.

I think your friend saw that Bob was approaching (what I think is) the right answer but when he faltered, she lost faith in him. I did, too, but for another reason at the time. I was younger than your friend, didn’t have her wisdom and maturity. I think she lost faith, he lost credibility with her and they were through. I think he was in love and grasping for understanding but he both was bound by Western notions of “science” and his readers’ expectations that he be able to explain the formerly unexplainable. I believe he failed at the substantive attempt but the fact pattern remains intact for a successor to fit it to the controlling law and make it a good theory.

This has been revealing enough of my unprovable, personal beliefs that I’ll also invoke the students’ proving it and beg off. You’ll forgive me.

>
>If a soul truly exists, then indeed David the King, my namesake who
>wrote the Psalm, and Robert Heinlein may honestly recite:
>
>Yea, Thou I Walk
>In The Valley Of
>The Shadow Of Death
>I Will Fear No Evil
>For Thou Art With Me
>Thy Rod And Thy Staff

You’re not even a little apologetic for terminating the psalm on the phallic ending point? Come on, restoreth my soul.

>
>David M. Silver
>
>
>April 19, 1998, lightly revised June 5, 2002
>
>
>
>–
David M. Silver
http://www.heinleinsociety.org
http://www.readinggroupsonline.com/groups/heinlein.htm
“The Lieutenant expects your names to shine!”
Robert Anson Heinlein, USNA ’29
Lt (jg)., USN R’td (1907-1988)

I write and I’ve written and it always amazes me, the things people read into what you write. If I stare at them long enough, I can convince myself I did them on purpose. If I talk with myself soothingly enough, I can believe that acceptance is superior to understanding. It must be old age. There’s no fool like an old fool.

LNC
cmaj7dmin7 [L.N. Collier] replied, quite thoughtfully, to my invitation to pick apart the essay:

>”David Silver” wrote in message
>news:
>
>>Thematic Synopsis:
>>
>>I used to consider the salient point in I Will Fear No Evil to be that
>>Eunice’s consciousness continues to exist in the donor body. I saw this
>>novel, among other things, to be Heinlein’s conscious examination of the
>>one form of self-identity some believe exists, an identity so strong as
>>to defy death, that is, an inquiry into the question: is there a “soul?”
>>I reasoned he reasoned if Eunice’s consciousness were present in the
>>left-behind body after the death of her brain–and her brain was
>>shattered beyond repair (declared “dead”) in a mugging–then T.H.
>>Huxley’s scientifically unprovable and undisprovable enigma “how can a
>>soul exist” necessarily needs re-examination. How this scientific-proof
>>extrapolation to the “animus” occurred to the author is fairly easy to
>>infer. He expressly writes here of the cellular memories of the
>>flatworm, an inoffensive otherwise not very unusual early form of life
>>we all recall from basic biology that has one unique property. Cut in
>>two, each end grows the missing part. The tail grows a head (with a
>>complete whatever passes for a brain in a flatworm), and the head grows
>>a tail. Medicine considers “death” to occur when the brain is said to be
>>”dead.” Ah, but what if a body can regenerate the brain? Not yet? Maybe
>>not; but way back down in our evolutionary chain, our DNA could! What
>>made that happen, then, but not now? “Could that be the soul?” Heinlein
>>is asking.
>>
>
>Dave,
>
>Really, this is a terrible book. An embarassment. Something the author’s
>wife admits was released at a time of dire financial need. A blight on a
>body of work that’s otherwise pretty much okay as popular fiction goes and
>among the best scifi around.

It was released at a time of financial need. What is isn’t is very much like the body of other well-known, popular novels he written since the end of World War II. What I don’t consider it to be is a blight, however, albeit its differences. What occurred, I think, was his last concentrated effort at “world saving,” which he claimed to have given up on back around 1947 along with a few other things, including a hopelessly ill wife and marriage. He’d focused for years on putting groceries on the table, enabling him to write finally the magnus opus Stranger in a Strange Land which by 1970 was enjoying full cult status among the new generation, then in full “tune in, turn on, and drop out” escapism.

He tried, very hard for him, I think, to write to communicate with this new generation’s audience, trying to create a combination of the young and the paternal voice so far as he could use it for didactic parts of the work. He may have failed in that: I think he misjudged some readers who looked to him only for escapism, and others on another segment of the spectrum who were so far committed to ‘changing the World’ that they couldn’t suffer criticism of their efforts.

Perhaps the portrayal of the capitalistic anarchy that Eunice Branca and Johann Smith live in even alienated the nascent Libertarian movement that so appreciated TMIAHM, only two years earlier.

He deliberately took so many contrarian positions to the ‘truths’ of that age that he risked provoking offense at any point of the compass toward which he turned the prow of that trimaran vessel he put his Three Is A Crowd protagonist.

But I’ve always enjoyed the icon-breaking mask worn by this author (I loved his contemporary Phillip Wylie); so rather than being alienated by not fully understanding this work from the first, I’ve been content to keep plugging away at it — over a good number of years now.

Perhaps that’s because I was just finishing, or had just finished, the exposure to the puzzle palace that is English literature; or, otoh, was just beginning to study the no less obscure sophistry we both knew as law. I was at the right age to tolerate obscurity, which on one level, its imagery, this work is. [There is, however, little or nothing obscure about the social criticism parts.]

>I read it once when it came out, obligated to
>do so because I’d read everything else he’d written, and I think it was the
>thing that finally made me look critically at the rest of his writing.
>Before it, I enjoyed the paternalistic escapism; after it, everything was in
>a new, clay-footed context.
>
>I’m disappointed you didn’t put “scientific proof,” above, inside quotes.
>Sure, you didn’t claim it was “scientific proof” but it’s really strained to
>use “scientific” in the same sentence with this “proof.”

I wouldn’t go very far in the direction of putting quotations around anything these days involving DNA. I’m not educated in the field of research biology enough to do other than parrot what I see or read. I simply sit and watch the mind-candy the PBS Nova programs discuss [“Evolution” is the latest I’ve been watching.] and wonder where exactly the discoveries will lead “scientifically.” From the latest series I’ve watched, I suspect there’s probably a gene sequence that actually does enable the DNA to rebuild not only the brain but virtually every other part of every body of every being that ever existed.

But I think we both might agree in 1970 the notion of regeneration of the brain was a guess of the wilder, hairer variety.

>Flatworms? The body
>eventually being able to regenerate the brain with the implication being
>that the flatworm is a “higher” life form than the human?

If “higher” means more adept at regeneration, perhaps not too laughable. But, as the flatworm is believed to share a common ancestor with homo sap it means that we continue to have that DNA sequence that will trigger regeneration. Whether we’ll ever be able to pull the trigger is another question, along with whether we’ll ever want to do it. [I have no shame. ;-)]

>The soul as a
>thing with substance? It’s so thin, it’s laughable; but I’m not laughing at
>you.

Wry laughter is fine. I laugh at myself all the time, now that I’m retired. But the notion of a soul, of course, is the great delusion the shamans have afflicted us with; and so much written and said I suspect Heinlein just had to return to that befouled well.

>I’m laughing at the missed connection and maybe suggesting I know why
>your friend got miffed enough when she read this abomination that she quit
>Heinlein.

Gads! In the depths of despair, Heinlein decided the most common flatworm to mankind — the tapeworm that inhabits our colon and can be passed on by virtually any expectoration of our body, even some suggest: mother’s milk, is our own very immortal soul?! 😉 Ye Gads!

No, seriously, tell me more about the missed connection you see. Why “abomination”? If not here, then E-Mail.

>
>Now, I don’t know souls from Shinola and I’ll be the first to confess. I do
>know, though, that there’s a spiritual. I’ll be the first to confess, too,
>that what I know about the spiritual, I know about the spiritual and will
>never claim that what I know about it applies to anybody else. Just me, see?
>What I know (that works for me) Bob almost hit–and then he did his little
>a-guy’s-gotta-come-up-with-something-empirical-or-his-credibility’s-shot
>bullshit and the flatworms crawled off the petrie plate.
>

But it’s simply a framework for the fable, L.N. And who knows, in a stranger than reality but reality nonetheless, the guess may have truth in it.

>There’s intellect and emotion and physicality. They don’t exist, of course,
>apart from each other because they can’t. There’s a way, I think, to bring
>them all together at the same time. It can’t be done alone.
>

So far as we now know, true. And isn’t it wonderful we get to experience this terminal disease called human life? Then what happens?

>I think your friend saw that Bob was approaching (what I think is) the right
>answer but when he faltered, she lost faith in him. I did, too, but for
>another reason at the time. I was younger than your friend, didn’t have her
>wisdom and maturity. I think she lost faith, he lost credibility with her
>and they were through.

L.N. is referring here to another post I made in yet another thread, that started by Hadley V. Stacey, entitled “IWFNE, What’s the Problem?”, in which I stated, in part, this criticism leveled by a lady I knew at the time I first read it:

“The only criticism that ever completely mystified and challenged me was from a long-time Heinlein reader, an older woman I knew, who with her husband had been reading Heinlein since the very beginning. She felt something about the end was d[e]spicable, and ceased reading Heinlein with that novel, refusing to discuss it with me — it was plain as the nose on my face to her and she was surprised I didn’t see it. Something about the final portrait of Jo-ann offended her. She and her husband were in their early seventies at the time, about ten years older than the author. Something in there mixed with her mindset like oil with water; and I’m still more than merely baffled about what it was.

“She was a great fan of Twain, and a sophisticated woman, a mature person, who in fact was more than a little avant garde in her own life: in fact, it was in her home as a high-school student I first read a copy of “1603” (if that is the correct date used by Twain for his little sketch of the actual language used in the Elizabethan Court), so it couldn’t have been the brief bit of blue language used by the character to describe her relationship with “Roberto,” her surprise lover. I cannot think of anything else I’ve ever read written by Heinlein up to this time that would have surprised or offended her. Perhaps it was something in the concealled until the end affair with “Roberto” itself (yeah, yeah, I know there are teeny little hints); but that affair was only a surprising incident, not a departure from Jo-Ann’s established character, at least to me. Was it the fact that “Roberto” is someone we are supposed to see as “Winnie’s” partner and that Jo-ann didn’t merely poach, so to speak, on Winnie’s preserve, while simultaneously carrying on an on-going same sex sexual relationship with Winnie (and the rest of the ‘cast of thousands, their name is Legion,’ as Maureen later told us), but concealled her poaching (from us?), maybe the duplicity or preservation of the privacy rather than the polymorphous perversity of it?

“I’ve always been puzzled by this one critic; but I’ve never been surprised that criticism based on disagreement with the social criticism portrayed in the book has been leveled at at — that’s human nature, and also invalid literary criticism, a matter called by some of mere “taste.” And I know of no others that I can assess. Needed “tightening” doesn’t amount to much to me, because I cannot imagine how one would do it. That’s like the movie portrayal of Frederick in Amadeus complaining about too many notes. I enjoy all the notes — which ones in I Will Fear No Evil should be taken out because they don’t fit, I ask? [End quotation of the earlier post.]”

>I think he was in love and grasping for understanding
>but he both was bound by Western notions of “science” and his readers’
>expectations that he be able to explain the formerly unexplainable.

Both correct, I think.

>I
>believe he failed at the substantive attempt but the fact pattern remains
>intact for a successor to fit it to the controlling law and make it a good
>theory.
>

That’s an intriguing statement, but what is the controlling law? Huxley didn’t know of any other than the scientific method and, on Wednesdays through Friday, neither do I. Let me know about it and on Saturday, maybe I won’t inspect the Garden to see whether the woman has given the man fruit of the tree to eat; but think on it instead.

>This has been revealing enough of my unprovable, personal beliefs that I’ll
>also invoke the students’ proving it and beg off. You’ll forgive me.
>

Yes, of course. :-)

>
>>If a soul truly exists, then indeed David the King, my namesake who
>>wrote the Psalm, and Robert Heinlein may honestly recite:
>>
>>Yea, Thou I Walk
>>In The Valley Of
>>The Shadow Of Death
>>I Will Fear No Evil
>>For Thou Art With Me
>>Thy Rod And Thy Staff
>>
>
>You’re not even a little apologetic for terminating the psalm on the phallic
>ending point? Come on, restoreth my soul.
>

Sure, why not, even if this is a Thursday and I’m officially an agnostic on Thursdays. Unfortunately, I cannot find my wife’s King James [she was raised a good Lutheran like all Minnesota Norwegians]; and you really don’t want to read what the New Catholic Translation in the New American Bible (©Catholic Bibical Association, 1969, 1991) did to its poetry. I shuddered. I keep it around for the research footnotes and have noticed over the years that some are like those fabled islands in the Pacific. They appear, then disappear, from edition to edition. Nice for a traditionalist, albeit lapsed, Catholic to know the Inquisition is still hard at work. Lemme see if I can find a website. Okay, here ’tis:

Pss.23
[1] The LORD is my shepherd; I shall not want.
[2] He maketh me to lie down in green pastures: he leadeth me beside the still waters.
[3] He restoreth my soul: he leadeth me in the paths of righteousness for his name’s sake.
[4 ] Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I
will fear no evil: for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they
comfort me.
[5] Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of mine enemies:
thou anointest my head with oil; my cup runneth over.
[6] Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life:
and I will dwell in the house of the LORD for ever.

I have no shame. And what do you have against staffs? 😉

>
>I write and I’ve written and it always amazes me, the things people read
>into what you write. If I stare at them long enough, I can convince myself I
>did them on purpose. If I talk with myself soothingly enough, I can believe
>that acceptance is superior to understanding. It must be old age. There’s no
>fool like an old fool.
>
>LNC

You’ll have no disagreement from here. Sorta. Thanks for putting together that critique. My mind works slowly enough that I may eventually figure most of it out.


David M. Silver
http://www.heinleinsociety.org
http://www.readinggroupsonline.com/groups/heinlein.htm
“The Lieutenant expects your names to shine!”
Robert Anson Heinlein, USNA ’29
Lt (jg)., USN R’td (1907-1988)

Stephen Jordan wrote:

>On June 5, David Silver wrote:
>
>(snip an absolutely magnificent essay that every fan or casual reader of
>RAH should read and learn from)
>

No more or less than what I read here frequently from regular and casual visitors alike. That neglected and virtually abandoned reading group website of mine (disconnected links and all), where this essay once appeared, has lots of room for fun essays on Heinlein works; and you need not pretend to apply any scholastic rules of criticism to write and E-Mail me one for inclusion. I.e., it had no claim nor intention of being a scholastic journal. There is room for as many essays as are likely to be submitted, or I can find more room. I’ll not have time to write more myself in the forseeable future. Warm up your keyboard, Stephen — and others.

>Oh, well done, David, well done indeed! Thank you.

A pleasure.

See, http://members.aol.com/agplusone/rahmain.htm


David M. Silver
http://www.heinleinsociety.org
http://www.readinggroupsonline.com/groups/heinlein.htm
“The Lieutenant expects your names to shine!”
Robert Anson Heinlein, USNA ’29
Lt (jg)., USN R’td (1907-1988)

David Silverwrote in message news:…

>In another thread, it was suggested that the Star Wars series might be
>seen by some as an allegorical biography of George Lucas. I once wrote
>an essay suggesting I Will Fear No Evil might be such an allegorial
>biography of its author, Robert Heinlein.
>
>Such theories rank right up there with the interpretation of dreams,
>IMO, nevertheless, sometimes they are fun to write.
>
>I made the mistake of replying to the post in the other thread with a
>flippant comment that I felt the theory about Lucas had the same
>validity as mine about Heinlein. I was asked in reply, to post it.
>
>Here ’tis, for your enjoyment (in picking it apart):
>
>An Angry Fabulist’s Expression
of “Rejection Syndrome”
>(c)1998, 2002 All rights reserved.
>An essay by David M. Silver
>I Will Fear No Evil
>by Robert Anson Heinlein
>

Top drawer stuff, Mr. Silver. The only thing I can think of to pick on, well; I’m sure /I/ must be the one who is wrong. I thought he mentioned the worm experiment where they set up an electrocution booby-trap on a table, let worm “A” accidentally find it, then they take the dead carcass and throw it in the blender and feed it to worm “B.” Worm “B” is crawling on the table, gets close to the electrode and then starts running for the hills. Maybe I read this somewhere else, and /I/ made the connection to IWFNE.

Now I will have to pull it off the shelf and read it again.


Art

Art wrote:

>. . . [snip] . . . The only thing I can think of to pick
>on, well; I’m sure /I/ must be the one who is wrong. I thought he
>mentioned the worm experiment where they set up an electrocution
>booby-trap on a table, let worm “A” accidentally find it, then they
>take the dead carcass and throw it in the blender and feed it to worm
>”B.” Worm “B” is crawling on the table, gets close to the electrode
>and then starts running for the hills. Maybe I read this somewhere
>else, and /I/ made the connection to IWFNE.
>
>Now I will have to pull it off the shelf and read it again.

A result that, in the words of McA is: ” . . . the fulfillment of all my boyish dreams.” I may have to quickly reread it too. Neat experiment. Hope they washed the electrode. I wonder if worms can smell. [“Hmmm. That big black bar smells a lot like cooked me!”]


David M. Silver
http://www.heinleinsociety.org
http://www.readinggroupsonline.com/groups/heinlein.htm
“The Lieutenant expects your names to shine!”
Robert Anson Heinlein, USNA ’29
Lt (jg)., USN R’td (1907-1988)

Go To Discussion Chat

[Editor’s Note: The following were posted after the chats on the 6th and 8th]

Carolyn Evans wrote:

>>Like Maureen, Eunice was “amoral” – working out her own set of rules to live
>>by and be able to look herself in the mirror at night. Unlike Maureen,she
>>wasn’t living in an early 20th century Bible Belt community, but in a
>>futuristic dystopia.

Jane Davitt wrote:
>They have strong similarities; might be fun to look at that more
>closely. Maureen fans; how do you feel about Eunice?

>Now here I disagree. She seemed to be dragging people into bed all
>over the place, with some amazingly convoluted cover ups for someone
>who was in ‘open’ relationships.

Jane–

I really hate missing out on both chats, but I read the logs and have been thinking about this. I have come to the conclusion that the resemblance between Maureen and Eunice is superficial. Both of them sleep around, both of them have “open” marriages, both of them enjoy sex wholeheartedly. BUT…

Maureen has sex for her own pleasure and that of her partner. Eunice has sex for mutual pleasure, sure, but also because that is just about the only worth she sees in herself. Both have “open” marriages, but Maureen never gets into a relationship that she has to hide from Brian. She is ashamed that she misjudged the “Rev. Timberwolf,” but she does not get into a relationship that would make Brian feel threatened. Eunice gets into a relationship with Jake, even though she believes that this particular relationship would make Joe feel inadequate, and thus she has to hide it from him.

–Dee
On Sun, 9 Jun 2002 23:31:23 -0500, “Dee” held forth, saying:

(I have not read the chat-logs, btw, nor was I involved–so maybe I’m repeating someone)

Maureen has sex for her own pleasure and that of her partner. Eunice
>has sex for mutual pleasure, sure, but also because that is just about the
>only worth she sees in herself. Both have “open” marriages, but Maureen
>never gets into a relationship that she has to hide from Brian. She is
>ashamed that she misjudged the “Rev. Timberwolf,” but she does not get into
>a relationship that would make Brian feel threatened. Eunice gets into a
>relationship with Jake, even though she believes that this particular
>relationship would make Joe feel inadequate, and thus she has to hide it
>from him.

But note that she says (about Joe) she bought herself a gigolo, and got the best she could afford. She obviously doesn’t consider Joe her equal (and to me he isn’t; he’s basically a one-trick pony), whereas it appears she does so consider Jake. (Discussions of Joan Eunice’s relationships are of course a different matter.)

I think she values herself rather highly–and I also think that our perceptions are colored by the overall negativity our society places and has placed on women with a high sex-drive.


-denny-
nocturnal curmudgeon, editor

Never try to outstubborn a cat. – Lazarus Long

On Sun, 9 Jun 2002 23:31:23 -0500, in alt.fan.heinlein, “Dee”quoth:

>Carolyn Evans wrote:
>>>Like Maureen, Eunice was “amoral” – working out her own set of rules to live
>>>by and be able to look herself in the mirror at night. Unlike Maureen, she
>>>wasn’t living in an early 20th century Bible Belt community, but in a
>>>futuristic dystopia.
>
>Jane Davitt wrote:
>>They have strong similarities; might be fun to look at that more
>>closely. Maureen fans; how do you feel about Eunice?
>
>>Now here I disagree. She seemed to be dragging people into bed all
>>over the place, with some amazingly convoluted cover ups for someone
>>who was in ‘open’ relationships.
>
>Jane–
>
I really hate missing out on both chats, but I read the logs and have
>been thinking about this. I have come to the conclusion that the
>resemblance between Maureen and Eunice is superficial. Both of them sleep
>around, both of them have “open” marriages, both of them enjoy sex
>wholeheartedly. BUT…
>
Maureen has sex for her own pleasure and that of her partner. Eunice
>has sex for mutual pleasure, sure, but also because that is just about the
>only worth she sees in herself. Both have “open” marriages, but Maureen
>never gets into a relationship that she has to hide from Brian. She is
>ashamed that she misjudged the “Rev. Timberwolf,” but she does not get into
>a relationship that would make Brian feel threatened. Eunice gets into a
>relationship with Jake, even though she believes that this particular
>relationship would make Joe feel inadequate, and thus she has to hide it
>from him.
>
Maureen (mostly) defers to the accepted female role, but she has great
>confidence in herself. Eunice has always been preparing herself for the day
>when Joe Branca will tire of her. She says that the only meaningful way a
>woman can thank a man is on her back, OWTTE. This is an educated woman (in
>a time when literacy is not taken for granted) with a license for three
>children, and when people speak of her they appear to have been charmed by
>her generosity of spirit. Hugo loved her dearly, and there was definitely
>no sexual activity between them. But Eunice sseem to view herself as little
>more than a sex-object. Maybe Eunice’s physical beauty was a curse more
>than a gift, since it became her self-definition.
>
Everyone that meets Maureen sees something quintessentially maternal in
>her–“Mama Maureen.” Her beauty not only survives aging, but grows in
>maturity. She knows that she is desirable, but she does not define herself
>by physical atractiveness. Maureen is sure of herself as a woman, even when
>we first meet her in her teens.
>
Eunice seems to be arrested, some ways, in the role of perky
>cheerleader, and she is preoccupied with her physical desirability. She
>tries to prove that desirabilty to herself over and over again without ever
>being satisfied. For all of her talents and gifts, Eunice ends up “more to
>be pitied than censured.”

Thank you; this is much of what I was trying to find the words for. Eunice seems too sweet, too “sex-ish”… it just isn’t believable to me; I’ve never known a female like this. Of course, that just makes it “unbelievable”, not “impossible”…


~teresa~

^..^ “Never try to outstubborn a cat.” Robert A. Heinlein ^..^
http://www.heinleinsociety.org/ & http://rahbooks.virtualave.net/
“Blert!!!” quoth Pixel, a small, yellow cat.
MSN messenger ID =
AIM id = pixelmeow

denny wrote:

>(I have not read the chat-logs, btw, nor was I involved–so maybe I’m
>repeating someone)

Hi, Denny. Part of the discussion was about how some of Eunice’s liaisons seemed less than “open.” And whther Eunice was a “slut.”

Dee wrote

>>Eunice gets into a
>>relationship with Jake, even though she believes that this particular
>>relationship would make Joe feel inadequate, and thus she has to hide it
>>from him.

>But note that she says (about Joe) she bought herself a gigolo, and
>got the best she could afford. She obviously doesn’t consider Joe her
>equal (and to me he isn’t; he’s basically a one-trick pony), whereas
>it appears she does so consider Jake. (Discussions of Joan Eunice’s
>relationships are of course a different matter.)

Well, I thought the “bought myself a gigolo” remark was joking. Eunice makes it clear that Joe doesn’t care about money. So does what we see of Joe first hand. I think she values Joe very highly, as does everyone who gets to know him, apparently.

But if the remark was not joking, what does it say about a woman’s self-valuation that she chooses to buy herself a gigolo for a husband?

>I think she values herself rather highly–and I also think that our
>perceptions are colored by the overall negativity our society places
>and has placed on women with a high sex-drive.

Well, you could be right, but it’s not the way I see it. Interesting, though, that a man attributes the perception to negative attitudes about highly-sexed women, and the women have not spoken up so far to say this. Of course, women are often hardest on other women.

–Dee

teresa wrote:

>Thank you; this is much of what I was trying to find the words for.
>Eunice seems too sweet, too “sex-ish”… it just isn’t believable to
>me; I’ve never known a female like this. Of course, that just makes
>it “unbelievable”, not “impossible”…

Pixel–

just doesn’t quite seem to ring true about her approach to sex, at least for me. The idea that the only meaningful way a woman can thank a man is with sex kind of gets to the heart of it. This seems to belittle both men and women: Men only want one thing, and women only have one thing worth offering. I think that men and women are both more complex than that.

–Dee

denny wrote:

>(I have not read the chat-logs, btw, nor was I involved–so maybe I’m
>repeating someone)

Hi, Denny. Part of the discussion was about how some of Eunice’s liaisons seemed less than “open.” And whther Eunice was a “slut.”

Dee wrote

>>Eunice gets into a
>>relationship with Jake, even though she believes that this particular
>>relationship would make Joe feel inadequate, and thus she has to hide it
>>from him.

But note that she says (about Joe) she bought herself a gigolo, and
>got the best she could afford. She obviously doesn’t consider Joe her
>equal (and to me he isn’t; he’s basically a one-trick pony), whereas
>it appears she does so consider Jake. (Discussions of Joan Eunice’s
>relationships are of course a different matter.)

Well, I thought the “bought myself a gigolo” remark was joking. Eunice makes it clear that Joe doesn’t care about money. So does what we see of Joe first hand. I think she values Joe very highly, as does everyone who gets to know him, apparently.

But if the remark was not joking, what does it say about a woman’s self-valuation that she chooses to buy herself a gigolo for a husband?

> I think she values herself rather highly–and I also think that our
>perceptions are colored by the overall negativity our society places
>and has placed on women with a high sex-drive.

Well, you could be right, but it’s not the way I see it. Interesting, though, that a man attributes the perception to negative attitudes about highly-sexed women, and the women have not spoken up so far to say this. Of course, women are often hardest on other women.

–Dee

teresa wrote:

>Thank you; this is much of what I was trying to find the words for.
>Eunice seems too sweet, too “sex-ish”… it just isn’t believable to
>me; I’ve never known a female like this. Of course, that just makes
>it “unbelievable”, not “impossible”…

Pixel–

It’s not just that she seems to “sex-ish,” is it? It’s that something just doesn’t quite seem to ring true about her approach to sex, at least for me. The idea that the only meaningful way a woman can thank a man is with sex kind of gets to the heart of it. This seems to belittle both men and women: Men only want one thing, and women only have one thing worth offering. I think that men and women are both more complex than that.

–Dee

“Dee”wrote in message news:

>teresa wrote:
>Thank you; this is much of what I was trying to find the words for.
>Eunice seems too sweet, too “sex-ish”… it just isn’t believable to
>me; I’ve never known a female like this. Of course, that just makes
>it “unbelievable”, not “impossible”…
>
>Pixel–

> It’s not just that she seems to “sex-ish,” is it? It’s that something
>just doesn’t quite seem to ring true about her approach to sex, at least for
>me. The idea that the only meaningful way a woman can thank a man is with
>sex kind of gets to the heart of it. This seems to belittle both men and
>women: Men only want one thing, and women only have one thing worth
>offering. I think that men and women are both more complex than that.

As I read IWFNE for the first time, I recall thinking that the words spoken by Eunice after the transplant came across as some sort of male fantasy of what men really wished women believed. It reinforces my contention that wasn’t the real Eunice rattling around inside Johann’s brain. “Eunice” was simply Johann’s brain coming up with a way to make Eunice still alive, a way to cope with the guilt of winding up inside the body of a person he had grown to love. Had the real Eunice never worked for Johann, yet somehow ended up a donor, this never would have happened. Virtually everything Johann learned of Eunice after the transplant that could be verified was already known by Johann.

[Dee]
teresa wrote:

>>Eunice seems too sweet, too “sex-ish”… it just isn’t believable to
>>me; I’ve never known a female like this.

Dee wrote:

> It’s not just that she seems to “sex-ish,” is it? It’s that
>something just doesn’t quite seem to ring true about her
>approach to sex, at least for me.

William Dennis wrote:

>As I read IWFNE for the first time, I recall thinking that the words
spoken
>by Eunice after the transplant came across as some sort of male fantasy of
>what men really wished women believed.

The first time I read IWFNE, RAH got me caught up in the tale so well that Eunice was real to me. He made me _want_ to believe, along with Johann. It was only on later readings, that I realized how much Eunice was “off.”

>It reinforces my contention that
>wasn’t the real Eunice rattling around inside Johann’s brain. “Eunice” was
>simply Johann’s brain coming up with a way to make Eunice still alive, a
>way to cope with the guilt of winding up inside the body of a person he
had
>grown to love.

I think it [the words spoken by Eunice after the transplant came across as some sort of male fantasy ] is the single most telling piece of evidence, pro or con. If Eunice were “real”, she wold have been more complex. She definitely is not a typical Heinlein heroine, in my book. The “typical Heinlein heroine” is fit, smart, skilled and beautiful, with a healthy appreciation of sex–a superwoman of sorts. But somehow, Eunice is a cartoon compared to Friday, or Maureen, or Hilda, or Star, or Hazel, or . . . (fill in the blank with your own Heinlein heroine.)

>Had the real Eunice never worked for Johann, yet somehow
>ended up a donor, this never would have happened. Virtually everything
>Johann learned of Eunice after the transplant that could be verified was
>already known by Johann.

I have never been able to come up with a single verifiable thing that Eunice told Johann, that was not already known. Some ambiguities, maybe, but nothing concrete. Wait, I do remember one thing: Eunice told Johann about tickling Jake before he told J., I think. Of course, that could be from knowing both of them and filling in the blanks with a good guess, rather than from being told. How much “ESP” is really putting together some subliminal observations to reach a correct conclusion?

What you said about a male fantasy of what men wish women believe, reminds me about how I feel about _Playboy_. Wants to present itself as oh, so sophisicated, but it strikes me as very adolescent. Like the James Bond movies. Fun, sure, but not particularly sophisticated. The good life = beautiful women, fast cars, and good booze. Nothing wrong with any of that, but if that’s _all_, it is pretty shallow.

I don’t think the Eunice veiwpoint is _the_ fantasy of nearly all men, but possible _a_ fantasy of nearly all men–what do you guys say? Maybe _the_ fantasy of boys, whatever their age. The fantasies of _men_ are probably too rich to be limited to this one view.

–Dee

Dee wrote:

 

I don’t think the Eunice veiwpoint is _the_ fantasy of nearly all men,
>but possible _a_ fantasy of nearly all men–what do you guys say? Maybe
>_the_ fantasy of boys, whatever their age. The fantasies of _men_ are
>probably too rich to be limited to this one view.
>
>–Dee

I shudder to say this, but, Ma’am, I’m of “Two Minds” with reference to this novel. I enjoy(ed) a great deal of it during my first 7 or 8 read-throughs. What I like(d) is basically what I “always” like(d): The turns of phrase, the telling detail, the “throw-away” comment that enlightens a character or a situation, the descriptions which embody more attitudes and values than just a retailing of content — these I consider the elements that compose the RAH “Right Stuff.” I must agree that the “fantasy” to which you refer in your last paragraph is ALSO part of the enjoyment of the novel–for me. No matter the physical age of the male in question (I submit myself as an example), there is a bit (more often, MORE than a “bit”) of the puerile. It’s the “Peter Pan” Syndrome in a modified form, I believe. It’s part of most males as much as the monthly circadian is a “part” of most females. I accept and appreciate what is before me.

‘Nuff said,

Dr. Rufo

“Dee wrote:

> I don’t think the Eunice veiwpoint is _the_ fantasy of nearly all men,
>but possible _a_ fantasy of nearly all men–what do you guys say? Maybe
>_the_ fantasy of boys, whatever their age. The fantasies of _men_ are
>probably too rich to be limited to this one view.

Dr. Rufo wrote:
>I must agree that the “fantasy” to which you refer in your last
>paragraph is ALSO part of the enjoyment of the novel–for me. No
>matter the physical age of the male in question (I submit myself
>as an example), there is a bit (more often, MORE than a “bit”) of
>the puerile. It’s the “Peter Pan” Syndrome in a modified form, I
>believe. It’s part of most males as much as the monthly
>circadian is a “part” of most females.
>I accept and appreciate what is before me.

So, if I read you right, then we are in agreement–a fantasy, but not the only one. I wouldn’t consider a man puerile because he entertained this fantasy. But if his fantasies were limited to _only_ this one, well, that’s another question. Don’t men have other fantasy females than only the “I only exist for sex–anyone, anywhere, anytime” image? What about the image of the woman who is so superlative and so discriminating that she salivates for the fantasizer, and him alone? I would have thought that would be at least one other, just to come up with one off the top of my head.

(Obviously) I’m no expert on male fantasies, but whenguys talk about celebrity fantasy women, they seem to describe women who portray an image that is significantly more than an animated sex-toy.

–Dee

Dee wrote:

>Pixel–
It’s not just that she seems to “sex-ish,” is it? It’s that something
>just doesn’t quite seem to ring true about her approach to sex, at least
>for
>me. The idea that the only meaningful way a woman can thank a man is with
>sex kind of gets to the heart of it. This seems to belittle both men and
>women: Men only want one thing, and women only have one thing worth
>offering. I think that men and women are both more complex than that.

I recall a line from a stand-up comedian (can’t recall the name) a decade or so back along the lines of: A woman looks for the one man who will give her every thing she wants and needs. A man looks for every woman who will give him the one thing he wants and needs.

I think I had it in my .sig for a while back in those days. I guess I should do an archeological google.


Ward Griffiths

Humans have some good cookbooks, but one has to be careful about
using recipes from a species that can thrive on okra and marshmallow
peanuts. Freefall Comic 5/17/2002

Ward Griffithswrote in message news:nhFN8.74762$

>Dee wrote:
>
>Pixel–
> It’s not just that she seems to “sex-ish,” is it? It’s that something
>just doesn’t quite seem to ring true about her approach to sex, at least for
>me. The idea that the only meaningful way a woman can thank a man is with
>sex kind of gets to the heart of it. This seems to belittle both men and
>women: Men only want one thing, and women only have one thing worth
>offering. I think that men and women are both more complex than that.
>
>I recall a line from a stand-up comedian (can’t recall the name) a decade
>or so back along the lines of:
>A woman looks for the one man who will give her every thing she wants and needs.
>A man looks for every woman who will give him the one thing he wants and needs.
>
>I think I had it in my .sig for a while back in those days. I guess I
>should do an archeological google.
>–
>Ward Griffiths

Additionally:

(some) Men marry their ideal woman, expecting her to never change, (some) Women marry a man expecting him to change into their ideal man*. both genders are often disappointed…

*1st corollary: It’s been known to happen that a gal may nag her hubby for years to get him to change little things, and after he’s gone along with it, she divorces him because… “You aren’t the man I married anymore…”

(the male side doesn’t count as a corollary, as it is well known that all ‘ideal women’ are equal to some guys, but some are more equal than others. grass is greener & all that.

IHTEY

Rusty the bookman

“bookman”wrote in message news:JBFN8.233$

>
Ward Griffiths:
>I recall a line from a stand-up comedian (can’t recall the name) a decade
>or so back along the lines of:
>A woman looks for the one man who will give her every thing she wants and needs.
>A man looks for every woman who will give him the one thing he wants and needs.

bookman wrote:
>(some) Men marry their ideal woman, expecting her to never change,
>(some) Women marry a man expecting him to change into their ideal man*.
>both genders are often disappointed…

Rusty–

I don’t disagree with either of you that there is a truth to be found in those maxims. What I am asking is, from the male point of view, are those the only truths?

–Dee

Deewrote in message news:

>”bookman” wrote in message
>news:JBFN8.233$
>>
>Ward Griffiths:
>>I recall a line from a stand-up comedian (can’t recall the name) a
>decade
>>or so back along the lines of:
>>A woman looks for the one man who will give her every thing she wants
>and
>>needs.
>>A man looks for every woman who will give him the one thing he wants
and
>>needs.
>
>bookman wrote:
>(some) Men marry their ideal woman, expecting her to never change,
>(some) Women marry a man expecting him to change into their ideal man*.
>both genders are often disappointed…
>
>Rusty–
>
I don’t disagree with either of you that there is a truth to be found
in
>those maxims. What I am asking is, from the male point of view, are those
>the only truths?
>
>–Dee

Dee,

the short answer: depends on the male.

longer: Those are not _my_ only truths, and they don’t cover the whole spectrum, not by a long shot!

My wife is much the same as when I married her, execpt she’s better than ever. 😉

heh, I suspect that if there was found to be a man who ‘truely understood’ women, and a woman who ‘truely understood’ men, and they were to marry, it would be discovered that neither knew diddly-squat. :)

YMMV, o’course.

Rusty the bookman
who doesn’t have to understand
processor architecture to enjoy
computers, nor women to enjoy
his marriage…

Dee wrote:

> I don’t disagree with either of you that there is a truth to be found in
>those maxims. What I am asking is, from the male point of view, are those
>the only truths?

bookman wrote:

the short answer: depends on the male.
longer: Those are not _my_ only truths, and they don’t
>cover the whole spectrum, not by a long shot!

Rusty–

That is what I was trying to say. I would expect a certain immaturity in any man or woman for whom it is the _only_ truth. and for Johann/Eunice, it seemed to be very nearly the only truth.

–Dee

Deewrote in message news:

>Dee wrote:
>> I don’t disagree with either of you that there is a truth to be
>found
>in
>>those maxims. What I am asking is, from the male point of view, are
>those
>>the only truths?
>

bookman wrote:
>
> the short answer: depends on the male.
> longer: Those are not _my_ only truths, and they don’t
>cover the whole spectrum, not by a long shot!
>
>Rusty–
>
That is what I was trying to say. I would expect a certain immaturity
>in any man or woman for whom it is the _only_ truth. and for
Johann/Eunice,
>it seemed to be very nearly the only truth.
>
>–Dee

no huhu, Dee.

I was just tackin’ on for ennertainmint valyoo, ya know?

best regards,

Rusty the bookman
Dee wrote:

>”bookman” wrote in message
>news:JBFN8.233$
>>
>Ward Griffiths:
>>I recall a line from a stand-up comedian (can’t recall the name) a
>decade
>>or so back along the lines of:
>>A woman looks for the one man who will give her every thing she wants
>and
>>needs.
>>A man looks for every woman who will give him the one thing he wants
>>and needs.
>
>bookman wrote:
>>(some) Men marry their ideal woman, expecting her to never change,
>>(some) Women marry a man expecting him to change into their ideal man*.
>>both genders are often disappointed…
>
>Rusty–
>

I don’t disagree with either of you that there is a truth to be found in

>those maxims. What I am asking is, from the male point of view, are those
>the only truths?
>
>–Dee

Short answer? No. Then again, my “ideal woman” is an artifact of dreams, fantasy and fiction. My wife is a real human being with a mean streak. She insisted that I spend last Saturday doing the tourist thing with visiting relatives (mine, not hers). I’d avoided the top of the Empire State Building for the more than a decade I’ve been in this part of the continent. I went. The main gratifying point was that the nephew who made me a grand-uncle has a great big bald spot at 28, while at 47 I’ve got some grey but exactly the same hairline I had when I was eight years old.


Ward Griffiths

Humans have some good cookbooks, but one has to be careful about
using recipes from a species that can thrive on okra and marshmallow
peanuts. Freefall Comic 5/17/2002

On Tue, 11 Jun 2002 20:41:09 -0500, in alt.fan.heinlein, “Dee”quoth:

>teresa wrote:
>>Thank you; this is much of what I was trying to find the words for.
>>Eunice seems too sweet, too “sex-ish”… it just isn’t believable to
>>me; I’ve never known a female like this. Of course, that just makes
>>it “unbelievable”, not “impossible”…
>
>Pixel–
It’s not just that she seems to “sex-ish,” is it? It’s that something
>just doesn’t quite seem to ring true about her approach to sex, at least for
>me. The idea that the only meaningful way a woman can thank a man is with
>sex kind of gets to the heart of it. This seems to belittle both men and
>women: Men only want one thing, and women only have one thing worth
>offering. I think that men and women are both more complex than that.

Yes, exactly. I just don’t have the words to say why I think Eunice is somehow “wrong”, or whatever. Sex, sex, always sex. Coy, kissing everyone, and the men thinking it’s all “okay”, or whatever the hell they’re thinking. Of course, this was written in 1970? Maybe that’s how RAH saw things going. But I’ve always found that men give more respect to women who *don’t* have sex with them.


~teresa~

^..^ “Never try to outstubborn a cat.” Robert A. Heinlein ^..^
http://www.heinleinsociety.org/ & http://rahbooks.virtualave.net/
“Blert!!!” quoth Pixel, a small, yellow cat.
MSN messenger ID =
AIM id = pixelmeow

From: “James Nicoll”

Subject: Re: RG AIM Chat IWFNE; Eunice Evans Branca : Chameleon or Con artist?June 6 and 6

Date: Wednesday, June 12, 2002 11:46 AM

In article, Teresa Redmondwrote:

>
>Yes, exactly. I just don’t have the words to say why I think Eunice
>is somehow “wrong”, or whatever. Sex, sex, always sex. Coy, kissing
>everyone, and the men thinking it’s all “okay”, or whatever the hell
>they’re thinking. Of course, this was written in 1970? Maybe that’s
>how RAH saw things going. But I’ve always found that men give more
>respect to women who *don’t* have sex with them.

Depends on the culture of the man, doesn’t it? I once had the displeasure of working with a religious fanatic from Egypt who spent most of his time maligning any woman he thought dressed in a sluttish manner (Pretty much every woman he saw. Even the Mennonites offended him). That’s one end of the scale.

I seem to recall an article I read during the All The President’s Blowjobs scandal about Southern men of a particular age and place and how they saw women. Some women were for fun and those were mistresses. Others were serious and those you married and reveared. For some reason, defining things so that it’s impossible to be married to a fun woman can cause stresses in some marriages. Take Newt Gingrich, for example, a guy who has affairs, marries the women involved and then dumps them for the next mistress. Being married to Clinton must have its trying moments for Hillary but at least she’s never been served divorce papers in her sick bed.

James Nicoll

Dee wrote:

>”Dee wrote:
>
>> I don’t think the Eunice veiwpoint is _the_ fantasy of nearly all
>>>
>men,
>
>>>but possible _a_ fantasy of nearly all men–what do you guys say? Maybe
>>>_the_ fantasy of boys, whatever their age. The fantasies of _men_ are
>>>probably too rich to be limited to this one view.
>>>
>
>Dr. Rufo wrote:
>
>
>>I must agree that the “fantasy” to which you refer in your last
>>paragraph is ALSO part of the enjoyment of the novel–for me. No
>>matter the physical age of the male in question (I submit myself
>>as an example), there is a bit (more often, MORE than a “bit”) of
>>the puerile. It’s the “Peter Pan” Syndrome in a modified form, I
>>believe. It’s part of most males as much as the monthly
>>circadian is a “part” of most females.
>>I accept and appreciate what is before me.
>>
>
So, if I read you right, then we are in agreement–a fantasy, but not
>the only one. I wouldn’t consider a man puerile because he entertained this
>fantasy. But if his fantasies were limited to _only_ this one, well, that’s
>another question.

Yes, Ma’am, we agree, “sort of.” We both see this as a “fantasy construct” but I am willing to label it a “childish” construct. I am also willing to admit that it is, more or less, a part of the “permanent” structure of the male ego. Possession of, or recognition of this, as a portion of the male ego, does not MAKE a man childish — it is a part that is ALWAYS childish.

>Don’t men have other fantasy females than only the “I
>only exist for sex–anyone, anywhere, anytime” image? What about the image
>of the woman who is so superlative and so discriminating that she salivates
>for the fantasizer, and him alone? I would have thought that would be at
>least one other, just to come up with one off the top of my head.

Once again, I agree. This is ALSO another fantasy. Also “childish.” Also possessed by many males. These fantasies are “childish” features of otherwise “mature” males. I believe that the contrasting elements are each and all parts of the whole. I might even go so far as to suggest that were these, or similar “childish” elements missing, that there would, indeed, be “something missing” from the *soi disant* “mature” male. They are, each and all, part of the “seasoning” in the mix. Trouble occurs when one element over-shadows or over-powers the “balance.” Does that make my statement any more clear?

Dr. Rufo
On Wed, 12 Jun 2002 10:42:59 -0400, Teresa Redmondheld forth, saying:

>But I’ve always found that men give more
>respect to women who *don’t* have sex with them.

You’ve been around the wrong men. Some of us have the utmost respect for women who give us the gift of themselves. :)


-denny-
nocturnal curmudgeon, editor

Never try to outstubborn a cat. – Lazarus Long

Dee wrote:

>> So, if I read you right, then we are in agreement–a fantasy, but not
>>the only one. I wouldn’t consider a man puerile because he entertained this
>>fantasy. But if his fantasies were limited to _only_ this one, well, that’s
>>another question.

Dr. Rufo wrote:

> Yes, Ma’am, we agree, “sort of.” We both see this as a “fantasy
>construct” but I am willing to label it a “childish” construct. I
>am also willing to admit that it is, more or less, a part of the
>”permanent” structure of the male ego. Possession of, or
>recognition of this, as a portion of the male ego, does not MAKE
>a man childish — it is a part that is ALWAYS childish.

>>Don’t men have other fantasy females than only the “I
>> only exist for sex–anyone, anywhere, anytime” image? What about the image
>> of the woman who is so superlative and so discriminating that she salivates
>> for the fantasizer, and him alone? I would have thought that would be at
>> least one other, just to come up with one off the top of my head.

>Once again, I agree. This is ALSO another fantasy. Also
>”childish.” Also possessed by many males. These fantasies are
>”childish” features of otherwise “mature” males. I believe that
>the contrasting elements are each and all parts of the whole. I
>might even go so far as to suggest that were these, or similar
>”childish” elements missing, that there would, indeed, be
>”something missing” from the *soi disant* “mature” male. They
>are, each and all, part of the “seasoning” in the mix. Trouble
>occurs when one element over-shadows or over-powers the
>”balance.” Does that make my statement any more clear?

Doc, I have been giving what you (and bookman and Ward Grffiths) have had to say, some time to “percolate” in my brain. I think I am coming to see it this way:

There are certain fantasies about women that are “universal” among men. (N.B.–the word universal is not to be taken completely literally.) The one we have been discussing appears to be one of them, and I am really not surprised at that. There are probably certain fantasies about men that are “universal” among women, but I am not sure what they are–the Prince Charming fantasy, perhaps. That the fantasies themselves are immature does not make the holder of the fantsy immature, but rather human. A person wold be less complete if he/she could not enjoy a few fantasies now and again (and again and again. )

BUT, if a person is limited to just the one fantasy, he/she seems to suffer from a poverty of imagination. If the person fixates on the one fantasy to he exclusion of all else, and it becomes the viewpoint for “real life” then he or she seems to me to be an immature and one-dimensional person.

So, to get back to the original discussion of Eunice/Johann, she strikes me as “wrong” because of this one-dimensionality. The first reading of IWFNE, I didn’t even notice it, just enjoyed the hell out of another Heinlein book. Later readings, felt a wrongness accumulate, began to realize why. Discussions here clarified that, for me at least, this “living the fantasy” was not easily swallowed. I don’t dislike IWFNE, and I feel sure that I will return to it again, in the future, but it doesn’t hold up to re-readings as well as some others. The aspect of human nature that RAH spotlights in this one is too restricted for my taste.

–Dee

Dee wrote:

>> That is what I was trying to say. I would expect a certain immaturity
>> in any man or woman for whom it is the _only_ truth. and for Johann/Eunice,
>> it seemed to be very nearly the only truth.

bookman wrote:

> no huhu, Dee.
> I was just tackin’ on for ennertainmint valyoo, ya know?

Hi, Rusty–

Yeah, I know. But like RAH, you have probably added a kernal of truth to the entertainment value.

My failure to answer earlier was just letting this discussion “percolate” in my own mind for a while. I addresses a longer answer to Dr. Rufo, but it is really a response to you and Ward Griffiths as well. Thanks to you all for the input on male fantasies.

–Dee

Ward Griffiths :

>Short answer? No. Then again, my “ideal woman” is an artifact of dreams,
>fantasy and fiction. My wife is a real human being with a mean streak.
>She insisted that I spend last Saturday doing the tourist thing with
>visiting relatives (mine, not hers).

Well, That is just the sort of mean and tyrannical begahavior one can expect from wives.

>I’d avoided the top of the Empire
>State Building for the more than a decade I’ve been in this part of the
>continent. I went. The main gratifying point was that the nephew who made
>me a grand-uncle has a great big bald spot at 28, while at 47 I’ve got some
>grey but exactly the same hairline I had when I was eight years old.

LOL. Maybe your nephew should sue his barber . . . for selling him a haircut with a hole in it. You, on the other hand, can enjoy those distibguished threads of silver.

BTW, how do you prefer to be addressed? May I call you Ward?

–Dee
>Ward Griffiths
>
>Humans have some good cookbooks, but one has to be careful about
>using recipes from a species that can thrive on okra and marshmallow
>peanuts. Freefall Comic 5/17/2002

Deewrote in message news:

>
>bookman wrote:
>> no huhu, Dee.
>> I was just tackin’ on for ennertainmint valyoo, ya know?
>
>Hi, Rusty–
>
> Yeah, I know. But like RAH, you have probably added a kernal of truth
>to the entertainment value.
> My failure to answer earlier was just letting this discussion
>”percolate” in my own mind for a while. I addresses a longer answer to Dr.
>Rufo, but it is really a response to you and Ward Griffiths as well. Thanks
>to you all for the input on male fantasies.
>
>–Dee

truth? you flatter me, Dee 😉

Taking time out to _think_ is a good thing, too. Too many people in my life don’t bother, they just run on pre-program & hard-wired reflex.

I read your reply to Rufo, and you may well have laid your finger on the reason that IWFNE is one I don’t re-read, either. For me, it’s a taste thing, and that one doesn’t taste quite right.

I agree with you on lacking depth in fantasy life, but want to add that fantasy includes the ‘Walter Mitty” as well as the “Penthouse Letters”. Both can be loads of fun – I simply lack the skill to translate my twisted maunderings into the long green.

Don’t worry, I won’t bore you with the gory details…

Rusty the bookman
Me think? Whatever gave you that idea?

Dee wrote:

>That the fantasies themselves are immature does
>not make the holder of the fantsy immature, but rather human. A person wold
>be less complete if he/she could not enjoy a few fantasies now and again
>(and again and again.)

Miss Dee, there we have it. I suggest that there are some fantasies that are, of their nature, “immature.” They date from a period in the developmental life of the individual male/female when that individual is not fully psychologically, physically, or emotionally matured. I also suggest, to rephrase your statement, that this is not a “bug” but a “feature” of the mature(d) individual. The (sexual) fantasies we have mentioned are not the only ones we (humans) hold. For example, I will mention the “King of the World” or (as Rusty said, the “Walter Mitty”, “Hero” fantasy. No matter the chronological age of the individual, there are some fantasies that continue to be enjoyed and re-visited. Sometimes they become “richer” or “more fully developed” but the availability of the basic (if you’ll allow the mis-using of a technical term) “fugue state,” is almost always there.

> BUT, if a person is limited to just the one fantasy, he/she seems to
>suffer from a poverty of imagination. If the person fixates on the one
>fantasy to he exclusion of all else, and it becomes the viewpoint for “real
>life” then he or she seems to me to be an immature and one-dimensional
>person.
> So, to get back to the original discussion of Eunice/Johann, she strikes
>me as “wrong” because of this one-dimensionality.

The “Johnny One-Note” quality to which you refer is, I believe, clearly there. I appreciate it for what it is and do not choose to make it otherwise. I suggest it might be rather like the fan of “science-fiction” who hasn’t read anything since 1988 because he doesn’t want to anymore. All conversations on that topic end there. If that person is your friend, you accept the condition and proceed as you can. If you’d rather not, then you needn’t participate in converse with him. Do you see my point?

>The first reading of
>IWFNE, I didn’t even notice it, just enjoyed the hell out of another
>Heinlein book.

Moi aussi.

>Later readings, felt a wrongness accumulate,

No “wrongness developed just a feeling of acceptance of a friend’s limitations. I’ve just never felt like criticizing my friends, Eunice & J.S.B. Smith.

 

>The aspect of human nature that RAH
>spotlights in this one is

just what I accept and wouldn’t want to alter.

Pax vobiscum,
Dr. Rufo

Go To Postings

Here Begins The Discussion Log

You have just entered room “Heinlein Readers Group chat.”

TreetopAngelRN has entered the room.

ddavitt has entered the room.

ddavitt: Hi all

TreetopAngelRN: Hi Jane!

TreetopAngelRN: Hi David!

ddavitt: How’s things?

ddavitt: David may not be here

ddavitt: Just keeping the log

DavidWrightSr: Hi there. I’m here.

TreetopAngelRN: Pretty good, going over some of my notes.

ddavitt: OK, my mistake:-)

DavidWrightSr: Actually, I’m ususually not here at the first :-)

ddavitt: You were so quiet

ddavitt: Glad you made it

TreetopAngelRN: So how is the weather your way? Ours is cold and it might turn to snow

ddavitt: Wow

ddavitt: We are slowly edging towards summer but still having lots of rain and the odd frost

DavidWrightSr: Hot, Hot, Hot. and some powerful afternoon-evening thunderstorms. But it looks ok tonight. Last night would have been impossible

TreetopAngelRN: <

ddavitt: Supposed to be v hot tomorrow; big swings in temp

ddavitt: We get them; much more dramatic than the Uk

ddavitt: because of those temp swings I guess

TreetopAngelRN: it’s been in the 50’ and 60’s here during the day and getting mighty cold at night

ddavitt: I love to watch them

DavidWrightSr: I remember once when we had a visiting prof from UK. He brought all of his heavy tweeds and was burning up.

ddavitt: Heh.

TreetopAngelRN: <<

TreetopAngelRN: I got everyone’s name written down 😎

pjscott100 has entered the room.

ddavitt: they did well yesterday

TreetopAngelRN: Sports?? Not much of a sports person, rather watch food shows and movies

ddavitt: wb Peter

TreetopAngelRN: Hi Peter!

pjscott100: Hi Jane

ddavitt: My husband is a fan of iron Chef; v funny

TreetopAngelRN: Love Iron Chef

geeairmoe2 has entered the room.

ddavitt: Hi Will

TreetopAngelRN: Hi Will!

pjscott100: Will!

geeairmoe2: Hello, all.

pjscott100: Treetop, sorry, forgot your real name

TreetopAngelRN: Elizabeth

pjscott100: ah right

TreetopAngelRN: sokay!

ddavitt: We’ll give it a minutes then start

ddavitt: I’m tired; might not make it till 11

TreetopAngelRN: Hubby says sometimes I forget it too!:-\

ddavitt: Oh what the heck. let’s just start anyway:-)

TreetopAngelRN: all of that early soccer

ddavitt: No; lauren!

pixelmeow has entered the room.

TreetopAngelRN: ah kids!

pixelmeow: howdy

ddavitt: IWFNE I read at 13 ish; when did you all come across it?

pixelmeow: damn this little keyboard!

ddavitt: Hi teresa!

pixelmeow: hi!

TreetopAngelRN: Hi Teresa

pjscott100: okay, equal numbers of pointers and setters… okay to start :-)

ddavitt: I had discovered H, raced thru all the juvies in the library and ventured into the adult section

TreetopAngelRN: I must have been about the same age Jane

pjscott100: I was ~15

ddavitt: There was this book…and the cover was so awful i didn’t want to read it

ddavitt: Took me a while before i ddi too

pjscott100: Not the one with the skull and the uh… decoration…

ddavitt: You got it

ddavitt: Awful cover

pixelmeow: Mine is the one with the dark haired lady on it.

pjscott100: “Was that supposed to be what I thought it was supposed to be?”

ddavitt: I assumed it was horror, which i hate

geeairmoe2: High school sometime, probably 16, 17.

ddavitt: Is it a skull with a blonde wig?

ddavitt: And goopy stuff ooozing from the mouth?

TreetopAngelRN: yuck, glad I didn’t see that one

ddavitt: major yuck

ddavitt: It’ll be on wegrokit

pjscott100: Yes, but there is a, uh, gelatinous cream-colored substance (trying to avoid terms which will offend when discussion is posted on web :-) )

ddavitt: So covers do count…

ddavitt: At 14 that wouldn’t have occurred to me:-)

pjscott100: Maybe not to a female…

Copycat669 has entered the room.

geeairmoe2: If Heinlein was on the cover, I didn’t notice much else.

Copycat669: Hi guys. I have strep so don’t get too close…

ddavitt: When i did read it, i was confused now and then but I enjoyed it

TreetopAngelRN: Covers always count, I’ve torn some off so I could read the story without touching the cover…Cujo comes to mind…

ddavitt: Hi there, don’t breathe on us then:-)

TreetopAngelRN: Hi Tam!

DavidWrightSr: Don’t worry. we’ve got electronic filters in place :-)

pixelmeow: I didn’t think too much on the cover of mine, pretty innocuous…

ddavitt: This is a UK edition

pjscott100: It and SIASL definitely provided an education I was otherwise lacking :-)

Copycat669: OMGspeaking of covers….i FOUND the SISL that my mom said she threw away! it’s missing the front cover, but it’s as dogeared and loved as it can be.

pixelmeow: Only problem I have with the cover on mine is that it’s not what I think Eunice looks like…

ddavitt: That can put you off

Copycat669: that’s what started this in the first place. What does Eunice look like on your cover?

pixelmeow: She’s got dark hair, really dark mouth…

ddavitt: If she’s not a skull, it’s a start

TreetopAngelRN: not much, split head pic Johann on left (too young) and Eunice on right

pixelmeow: pale skin, but you can see some ribs.

pixelmeow: Like, windows, or holes, or something, but not gruesome.

TreetopAngelRN: brain look to the crown of the head

ddavitt: Hard to convey what happens in a picture

pixelmeow: She’s pretty, but not Eunice.

pixelmeow: I think Eunice looks more like Friday (Whelan).

TreetopAngelRN: On top in gold lettering Robert A. Heinlein…that’s what counts

ddavitt: I see her as having dark hair

geeairmoe2: I have the Berkley Medallion paperback, 70″s-ish, kind of a split male-female face, exposed brain.

ddavitt: , medium height, stacked

TreetopAngelRN: That’s what mine looks like Will

ddavitt: Yet io’s far from a gruesome story

geeairmoe2: Price: $1.75

joelrmpls has entered the room.

joelrmpls: Hi there.

DavidWrightSr: Hi Joel

Copycat669: I have the same berkely. mine ws only 1.50

pixelmeow: I do like the story, really…

pixelmeow: hello!

pixelmeow: in a way… just not everywhere.

ddavitt: What puzzles me is that they decide the new creation is Johann…but always call it ‘she’. Goes against the decision that ID is in the brain

ddavitt: Hi Joel

TreetopAngelRN: I think everyone sees Eunice as a different woman, their own idea of perfection and I think Heinlein meant us to think that way.

pixelmeow: Yes, I see that…

pixelmeow: to Jane

pixelmeow: And Eliz

DavidWrightSr: Funny thing happened when I bought my copy. I was in PA and came out of the store where I bought just as a bank was being held up across the street. there was this screeching of tires and the car flew off down the road

Copycat669: I think Joan is a completely different beast from Johann and Eunice.

pixelmeow: You know, I’ve been good for this chat.

pixelmeow: I’m actually reading the book.

TreetopAngelRN: 😀

Copycat669: what is your name, other cat?

pixelmeow: I was just going to ask if I could have some names…

pixelmeow: I’m teresa.

ddavitt: They see a woman and respond accordingly ( oh boy do they respond!)

Copycat669: i’m tam

pixelmeow: hi!

TreetopAngelRN: Hubby has a completely different idea of Eunice, than I do

pixelmeow: Jane, I think I’ve hit on what I don’t like about this book.

DavidWrightSr: We have Joel, Tam, Teresa, Will, Peter, Jane, Elizabeth and yours truly

labert8 has entered the room.

pjscott100: IWFNE is one of H’s many stories that ends in death of heroes (even point of view characters!) yet makes it positive.

pixelmeow: HEY!

ddavitt: Just sent labert an invitation

pixelmeow: COOL!!!

ddavitt: and here he is!

pixelmeow: Long time no see, labert!

labert8: HI, pix, and all. Glad to be dropping in.

pjscott100: Few others attempt this (one example that comes to mind is James Blish’s A Clash of Cymbals aka The Triumph of Time)

ddavitt: What is it you dislike Teresa?

pixelmeow: I dislike how easily old cantankerous Johann turns into sexy Joan.

pixelmeow: It doesn’t wash, for me.

ddavitt: Birth of a baby; ultimate positive ending, peter, i agree

ddavitt: Yep, that bothers me

pjscott100: Why?

Copycat669: I think that sexuality is more primal than just male/female

TreetopAngelRN: Old cantankerous Johann was in a lot of pain, had not really enjoyed life in a long time

ddavitt: it’s a man’s brain, decades of experience…why should the chassis affect the engine?

Copycat669: and i think that Eunice in his head helped him to ‘ACT’ female

pixelmeow: I don’t see any man like Johann being able to so easily speak in a feminine voice, like Joan uses.

ddavitt: That should have been suspicious

pixelmeow: Yes, Jane. And yes, Tam, to an extent,.

pjscott100: You’re an ancient old codger given a fantastic new young body… why not make the most of it instead of bitching about the plumbing?

ddavitt: not a question of bitching

TreetopAngelRN: exactly Peter!

ddavitt: He was a siasl

pixelmeow: Well, yes, but how does he know so easily how to talk to men???

pjscott100: Eunice was helping him

ddavitt: found his bearings using Eunice

pixelmeow: Look up with batting eyelashes and say “darling”…

Copycat669: Stranger in a Strange Lady?

pixelmeow: but it seems to come so easily!

ddavitt: should have been spotted by jake who knew them both so well

labert8: He’s been on the other end for years, Puix. Much experience, just reversed.

ddavitt: Yes, tam:-)

DavidWrightSr: And there were probably a lot of coaching going on that we never saw/heard

ddavitt: Does that prove she existed then?

pixelmeow: I agree, labert, but it’s like this. You see a lot of the coaching.

pixelmeow: For what bothers me, there’s no coaching.

ddavitt: Could any man have dredged up makeup tips and such from his own mind?

joelrmpls: Darn. Gotta go — Whining Spice needs to be put to bed. Again.

geeairmoe2: Does this fall along gender lines? The belief a guy can’t become female as easily as a female could become a guy?

joelrmpls: Later, all…

ddavitt: Night joel

pixelmeow: Eunice isn’t saying “No Johann, inflect the other word!”

joelrmpls has left the room.

pixelmeow: later

TreetopAngelRN: that we know of, maybe we are just supposed to assume that for the story

Copycat669: I think that the thought process affected his/her behavior

pjscott100: I have this theory that women don’t like to think men could know them that well :-)

labert8: BUt so much of what Joan does is automatic, taken from Eunice’s circuitry, the typing machine, for instance

ddavitt: No, I’d have a lot of trouble being male too:-)

pixelmeow: Yes, true, but it’s the mouth speaking the words of the brain.

ddavitt: When he doesn’t think about it, yes, ‘the body remembers’

Copycat669: If you, David, heard me say something in your head first, couldn’t you emulate that voice? aND WE HAVE (sorrY) to keep in mind that it was HER voice, her vocal cords, etc.

pixelmeow: Which in the case of the piano, didn’t work.

TreetopAngelRN: no body memory with the piano, Eunice could hear the music in their head though

labert8: He does slip into the role very easily, but I can’t recall, how long is the span, a year or more, right?

pixelmeow: He is thinking of it, and the mouth is giving forth what he wants to say, in a way that Eunice would have done it.

pjscott100: Women are fond of saying that men think with theirs… so why shouldn’t there be a similar effect in a female body?

pixelmeow: Yes, Eliz.

ddavitt: but he’s convincing from the start, a day or two after he wakes up

pixelmeow: Well, if my brain were put in a man’s body, I don’t see my thoughts being translated into a manly form of speech.

labert8: Hmmnn, should have re-read more and faster today. Poor preparation :-)

ddavitt: hormones?

TreetopAngelRN: clearer thought processes once pain is resolved

Copycat669: My new epithet is JOHN THOMAS ehehehehe

pixelmeow: But his thoughts are translated into a “lady’s” form of speech.

ddavitt: male brain being literally drugged into femininity?

pixelmeow: But his music *isn’t* translated into the fingers.

pjscott100: In the acting classes I have done, that was a fairly basic exercise

ddavitt: No but the body remembers what the old brain used to tell it

Copycat669: perhaps we “see” male or female based on the atmosphere. In this case, in a male or female body.

TreetopAngelRN: he had a lot of time to study women

geeairmoe2: Perhaps a male can be more easily controlled by a woman; especially if the male accepts the female knows what she’s talking about.

ddavitt: ? Don’t see why

DavidWrightSr: But he had a lot of experience with women, 70 or 80 years of it and could reasonably know how they said things even if he didn’t know why they said it

ddavitt: Again, not necessarily

pixelmeow: That’s the only thing that works for me,, what David said.

Copycat669: Can you honestly say that you can tell from the words we are using here right now which of us are male and female? (if you can, i want your secret, because i’ve worked HARD at it for my job)

TreetopAngelRN: how much of what we say is prejudiced by our voice, body shape and gender

geeairmoe2: I saw it as a sudden rebirth — he needed a mother to guide him.

pixelmeow: Tam, you’re right, but look at how JE talks in the book.

pjscott100: I see it as being a round peg in a round hole

geeairmoe2: Up to a certain age, men learn more from their mothers then their fathers.

pjscott100: Or “When in Rome”…

pixelmeow: It’s very obvious to me that it’s a woman talking, but definitely an older style of woman.

TreetopAngelRN: But, I expect Johann to SOUND female and he is in female form

pixelmeow: All those “dear”s and “darling”s.

Copycat669: I think we “see” it as female. If we isolated the dialogue only, I suspect that we wouldn’t know. And i know LOTS Of men who use dear and darling.

ddavitt: He lets E talk him into stuff..but I think he secretly wants to do it anyway. be interesting id they ever had a real clash of wills but they didn’t

pixelmeow: Really?

pixelmeow: I don’t know anyone who uses them…

pjscott100: If (and I accept it may be debatable) you think that H portrayed any female characters accurately, then why shouldn’t another man be able to do the same?

pixelmeow: I don’t know, I guess you’re right, Jane.

TreetopAngelRN: nope, I guess Dad says Honey, not Dear

ddavitt: Does anyone else get tired of the sex, sex, sex all the time?

Copycat669: peter, that’s my point exactly!

Copycat669: in better words!

labert8: Never! ! :-)

ddavitt: Sheesh..I pity the pizza delivery man who comes across Eunice!

pixelmeow: Jane, YES.

DavidWrightSr: no,no,no O:-)

pjscott100: Not at the age of 15 :-)

pixelmeow: David, I’ve named you before… 😉

ddavitt: She bonks everyone who moves…

pixelmeow: Yes, she does./

TreetopAngelRN: No, I see it as a natural part of Joan-Eunice

labert8: oh, in the book. It is the most common complaint in my circle.

ddavitt: It’s too much

ddavitt: too forced

pixelmeow: Yes, it is!

pixelmeow: damn bold keeps turning itself off…

Copycat669: i think sex was integral to the issue, though

ddavitt: I am faithful and I feel like a freak to a Heinelin heroine

labert8: I think it may be tiring, but it mught be true for a horny male who’s been on the bench for a long time, and finds that a new set of experiences await.

pixelmeow: anyway! For this book, I agree, it was, but it just made me uncomfortable.

ddavitt: I wouldn’t have dreamt of sleeping around on my HONEYMOON

Copycat669: i mean honestly, do any of us care if he/she peed standing up or sat down? NO! When a man is trapped in a woman’s body, we wanted to know how it was going to affect SEX

pixelmeow: Me either!

labert8: Faithful is a cultural vice, not a natural one

TreetopAngelRN: old man, no touching for a long time, suddenly finds self in new body, I’m surprised the cats got a reast…

pjscott100: If H had not tackled the sex issue thoroughly readers may have felt that he wimped out

ddavitt: I get miffed at this idea that fidelity is for the proles

DavidWrightSr: You mean you’d wait until afterwards?:-D

ddavitt: Heh…faithful until death, that’s me

pixelmeow: Okay, let me ask you men something.

Copycat669: peter, man, get out of my head….(HA! A joke!)

pixelmeow: You find yourself in a woman’s body.

labert8: for the proles Jane?

pixelmeow: Is the first man you do anything with going to be your best bud?????

pixelmeow: I mean, come on!

pixelmeow: With him knowing it’s you in there???

ddavitt: genuises make their own rules about sex is a H quotation

ddavitt: Guess i made the rule to be faithful:-):-)

labert8: perhaps. not in this society though, In a sexually liberated one? Why not someone you trust?

TreetopAngelRN: who better to trust??? I know I am not male, but question is still valid.

DavidWrightSr: Good for you Jane, I was just kidding.

Copycat669: well….if a man’s going to experiment with homosexuality, he usually selects someone he’s “best friends” with.

pixelmeow: Yes, Jane, but somehow that feels more like just sweeping aside a problem.

pixelmeow: Hm, yes, I guess so…

pixelmeow: but what about the judge and the other attorney?

ddavitt: That’s OK David:-)

labert8: horny is as horny does

pixelmeow: All that “brother Schmidt” stuff is not so nice.

pjscott100 has left the room.

ddavitt: It isn’t the sleeping around so much as the deciet

ddavitt: deceit

pixelmeow: Of course,then you find out they are more buddies than you thought…

TreetopAngelRN: Morality is your agreement with yourself to abide by your own rules.~~Jubal Harshaw in Stranger in a Strange Land

ddavitt: Brian and Mo agreed to open marriage; that’s fine, doesn’t bother me. their choice

ddavitt: Eunice, jake and Joan _cheat_

Copycat669: great quote

labert8: I was reading some posts on that , and it does bother me, but other than Winnie, if she doesn’t know, who gets deceived?

ddavitt: Lie, cover up, sneak around like a French farce..undignified

pjscott100 has entered the room.

pjscott100: network problem… grr…

DavidWrightSr: As always, I look at it this way. H is forcing us to ask questions about things by deliberately pushing those buttons.

ddavitt: why get married if you don’t love someone so much that they’re all you need?

Copycat669: I agree, though. if you’re goint o have an open sexuality, your partner needs to know.

ddavitt: Yes..that dates the book..pre AIDS

pixelmeow: Jane, I’m with you on this one.

pjscott100: This was the 70’s… still the sexual revolution

ddavitt: Thanks Pix!

pixelmeow: 😀

labert8: Morality is being forced to follow someone elses rules. Ethics is making your own.

pixelmeow: Well, my rule, for myself, is that I only want/need one man.

pjscott100: Question assumptions, question traditional beliefs

DavidWrightSr: Right

pixelmeow: Yes, but I know what’s right for me.

ddavitt: Hmm..but marriage should be full of trust..or what’s the point/ TELL them you want someone else..if they can’t accept that, you can spllit up, but don’t lie about it

pixelmeow: And it’s not “cheating” that bothers me about this book.

Copycat669: I think this is beyond morality. I mean what does morality have to say about living in another person’s body?

pjscott100: I don’t think he was saying that this was better than being faithful… simply that it was another possibility (one which had not received much attention hitherto)

pixelmeow: Yes, I agree, Jane.

labert8: Marriage is also a social construct. It’s rule do little to obviate evolved drives. Deciding that a convention shouold set aside all other instincts is foolhardy. Witness cheating rates.

pixelmeow: Yes, to that, too…

TreetopAngelRN: If I knew that it would not hurt my husband, I MAY have a fling, but since I tell him everything is would not be a problem

pixelmeow: oh, I’m getting all turned around!

geeairmoe2: got to feed the cat, brb.

ddavitt: I agree that marriage has other purposes than romantic fullfillment

pjscott100: Although I grant you that I am not aware of any people I can personally say have made the open lifestyle work

DavidWrightSr: If H succeeded in making you sure of your attitudes, then he accomplished his goals. If he succeeded in having others junk something they didn’t really believe then he did it again

ddavitt: Can be for financial or status gain

pixelmeow: Didn’t H say that marriage was for making and raising babies?

pixelmeow: Or something like that?

ddavitt: But it’s still a contract and should be defined so both people know what goes and what doesn’t

TreetopAngelRN: Marry for status, but fool around for love???

Copycat669: Joe and Eunice’s marriage was worse than what Joan did.

ddavitt: Depends on what you agree.

ddavitt: Why tam?

Copycat669: and just HOW did they pronounce that? Was it Jone or Joe Anne?

pixelmeow: yo-ahn.

pjscott100: Many writers have said that their goal is to piss off the reader (David Gerrold for one, and he often succeeds). Fortunately H doesn’t go that far for me.

ddavitt: Jo Anne I think…never heard that but other people have

DavidWrightSr: I always assumed Jo-ann

ddavitt: Yohann was male name

Copycat669: Johann was yoahn. i thought it was different.

DavidWrightSr: not Yo-Han

pixelmeow: I say “jone”‘ in my name.

pixelmeow: duh

ddavitt: I say Jone too when i read it

pixelmeow: in my head.

labert8: Did JOe and Eunice have any expectation of fielity? Or had they rejected it as artifical?

Copycat669: joe and eunice set it up for each other

ddavitt: They were open…but she stil lied about jake

pixelmeow: Yo-Hahn was the man

pixelmeow: Yo-Ahn was the woman.

ddavitt: Told him about the gurads; they were lower class…but Jake was rich and a threat to Joe

Copycat669: if fidelity and not honesty is the issue, they had many more instances of cheating.

pjscott100: I think H was postulating a society where open relationships were so common that expectation of fidelity was as optional as deciding who gets which side of the bed

ddavitt: She lied as easily as breathing

TreetopAngelRN: So she avoided hurting Joe’s feelings

TreetopAngelRN: he knew she was with someone, just not who it was

labert8: Is lyng acceptable when the other person would be more hurt by the revelation?

ddavitt: She did something she knew he wouldn’t like; why/ To get sex with someone.

Copycat669: I dunno. I guess i just eliminated all conventional morality with a man’s head in a woman’s body.

ddavitt: Someone rich and powerful…

ddavitt: Why?

ddavitt: Maybe she could have, oh, JUST NOT DONE IT?

TreetopAngelRN: did she really LIE to Joe or just leave out information?

ddavitt: :-)

Copycat669: Labert? (not sure which one is your real name) I think that lying is never less hurtful

pjscott100: I think H put forward such a society as a counterpoint to the traditional one to open up minds/press buttons. If anyone’s read Fowles’ The Magus, something similar happens there.

labert8: Why is there any inherent value in not doing it?

pixelmeow: With you again, Jane…

ddavitt: Loyalty to spouse?

labert8: it’s labert, yes, and hi. It tends to be hurtful, I’ll admit.

pixelmeow: just not doing it.

TreetopAngelRN: She never told us about Roberto, either, until the end…did she lie to us?

pixelmeow: Yes, loyalty.

pixelmeow: She said “Bob”.

ddavitt: Roberto..don’t get the confusion

ddavitt: We know they slept together

Copycat669: And actually, I am applying my own hypotheses about sex when I throw out morality. I know that if my head were suddenly in a man’s body, I’d never leave the bathroom.

labert8: BUt did Joe expect sexual loyalty? Are we applying our rules to their sociuety? remeber, she believed there were what, nine genders?

ddavitt: and jake and Winnue did too; bound to carry on swapping, they lived a door away

pixelmeow: Six genders, and she had said to him one time that she found someone she wanted to spend the night with, and he said “have fun”.

ddavitt: Joe didn’t expect her to be faithful but she said he wouldn’t have liked her going with jake

Copycat669: man bi, man hetero, man homo, man celib, woman bi, woman hetero, woman homo, woman celib

ddavitt: later, he sleeps with jake himself of course..

labert8: I do things I know my wife won’t like. that’s life. she does too.

pixelmeow: Eyebrows!!!

ddavitt: Sure..but big things?

pixelmeow: I don’t recall that!

Copycat669: SEX thing??

ddavitt: Yes; he (jake)goes to see him and has a three some with gigi.

labert8: see that bruise? Kidding. of course, but yeah, don’t we all sometimes? and was this a big thing? Unfortunately I can’t recall JOe’s exact attitude.

pixelmeow: I thought that was JE?

Copycat669: I leave hair on the sink if i’m too lazy to pick up my shedding….but i don’t put that on par with picking up my coworker for a romb in the backseat.

ddavitt: Yes but earlier jake

TreetopAngelRN: she felt Joe would have been threatened by Jake’s status, she never said that Joe would not like Jake as her partner

pixelmeow: Ah, okay, haven’t gotten there yet.

ddavitt: Lemme see if i can spot it hang on

Copycat669: but his status was only an issue if she was having sex with him

pjscott100: I do think you’re trying to hold THAT society to THIS one’s standards and moral codes… and it don’t work that way

Copycat669: i’m not applying social custom…i’m merely applying what I believe about relational dynamics and trust.

labert8: Maybe a better question is, is there any possibility that human society could ever become like that? Was rah stretching too far?

pjscott100: Another version of the “Pardon him Theodotus: he is a barbarian and thinks that the customs of his tribe and island are the laws of nature.”

TreetopAngelRN: True, Tam that’s why she didn’t say anything, it kept Joe happy and what kept Joe Happy kept Eunice happy.

labert8: Does anyone else accept the premise that jealousy (envy) is the most destructive of emotions? That’s a step towards their rules.

labert8: And most fruitless use of emotional energy?

TreetopAngelRN: Jealousy is the most destructive in my book.

pjscott100: There are plenty emotions that are destructive enough that I don’t feel the need to pick a winner

DavidWrightSr: As someone pointed out, this was during or just after the so-called ‘sexual revolution’ and that society was the prototype for what RAH wrote. Personally, I missed it myself, so I can’t speak from experience

Copycat669: nah. i think that jealousy is a by product of distrust, which is to me, the worst.

ddavitt: Got it.”Look Boss, don’t be so naive. they were crying over the same girl -me- and Joe is as ambi as an oyster when it suits him.’

labert8: good point. I think the book was exploring, as one avenue, the possible elimination of it. LIkely? I don’ t know.

TreetopAngelRN: I got the best out of the sexual revolution…parents who were open and honest about sex and helped their children protect themselves.

ddavitt: Mine too

pjscott100: I am more impressed by the fact that an elderly monogamous man and rather right-wing to boot could create such a fantasy

pixelmeow: Okay, Jane, I recall it now.

pixelmeow: thanks!

labert8: NOt mine, and they lived through it. BUt at least my mom owned rah books. that helped.

ddavitt: No prob.

BPRAL22169 has entered the room.

pixelmeow: hi, bill!

ddavitt: Hi Bill

pjscott100: Hi Bill

TreetopAngelRN: Hi Billl

BPRAL22169: Yo! Sorry I’m late; I’ve been having some trouble with my DSL provider.

Copycat669: hi bill

labert8: right wing?

DavidWrightSr: Greetings Bill

TreetopAngelRN: My sexual education really helped with a preeteen step daughter

Copycat669: so, that quote? I don’t think it says that jake had a threesome..

ddavitt: We’re just trying to decide if Eunice and joan were sluts or products of a different time

pjscott100: I could be wrong on that

BPRAL22169: I think both a and b.

ddavitt: It’s implied and certainly happens on the ship

Copycat669: I vote Eunice=Slut, Joan=man, which by application of theorem, =slut.

ddavitt: Joan asks Gigi is they can vist in the city…as a quartet

labert8: Hi bill, long time . . .

pjscott100: And they say the Gender Wars are over

BPRAL22169: I think anybody who was an adult before about 1960 was deeply and favorably impressed by the “wholeheartedness” with which women entered into sex after about 1965.

BPRAL22169: Labert. it’s been awhile.

LV Poker Player has entered the room.

labert8: There’s a lot to be said for that theory, copycat (?)

TreetopAngelRN: Johann, the male part of Joan-Eunice had a new plaything ann wanted to experience everythig

ddavitt: We lay there and thouhgt of England before that, huh?

Copycat669: just kidding. Joan is a slut because any person who gets to have the opposite sex experience is going to want to experiment.

pixelmeow: hey!

labert8: Or admitted entering into it.

pjscott100: Is it as satisfying to think of Canada? :-)

BPRAL22169: Following the Good Queen’s advice.

ddavitt: Eunice was a slut; what’s her excuse?

LV Poker Player: Ok, I figured out how to get into this chat. Is this how I send a message?

Copycat669: I get more out of it if I think of Italy, actually….but the hills of Scotland are a real turn on, too.

pixelmeow: Yep!

TreetopAngelRN: Eunice was a slut by YOUR morals, not the society she lived in

ddavitt: seruiosly, she comes across as a nymphomaniac

BPRAL22169: Yes, you have gotten it, LVPP

ddavitt: Hi LV, didn’t see you

Copycat669: Hi LV. Yes, you have arrived

LV Poker Player: capital!

ddavitt: Mesages scrolled up as i typed

BPRAL22169: Carson city, I think.

pjscott100: Elizabeth: Exactly my point.

labert8: she wasn’t a slut, Jane. She was enthusiastically enjoying a natural part of life. Only our her /now rules lead some to label her negatively.

Copycat669: I think she was by her own society too, though.

ddavitt: If E not a slut, why all the cover ups that johann did IN HIS OWN HOUSE?

BPRAL22169: There was a joke current about the time: if a woman says she is “liberated,” that means she’s a slut.

Copycat669: Not everyone in that society was as freely sexual.

labert8: with free attiudes about sex, woudn’t more people participate more often, with more variety? It all follows from the groundrules rah set up.

TreetopAngelRN: only person I heard described as a slut in IWFNE was Joe’s sister who continually got pregnant

ddavitt: The gossip mags would have had a field day..which implies soiety in general not quite as accepting as it seems

ddavitt: Or more hypocritical than now

BPRAL22169: Would Heinlein consider Eunice a slut? I don’t think so.

labert8: Johann worried about scandal, because of antiquated beliefs. NO one else gave a damn.

TreetopAngelRN: gossip mags are the BIGGEST Mrs. Grundy’s in the universe

Copycat669: Heinlein? OMG! I think I would really like to have known a bit about HIS sexuality.

BPRAL22169: I think the distinction he probably made was casual sex without emotional involvements.

pjscott100: But the gossip mags exist to report any private information they can find out… it’s an issue of privacy more than sexuality

pixelmeow: Except Jake, also…

DavidWrightSr: No way.. His coverups was generally to protect what he thought of as reputation of partner, IIRC

ddavitt: Eunice and Johann constantly, tediously even, tell each other they have dirty minds. i think they even use the slut word happily

pixelmeow: remember, he wants to protect Joan’s reputation.

LV Poker Player: I can think of two problems which were not mentioned at all or passed over VERY briefly, STDs and pregnancy

BPRAL22169: He told us — he tried everything at least once and if he liked it, more than once.

BPRAL22169: Could be an ironic use of the term, Jane.

pixelmeow: Yes, LV, true.

ddavitt: No, much was made of contraception

BPRAL22169: en famille.

Copycat669: std’s werent’ an issue when the book was written

TreetopAngelRN: Didn’t Heinlein consider casual sex, a step above masturbation? IIRC from Notebooks

ddavitt: Pills, diaphrams ect

Copycat669: what does iirc mean?

labert8: Assuming that the notebooks speak for rah? tsk, tsk

DavidWrightSr: If I recall Correctly

BPRAL22169: If I Recall Correctly

ddavitt: 13 year old on ‘junior pill’, Winnie with thigh implant (ahead of his time there)

pjscott100: Quote I recall is “Masturbation is safe, clean, and free of emotional tangements. But it’s LONELY” (paraphrase)

Copycat669: thanks

LV Poker Player: true about contraception, but that society would have had MAJOR problems with STDs

pjscott100: They may have had cures for them

ddavitt: It would if Eunice gave you one of her friendly kisses

Copycat669: lv, the society in which he lived as he wrote, or the society he wrote about?

BPRAL22169: There are many battles RAH kept fighting long after they were pretty much won IRL. The masturbation thing is one of those.

TreetopAngelRN: ghonorrhea and syphillis at the time, only ones that were even considered STD’s

geeairmoe2: The general assuption about the future is the conqouring of STDs.

Copycat669: what do you mean by that, bill?

pjscott100: For those who weren’t around before AIDS… casual sex had a much better rep.

LV Poker Player: both really, if they had cured STD’s it was not mentioned

labert8: Bill, did he actually have an axe to grind with masturbation?

BPRAL22169: It wouldn’t even be considered necessary to talk about masturbation nowadays.

ddavitt: I was a teenager before AIDS; I remember it well it well :-):-)

TreetopAngelRN: true

LV Poker Player: He grew up in a society where it was discouraged, “You’ll go blind” and such like

BPRAL22169: I don’t think he had a specific axe to grind about masturbation; it’s one of those things that were big issues when he was growing up.

BPRAL22169: Exactly.

Copycat669: LV, i was sexually active from 85 on. AIDS and even STD’s were somthing “other people” got. So 70’s would have been worse, i think.

labert8: BUt he often didn’

ddavitt: And he didn’t quite realise when it stopped being one?

BPRAL22169: No, in the 70’s you expected you would get gonhorrea but a shot of penicillin took care of it.

labert8: t accept the belief s of that society. sorry, premature transmission there.

DavidWrightSr: STD’s are a problem in our time and society, and not just AIDS

Copycat669: OK, now i sound like a slut myself, don’t i? :-)

BPRAL22169: STDs were a problem even then.

ddavitt: The clap and such have been around for ever pretty much

pixelmeow: No, Tam, you don’t…

pjscott100: I repeat that I think it’s amazing that a man with H’s demographics could write something so outre that it still tweaks much younger people

Copycat669: They have, but they were treatable. No one died from herpes.

pixelmeow: it’s how I remember it, also.

BPRAL22169: In the sixties and seventies, there was an epidemic of incredible ignorance about sexual matters.

DavidWrightSr: And still is Bill. I know I work for the Health Department

ddavitt: I was SA…a lot influenced by reading H..but I took em on one at a time in the sense that i didn’t cheat which is my beef with E

geeairmoe2: How much is arrogance — it can’t happen to me!

TreetopAngelRN: Even AIDS didn’t get the press it needed until celebrities started dying from it.

BPRAL22169: “Diffrent strokes for different folks.”

DavidWrightSr: Jane, you can’t cheat if you are playing by the rules which she was

Copycat669: well, i for one, think that IWFNE is just a book about that thought that we have all had at least once, “What would it be like to have a’s body for just a day…”

LV Poker Player: I seem to remember something about after Jake came back from Washington, someone said something about D. C. having a high rate of VD?

LV Poker Player: Does anyone else remember that?

BPRAL22169: No, it’s a lot more than that, Tam.

ddavitt: I was brought up to have few hang ups about sex; brought boys home to my room from 16 with parents approval as they knew I was on the pill. No big deal

pixelmeow: Not offhand, LV, but I’ll get to it as I keep reading…

BPRAL22169: It’s the hoariest cliche in science fiction — the brain transplant — made to become a huge novel

labert8: I think its much more than that Tam. It also explores the deeper point of what to do with second chances, among many others

mertide has entered the room.

LV Poker Player: My memory has been known to play tricks on me, it might be from something else

pixelmeow: hey, filly!

TreetopAngelRN: Carolyn!

ddavitt: jake and Eunice cheated on each other and the stpid part is that they didn’t need to, as jake finds out when he’s dead

ddavitt: Hi Filly

mertide: Hey!, thanks D.

mertide: I’m racing in and out, kids exams today

BPRAL22169: And it’s in a dialog with the whole field of science fiction — showing that you could be as “new wave” in terms of content and subject matter and still have a strong story – i.e., old wave.

ddavitt: They didn’t trust each other enough to say, I’m sleeping with the gurads…yet they were old friends, deeply in love…sad

pixelmeow: (that *is* filly, isnt’ it?)

mertide: Are you talking to ME! (I had to use that line)

BPRAL22169: And it’s a study in reality and hallucination.

labert8: mertide = filly = other previous ‘mer’ s? If so, hi filly!

pixelmeow: Yes, YOU!

LV Poker Player: If there were no physical problems to worry about, STD and pregnancy, would unlimited sex then be moral?

mertide: No, mertide is Carolyn from Brisbane Australia, sorry

TreetopAngelRN: Yes!

BPRAL22169: So, even before you start talking about the specifics of the mythos, you’ve accumulated a lot of thematic material.

Copycat669: well…on another topic, I wonder what is the significance of (on page 507) “The Iowa State Annual Picnic in Long Beach California” WHAT the heck is that all about?

pixelmeow: Okay, we had someone in afh that your handle reminded me of.

pixelmeow: Hi, anyway!

mertide: Hi anyway back

labert8: Well hello anyway!

mertide: Hi elizabeth

mertide: Hi labert8

ddavitt: Yes, it does say that about VD in Washington; just checked

mertide: Hi Jane if I didn’t hi before

mertide: how disruptive

labert8: So did the thread ever answer the hallucination theory, Bill? No one seemed to be winning as far as I read in David’s transcript.

ddavitt: Sorry carolyn, hi

ddavitt: I’m getting all bewildered by the speed of the replies:-)

BPRAL22169: Can’t be 507, Tam — the book only goes up to 401 pp.

pixelmeow: I’d like to know if it was hallucination, myself.

ddavitt: I type too slow…

labert8: I feel out of practice too, Jane.

Copycat669: in MY book, darling…second paragraph of chap 26

ddavitt: It’s a lively chat tonight..which is great

geeairmoe2: Who was hallucinating? Him or her?

Copycat669: 29, typo, sorry

TreetopAngelRN: %)& in my book, it’s just one of those news update type things throughout the book

ddavitt: i love the news headlines..very funny

BPRAL22169: I just realized — I’m looking at a hardback, and you’re probably looking at a paperback.

LV Poker Player: The free willers and predestinationers are tied in the fourth quarter, or however that translates to IWFNE terms :-)

Copycat669: yeah, it is. which I hated. But to have the Iowa picnic in CALIFORNIA??

ddavitt: show off

ddavitt: Some of the ads are like the ones in friday too

pixelmeow: I want to believe it wasn’t hallucination, but I can’t decide, and I’m still reading it again.

LV Poker Player: Beginning of chapter 29, whatever edition you have

TreetopAngelRN: That does seem strange…better weather?

labert8: Iowa sucks? perhaps? or is totally owned by the farm industry conglomerates?

pixelmeow: I love the headlines, too!!!

mertide: I can’t quite see whether it matters whether the book coincides with our reality, it’s fiction isn’t it? I don’t have to believe in FTL drives to enjoy a story about them

Copycat669: Hey! I’m an IOWAN!

pixelmeow: 😛

ddavitt: Don’t get me wrong…for all my bitching about Eunice, i enjoyed reading the book again

DavidWrightSr: Ok, to change the subject. Opinions needed: what did Heinlein mean by that last line. ‘and then there was none’?

pixelmeow: I picked it up again for YOU, Jane.

TreetopAngelRN: <

ddavitt: It has some very touching bits…umm, could have phrased that better

labert8: JUst kidding! I think the second is more likely, and I meant in their where/when.

ddavitt: Thank you pix:-)

pixelmeow: so it’s YOUR fault.

pixelmeow: 😛

pjscott100: gotta go handle something, but will leave this logged in

ddavitt: Hey; it’s sparked a good chat!

Copycat669: David, I think that means that they died. there isn’t anything left.

DavidWrightSr: Did he just mean ‘their world’ was gone or there was

DavidWrightSr: no world left

ddavitt: There’s a baby

BPRAL22169: It seems to mean the world

pixelmeow: Oh yes. And I’m trying to compare E to Mau, but it just doesn’t work for me.

Copycat669: their world.

TreetopAngelRN: “and then there was none” The trio expired, noone else was close enough to them to continue the composite

DavidWrightSr: Solipsism again?

pixelmeow: Apples and oranges, I guess.

ddavitt: They died becasue their work was done. going into the baby’s head…now that would have been icky

Copycat669: i think that they ceased to exist.

pixelmeow: I also guess I like Mau better.

pixelmeow: In some ways.

mertide: Unless you assume the whole story was a hallucination post the original surgery

pixelmeow: But in others, E seems more “naive”, or something.

ddavitt: What did the baby do? remember the money that went into space research and interstellat travel?

Copycat669: Nah. I don’t see anything indicative of hallucination.

BPRAL22169: I don’t think solipsism — just that the observer died so the observed world ceased to be.

TreetopAngelRN: maybe they all went on to be reincarnated in the usual way, they no longer had to be held together to survive as an entitiy

ddavitt: I think he/she went on the vanguard and Hugh is a descendant of Johann

ddavitt: So there.

pixelmeow: ROFL!!!

ddavitt: Thank you

labert8: We’re seeing the novel from the character’

LV Poker Player: ..Apropos of nothing, there is the end of Beyond This Horizon, where the elderly council member apparently comes back as Felix’s and Phyllis’ baby

BPRAL22169: More likely Joe-Jim

pixelmeow: did you see what I wrote up there, Jane?

Copycat669: Go back a few, David. “A baby cried, a world began.” He is saying that each person has his “own” world, I think. When the three entered the one body and it died, they all three ceased to be.

ddavitt: ROFL…

labert8: s point of view, so without them, there’s nothing. Especially for Johann

ddavitt: which bit Pix? No joke, i can’t keep up

BPRAL22169: Chockma, binah, Ayin!

pixelmeow: I spoke to your comparison of E and Mau.

ddavitt: Oh…

DavidWrightSr: This story reminded me strongly of one of Piper’s stories where it was shown that the ego survived after death and was reincarnated in other bodies.

pixelmeow: We can take it up again later.

TreetopAngelRN: Johann’s brain rejected the transplant, and took the composite with him, no Johann, no composite

BPRAL22169: That comes from Dunne, I think.

ddavitt: I’d like to compare them

Copycat669: so where is ego stored if no body is left to store it in?

ddavitt: If we don’t get chance tonight, on sat maybe?

mertide: The “catching” of Jake’s “Soul?” is the oddity though, if such a thing exists outside the body altogether what happened to the three of them?

pixelmeow: Announcement!

DavidWrightSr: Everyone accepted reincarnation but were split over whether or not the new incarnation was voluntary or just happened to the nearest new baby

ddavitt: GA

BPRAL22169: There is another answer to the where is it stored problem.

pixelmeow: We are moving Heather home Saturday…

BPRAL22169: /ga

pixelmeow: so I don’t think I’ll be able to be here then.

ddavitt: Home?

ddavitt: Did i miss soemthing? has she been poorly?

pixelmeow: She’s been at Mom’s for the last most of a year.

pixelmeow: Going to first grade at a good, respectable school,

Copycat669: I’m moving to newton over the next few weeks and starting my new job at the Newton Daily. :-) so I’ll be intermittent.

ddavitt: Oh, OK. That will be great for you!

mertide: congratualtions

ddavitt: Glad she wasn’t sick…

pixelmeow: which will let the parents know earlier than a month before the end of the year if her child is not doing well!

TreetopAngelRN: You got a job, Tam!

ddavitt: Tell me about it, Pix…

Copycat669: yep. :-) i missed editing. It will be fun. :-)

ddavitt: E’s teachers this year have been dire…all of us mums are up in arms over them

TreetopAngelRN: Congrats!!!

pixelmeow: So she’s had a good First Grade, and is counting the days until she comes home.

ddavitt: I bet she is!

pixelmeow: Sorry to hear that, Jane…

Copycat669: That’s one of the most important years in school, i belive. I’m glad she’s coming home, though.

pixelmeow: but that’s why I can’t be here Sat…

ddavitt: E has coped; very grounded child

pixelmeow: Me too. 😀

pixelmeow: Good.!

ddavitt: Others not so happy

pixelmeow: And now back to the conversation, all!!!

ddavitt: Well, do you want to look at Eunice v maureen then?

mertide: That;s why 6 years of education spills over 12 years, to make up for teacher disasters :-)

pixelmeow: Ooo, yes!

TreetopAngelRN: bad teachers don’t always ruin good kids, thank God!

labert8: Don’t get me started on schools and teachers (except me , of course.) Makes me think too much of JOe’s illiteracy and how close we’re getting to it.

ddavitt: Take over Pix..unless people want to break for 5?

LV Poker Player: blech, guess I better break that one up

mertide: Does anyone think Eunice was like any woman they know mentally? :-)

BPRAL22169: We are already at it. Functional illiteracy is the rule among high school graduates now

TreetopAngelRN: break for five, please, I have an escape attempt going on

Copycat669: sux we don’t find out if the baby’s girl or boy

ddavitt: Noone I know…

pixelmeow: No, me either.

ddavitt: OK, break for a bit then.

pixelmeow: Ok.

DavidWrightSr: Lets break

ddavitt: I’m off to get a drink brb

LV Poker Player: There is a different, and in my opinion better, viewpoint expressed by Friday

labert8: Tell me about it I teach college freshman, and they can read or analyze to save their lives.

Copycat669: make mine tequila, darlin, while you’re up?

pixelmeow: what’s that, LV?

TreetopAngelRN: back! Need to buy a bigger turtle tank, one has figured out how to flip hiself over the side

LV Poker Player: Friday says that if a person cannot go home and brag about his/her sexual adventures, he/she should not have sexual adventures

pixelmeow: Good point.

LV Poker Player: Eunice should not have laid Jake by that standard

labert8: escape attempt! rofl. lukily it after bedtime, east coast. no escape attempt. Wait, human or animal?

pixelmeow: Yep. I have to agree.

TreetopAngelRN: I agree with that POV

labert8: bragging does make it more fun.

ddavitt: back…

pixelmeow: hi, dear!

pixelmeow: (trying on JE speak)

TreetopAngelRN: animal, turtles

ddavitt: I don’t recall F saying that..to whom?

labert8: Probably the NZ family.

pixelmeow: You know, it sounds like something Mau would say.

ddavitt: But it is a good rule

DavidWrightSr: ‘they can read or analyze to save their lives.’ Did you mean “can’t”?

labert8: or talking about them

pixelmeow: Or Briney, at least.

LV Poker Player: Internal dialogue, after she meets that guy on the subway who turned out to be a fellow enhanced AP

mertide: Eunice was putting discretion ahead of honesty with the people she said she loved

Copycat669: I don’t know about that….i’d have to remain celibate by those standards.

LV Poker Player: can’t remember his name

labert8: Yes, sorry, can’t. To too large a degree. Obviously some get through with some training.

ddavitt: maureen never, IIRC, slept with anyone without telling B before or after the event

TreetopAngelRN: Carolyn just said what I was tryting to say

ddavitt: By my standards, that makes her not a slut

mertide: ooh, psychic

pixelmeow: Yes, Eliz, I agree, I got it…

ddavitt: But still a bad mother

pixelmeow: Yes, Jane, exactly…

pixelmeow: I have to say it, I would vomit if I thought of the things she did.

ddavitt: We are twin thought tonight Pix:-)

pixelmeow: :-)

pixelmeow: All we need now is Jani…

ddavitt: That would be fun:-)

pixelmeow: Yep.

Copycat669: Vomit? Give an example of a vomitous thought?

labert8: Why vomit? I disagree with some,. but tnot that violently.

ddavitt: Four in the bed..mum, dad, daughter and fiance/ Blech

pixelmeow: I am sorry, but the thought of my daughter being done by her father makes me want to vomit.

ddavitt: ditto

mertide: conspiring with her daughter for her to bed her father

TreetopAngelRN: I never had any kids except the step kind so I cannot be a good source for information, but I do appreciate some of Mau’s solutions

labert8: Ah yes. Blue mud situation though?

pixelmeow: I don’t know, labert.

pixelmeow: I just don’t know.

labert8: Especially after what they’d learned from LL?

ddavitt: It’s just sex for heaven’s sake…it’s not vital to do it with everyone you know or like

pixelmeow: and I can’t get beyond it.

mertide: I thought less poorly of it before I had a daughter of my own

pixelmeow: Me too!!!

TreetopAngelRN: we are back to daughter’s marrying their father’s

Copycat669: ahhh…ok. I see. I’m not interested in MY father by any means, nor am i interested in MY son, but the thought of incest is kinda racy for me. :-) I can hang with it if I’m applying it to other families.

labert8: BUt why not? Tennis is fun too

ddavitt: It doesn’t kill you if you only sleep with the same person for ooh, a whole month

BPRAL22169: I think we get sidetracked on the racy/distasteful question. I don’t think that’s why the situations were in the book.

geeairmoe2: I’ve always wondered what female’s thought about how authentic RAH’s women sounded discussing sex.

pixelmeow: You have to be right, Bill, but why were they there?

BPRAL22169: Heinlein was a very old hand at this, and he knew deeply that one man’s hot sex is another man’s cold pancake the next day.

ddavitt: funny; i’m liberated, un prudish and uninhibited by most standards… yet H can offend me in his books.

labert8: Setting aside tribal taboos, however well grounded, isn’t automatically wrong. In fact it encourages complex thought, a dwindling commodity, in both Eunice’s world and our own. Witness religious fanaticism.

Copycat669: I think they are authentic…we just don’t admit it.

mertide: They sounded like men discussing sex a lot of the time to me

BPRAL22169: Gods, Ubermen, transhumans are not bound by the taboos of the all-too-human.

geeairmoe2: I always thought they talked how men wished they talked.

ddavitt: Eunice was none of those

BPRAL22169: It’s radical individualism we’re seeing.

pixelmeow: Sigh.

ddavitt: aka utter selfishness

Copycat669: They talk how I wish I could.

Copycat669: If I could throw off the mantle of Judeo Christian morality.

mertide: The things that turn women on in my experience weren’t present, and the things that men dream of were

pixelmeow: I’ve never spoken with anyone else like that in my life…

ddavitt: I have no such covering..

TreetopAngelRN: to be totally open and free about sex? I’m all for it.

BPRAL22169: Jane, Heinlein is a perfect example of a radical individualist. Would you say he was utterly selfish?

ddavitt: Ditto elizabeth

labert8: Individuallism is the unltimate good in many rah books. Making ones own rules, examining their effects, living honestly with them .. These are lofty goals.

pixelmeow: They are lofty, and idealistic.

ddavitt: They go together by definition….can’t speak for h himself..I didn’t know him

mertide: polyamory is one thing, incest is crossing a different line

pixelmeow: In my sense of the word, which means that it doesn’t stand up to day to day life.

pixelmeow: At least not for me…

labert8: Idealism is the only thing that raises us above the animals we actually are.

ddavitt: If you are the most important thing, if your desires are always to be satisfied..that’s self-ish

LV Poker Player: one of the reasons for the incest taboo is genetics. If this were not a problem, would incest still be wrong?

pixelmeow: That’s what RAH was asking, maybe?

ddavitt: YEs IMO

BPRAL22169: The point is, the totally self-responsible individual doesn’t stand in the conventional moral categories — he is “Beyond Good and Evil” to quote a familiar title.

TreetopAngelRN: I don’t think Heinlein was selfish, I think he sparked debate/sharing of ideas, just like we are doing now

labert8: Selfish is the definition of human. The few times someones steps beyond that are happy times, but rare.

pixelmeow: Yes…

BPRAL22169: LVPP, that’s what he spent his next book examining in detail, isn’t it?

ddavitt: Piffle to excuse self indulgence

mertide: There were a skillion other people to sleep with that week apart from her Dad

LV Poker Player: TEFL? That was certainly one of the themes

BPRAL22169: Jane, which remarks are you characterizing as “piffle,”

labert8: wrong genetically and wrong morally are very different things. MOrals change with the times.

ddavitt: Yep; you only have one father to have a relationship with

pixelmeow: Yes, indeed.

ddavitt: The beyond good and evil bit

mertide: I have to go sorry, I’ll watch for the transcript to see what you all decided hahaha

mertide: sorry to hit and run

pixelmeow: bye!!

ddavitt: Or a father figure..wif you had one of those would you want to sleep with them? Why in heaven’s name?

BPRAL22169: Nietzsche spent 8 books and almost the entirety of his creative life examining that question.

labert8: Bye !

Copycat669: I think that RAH opened up his mind to think about sexuality beyond the walls of the box that society’s drawn for us.

mertide: bye all

TreetopAngelRN: Good day Carolyn

mertide has left the room.

ddavitt: i ‘did’ N in philopshy; two weeks at uni. can’t remember enough to comment

BPRAL22169: We get that it’s not to your taste, Jane.

LV Poker Player: I think that anything that causes people to think outside the box is good, even if they ultimately reject it and decide the box is good

Copycat669: perhaps you’d want to sleep with a male relative to take an already intimate relationship to a more intimate level.

pixelmeow: Yuk.

labert8: Whyever is that piffle, Jane? Good and evil are invented categories, and they change with the wind. It’s dangerous to rely on them.

ddavitt: It’s an inappropriate avenue to greater closeness in some cases IMO

pixelmeow: LOL, labert, you should have been in afh last week.

ddavitt: Oh, hang on..

TreetopAngelRN: There was the day I looked at a picture of my male cousin and wished I was a few years younger and not so closely related…good looking kid!

geeairmoe2: Expanded on the genetic thing, an incest prohibiton assures a wider gene pool. If you have incest, you can’t have manogomy. Got to spread those genes around.

ddavitt: individual is above good and evil is just too easy a get out

labert8: Certainly very dangerous. usually harmful, yes. Inherently, ultimately, and forever wrong? NO.

Copycat669: well, especially with Mau…she had a VERY intimate relationship with her father. SEx was the “final frontier” in their relationship.

BPRAL22169: I don’t know — customs of exogamy ought to be enough for that purpose, Will.

pixelmeow: That’s what I was saying earlier, Jane.

labert8: Why pix?

pixelmeow: ’cause I was saying those same things, again…

BPRAL22169: We only have taboos against things we are otherwise inclined to do.

ddavitt: Why would that be?

BPRAL22169: There wouldn’t be any point to a taboo about eating rocks, would there?

labert8: well said bill.

Copycat669: Is there a taboo against sticking hairpins in electrical sockets?

ddavitt: How can we want to do what is wrong?

ddavitt: (Is that red Planet?)

ddavitt: How can one act against one’s nature/ Or maybe HSSWT?

labert8: You keep starting from the same supposition. WHat were saying is that its a rocky one.

BPRAL22169: What the heck is “wrong”? You talk as if there were some kind of categorical absolute involved.

TreetopAngelRN: Hugh Farnham was glad there was another female along, he was worried about having to bed his own daughter for procreation

ddavitt: But to say, hey, i’m a rugged individual, don’t go execting me to see things the way you all do is generally self deception

BPRAL22169: The choice Heinlein presents us with over and over is that customs are not moral absolutes.

Copycat669: I WANT to do what is wrong every day. My hsuband and I acknowledge that a marriage certificate doesn’t shut off the attraction and I point out nice hooters every once in a while.

ddavitt: A murderer is a radical individualist then

Copycat669: Some people think we’re crazy and I’m just asking for trouble.

TreetopAngelRN: same in my house Tam

labert8: Wrong is acting counter survival. All other rules are made up by shaman.

Copycat669: I think I’m being realistic about his intimate desires and affording him the safety to be honest with me. Honesty is more important to me than some mental fidelity

ddavitt: I’m deeply in lust with Spike off Buffy but I don’t plan to hunt down james marsters and try to sleep with him

BPRAL22169: Heinlein gave rather specific guidelines to maintaining individual identity and living in a conventional society.

pjscott100: Where?

Copycat669: I’m deeply in lust with a man I used to work with. I WOULD hunt him down and sleep with him if given permission.

ddavitt: blue mud..more deception

BPRAL22169: Let’s see — how many books and stories are there . . . ?

Copycat669: My husband defines my sexual morality.

BPRAL22169: But I’m thinking particularly of the Mrs. Grundy quotes in TEFL.

ddavitt: or keeping his love and trust is more important than a fling?

TreetopAngelRN: in order to survive in a society you sometimes have to resort to blue mud in public.

labert8: I say exactly those things Jane. And I know society wants to slap me on the head for them SO did Mike in Siasl.

ddavitt: or go and make your own society..as Ll did on tertius

TreetopAngelRN: If I could, I would

BPRAL22169: Of course, every family is its own society.

pixelmeow: True.

ddavitt: I suppose so.

Copycat669: Not really, jane. I’m sure that if I really wanted to, Jeff would give me permission to have that fling. But it’s not the sex that’s offensive, it’s the dishonesty

TreetopAngelRN: and we rub in the blue mud before leaving the house

ddavitt: I agree entirely

LV Poker Player: It seems to me there is, or at least should be, room for the committed monogamous couple and for the open relationship

LV Poker Player: Why should society condemn either one?

ddavitt: Nothing wrong at all with an open marriage as long as the rules are clear and both agree

labert8: Not even the dishonesty, it’s the violation of the agreement, whatever it is.

Copycat669: I think that today’s society IS ok with htat.

ddavitt: Yes; if your word is woth nothing, neither are you

Copycat669: Society only intervenes when you hire a divorce lawyer.

LV Poker Player: And your point is that Eunice did not always all that open, and I have to agree

labert8: See Jane we do agree

ddavitt: :-)

ddavitt: I’m very tolerant…really I am1

pixelmeow: Now, comparing E to Mau…

ddavitt: Yes..?

pixelmeow: Mau seems to have her stuff together.

TreetopAngelRN: okay

BPRAL22169: Hey! We just converged on the subject!

pixelmeow: Okay, okay. I’ll wait!

pixelmeow: :-)

ddavitt: Don’t sound so surprised; i’m hosting, i’m in control

TreetopAngelRN: 😀

BPRAL22169: That’s true. I should have known.

ddavitt: When i catch up with the fast typing anyway

labert8: Lead away, Jane.

pixelmeow: I talk to NW too much on IM.

ddavitt: Maureen had a strong father figure..Eunice did not

pixelmeow: You’ve gotta type fast then…

BPRAL22169: You control the vertical, at the very least.

pixelmeow: Yes.

Copycat669: well gang, while I love to talk about sex, I AM struggling with strep so i should go to bed. I’m working on 6 x H. I finished Eternity this morning. I LOVED J(can’t think of the name) was a man! that was soo soooo sooooo good

labert8: Say hi for me next time.

ddavitt: I cry at that story

BPRAL22169: Joathan hoag?

ddavitt: Get well soon

pjscott100: Jerry

labert8: Jerry !

pixelmeow: Get well, tam…

ddavitt: Jerry Was A man, yes

Copycat669: working on jonathon. But I LOVE jerry was a man. 😉

pixelmeow: I feel for ya, I do.

Copycat669: by guys!

TreetopAngelRN: Get some sleep Tam, lots of fluids

LV Poker Player: I don’t think Eunice ever mentioned her parents

labert8: Feel better

Copycat669: thanks all!

pixelmeow: Yes, I don’t recall that she did.

Copycat669 has left the room.

pjscott100: Take care

BPRAL22169: I think I still have a copy of the magazine that appeared in.

pixelmeow: Bragger!!!

BPRAL22169: An extra, I mean.

ddavitt: I am writing some fiction thses days which is improving my speed…don’t laugh…Buffy fan fic

pixelmeow: I have never watched a single episode.

TreetopAngelRN: why would we laugh?

ddavitt: Fun and i see what Colin Campbell means about it being addictive

pixelmeow: Did watch the movie, tho…

BPRAL22169: It’s one of David Silver’s favorite stories, so I picked up a copy for him and wound up with two.

pjscott100: I’m more of a B5 fan myself

BPRAL22169: Sci-Fi is running the movies now.

ddavitt: Fan fic is a mixed bag; some is dire and some is excellent.

pixelmeow: Ahem.

ddavitt: But writing it is fun

pixelmeow: So Mau has her commandments…

ddavitt: Yes; rules of life

pixelmeow: I think she’s got a good idea of what they mean, what she should do with them.

ddavitt: eunice has them too; not to hurt anyone

BPRAL22169: Writing is the only game for adults!

pixelmeow: I don’t know that E has the same idea of them, tho.

BPRAL22169: To heck with this politics stuff!

ddavitt: I thouhgt that was politics? :-)

pixelmeow: Not them specifically…

labert8: writing is politics

LV Poker Player: Dak Broadbent thought it was politics

ddavitt: Yep..

Reilloc has entered the room.

pixelmeow: but that you should have a code of conduct.

pixelmeow: Hello!

pjscott100: Eunice is rather… innocent is not the word, but I don’t like the connotation of ‘uneducated’

labert8: all speech acts are political.

geeairmoe2 has left the room.

ddavitt: Hi reilloc

Reilloc: Evening all.

pixelmeow: Yes, I agree. E is very naive.

pjscott100: Howdy

BPRAL22169: I think her father gave her some rules of thumb and required her to examine them one by one.

ddavitt: She’s not dumb at all…

BPRAL22169: Yo

labert8: she’s naive, a bit too silly even to actually have accomplished what she seems to have

pixelmeow: Bill, that’s why I like Mau’s position in this.

pjscott100: Point I’m trying to make is, she’s not got as much going upstairs for her so she makes up for it with heart.

ddavitt: As i said, look at that tiny bit in the car when she’s still alive

BPRAL22169: I’m sorry — in this what?

TreetopAngelRN: Eunice has empathy

labert8: It’s sensible, but not oo introspective

pixelmeow: In the comparison, and why I mostly like Mau more.

labert8: too

ddavitt: Contast what she thinks to herself and what she says aloud to jake

ddavitt: Big diff

ddavitt: and the only time we hear her when she’s alone

pixelmeow: I think Mau knows good and well everything she does and says.

ddavitt: and totally natural, no audience

pixelmeow: Not that she’s always right, or that I always agree.

labert8: she’s very sure of what her priorities are in that scene.

BPRAL22169: Well, yeah — she was trained that way.

ddavitt: E and M both pander to their men

pixelmeow: I feel that E is just skipping happily thru life, not too worried about too much.

pixelmeow: Yes, Jane, I agree.

ddavitt: Joan does it even when she is still a man

pixelmeow: And I’ve tried to follow the other you’ve said…

ddavitt: Now that’s weird

TreetopAngelRN: Mau is amoral, she has had to make her rules, so they fit her and has to think extra hard about why it sould be a rule

pixelmeow: but gotta get this part out.

pixelmeow: And Mau has definitely thought it out.

pixelmeow: I respect the hell out of that.

ddavitt: Sure..am i being cryptic?

BPRAL22169: Somewhat, yes.

pixelmeow: No, Jane, not at all. Just trying to do one thing at a time…

labert8: Maureen groks god better than Eunice does?

pixelmeow: Sortof.

pixelmeow: Maybe that she groks at all.

pixelmeow: :-)

ddavitt: i mentioned it in my first lead off post. Only see Eunice alone for a little bit then she’s in Johann’s head and not alone veer again

pixelmeow: Mau’s every thought isn’t about sex, and it seems that E’s is.

ddavitt: Don’t see the real her much

ddavitt: Not kidding

pixelmeow: Which isn’t bad, per se, just not what I like.

TreetopAngelRN: Mau grew up in a socitey with lots of Mrs. Grundy’s she had to know what she was dealing with

pixelmeow: Yes, good point…

BPRAL22169: It strikes me they both had different things that were dangerous for them.

pixelmeow: It’s just that E seems so flippant.

ddavitt: Men think about sex what? every 8 mins or 8 seconds?

labert8: BUt, Pix, is thqat a skewed view of her? Authors choice focusses us on that part of her life. But we know there was more.

BPRAL22169: And were trained and adapted for their particular dangers.

ddavitt: Can’t recall…:-)

pixelmeow: Hell, I don’t know!

ddavitt: I reas it somewhere…

ddavitt: read

BPRAL22169: Seconds, that would be.

pixelmeow: I wonder about that, too. What in Mau’s life didn’t we see?

pixelmeow: Lots!

BPRAL22169: Seconds for me, certainly!

LV Poker Player: I don’t see how the frequency of sexual thoughts could be accurately measured?

BPRAL22169: That is, I’ll have seconds, please.

ddavitt: I just asked david what he’s been thinking of as i typed.

TreetopAngelRN: E has it covered at home, a happy man, and she has it covered at work a happy boss, she can be a bit more carefree

pixelmeow: Hm, Bill, I don’t know that you need any…

labert8: E presents herself as more flippant than she realy is. Look at how she handles letters from Joe’s mom.

pixelmeow: 😀

ddavitt: he said he was watching soccer. i rest my case.

pixelmeow: Yes, labert, true…

pixelmeow: but even that seems so… I don’t know.

pixelmeow: I don’t have the words.

TreetopAngelRN: by Joe’s wish, Joe only wants the highlights

BPRAL22169: I’ve heard that statistic before — it might be true for teenagers, but I’m not so sure it’s universally true.

ddavitt: I don’t know why she comes over as un educated? seemed bright to me.

TreetopAngelRN: he says so himself

pixelmeow: LNC? thoughts?

Reilloc: Oh, sorry, I was just watching and writing to the kids.

Reilloc: Sex is the question?

pixelmeow: Comparing Mau and Eunice.

labert8: She reminds me of the popular girl in high school, the one who has to pretend to care about hair and makeup cuz her friends do, but reads Jung at home. Or heinlein.

TreetopAngelRN: sex is always the questionO:-)

Reilloc: I think that’s right.

Reilloc: Marx was wrong, you know.

pixelmeow: I dunno, labert, you may have it right and I’m foold.

pixelmeow: fooled even.

Reilloc: Economic determinism’s just one step short of the truth.

ddavitt: Moving away from sex (and we’ve certainly bumped up the average this last few hours!) What about the common goal of eunice and jake to go to the moon?

Reilloc: The Marx brothers were closer to the true state of affairs.

ddavitt: A goal that johann doesn’t share/

pixelmeow: I haven’t read that far.

ddavitt: Was that H working in a plug for NASA?

geeairmoe2 has entered the room.

pjscott100: E is a perky little thing who makes up for lack of intelligence or wisdom with compassion and love… it’s pretty much all she has to give so she gives a lot of it

ddavitt: Didn’t he write ‘Spinoff” about then?

labert8: Chaos? the true state of affairs?

ddavitt: Peter, you sound like jake

pjscott100: Thank you, m’dear

Reilloc: Time flies like an arrow, lab.

geeairmoe2 has left the room.

Reilloc: Fruit flies like a banana.

ddavitt: ‘dear little woman’ Don’t get fooled; she was sharp

LV Poker Player: Johann was certainly unusual for a Heinlein main character, being indifferent at best to space travel and colonization

ddavitt: Devils’ advocate?

pjscott100: Plug for NASA? Surely not.

pixelmeow: She just seems a twit, to me.

pjscott100: H stood far more for non-governmental space exploration

TreetopAngelRN: Johann didn’t see anything in it for him, he was too old to go for too long

LV Poker Player: That is my thought, pjscott

pjscott100: And he was not one to pine for the unattainable

labert8: Am I still waiting for a punchline Reilloc? I think she’s uncomplicated but thoughtful Pix.

TreetopAngelRN: exactly, Peter

pixelmeow: labert, I just can’t figure it out.

ddavitt: She was licensed for 3 babies; that was evidence of status

labert8: RAH would be pleased by that, I’d wager.

ddavitt: Did well at school, had a good job

pixelmeow: Yeah, I bet.

pjscott100: I am in mind of Fraser’s remark on Cheers: “You know, Lilith, you amaze me. Usually people with your limited physical appeal make up for it with personality.”

TreetopAngelRN: E was street smart and had a career

LV Poker Player: She was more than your ordinary secretary, I think her title today would be Executive Assistant.

ddavitt: she got a million dollars and a directorship in space of 5 mins

labert8: I’m actually waffling myself, based on my reading about two tears ago, and the four or five before that.

ddavitt: Sure, she would have voted their way, sure she would…

pixelmeow: Yes, Jane, by acting the pretty little fluffhead….

Reilloc: Was that the punchline? “Two tears ago?”

ddavitt: I read it and made notes last week…

pjscott100: He would have appointed his cat to the board if he could.

ddavitt: ‘Acting’ yes…

ddavitt: She might have surprised them

pixelmeow: Sigh. Yes, acting. I guess I like Mau’s way of doing it… stepping aside and letting that a-holes coat go flinging past ehr.

pixelmeow: her, even.

LV Poker Player: I don’t think so Pjscott, remember the discussion about yes-men and obstructionists?

ddavitt: I mean, jake thought E thought she could donate her body and Johann would never know/ How dumb is this guy?

TreetopAngelRN: E knew what was really going on outside the fortress with the masses, the pulse of the world tyhan old Johann and Jake ever did.

DavidWrightSr: Jane. Wouldn’t she have gotten the million only after his death. It was done as a life insurance policy, IIRC. Done to get around changing his will

pjscott100: That’s what I meant… cats are not Yes Men

pjscott100: :-)

ddavitt: I think the way she had to cater to them, all through the book made me furious

ddavitt: But they expected him to die on the op table in a matter of weks

ddavitt: forever sweet talking them..

DavidWrightSr: That was before the decision to do the transplant wasn’t it

TreetopAngelRN: yes, she had to couch terms in fem speak so they would even listen to her/him…Johann never had a chance

ddavitt: jake forgot she was johann almost at once; saw the body, ignored the brain. ironic or what when he was fighting as a lawyer for the pre emincemce of the brain.

ddavitt: No, same day he told them of it

TreetopAngelRN: i agree

ddavitt: spelling going..sorry

pjscott100: How close are we to actually being able to perform this operation?

ddavitt: Dunno..

Reilloc: It worked on Bush

TreetopAngelRN: no idea

Reilloc: The chimp died, though.

LV Poker Player: My guess is a long way away

pjscott100: ROFL

ddavitt: heh

ddavitt: I think it will come

ddavitt: Why not?

TreetopAngelRN: I can’t even get a guy to keep breathing with only 1/4 of his lungs left

ddavitt: car crash, one dies, body Ok, one body smashed, brain OK, why not combine the two?

LV Poker Player: I think reconnecting the spinal column nerves will hold us up for a long time

ddavitt: But long time by what standard?

pjscott100: There may be a surfeit of brains and a deficit of bodies though

ddavitt: heart transplant was unthinkable what, forty years ago?

ddavitt: Don’t know enough of this

TreetopAngelRN: I haven’t heard anything is even close to the horizon

ddavitt: Was that decison they mention in the book, Rhode v parson, real?

LV Poker Player: It might be like the discussions of breakthroughs in TMIAHM, no real way to predict the time frame

LV Poker Player: I think we are looking at a major surgical breakthrough to reconnect the spinal column, not just refinement of current techniques

TreetopAngelRN: would have to go back to my organ donation books and read up, Jane

TreetopAngelRN: Spinal column work is going forward, but not brain transplant

ddavitt: Henry parsons v Rhode island in the seventies it says..

Reilloc: I gave my Wurlitzer to the Salvation Army and it’s still going.

TreetopAngelRN: LOL

DavidWrightSr: I don’t think that we have any way presently to reconnect spinal nerves that are severed. And this would require considerably more than that I would think

ddavitt: But it’s the sort of advance i can see being possible soonish as opposed to say FTL

LV Poker Player: copyright is 70

ddavitt: true..maybe he made it up then

pjscott100: Goggle doesn’t find it…. so it doesn’t exist

TreetopAngelRN: realignment, patching the spinal covering and steroids, other possible drugs

pjscott100: Google, even

ddavitt: nanothingies like on ST that can go in and fix it from the inside?

LV Poker Player: If we can patch a severed spinal cord, that would be a big step toward a successful brain transplant

ddavitt:

TreetopAngelRN: agrees with LV

TreetopAngelRN: what???

pjscott100: Probably some sort of smart interface that figures out the interconnections over time and gradually withdraws after making them

TreetopAngelRN: naw, I don’t know either!!!

Reilloc: No nanotechnology in RAH

BPRAL22169: There has been some small degree of success with jumping over damaged areas of a spinal cord.

ddavitt: I know nothing of medical stuff..probably shouldn’t comment

TreetopAngelRN: LOL

TreetopAngelRN: Yes Bill, teaching it to rerout itself and make new connections

DavidWrightSr: Elizabeth I have a question. Do you think Jake’s heart failed or was it embolism or such in brain? AG said heart, but it seems to me that it isn’t specific enough

pjscott100: Who was that comic who said it was a good job he wasn’t a woman… he’d stay in the bedroom and play with his breasts all day…

BPRAL22169: I think Drexler didn’t publish his book on Nanotech until 82 or 83.

pjscott100: engines of creation first pub 1986

ddavitt: massive rupture of blood vessel in brain it says

EthAriel has entered the room.

ddavitt: Hi there

pixelmeow: hi!

ddavitt: You made it..

pjscott100: Hey

DavidWrightSr: Welcome Ariel

labert8: “No nanotechnology” : one of the fewe things he managed to fail to anticipate

BPRAL22169: Even later than I thought. The ideas weren’t kicking around much before that book. And not a lot after, either!

TreetopAngelRN: I think, reading it over it was a combination of heart and brain for Jake. The heart had an attack which could have increased the blood pressure ensuring a rupture of an already weakened blood vessel in the brain

EthAriel: I’ll be darned, finally figured it out…

ddavitt: Just as the chat winds down:-)

BPRAL22169: Are we having a short session today, Jane?

LV Poker Player: don’t feel bad, this is my first time here

ddavitt: well, it has for me…getting tired. it’s 11 pm and we have to get up early to watch the England game

EthAriel:

ddavitt: 9 till 11? isn’t that normal?

DavidWrightSr: no 9 to 12

BPRAL22169: It used to go 3 hours.

ddavitt: But no one wanting the room, it can go on for ever

TreetopAngelRN: I can talk for awhile EthAriel

pixelmeow: is this another break???

pjscott100: jane, move to the west coast… everyone’s doing it :-)

LV Poker Player: +

BPRAL22169: Yes, and this room we make each time, so nobody ever comes behind us.

ddavitt: I wouldn’t know; by 11 I’m dozing off.

labert8: Don’t be seduced bu the dark side, Jane, the east coast is best.

EthAriel: I’m not a happy camper. Got promoted again. :-[

TreetopAngelRN: did you see my explanation David?

pixelmeow: damn window stopped scrolling.

ddavitt: Lauren is 19 months and still doesn’t sleep thru:-(

ddavitt: And that’s bad, why?

pjscott100: Neither do our cats

ddavitt: I like it here in ontario

DavidWrightSr: Yes, Thanks. I couldn’t tell from the quick glance I did. Just didn’t think that it was primarily heart from the description

ddavitt: OK, I will go, I’ll read it in the log and argue with you all on afh:-)

ddavitt: Thanks for a really good chat; lots of fun

EthAriel: I don’t mind being assistant manager, but as manager I get stuck working up to 90 hours a week. Been there, done that and I hate it.

DavidWrightSr: Anybody here not mailing of notice today?

labert8: ACK!! Shall itell you that mine did at two months? No? insensitive? Better you than me, I’d be insane by now. Wait . . .

ddavitt: See you on saturday

BPRAL22169: Yes, and we even hit the subject a couple of times!

pixelmeow: bye Jane!

pjscott100: Bye Jane!

ddavitt: Lots of times, bill!

labert8: bye jane

EthAriel: I work to live, I don’t live to work.

BPRAL22169: Have a good one!

ddavitt has left the room.

DavidWrightSr: Faster than a speeding bullet

BPRAL22169: Oh, goody! Now we can talk behind her back.

TreetopAngelRN: LOL

pixelmeow: Bill!!!

pixelmeow: For shame!

TreetopAngelRN: Dear Jane,

labert8: Now that she’s gone, we can talk Heinlein (tee hee)

LV Poker Player: work is for people who don’t know how to play poker!

BPRAL22169: LOL

pixelmeow: so what do you manage, Ariel?

pjscott100: So I have to wonder… how does a youngsta react to the sexual mores in IFWNE? Do they seem tame?

labert8: Ah, it’s fun to be back amongst the flock.

TreetopAngelRN: it depends on the youngster

pixelmeow: It’s good to see you back, labert.

labert8: I read it first at 14. DO you mean youngsters now?

pjscott100: Well, an average youngster

BPRAL22169: I don’t know about that — thing have gotten awfully puritanical in the last 15 years.

pixelmeow: I didn’t find it until mid 20s.

EthAriel has left the room.

TreetopAngelRN: don’t know any average ones, no contact

labert8: puritanical? do you really think so?

pjscott100: I mean someone currently young, who’s been raised in the current climate

labert8: It seems they know about everything now, and what to join in.

pjscott100:

BPRAL22169: The teenagers I know now are utterly conventional.

labert8: I could tell you horror stories about my fiftenn year old.

labert8: and he hasn’t read nearly enough Heinlein.

BPRAL22169: Now, labert, you have just enunciated a redundancy!

TreetopAngelRN: They have all sorts of hardware sticking out over their bodies and most of them seem fairly well centered, sexual, manners etc

labert8: who me?

BPRAL22169: Conformist, is what I meant.

BPRAL22169: isn’t every story about a 15 year old a horror story/

pjscott100: Elizabeth – do they end up in the ER whenever someone yanks on the body piercing?

labert8: Rofl!! yes, I should have seen that.

pixelmeow: someone yanks on my tongue stud *they’ll* be the one in the hospital!

TreetopAngelRN: Some of them do, if not right away then when it gets infected

LV Poker Player has left the room.

labert8: “what to join in.” should have been “want”

pjscott100: I see it as nonconformity in search of a raison d’etre

TreetopAngelRN: kids seem the same to me, however they still think they are the ones to think of it first

pjscott100: whereas the 60s were more the other way around

DavidWrightSr: Conformity has always been the name of the game for most. At least it was in my day

labert8: But they also have sex thrust at them in the media, far more and earlier than we did

TreetopAngelRN: conformity to THEIR age group, not to the next gen

BPRAL22169: It’s a teenaged developmental stage.

pjscott100: David, that’s a tautology

DavidWrightSr: That’s what I meant

BPRAL22169: Self-in-peer-group. With the individuation crisis moving self finally into self.

pjscott100: Bill, hauling out the expensive words now…

TreetopAngelRN: not necessarily, Labert, just more open

pixelmeow: ROFL! I was wanting to ask Bill to use monosyllables…

BPRAL22169: in

BPRAL22169: di

BPRAL22169: vi

BPRAL22169: du

BPRAL22169: a

BPRAL22169: shun

BPRAL22169: How’s that?

TreetopAngelRN: thanks

Reilloc: What’s it mean?

pixelmeow: LMAO!!!

DavidWrightSr: Yeah. translation please.

BPRAL22169: Hold on, I have to think how to say this succinctly.

Reilloc: Allow me?

BPRAL22169: /ga

BPRAL22169: We’ll compare notes.

pjscott100: This is too funny… I can see in years to come there will be annotated versions of THJ

TreetopAngelRN: no worries, I always read with a dictionary close by

pjscott100: Learned critics will argue over what the hell Bill really meant

pixelmeow: taps toe…

Reilloc: The phenomenological pidgeon-holing of an ordinary process into grant-inducing language calculated to maximize principal and amount of research study.

BPRAL22169: Individuation is the process of becoming an adult with control over one’s own moral, social, and psychological processes.

pixelmeow: that’s what individuation means?

pixelmeow: Ah. Thanks.

Reilloc: Nah, that’s growing up.

BPRAL22169: Hmm. I see we had different teachers.

pjscott100: Doesn’t have to be an adult, surely?

BPRAL22169: Yeah.

Reilloc: Some people do it, some dont.

labert8: Some adults have done it some haven’t. Perhaps most.

Reilloc: I respectfully decline.

BPRAL22169: This particular society really encourages people to stay in the self-in-peer group stage, and condones arrested teenagers.

pjscott100: We used to call it “Learning who you are”

Reilloc: I like them.

Reilloc: Some of my best clients are arrested teenagers

labert8: MAny folks don’t realize they have those processes, they just proceed to live by what ever rules someone beats into their heads, without ever examining them.

BPRAL22169: Yes, arrested teenagers do make a clientele, don’t they?

Reilloc: Ones with wealthy parents do.

pjscott100: I agree Bill, and I think it’s more prevalent in the USA than elsewhere

BPRAL22169: Good point.

TreetopAngelRN: society, at this time, dislikes kids who can think and be outside of their peer group

Reilloc: Interesting…

BPRAL22169: Yes — troublemakers.

TreetopAngelRN: they are, they disrupt the class if they ask pertinent questions

pjscott100: I think we have not come to terms with how parents have become a minor influence in the upbringing of their kids

DavidWrightSr: But they still look down on the peer-group thingy too. or at least lament the bad effects of it

BPRAL22169: My 10 year old nephew is constantly in trouble at school for just that reason — the teacher is an idiot.

labert8: It dislikes anyone who can think. Thinking causes questioning, questioning takes time, and tends to point out that those in authority have no good answers, and are often incompetent themselves.

BPRAL22169: Who “they”, David?

TreetopAngelRN: my 16 year old nephew for his entire life

TreetopAngelRN: he lost respect for teachers when the first one told him “I don’t know, go sit in your seat.”

pixelmeow: well, I’m fading fast….

pixelmeow: time for bed.

pixelmeow: got lots to do tomorrow…

TreetopAngelRN: Good night Teresa!

pixelmeow: good night, all!!!

pjscott100: Night night

labert8: Night pix. see ya soon, hopefully.

pixelmeow: thanks for a great chat!

BPRAL22169: Withholding respect from teachers is the best thing for ’em.

EthAriel has entered the room.

pixelmeow has left the room.

BPRAL22169: Make ’em work for it, I say!

TreetopAngelRN: tell them that:-D

Reilloc: Work makes freedom.

TreetopAngelRN: It got him put in a special class

BPRAL22169: Hmmm. Arbeit jetzt macht frei

BPRAL22169: doch

labert8: A good point Bill, blind trust in teachers frustrates me more than anything else about my kids.

pjscott100: Hmmm… the examples of teachers in H’s books were all ones that deserved and got respect IIRC

DavidWrightSr: I can respect a teacher who would say I don’t know, but he/she would then have to say, ‘lets find out’. Just sit down and shut up. no way

BPRAL22169: I respected the ones who weren’t baffled by my bullshit.

TreetopAngelRN: the nephew’s “specials” teacher understand what a whiz the kid is and has taken him through University math, sciences and English

labert8: I had a student tell me that last semester. My respect for him increased.

pjscott100: The best ones are like that… but there are fewer teachers that good today because the profession isn’t as respected by society as a whole as it was

BPRAL22169: What, labert? Sit down and shut up?

TreetopAngelRN: We always told him, “let’s find out”

labert8: No, that he was pleased to find thast I wasn’t baffled by . . .

BPRAL22169: I think teachers are respected more than they should be as is. How much social respect do you think an overpaid babysitter ought to get?

Reilloc: Uhhh….

BPRAL22169: Find me a log.

pjscott100: Bill, that’s a vicious circle… and you’re heading down it in the wrong direction

Reilloc: Isn’t it that kind of attitude that creates low pay and drives the best from teaching?

TreetopAngelRN: at least my teachers encouraged forward thinking and those that didn’t, I knew to give them whatever they wanted for the grade and get the heck out of there

BPRAL22169: I don’t know. “By their fruits ye shall know them” seems reasonable to me.

pjscott100: People tend to rise or fall to meet your expectations

labert8: Overpaid babysitter?

pjscott100: As evidence, I adduce the LAPD

TreetopAngelRN: teachers are not allowed to control a classroom, so they just do their best

BPRAL22169: But each individual person is different. There are personally respectable individuals teaching, and they should be respected IMHO.

BPRAL22169: The US’ educational system has removed the element of teaching from a teacher’s job description.

TreetopAngelRN: Small classes seem to do better, both by the students and the teacxher

pjscott100: Yes, but on the level of the profession-as-a-whole, the motivation for good people to become teachers is lacking

labert8: very true. the system is the problem, not the teachers or their pay.

DavidWrightSr: ‘teachers are not allowed to control a classroom, so they just do their best ‘ Amen. My son found this out and found his students absolutely uncontrollable. No support whatsoever from administration.

BPRAL22169: Yes, the “overpaid babysitter” was a relative statement: You wouldn’t pay a babysitter at the same rate, was all that meant.

labert8: the reason I stayed away from secondary teaching

pjscott100: And this leads to a downward spiral; a good teacher goes into a classroom and finds that the students expect him/her to be bad and has to work harder to get the respect they deserve

TreetopAngelRN: so they try to teach an unruly class instead of picking out those that want to learn and teach them

TreetopAngelRN: level playing field

DavidWrightSr: In his case, the ones who wanted to learn couldn’t because there was too much disruption from those who didn’t care.

pjscott100: It would be unbalanced not to condemn parents just as much

BPRAL22169: I don’t find that a problem, pjscott — I expect to work to earn respect. Why shouldn’t they?

TreetopAngelRN: don’t get me started on parents and ther obligations:-D

labert8: someone’s comment awhile back about parents is important. Their role in education has disappeared, and may be the main problem.

BPRAL22169: Ultimately what it comes down to is that learning is a unique and individual thing — the interaction of a unique mind with the subject matter. Teaching is not something that takes place in a class. it takes place in the individua

pjscott100: I’m saying that they’re in an environment that forces them to expend more effort to get that respect, effort which they could have used for education instead

DavidWrightSr: We found out when our kids were in high school, that the administration did not want us involved. That lead to complications for them.

BPRAL22169: Yes — you might force them to actually do some education, perish forbid!

labert8: You’re right BIll, and much of our culture labors to encourage students not to work hard at learning. REligion des it, media does it, parents do it.

DavidWrightSr: We got involved just the same, and some of the teachers took it out on the kids.

DavidWrightSr: In ways that we couldn’t really combat

TreetopAngelRN: learning also does not happen in a classroom, but the structure needs to be there and be used for learning to take place. Teachers who cannot provide that structure because of disruptions are handicapped

BPRAL22169: There is a religion of Jamesian education that militates against any learning or any teaching going on in an American classroom.

pjscott100: All I’m saying is, society doesn’t value the teaching profession as much as it should. So we get the teachers we’ve got.

pjscott100: Same argument as to why we’ve got the government we have.

BPRAL22169: “Teachers who cannot provide that structure” aren’t teachers. What are they doing in a classroom?

TreetopAngelRN: agree Peter

labert8: I walk a dangerous line with my kids teachers too. HOw can I complain and not expect them to burn the kids. Yet some are illiterate.

labert8: or nearly so

TreetopAngelRN: if they are not alloowed to control a classroom they cannot provide the structure

BPRAL22169: “Controlling a classroom” has nothing to do with teaching or learning.

labert8: BIll, they’re struggling with too many kids, too few textbooks, too little support, etc . . .

pjscott100: If a teacher doesn’t have to tackle issues like drugs, guns in the classroom, STDs, etc, they’d have more time to teach… stuff

BPRAL22169: Analyzing a problem in terms of elements that don’t actually bear on the problem is . . . not likely to produce results.

TreetopAngelRN: Teachers are not allowed to stand kids in the hall or stay after school, it might briuse their little egos, with these controls taken away what can they do?

EthAriel: If the classroom is out of control, how do you teach and who will learn?

labert8: What elements don’t bear?

BPRAL22169: Controlling a classroom does not bear on teaching or learning.

TreetopAngelRN: it has to…

Reilloc: Uhhh’

pjscott100: I don’t think I can agree

BPRAL22169: It bears on being a jailer. Now, if you take the element of being a jailer out of being in a school. . .

labert8: Why not? If students can’t concentrate on, or hear, a discussion, is teaching not effected?

TreetopAngelRN: hoiw can you teach in a hurricane or a windstorm of bullets?

DavidWrightSr: If you can’t get half of your class to stop talking to each other, throwing footballs across the room etc. you can’t get anybody to even hear you, much less learn what you are trying to say.

pjscott100: Bill, you just agreed with me… the ‘jail’ environment of a school is contributing to the problem

Reilloc: Are you saying the teacher shouldn’t be the one with the job of turning on the lights?

BPRAL22169: Look, kids who get an education, educate themselves and they don’t do it inside the classroom. the very most that a school (a real one, I mean) can do is provide an opportunity.

pjscott100: And that environment was created by all of us, not just teachers

EthAriel: Well, I am about to make myself unpopular again. Children are animals in training to be human. If you let the animals run wild, they do not learn to be human.

TreetopAngelRN: You have 33 students…25 of them won’t shut up and sit down what do you do? You can’t punish them

BPRAL22169: Peter, yes, I agree with you. The jail environment is not “contributing” to the problem — it is the whole of the problem.

labert8: You seem to be back at the flaws of the system. I’ll join you there. Teachers can’t be discipliniarians, but no one else will assume the mantle. Not parents, not administration. Solution?

BPRAL22169: You can either have a school or you can have a jail. The voters have opted for jails.

pjscott100: Nehemiah Scudder

pjscott100: :-)

Reilloc: What about what happened when we let the educational theorists take over?

TreetopAngelRN: so we have large daycares for our children and they are not learning anything but what they teach themselves…

labert8: You’re right Bill, but you expose the larger problem: our culture doesn’t value education, it values profit.

pjscott100: Bingo, labert

pjscott100: Lordy, we have enough counterexamples from RAH… look at any of the scouting or cadet novels

BPRAL22169: This is what happened when the educational theorists took over. William James invented a model that could be operated like a factory, so that’s the model that was adopted. The only problem was, education wasn’t included anywhere

BPRAL22169: in the model.

Reilloc: Wrong

pjscott100: Kids in RAH books put most contemporary adults to shame in terms of education

Reilloc: We trusted them and didn’t watch them.

BPRAL22169: /ga

EthAriel: No, not a jail. A training academy. You can’t train a horse the fancy stuff until you can control it. You can’t bond and teach if it is doing its best to sunfish until you fall off.

BPRAL22169: “them” who? Educational theorists?

Reilloc: Yes.

labert8: You can’t blame the theorists. They don’t and never have had the control.

BPRAL22169: I sometimes have trouble following the pronoun attribution.

Reilloc: Really?

pjscott100: No-one takes power without it being given to them

Reilloc: I think I said that.

BPRAL22169: I’m not sure I would agree, LNC: to a certain extent, the theorists provided what was asked of them.

EthAriel: Kids in RAH books weren’t kids. They were adults in a childs body. Podkayne {spelling?} was anyway.

BPRAL22169: No one who has to have power given to him can ever take it.

Reilloc: Nobody asked them to take over, though.

Reilloc: We hired them to teach.

TreetopAngelRN: parents and “education” have abdicated from teaching children

Reilloc: It’s a little like the military having no civilian control.

labert8: Who else? POliticianms? local yokels on school boards whose concern is to lower taxes?

pjscott100: Rephrase: no-one takes power without the acquiescence of those who have the right to deny them that power

BPRAL22169: local School boards

BPRAL22169: OK, Peter — I’ll go along with that one.

pjscott100: I just think that by the time we’re done with all the finger pointing, we’ll find it pointing at ourselves

labert8: Yes, Peter, and the bread and circuses mentality has taken emphasis off of education.

pjscott100: (Trite, I know)

Reilloc: That’s right.

DavidWrightSr: Nothing new. I believe Twain said ‘God made a moron for practice, then he made school boards’.

TreetopAngelRN: College…English Comp 101…15 students…14 just out of highschool and one over 35…who had to be taught grammar?

BPRAL22169: I think there is something basically wrong with the way things are done in the U.S., from top to bottom.

pjscott100: Having come from the UK, I agree

BPRAL22169: It’s something that started just 100 years ago (at Boston Public, I think) and could be junked

labert8: Yes, Bill, its called capitalism

labert8: that should heat things up

BPRAL22169: No, it’s called not thinking about what you’re doing.

pjscott100: What I have seen of US education system makes me profoundly glad I got all mine in the UK

labert8: that too.

TreetopAngelRN: I’m glad I got the bulk of mine, the stuff that counts in the 60’s and 70’s.

BPRAL22169: In fact, if you want to get some specific knowledge, you go to the market for it even now — so the part of education that is actually “capitalism” instead of just a boogey-man is actcually working and has never ceased to work

BPRAL22169: in this country.

pjscott100: I think the fact that anyone comes out of a US high school sane is a testimony to the fundamental adaptability and strength of the human being

TreetopAngelRN: who you calling sane???

BPRAL22169: LOL. The same, of course, is often said of the army.

labert8: that may be. the culture is insane, why should its offspring be?

pjscott100: Bill, you sound like you’re arguing against having a school system at all…?

DavidWrightSr: Well, public school doesn’t seem to work very well now does it?

labert8: scrapping it and starting over might be a good idea, but again, the fundamental beliefs about the value of knowledge would have to be altered as well.

TreetopAngelRN: I argue with the school board all the time, gets me no where, “You don’t have kids, how can you know?”

DavidWrightSr: Lots of people have opted for home schooling.

BPRAL22169: Everybody who deals with the product of these institutions knows in intimate detail!

TreetopAngelRN: same as telling the kid, I don’t know, shut up and sit down

pjscott100: Aside: in the UK “public school” actually means private, e.g., Eton. There was a great line in a Peter O’Toole movie (forget title). Psychologist is discussing a mutual friend:

pjscott100: “But then he was subjected to an environment of ritual sadism and licensed pederasts.” “You mean he was sent to public school?” “Yes”

labert8: Does anyone think we *aren’t* headed for the kind of society, complete with A.A.’s, shown in IWFNE?

pjscott100: “A.A.”?

DavidWrightSr: Abandoned Area

labert8: Abandoned Areas

TreetopAngelRN: Must go and do laundry…it’s been fun! Good Night everyone! Stay well!

labert8: carpe diem!

DavidWrightSr: Night Elizabeth

pjscott100: Sheesh, we’re more or less there in Los Angeles

BPRAL22169: Before Jamesian education showed up, the US had a huge industry for open public education, killed. No reason such a thing couldn’t happen again.

pjscott100: Bye Elizabeth!

labert8: exactly.

TreetopAngelRN has left the room.

pjscott100: I got pulled over by a cop for speeding on the 110… I drove down the nearest offramp and he told me he was going to ticket me but the neighborhood was too dangerous and we should both just get out of there asap.

labert8: the failure of taker culture, if anyone’s read Quinn’s Ismael.

pjscott100: This was on a Sunday morning.

pjscott100: That close enough for you?

Reilloc: Close enough for me.

labert8: Another in a long line of symptoms

Reilloc: Night all.

pjscott100: Night!

labert8: night

Reilloc has left the room.

BPRAL22169: And I think it’s time for me to disappear, as well.

pjscott100: This has been fun

pjscott100: Time for me to go too…

labert8: NIght BIll, enjoyed it immensely.

pjscott100: Night all

pjscott100 has left the room.

BPRAL22169: Night.

BPRAL22169 has left the room.

DavidWrightSr: It’s getting late for me too. Anything more to comment on?

labert8: We seem to be petering out. Eth?

EthAriel: I just felt ignored. Have I been plonked?

labert8: Sorry, not by me, and hopefully not by anyone else. In my experience here, you’ve got to leap into the fray.

EthAriel: I did. Anyone care to tell me how to change the color of my screen name?

DavidWrightSr: Glad that you could make it

DavidWrightSr: Your screen name should be in red right

labert8: I’m ignorant, I see yours in purple.

DavidWrightSr: I believe that everyone sees their own name in read whereas the rest of the colors seem to follow some strange esoteric pattern.

DavidWrightSr: red not read

EthAriel: Ah well, I don’t get off work until 8 pm MST and it takes time to drive home. Yes, it is red. I want deep blue or green.

DavidWrightSr: I think that is the one color you can’t change. There is some way to affect others, but I’m not sure how to do that

EthAriel: I arrive at work 7:30 AM, get off 8 PM. and it is an effort to arrive “here”.

DavidWrightSr: If I get a chance, I’ll play around and see what i can do. That’s slavery, not work

EthAriel: Oh well, red will do then.

labert8: Come back Saturday night, if you can. Perhaps you’ll get more response. Earlier on we really did talk RAH. Ick. Sounds like time to look for work.

DavidWrightSr: Saturday is at 5:00 P.M. EDT

EthAriel: Yeah, that is why I was hacked when the “promoted” me to manager.

EthAriel: I work Saturday…sigh.

DavidWrightSr: I do have your e-mail for notice of the log don’t I

labert8: David, Eth, I should go too, it’s midnight here, and I have the baby all day tomorrow. Need sleep for that.

DavidWrightSr: how about yours labert. did you get notice

EthAriel: Yes. Is it all right if I use another screen name that I like better?

labert8: I’ve been getting them right along. Yes.

labert8: THey’ve been a little lifeline to the afh I don’t get to play in

DavidWrightSr: that’s fine about name as far as I am concerned

EthAriel: Well, good night. I know you’re tired. Hugs….

DavidWrightSr: Night all.

labert8: later all.

DavidWrightSr: Log officially closed at 11:53 P.M. EDT
Final End Of Discussion Log

Click Here to Return to Index

Posted in Readers Group | Leave a comment

Heinlein Reader’s Discussion Group Thursday 05-23-2002 9:00 P.M. EDT Discussing Topics & Miscelaneous

Heinlein Reader’s Discussion Group

Thursday 05-23-2002 9:00 P.M. EDT

Discussing Topics & Miscelaneous

Click Here to Return to Index

Here Begins The Discussion Log

You have just entered room “Heinlein Readers Group chat.”

EBATNM: hi

mertide has entered the room.

BPRAL22169: Andy! How’s by you?

BPRAL22169: Did you get David Wright’s notice about the meeting tonight?

EBATNM: I’m OK. Yes, that is why I’m here. I wanted to hit the Glory Road Chat but forgot

Copycat669 has entered the room.

BPRAL22169: That was last week, I believe — the week before, actually.

Copycat669: woo hoo!

Copycat669: I made it!

BPRAL22169: 9th and 11th I think.

BPRAL22169: Hi- who is Copycat669?

mertide: Hi all, I’m Carolyn

Copycat669: I am Tammy. Tam if your fingers are tired. I’m the reason we don’t have a topic tonite.

BPRAL22169: If you would like to see the chatlog, you can look it up on afh or I can send you URLs.

EBATNM: Howdy to you

BPRAL22169: Ok, Tammy. I will be happy to burden you with all the blame you can handle. And then add a bit more.

EBATNM: I can get the log from David Wright – I think

BPRAL22169: “It’s what I do,” he said modestly.

Copycat669: excellent, Bpral. :-) so we were supposed to be discussing Time Enough for Love tonite.

mertide: Tammy, that sounds mysterious – do tell :-)

EBATNM: I’m lurking on afh now

BPRAL22169: How does it happen that you scotched the topic?

Copycat669: but i’m working on Number of the Beast and I’m just loving it.

Copycat669: well….they let me pick the book two weeks ago

BPRAL22169: Ah, I see.

Copycat669: we couldn’t decide between Time or Fear no Evil

BPRAL22169: How far are you into NOTB and what is it about it you like so much?

EBATNM: Doesn’t one scotch a topic by boiling it under a peat fire?

Copycat669: and I had no idea that it involved posting somehting to a newsgroup, which I have no way to access. So I dropped the ball.

Copycat669: 😉

BPRAL22169: (Manfully ignoring Andy) You can always ask one of us to post something to the newsgroup.

Copycat669: Ok, the gang has just met the pterydactly flying things and blew it up and deety programmed Gay and they all fought over who’s gonna be captain.

BPRAL22169: Oh, that goes on throughout.

BPRAL22169: IIRC, that’s about a third of the way into the book, isn’t it?

EBATNM: by taking different single scotched topics one gets a blended scotch topic.

Copycat669: Is andy Ebatnm?

BPRAL22169: (*sigh*)

BPRAL22169: Yes.

EBATNM:

DavidWrightSr: Well, I heard Reveille and Taps plenty of times, but I never heard “To Horse” or ‘Fix Bayonets” slava bogu!

BPRAL22169: Huh! Is that colloquial Russian for “word up!”?

Paradis402: Well, Robert was quite an expert in military history and lore.

DavidWrightSr: slava bogu?

TreetopAngelRN: I learned a long time ago NOT to use Reveille to wake my Dad up!

BPRAL22169: Yes – I make it “word of God”

BPRAL22169: You could use “recall.”

DavidWrightSr: Slava Bogu = Thanks to God, No Slovo is word Slava is literally Glory

BPRAL22169: Ah. Thanks.

ddavitt: This is why we need annotated heinlein editions

Copycat669: So….shall we just jump right in and tackle the controversial part? I think that HEinlein has created a less distasteful scenario for incest. I found it….well…oddly fascinating.

BPRAL22169: I thought etymologically “Slav” was derived from “slovo.” They are the people with words.

DavidWrightSr: I think that is one that RAH missed in TMIAH. He had a number of others

ddavitt: Are we doing TEFL then?

Paradis402: Yes

BPRAL22169: We are large; we contain multitudes.

Copycat669: by popular demand.

ddavitt: Maureen and LL didn’t bother me as much as the goings on in Sail

BPRAL22169: I don’t think Tam has read Sail yet.

Copycat669: i have to agree. Do you think I was ok with that because I have already read Sail?

ddavitt: By the time they slept together they were no longer mother and son in any meaningful way

BPRAL22169: I guess not.

Paradis402: Exactly.

ddavitt: Maureen didn’t know he was her son (then)

BPRAL22169: The incest in TEFL is a real tour de force.

Copycat669: I agree, Jane. I think that Ted is like another identity for Lazarus/Woodie

BPRAL22169: We are progressively “densensitized” to it over the course of hundreds of pages with technical incest, legal incest, and so forth.

Copycat669: And he lived such a long life, that his time as Woodrow would have really seemed like a “former” lifetime. Almost as though he were being reincarnated as a new person each time he changed his identity.

ddavitt: Contrast his memories of how he viewed her as a child; affection and a normal distant love. Now he’s sexually obsessed with her as a peer

Copycat669: Even in Sail, she speaks of him more like a little brother than a son.

BPRAL22169: That made a lot of sense to me — a man gets his picture of what a sex object is from his mother.

ddavitt: Do you think?

TreetopAngelRN: do they?

ddavitt: I don’t use my father as a model for my men

Copycat669: *shudders* I LOVE My mother in law, but I don’t want to think that my husband is hot for her through me. *shudder again*

mertide: Nor do I

TreetopAngelRN: I’m not touching that one Jane…

ddavitt: That I’m aware of that is

BPRAL22169: IIRC the father teaches how to do the relationship and the mother provides the image.

Paradis402: I think RAH was getting back at Alice D in TEFL.

BPRAL22169: I think the sex roles are reversed for women.

ddavitt: Sez who?:-)

Copycat669: who’s alice d?

ddavitt: Editor

BPRAL22169: I’m just quoting what I read.

ddavitt: But who said it?

DavidWrightSr: Editor of his juveniles at Scribners

BPRAL22169: RAH’s editor at Scribners

Copycat669: how is he getting back at Alice D through TEF?

ddavitt: Alice D said that about mothers?

ddavitt: She cut his juveniles to bits

BPRAL22169: Jane, I think it’s a truism of developmental psychology. You could get it from Ellis or even Branden.

Paradis402: She was a prude who nitpicked at John Thomases and Willys.

ddavitt: I’m still not sure.

mertide: It may well be a truism. I think it’s wrong though

ddavitt: Read Grumbles; Heinlein goes into detail about the feud he had with her

Copycat669: I do have a friend who gets hooked with verbally abusive men who remind me of her father. But my dad is a mouse while my husband is a pit bull.

ddavitt: I don’t care who said it; if I disagree, it’s wrong:-):-):-)

Copycat669: hehehe. and i REALLY want grumbles.

Paradis402: You will love it, Cat.

ddavitt: Try your library in the non fiction; that’s where our library has it

TreetopAngelRN: Charlie, the hubby, just shuddered at the thought of his mother being seen as a sex object

Deheden has entered the room.

ddavitt: In autobiographies

mertide: that’s the way I look at it Jane :-)

geeairmoe2: I saw it as a kind of re-birth theme, he has a “reunion” with his mother, and is reborn. Remember, at the beginning of TEFL, he’s trying to kill himself.

Copycat669: I am just rolling over some of the stuff he’s written about his shorts in Expanded.

Copycat669: Great point, WILL.

Copycat669: his Mother gives him renewed will to live.

Deheden: Good evening all.

ddavitt: Returning to his past did rejuvenate him

ddavitt: Hi there

Deheden: Hi Jane

Paradis402: Hi. Dee?

ddavitt: Your name is different?

TreetopAngelRN: That is a good way to look at it.

ddavitt: Dehede usually?

Deheden: Yes, I reinstalled AIM and they made me change it.

mertide: Of course not all mothers are like Maureen

Copycat669: well..he IS looking for something that he’s never done before. At that point, he’s never “done” his mother. HEHEHEHEH

BPRAL22169: Hi, Ron. Glad you made it.

ddavitt: I’ll add you to my list again

Paradis402: Dirty Dogs!

Deheden: Thanks Bill

Deheden: Gracias

BPRAL22169: That bit about rebirth brings up another point: that book is the end of the Future History; everything after that is a “new life.” The World as Myth.

ddavitt: But it builds on those earlier works, incorporates them

ddavitt: Moon and TEFL especially

BPRAL22169: Exactly: everybody in the WAM books is a creature of myth — a god — and that’s why the incest treatment is different in Sail than it is in TEFL.

EBATNM: the Oedipus and Electra myths are foundational to Western Civilization

ddavitt: But they’re the same people!

BPRAL22169: So — supposing you’re a Christian, you expect to become a creature of myth after you die, don’t you?

Copycat669: Which ones are WAM books?

ddavitt: world as myth starts with Number of Beast

ddavitt: then Cat then sail

Copycat669: I guess I should have guessed that…

BPRAL22169: The obvious ones are NOTB, CAT and To Sail Beyond the Sunset. I think Friday and Job also belong to the series.

Copycat669: YOu know what? I’ve bought Friday and lost her TWICE in the last month!!

BPRAL22169: She’s good at getting away.

ddavitt: But by it’s nature, it encompasses them all

ddavitt: its

DavidWrightSr: She is very elusive :-)

ddavitt: I get as confused reading that as I do cat

Copycat669: well, i like the idea of World as Myth regardless of my Christian philosophy. My husband, however, thinks I’m whacked.

ddavitt: I suddenly realised I haven’t the foggiest how we got where we are in the story

BPRAL22169: The two propositions are not necessarily mutually exclusive . . .

TreetopAngelRN: Mine doesn’t get it either.

ddavitt: If there is a god, multi universes shouldn’t faze him

Copycat669: well, i guess I’d never though of the concept of heaven as World as Myth, but after some meditation, I’ll decide on it. 😉

BPRAL22169: Think about Job as telling us the nature of “heaven” in the multiverse.

ddavitt: What you expect..

BPRAL22169: And Hell, of course.

ddavitt: Ditto

BPRAL22169: By which Heinlein apparently means Texas.

Deheden: Actually there is a Christian theory about Eden that fits pretty good with WAM

AGplusone has entered the room.

BPRAL22169: Yo, David.

ddavitt: we make our own heaven and hell..which says a lot about some people’s nasty minds

AGplusone: G’evening, all.

ddavitt: Hi david

Deheden: Hi, David

Paradis402: I once gave a copy of Job to a rabinnical scholar. he came back in tear – said he never read anything so inspiring.

ddavitt: What theory is that?

EBATNM: It’s really Neo-Platonism which is grafted into Christianity from Augustine

AGplusone: [New handle, Ron?]

geeairmoe2: Found some bugle call wave files at: http://www.mssc.edu/finaid/buglecalls.html

BPRAL22169: Andy, what “it” are you referring to?

ddavitt: blame aol

EBATNM: WOM

Deheden: That Eden is attainable. AIM made me add a letter to re-install

geeairmoe2: 1) bugle call one — “First Call”2) bugle call two — “Mail”3) bugle call three — “Retreat”4) bugle call four — “Reveille”5) bugle call five — “Taps”

BPRAL22169: I’m not too sure of that, Andy.

EBATNM: Hierarchies streching all the way to the Godhead.

BPRAL22169: But apparently, it’s not a hierarchy — it’s a plenum. all the worlds are coequal.

ddavitt: the council of ouroborus being one such?

Paradis402: Indeed inspiring.

EBATNM: streching? Boy, my fingers ain’t working tonight!

ddavitt: worlds are equal..but not everyone has an eraser

BPRAL22169: Interesting idea though — I may steal it. I’ve been outlining a book that would tie all the loose threads of the WAM series together.

ddavitt: fiction?

geeairmoe2: I can’t spell strecthing when my fingers ARE working.

EBATNM: But not on an equal basis – some have the ability to “grok” more better (CofO0 and thus are more potent

Copycat669: NO! don’t tie threads!! all you get are knots!

ddavitt: most don’t see the big picture…don’t know there is more than world

ddavitt: Knowing that puts you up a step

BPRAL22169: Yeah, fiction. We’ve puzzled before why some of the continua seem to have fixed timelines while others have changeable timelines and still others split off temporal bubbles. Maybe that resolves the question. How about it David W?

Copycat669: I was complaining about not knowing the reason for Betty’s divorce from her parents. And a friend who went to see Star Wars with me said that was what was wrong with SW. They tried to tie up the ends and just got knots

ddavitt: Being able to travel between is another, manipulating events is yet another

Copycat669: that ruined Highlander, too. All good stories have some creative mystery in them.

ddavitt: don’t like the new SW; no magic

AGplusone: [anyone see the final tie-up to X-files … urkkkk!]

TreetopAngelRN: Sounds interesting, Bill!

ddavitt: Yep; boring

ddavitt: But the season end of Buffy was great:-)

TreetopAngelRN: Nope, but I did see the last Buffy

BPRAL22169: I thought the architecture was overwhelmingbly beautiful — especially the parts they shot in Sicily.

ddavitt: Angel, not so great

ddavitt: Spike has a soul!!!

DavidWrightSr: Well, All timelines, (worlds), are figments of someone elses imagination and they make the rules, so some are changeable, others not and any variation that you want.

Copycat669: it’s cus SW #5 (this last one) is just tying up ends….Boba Fett, Anakin, Ani’s mom. etc…

ddavitt: I can’t forgive them jar jar

ddavitt: I’m not paying good money to see it

Copycat669: Talk about changeable worlds! Anyone watch the second Highlander movie? I thought I was going to vomit!

Copycat669: Jar jar isn’t that big of a deal in this one.

ddavitt: Can’t recall it but I did see it

DavidWrightSr: That’s the one they agreed to forget about isn’t it?

EBATNM: Job cycles back to UPofJH with Kols-wossname being “higher” than Jehovah

ddavitt: Bet that was a kick in the teeth for some

mertide: can worlds change after the author dies?

BPRAL22169: They’ve still got some (to my mind) objectionable racial stereotyping.

ddavitt: or are they closed off?

Copycat669: Anyway, I digress. I have reconciled myself to be OK with not knowing somethings. LIke if Manny lives or why Betty divorces her parents.

ddavitt: Manny living? Dooes that arise as a query?

Copycat669: yeah, david, it is. they just asked us all to forgive them.

ddavitt: Do you mean Mike?

EBATNM: Well, as the author is actually a figment of someone’s imagination who says someone has to die?

Copycat669: manny at the end of cat.

ddavitt: Don’t remember that ,puzzled>

BPRAL22169: Well, in half the worlds, he doesn’t, after all.

Copycat669: when he’s trying to save mike, they just leave him there dying.

EBATNM: In Stranger they all go somewhere and practice architecture

TreetopAngelRN: I think the stories go on, I am firmly entrenched in the WAM

ddavitt: Have to look at it

BPRAL22169: Ah, the enlightened ones!

TreetopAngelRN: You mean Richard, Tam!

ddavitt: Can’t remeber that bit

TreetopAngelRN: Not Manny.

ddavitt: Oh, well, in that case…yes he does live

Copycat669: I do, Elizabeth. Thank you! :-)

ddavitt: paradox; he has got Gretchen pregnant but he hasn’t yet so he has to stay alive to do it

EBATNM: In Cat the author (Heinlein) can’t write the ending or he would set the ending. By not doing so he allows (forces) the 50/50% outcome(s).

ddavitt: He’s safe

ddavitt: Sail clears it up

TreetopAngelRN: YW

DavidWrightSr: Dropped myself off

Copycat669: oh yeah. I still have to read sail and establish that. when i read sail, i didn’t know who they were.

BPRAL22169: I think we’ve got enough new people to repeat the admonition: don’t touch the ESC key while you’re in AIM

ddavitt: Not a good one to start with:-)

jilyd has entered the room.

DavidWrightSr: Don’t have two computers logging in at same time either :-)

ddavitt: My finger is creeping toward it now, Bill. i’m just a rebel I guess

Copycat669: Ok. I know others like it, but I HATE the intermissions in Time.

BPRAL22169: Oh, Jane, you’re so predictable.

Copycat669: rebel jane

ddavitt: Come here and say that!

BPRAL22169: I rather liked the Secundus and Tertius episodes.

Paradis402: Git im Jane!

ddavitt: Hi jilyd

Deheden: Rebel Jane?? Where was she in 76??

TreetopAngelRN: LOL

ddavitt: On the side of the Angels

ddavitt: Fighting to keep our colony safe for our children

BPRAL22169: If I had to compare the overall structure to any single piece of music it would be — wait for it — Rimsky Korsakov’s “Scheherezade” with the returning motives.

jilyd: Hi, Jane. It’s Dee, if you don’t recognize the AIM name.

ddavitt:

ddavitt: I didn’t, hi Dee

Copycat669: And I was SUPREMELY excited that my namesake is a sexy woman. Though my reall name is TAMMY and not Tamara.

mertide: The variant worlds where they die trying surely have as real an existence though, we see only the continuation in one of the worlds where they survive

ddavitt: Tamara is a pretty name

Paradis402: Also called Tammy.

EBATNM: have you looked at it as a Fugue?

BPRAL22169: That’s an interesting thought.

Copycat669: by las and lor. The first time they called her tammy i laughed out loud.

EBATNM: theme, answer, exposition, restatement

ddavitt: What would the implications be if we did?

TreetopAngelRN:

ddavitt: Ah, OK

BPRAL22169: There’s really not a lot of “vertical” structure in the book.

jilyd: Sorry I missed the lead-in to this, R-K’s Sche. is just about my favorite piece of music of all. I used to have a piano transcription but tI lost it. :-(

ddavitt: Humph; they had a Jane in Number and killed her off ,sulk>

BPRAL22169: We were talking earlier about the bugle calls in TEFL and I pointed out the whole book had a musical structure of a rhapsody.

Copycat669: But she lives in Jake’s head. That was reminiscent of Fear No Evil.

ddavitt: or a dance..

BPRAL22169: RAH said that was an interesting idea but he didn’t have a specific musical structur ein mind.

TreetopAngelRN: and Elizabeth was a man at one point…

jilyd: Well, maybe I could claim Deety for Dee, but I hate being called Dee-Dee, and refuse to answer to it.

EBATNM: There’s a pun in there about Rhapsody in Bugle but I can’t get there

ddavitt: That happens in lots of the books funnily enough

BPRAL22169: though, ofcourse, a rhapsody isn’t a specific musical form.

Paradis402: I liked Libby better as Elizabeth.

jilyd: EBATNM, do I know you already, bu a different name?

BPRAL22169: (Ignoring andy)

EBATNM:

Reilloc: Evening all.

DavidWrightSr: They dropped the casket over the Ozarks after they had retrieved what they could from the corpse, enough to rebuild his memories and personality

jilyd: Hi, LN.

ddavitt: I raised that very point on afh

AGplusone: Evenin’ L.C.

EBATNM: Hi, jilyd. The same

Copycat669: YAY! I was wondering how Andy got back to life.

AGplusone: LN ….

ddavitt: I decided Hilda was insanely jealous and nixed it

Reilloc: David…

Paradis402: Jane came back – on AFH, much to our pleasure.

mertide: :-)

Copycat669: afh?

EBATNM: Once a year I remember the chats are on Thursdays.

ddavitt: I am a reincarnation…that makes sense

Copycat669: oh…silly me. the alt news group. :-)

ddavitt: alt fan heinlein; where you need to be

Paradis402: Right, Cat.

AGplusone: Did you get instructions how to find it, Tam?

TreetopAngelRN: yes, Tam come to afh

ddavitt: How come you can’t get newsgroups on your reader?

Copycat669: I got it open thanks to Jane, but it’s WAY too confusing. :-)

AGplusone: You’re on AOL?

ddavitt: You found it and subscribed and everything?

Copycat669: but i can at least post next time to satisfy any responsibility to open the group. I did the google thing.

ddavitt: Have you got it set up to show you threads?

AGplusone: But are you on AOL?

Copycat669: it just opened up. like a bbpost. but there’s a lot of stuff in each thread. I’m not on AOL.

mertide: Once again I am so glad I’m not on AOL :-)

Copycat669: AOL is the devil.

EBATNM: BTW, who is Randy and why?

AGplusone: Okay, altho there’s a simple way on AOL.

BPRAL22169: Many of us ask ourselves the same question, andy.

ddavitt: Which Randy? There are a few

BPRAL22169: Hmmm. Andy – Randy?

Copycat669: EVIL TWIN!

jilyd has left the room.

ddavitt: If you mean Cryo Randy, he’s a poster from way back who pops in now again

BPRAL22169: I think we would have to call this one the good twin. Or at least the non-evil twin.

EBATNM: The “interesting” CryoRandy

ddavitt: and generally annoys people

AGplusone: Randy Jost, Randi the ‘feminist/ …. etc.

jilyd has entered the room.

ddavitt: He plays a one note tune

mkeith54 has entered the room.

jilyd: Lost & Found, I am.

ddavitt: Gosh, the room is full

BPRAL22169: YoDee you are?

AGplusone: Randy’s not a bad fellow if we could get him off his hobby horse of cryronics …

AGplusone: Once in a while he makes a very astute post

BPRAL22169: I don’t know — he doesn’t actually seem to have anything to say.

ddavitt: Can we sort out the next topic and a date?

BPRAL22169: I must have missed those.

AGplusone: Once in while he does

BPRAL22169: I don’t read most of the threads. We have an awful lot of chitchat and OT.

jilyd: Lost the connection, but I’m back. That has been happening a lot lately, and not just in chat.

geeairmoe2: A stopped clock . . .

ddavitt: I’m interested in doing IWFNE

AGplusone: Yes, Mike Sheffield needs to use the room next week, depending on the day, for a Blood Drives organizing chat.

ddavitt: two weeks time then?

AGplusone: I’d like doing IWFNE as well

TreetopAngelRN: IWFNE would be good.

jilyd: Me too.

mertide: sounds good

ddavitt: I’ll re read and post a lead off unless someone else wants to

BPRAL22169: We can always set Mike up with another room — the one we use for board meetings will be vacant.

Paradis402: Sounds good to me.

jilyd: AG, did you get info form Mike yet?

DavidWrightSr: I agree

ddavitt: two weeks is best; gives folks chance to read and post

geeairmoe2: Like the IWFNE idea.

AGplusone: True, but I think he’d like this one. Easier for those who know it.

TreetopAngelRN: agrees with Jane

ddavitt: Any particular bit of it or approach?

AGplusone: He doesn’t need Thursday

Deheden: IWFNE sounds good

DavidWrightSr: Do you want to lead Jane?

mkeith54: I agree with IWFNE

ddavitt: I will if there is no volunteer

AGplusone: [not yet, Dee … but he’s telephoning me tonight and I expect he was to ask a few questions about it]

mertide: the ending always makes me cry :-)

Copycat669: Let jane lead. When I’m more comfy with the afh, I’ll do it…;-) is that ok, JaneDear?

AGplusone: Nothing stopping Tam from e-mailing you a few inclusions, Jane.

Copycat669: The ending TICKED Me off!

ddavitt: Fine! But do please chip in on afh

geeairmoe2: That would be June 6 and 8.

ddavitt: OK

TreetopAngelRN: me too, Carolyn

BPRAL22169: I found something absolutely bizarre about that book.

Copycat669: what’s that?

ddavitt: The idea of body paint?

AGplusone: was=wants, Dee

mertide: glad I’m not the only sook, Elizabeth :-)

DavidWrightSr: Me too, Bill,

Reilloc: Something?

Copycat669: ooooh…i LOVE bodypaint

ddavitt: It would smear, get on the furniture

Copycat669: I volunteer any day!

BPRAL22169: What’s yours, David?

ddavitt: hell to get off, bad for the skin, lethal a la Goldfinger..

Paradis402: Aaaaaargh!

Copycat669: course I have BIG canvasses. WINK WINK

TreetopAngelRN: this body would take alot of paint

geeairmoe2: A Bond allusion in a Heinlein chat. I’m in heaven.

ddavitt: :-)

mkeith54: just use water based, cleans up easy and breaths

mertide: maybe oil based acrylics?

ddavitt: I grw up on those books You have just entered room “Heinlein Readers Group chat.”

ddavitt: what was your problem then Bill?

BPRAL22169: Mine was: the story structure at the end seems very odd and counterintuitive, but I found it corresponds almost perfectly to the secondary interpretation (from the feet to the crown of the head) of the Adam Cadmon figure

Copycat669: What illustrations do ya get? (Oh heavens…i have to add yet ANOTHER variation of book to my list. my mother’s going to have a COW)

BPRAL22169: of the Kaballah.

BPRAL22169: Weird. Doesn’t prove anything, of course, but it’s certaily odd.

ddavitt: Bill, I wish I knew what you meant.

Paradis402: Nah!

Copycat669: hehehe. I like odd stuff. :-)

AGplusone: I had one. Someone walked with it … in Number of the Beast the hardbound and the trade paper have rather 60ish illustrations.

geeairmoe2: My trade paperback of TNoTB has illustrations. Deety was mondled on a Penthouse playmate.

BPRAL22169: Richard Powers. A very 60’s ish illustrator.

ddavitt: I only have the little paperbacks…

jilyd: Sounds good.

Copycat669: Well, my mom thinks it’s STUPID that I want both the edited and unedited versions of Stranger. (if you’ve read one book, you’ve read the other…blah blah blah)

ddavitt: Who was Adam Cadmon

TreetopAngelRN: mondled? fondled + Modeled?

ddavitt: No, you need both versions of all three books that are different

AGplusone: Be nice if we could talk Ginny into talking the publisher into reissuing that edition.

BPRAL22169: I was trying to find one of the esoteric books RAH had not used in his stories and tried Kabballah — unfortunately by the time I was in the second chapter, I recognized Kaballah.

Deheden: I have read my trade paperback of NOTB to pieces.

AGplusone: In trade paper as Moon is

ddavitt: What specifically, Bill?

DavidWrightSr: Most of my paperbacks are in tatters, and my hardbounds aren’t much better off

Copycat669: PLEASE! Talk Ginny into releasing editions with her comments in the margins! wouldnt’ taht be awesome!?!

BPRAL22169: Adam Cadman is the figure of a man — the biblical Adam — made up of the ten sephiroth of the Kaballah.

mertide: Doesn’t help if you read in the bath :-)

EBATNM: Jane, basically Adam Cadmon is the “body” of reality in Kabalah – a branch of Jewish mysticism

geeairmoe2: My trade NOTB is crumbling, too.

ddavitt: Most of mine are UK editions which, no dig, are better quality and are holding up well

AGplusone: Finding that the English publishers are still issuing hardbounds. Did the Brit hardbound have the illustrations, Jane, do you know?

ddavitt: Ah, OK.

EBATNM: It’s used as a metaphor

ddavitt: Not the one I remember reading from the library

ddavitt: Which would have been a first ed

TreetopAngelRN: I am slowly replacing mine and shipping off the old to folks who want them.

geeairmoe2: NOTB was the first Heinlein I had the chance to rush to the bookstore to buy.

AGplusone: Ask Simon

AGplusone: to look

Copycat669: well, guys. Wish me luck. I have an interview tomorrow in the town we’re moving to in two weeks. (and taht’s a whole set of new book stores to check out so if you have any requests, email me at

Copycat669: so i must head for bed. 😉

ddavitt: Very dull cover, brownish with the title that’s all, no pics on the inside

AGplusone: Night Tam

ddavitt: Night Tam

TreetopAngelRN: G’night, Tam! Good Luck in the interview!

ddavitt: Good luck

geeairmoe2: Take care.

Paradis402: Nite Tam.

Deheden: Night, Tam, be good

mkeith54: nite Tam

Copycat669: (I don’t wanna be good…but I’ll try to be good at it!) Nice to have met all you newbies. see ya saturday!

mertide: night, Tam

Copycat669: i mean oldies. i’m the newbie

Copycat669: wrong thought process. 😉

Copycat669 has left the room.

ddavitt: I might not make Sat; my brakes are going and we have to help fit a pool liner in return for help changing the brake disc thingies

mertide: you always have to watch out for those thingies

ddavitt: Friends with tools…finest kind

AGplusone: Sounds like fun … we used to do a lot of that. Build patios, etc.

AGplusone: Put in hottubs

DavidWrightSr: Well, since we’ve decided on a topic for the 6 and 8th, is there any reason to meet sat at all?

ddavitt: these friends got everyone they knew round one sat to totally dig over and renovate their garden

AGplusone: Not that I know … David, Bill?

TreetopAngelRN: Working Sat. so I won’t be here.

DavidWrightSr: Other than just chat.

DavidWrightSr: And I can’t be here anyway, just remembered

ddavitt: supplied beer and chili and we alll dug like navvies

BPRAL22169: We could continue with TEFL

TreetopAngelRN: sounds fun Jane

ddavitt: it was; Tom sawyer principle

Deheden: TEFL would be good

ddavitt: whitewashed fences

mkeith54: Sat. is out for me Memorial Day Weekend, VFW and Legion take up my time

AGplusone: I’m the only one some of my friends say ever had the guts to invite everyone to a G.I. Party at a mountain cabin. We practically rebuilt it in two days. Cooked a pig for the main meal.

ddavitt: If i’m here, I’ll pop in and see who’s around

TreetopAngelRN: I’ll look up the archives on TEFL

DavidWrightSr: Send me the log.

ddavitt: Is there going to be a THS meet as the last one didn’t work out?

BPRAL22169: That’s a good question — David, what say you?

AGplusone: [I sent out bluebacked subpoenas, instead of invitations, Dee and L.N. ]

mertide: OT: has anyone else heard of US Navy Reserves being called up lately – seems to be a bit going around

BPRAL22169: Ginny has been online on Sundays at abut the right time for the last couple of weks.

ddavitt: Is she any better?

TreetopAngelRN: Heinlein Society meets on Sundays?

AGplusone: Suggest in ten days rather than three.

ddavitt: Monthly directors meeting

TreetopAngelRN: oh

BPRAL22169: Quite a lot better — still very weak, though. Will take some time to recover strength.

ddavitt: OK

AGplusone: That’ll give me a little time to get some ducks lined up.

mkeith54: She seems to be on-line a lot more lately

EBATNM: mertide – No. But I’m in the mountains of NM

ddavitt: Glad to hear there’s an improvement

jilyd: I love it, AG. We had a tower party when we put up the 75 footer, but that’s fairly standard for hams.

ddavitt: can’t believe I forgot it until 45 mins in..and you’d all gone by then:-(

DavidWrightSr: I forgot for about 15 mins myself , Jane

BPRAL22169: I didn’t have AIM while I was in LA: due to unforeseen circumstances, I didn’t get hooked up with my laptop.

AGplusone: So’d I. Glad I looked at the Email and afh

ddavitt: I’d talked about it on the chat the day before, it was on my calendar..total mindwipe

DavidWrightSr: If any of you who were here before me want to add that portion into the log, e-mail it to me

BPRAL22169: I’ll send you a complete log, David.

EBATNM: Bill, you will be pleased to know that right now it’s holding-up a copy of “The Reader’s Companion”

AGplusone: din-din time for me. Spousal overlord unit has arrived him.

AGplusone: home?

BPRAL22169: It’s honored, no doubt.

TreetopAngelRN: laundry tie for me, oh goodie

Deheden: She who must be obeyed, David??

ddavitt: OK, I’m off to clean up and get changed after all my exertions

AGplusone: I’ll send out notices of the THS meeting, tonight or tomorrow, Bill.

DavidWrightSr: Thanks Bill,

ddavitt: See you all soon…Bill, is there a Journal out soon/

Deheden: Yes, tonight is my night to shower.

DavidWrightSr: Sweaty Keyboard Now?

ddavitt: I’m fresh from exercise class

TreetopAngelRN: Night all!

AGplusone: G/nite

AGplusone has left the room.

EBATNM: night

mertide: Bill are you doing credit card or paypal yet?

ddavitt: Night Elizabeth

Deheden: Night, y’all.

mkeith54: Nite

mertide: Night all

jilyd: Nearly bedtime here in the east, at least for those of us who keep early hours. Nite TT, Nite AG.

ddavitt: waltons time :-)

Paradis402: Me too, to everything. Nite.

mertide: time for lunch!

Paradis402 has left the room.

ddavitt: Bill?

TreetopAngelRN has left the room.

BPRAL22169: It’s due out in July. I’m starting to assemble it now.

ddavitt: I’m not in it!!

ddavitt: But I still want it :-)

mertide: Did I understand that University of Qld has a set?

BPRAL22169: Nope to credit card. It’s just too expensive for an operation as small as I am.

mertide: Queensland

BPRAL22169: That’s right — Queensland.

Deheden: Goombye, all

ddavitt: Night Ron

Deheden has left the room.

mkeith54: Nite all

ddavitt: what’s in it?

mertide: I’ll have to mosey over and read them there, unless you get paypal happening

jilyd: Gooombye, yourself, Deheden. :-)

mkeith54 has left the room.

BPRAL22169: You could ask Sean — his set hasn’t arrived yet, but he’s getting a full set.

ddavitt: They have them in Toronto Public Library too I think you said?

mertide: It’s a very expensive method to do international drafts here, apart from the exchange rate woes

ddavitt: can’t you get a money order?

ddavitt: my bank does them for free

BPRAL22169: Let’s see — Joseph Major is doing a comparison of Sixth Column with “All.” David Wright has the first of two parts on time travel in sf and in Heinlein. I’ll be doing the study of “Beyond Doubt.”

ddavitt: I say I want it for x number of US dollars and they print it out

mertide: US dollar bank fees in Oz aren’t all that cheap

BPRAL22169: Yes, the Merrill collection has it.

ddavitt: OK. Look forward to it

ddavitt: Night all

BPRAL22169: I’ve been promised several other pieces, but I won’t set them in type until I receive them.

BPRAL22169: ciao

ddavitt has left the room.

DavidWrightSr: Night Bill. Thanks again

BPRAL22169: You, too.

mertide: Easier to get cash from them, might be worth thinking of doing it that way and crossing fingers

jilyd: Night all.

geeairmoe2 has left the room.

EBATNM: not a good idea what with things being the way they are

jilyd has left the room.

BPRAL22169: Credit cards involve one in quite a lot of hassle — anywhere from 4% to 15% and then there are holds on funds for at least 90 days. It’s very expensive.

Reilloc: Night all.

Reilloc has left the room.

mertide: I wasn’t planning on packing the envelope with talcum powder

geeairmoe2 has entered the room.

BPRAL22169: (sigh of relief)

mertide: That’s amazing, my credit card sales are credited straight away to me. 3% fees

BPRAL22169: I got Sean’s funds ok.

EBATNM: paranoia is very, very deep around here right now. Packages, especially international packages are being opened on an aggressive basis

BPRAL22169: I guess the Enlightenment is Over.

geeairmoe2 has left the room.

BPRAL22169: I’m still a very small boutique operation.

mertide: Did he send a draft? Put me to shame, did the boyo?

BPRAL22169: I can’t recall off the top of my head. It may have been an international money order.

BPRAL22169: I do recall it was written in US funds.

BPRAL22169: No matter what happens, the terrorists won hands down.

mertide: Be a bit cruel to send it in Aussies

BPRAL22169: BofA ought to be able to handle the conversion.

BPRAL22169: They do get a bit cranky, though.

mertide: Fee might be more than the value though

BPRAL22169: You might ask him when next he shows up on afh.

mertide: I might at that

mertide: The article titles read so well I’m hanging out to get my hands on it

EBATNM: the american dollar is ridiculously overvalued right now

mertide: you’re not telling me anything! :-)

mertide: It’ll end in tears as my grandma would say

BPRAL22169: I think David Silver has the first issue or perhaps the first two online in text format. You might ask him. It may be on a link from the Society webpage.

DavidWrightSr: I think that I am going to edit this discussion heavily, and just leave in the topic discussions. What do you think?

BPRAL22169: You might leave in the TEFL discussion as well — she may want to use part of it to springboard.

DavidWrightSr: Unless you want more.

EBATNM: LOL! and miss all this witty repartee?

BPRAL22169: We did wander all over hell and gone, didn’t we?

mertide: I think that might be a wonderful idea. And I might leave you guys clean up around here and get gone

BPRAL22169: Get out.

EBATNM: bye

DavidWrightSr: Actually, it doesn’t matter to me, I can leave it all in

mertide: Bye all

mertide has left the room.

BPRAL22169: It’s up to you. I don’t think anything was *sensitive*

EBATNM: Do As Thou Wilt as Thou Art the Editor

DavidWrightSr: Ok , it’s a lot easier that way.

BPRAL22169: Ok Andy I got your Consophic e-mails and printed them out so I’ll go look at them now.

EBATNM: who is jilyd?

BPRAL22169: Dee — a lawyer who frequents afh

EBATNM: Ah, thank you

DavidWrightSr: Dee, the lawyer from LA, (that’s Lower Alabama)

BPRAL22169: That’s right. David S is the lawyer from LA, Los Angeles.

BPRAL22169: Or perhaps S/M – Santa/Monica

EBATNM: there IS nothing lower than Alabama :-)

BPRAL22169: Well, there’s the Gulf Profound…

DavidWrightSr: Now watch out, you are talking to a redneck from JawJuh

DavidWrightSr: O:-)

BPRAL22169: We just had a bit of excitement — abird wandered in and emmeline Gertrude just went into action from a sound sleep.

BPRAL22169: Junco, I think.

EBATNM: I lived in New Orleans for a while and picked-up some prejudices

BPRAL22169: David, did you see Path to War this past week?

DavidWrightSr: No. what was it on?

BPRAL22169: I know Andy didn’t. HBO, I think. It was inside the Johnson White House from Inaugural day to the announcement he wouldn’t run, with emphasis on the decisions about Viet Nam and how they affected/destroyed the Great Society.

DavidWrightSr: I am surprised that I missed it, I usually would be watching that

BPRAL22169: The remark about nothing lower than Alabama caused me to think of that.

BPRAL22169: It was quite illuminating, the way Thirteen Days was illuminating. From the outside the White House decisions at that time just looked insane. This put them in context so you could see how they were arrived at.

BPRAL22169: Still insane, of course – but not *just* insane.

EBATNM: They were insane. Johnson was a low-life scheming nincompoop with a rat’s brain

EBATNM: Just my opinion, of course

DavidWrightSr: No argument from me

BPRAL22169: And the most accomplished politician ever in american politics, according to the people who were around at the time.

EBATNM: Does our current ‘situation’ remind you of 1965? Does 2 me

BPRAL22169: Michael Gambon did a stunning portrayal of Johnson.

BPRAL22169: Very unlikely casting but it worked perfectly.

BPRAL22169: You mean the escalating for no good reason?

EBATNM: The over-reaction, the paranoia of Domino’s falling, fighting far away in a 3rd world pest hole of no particular value

BPRAL22169: At least there was a defined enemy in 1965. Not going to war without even a definite target selected.

EBATNM: Terrorism! We Shall Save The World!

BPRAL22169: And they didn’t shut down civil liberties in this country at that time.

EBATNM: We Can Win the War in Afghanistan!

BPRAL22169: Plus ca change, plus c’est la meme chose.

EBATNM: They certainly shut down some Civil Liberties at Kent State (he snarls)

EBATNM: *sorry* Button pushed, dog drools

BPRAL22169: Bell rings.

BPRAL22169: Of course, that was 1974, wasn’t it?

EBATNM: No, 1970 IIRC

BPRAL22169: I don’t think that can be right.

BPRAL22169: Let me check.

DavidWrightSr: On my 30th birthday, I believe May 4, 1970

EBATNM: David, were you in Viet Nam?

DavidWrightSr: No Thank God. I got out in August 1965 and the troop ship I came home in went to the Pacific after that

EBATNM: So you got out right before the build-up.

DavidWrightSr: They announced the big build up as I was crossing the briney IIRC. Fortunately, my MOS was in Russian, and they didn’t need me :-)

BPRAL22169: That’s right 5/4/70

BPRAL22169: For some reason I thought it was later. But it’s almost contemporaneous with Altamont.

EBATNM: A friend of mine was a long distance ship-to-shore radio operator in the Marines but ended-up as a door gunner on a Huey. He “survived” but is a wig-out case.

EBATNM: They say Altamont and Kent State pretty much destroyed the New Left.

DavidWrightSr: I don’t recall Altamont. What was that?

BPRAL22169: Big rock concert — security by Hells Angels beat and I think killed one of the attendees.

EBATNM: Rolling Stone concert where they used the Hell’s Angels as security guards. Bad idea. And they did kill an attendee.

BPRAL22169: Considered the beginning of the end of the Flower Power era.

BPRAL22169: I think it was Pearl’s last concert.

DavidWrightSr: Interesting. I never heard of it, but then I was never into music of any kind except classical guitar and broadway shows

EBATNM: H’mm. You may be right there. I don’t remember. Alot of beer over the tonsils since 1970

EBATNM: Either of you see the article on the ABC news website about Hippies still being around?

BPRAL22169: Hell – I live that every time I go to Santa Cruz!

EBATNM: Peace, Brother.

EBATNM: Picture of Andy holding up two fingers in a V

BPRAL22169: Picture of Bill Barfing.

EBATNM: I really can’t see why anyone is nostalgic for the 60’s. What an awful time.

EBATNM: (and what awful speling!)

DavidWrightSr: What with the army and getting married, I missed the 60’s

DavidWrightSr: and Graduate school

BPRAL22169: I can — it was a time when possibilities opened up after being shut down for a very long time.

EBATNM: Anytime that thought Andy Warhol was an intellectual had serious problems with dealing with the world as she is

BPRAL22169: Well, that’s certainly true.

BPRAL22169: And Yoko Ono as an artist. Let’s not forget that.

EBATNM: You are right that possibilities certainly opened – but Ye Gods and Little Fishes! Yoko Ono IS an artist. But she is a terrible artist.

BPRAL22169: I would say she is not realy an artist at all. she’s a very minor league philosopher masquerading as a very bad artist.

BPRAL22169: YMMV, of course.

EBATNM: As much fun as this is, I think I need to go bye-bye

BPRAL22169: Okay. Get out!

BPRAL22169: Have fun.

BPRAL22169: Me too

EBATNM: Bill, you are the soul of curse-ity

BPRAL22169: Of course. I live for it.Ciao, all.

EBATNM: Bye David

BPRAL22169 has left the room.

EBATNM: *poof*

EBATNM has left the room.

DavidWrightSr: Log officially closed at 11:12 P.M. EDT

DavidWrightSr: That’s all Folks !
Final End Of Discussion Log

Click Here to Return to Index

Posted in Readers Group | Leave a comment

Heinlein Reader’s Discussion Group Saturday 05-11-2002 5:00 P.M. EDT Glory Road

Heinlein Reader’s Discussion Group

Saturday 05-11-2002 5:00 P.M. EDT

Glory Road

Click Here to Return to Index

Here Begins The Discussion Log
You have just entered room “Heinlein Readers Group chat.”

ddavitt has entered the room.

Paradis401 has entered the room.

ddavitt: Hi Denis, I just got here

Paradis401: Me too. How are you?

ddavitt: I think Dave W is not here, just logging.

ddavitt: Fine but I will have to disappear to eat shortly

ddavitt: We just got back from shopping

Paradis401: Possible. I understand. You need your cheerios.

ddavitt: How are you?

Paradis401: I’m fine.

ddavitt: I’m starving, yes; all that spending takes it out of a gal:-)

Paradis401: I dislike shopping very much.

ddavitt: I see Ginny is online; is she up to dropping by?

DavidWrightSr: Hi guys

ddavitt: Depends on the sort; ours was groceries which can be tedious week in, week out

ddavitt: Hi Dave

Paradis401: I don’t know. She may be napping. Hi Dave.

DavidWrightSr: I was napping myself

ddavitt: I could use a nap; Lauren had a shot yesterday and oh boy, I had a rough night with her. She got feverish and fretty

ddavitt: Full of lovely things like polio and diptheria; not surprising

Paradis401: It’s not serious I hope?

ddavitt: David says my tea is ready so can you two take over for a bit?

ddavitt: No routine 18 month immunisation

ddavitt: Measles, mumps rubella is the nastiest; that one really stings as it goes in

ddavitt: Eleanor had it at 5 and still moans now and then about how cruel I was to make her have it

KultsiKN has entered the room.

ddavitt: OK, back soon

ddavitt: Hi Kultsi, just going to eat

DavidWrightSr: Welcome Kultsi

KultsiKN: Hello, all!

Paradis401: OK. Have your tea. Have you heard from Ginny, David? Hi Kultsi.

DavidWrightSr: Talked with very briefly on Thursday

Paradis401: Not doing well?

DavidWrightSr: Still very tired she said

Copycat669 has entered the room.

DavidWrightSr: Hi

DavidWrightSr: Tammy right?

Copycat669: Hello…yep, I’m Tam. :-)

KultsiKN: Hi, Tam!

DavidWrightSr: Welcome to the discussion. Not many here yet, but it will probably pick up

Paradis401: How do you keep all those names straight David?

DavidWrightSr: I usually don’t.

Copycat669: Hiya. Be patient with me while I learn names. I’ve read a log of last chat, but I’m horrible with names. 😉 If anyone calls me Cat, I’ll answer.

Paradis401: I’m Denis, Tam.

KultsiKN: My handle shouldn’t be so difficult…

DavidWrightSr: Paradis is Dennis. KultsiKn is Kultsi from Finland, ddavit is Jane David who is away from keyboard for a moment

Copycat669: Jane, David, Denis, Kultsi. Is Denis french?

Paradis401: French and Amerindian.

DavidWrightSr: Editing the logs tends to help me remember sometimes

Copycat669: Nice to meet you all, btw…I’m not an intellectual when it comes to literature, but I very much enjoy Heinlein.

KultsiKN: Sorry, off for some time — Dune the Mini Series on TV…

Paradis401: You qualify as a good friend/fan.

DavidWrightSr: Don’t sweat it. I am definitely not the litrary type myself, just a long, long fan of RAH

Copycat669: so what book are we discussing today?

ddavitt: I’m back

DavidWrightSr: Glory Road

ddavitt: Hi everyone who arrived while I was munching

DavidWrightSr: You are already on the mailing list for notices aren’t you Tam?

Paradis401: Is the Dune Series good, Kultsi?

DavidWrightSr: Or did you see my notice on AFH?

Copycat669: Ah. I thought that was last topic. :-) Darn. I just finished Fear No Evil and it ROCKED. Yes, I’m on the list, thanks. I’m glad to be.

ddavitt: We generally have two chats Tam so people get a chance who live outside US

ddavitt: Or who are busy.

DavidWrightSr: BRB. got to fix some sandwiches for self and wife

ddavitt: IWFNE usually gets a bad press; you’ll have to write a post about it maybe?

ddavitt: Do you post to afh much?

Paradis401: Really? One of my favourites. IWFNE

Copycat669: I’m not sure how to do so. newsgroups are foreign to me. Email groups? Now THAT’s my thing. :-) But I’ll just eavesdrop on your Glory conversation and participate in the next one. :-)

ddavitt: Well, we were all here on Thursday; we can chat about IWFNE too

ddavitt: Newsgroups are eay but I don’t know how to explain them exactly

ddavitt: When you start your browser you download them, pick which ones you want to subscribe to and then read them and reply as you wish. Or just lurk

ddavitt: There are literally thousands; I subscribe to about 4

ddavitt: Email groups I’ve tried but they flood your inbox and take longer to read and reply to somehow.

DennEditor has entered the room.

DennEditor: Howdy folks

ddavitt: Have you not read Glory Road then?

ddavitt: Hi Bill

Paradis401: Hi Bill.

ddavitt: It’s a fun read with more to it than appears

geeairmoe2 has entered the room.

ddavitt: Hi Will

DennEditor: I read Glory Road several months back. It struck me as juvenile male fantasy the first time 10 years ago. Now, it seems much deeper.

Paradis401: Hi Will.

geeairmoe2: Hello all.

ddavitt: Well, jumping right in, I have a question

Copycat669: I’ve not read Glory Road. I’m trying to collect the whole set of RAH’s works.

ddavitt: H seemed to be criticising the materialsitic society of Oscar’s earth

Paradis401: Bravo, Cat!

ddavitt: Go for it; takes a while but worth it

ddavitt: But what did he offer in return for those of us who aren’t heroes?

DennEditor: I think RAH expressing the point of view a Vietnam Vet might be expected to have.

ddavitt: What viable alternative is there to the search for the 3 car garage and pool

Paradis401: A cottage in the forest?

ddavitt: War does tend to make you see things from a different POV

ddavitt: But is that so much better?

Paradis401: Yes. Peaceful.

ddavitt: Was it the inherent selfishness of modern life he deplored?

DennEditor: Living an hororable life. Oscar, nor any of RAH’s heroes seemed afraid of living on the wrogn side of the tracks.

DennEditor: wrong side, I mean.

DennEditor: Look at the characters in Job.

geeairmoe2: Elements of every generation feels they live in boring times. Other eras had all the excitement.

ddavitt: No helping hand for a neighbour; his pool might end up with a higher diving board

DennEditor: Despite their poverty and problems, they were happy because they were together.

ddavitt: Grab and push and struggle…for junk as a prize

ddavitt: But the ‘simple life’ was not so much fun

DennEditor: No. It was hard work.

ddavitt: Look at the discussion with the time traveller in Beyond this Horizon

Copycat669: It seems that all of RAH

Copycat669: sorry

DennEditor: But they were not miserable, so to speak.

ddavitt: Go ahead Tam

Copycat669: It seems that all of RAH’s characters had no materialism to them. :-)

DennEditor: They worked hard and had their self respect.

ddavitt: No need to wait; we all talk at once

Copycat669: I hit return too soon, that’s all..:-)

DennEditor: They found ways to have fun and entertain themselves.

ddavitt: They didn’t care much..but many of them were v wealthy

ddavitt: Like IWFNE; Johann was a billionaire

DennEditor: They BECAME wealthy

ddavitt: Yes; they strove for material worth

ddavitt: Why is it ok for Harriman but not us?

Copycat669: I mean, the best example I can give is the Howard Foundation. While all of them had the opportunity to be the best antique dealers around, all of them could leave or take wealth. And if you’ll remember, Johann/Joan/Eunice wanted

Copycat669: to get RID of stuff

DennEditor: But Johann wasn’t necessarily happy. He seemed just as Happy as Joan Eunice with Joe Bracca in his slum apartment

ddavitt: Only when death was imminent

Copycat669: He HATED being wealthy and at several points, he had to remind his “friends” that it would be OK if he lost everything.

ddavitt: Wealth brought him nothing but pain and betrayal from greedy family

ddavitt: But that was at the end; would he have felt that way at say, 50?

ddavitt: He was a H character who learned lesson very late in life

DennEditor: Remember, RAH grew up poor and achieved a measure of prosperity. He knows what he is talkign about.

ddavitt: And, ironically, it was his wealth that bought him that second chance

Copycat669: Look at the character in Citizen of the Universe. When he finds that he’s a gazillionaire, he prefers the trader persona he was given between slave and wealthy man.

ddavitt: Thorby was uncomfortable with it, yes.

ddavitt: The Traders and the military taught him the lesson very early

Copycat669: Thorby! yes….couldn’t remember the boy’s name. Loved that book…

DennEditor: Great book, CotG

ddavitt: Ever read kipling’s Kim? I think it’s a dead ringer for that

Copycat669: nope. haven’t. I should pick it up. :-)

ddavitt: Thorby valued his wealth as a weapon against slavery; that’s allowed.

ddavitt: I recommend it:-)

ddavitt: He used it unselfishly

ddavitt: Like that woman, martha? In Jerry Was A Man

Copycat669: I think all of the wealthy characters viewed wealth as a tool, rather than a goal. Greed seems to be consistent only in the antagonists of RAH’s books.

ddavitt: Starts out wasting it frivolously, then throws it behind crusade to free the apes

geeairmoe2: Things are weren’t fighting for; good causes are.

ddavitt: We seem to have started a new topic!

DennEditor: Evan Lazarus Long … tried to make a buck whenever he could, but only because it was a challenge. Seemed able to say “goodbye” to wealth at a moments notice.

Copycat669: he definitely has a Black Horse/White Horse theme running through all his books. The antagonists’ black hats are greed, selfishness, politics….:-) Even the politicians of Moon is a Harsh Mistress didn’t WANT to be politicians.

ddavitt: Yes; but he ended up richer than anyone

Copycat669: Politics was a means to the end which was freedom.

Paradis401: I’m interested in that Jumping over the Sword deal in GR. Seems to be a recurring theme.

ddavitt: Freedom..probably THE Heinlein theme

Copycat669: Lazarus was wealthy only by default. Live as long as he did, and I think you can’t help it. :-)

ddavitt: It’s a skill to be learned I suppose

DennEditor: Maybe that’s WHY he became rich … that and the fact he was able to accumulate so much in his long life.

ddavitt: In 23 centuries, you can learn most things

Copycat669: so how does freedom factor in to Glory Road?

ddavitt: Except singing

Copycat669: Give me the basic plot, will ya?

ddavitt: Oscar got freedom to do what he wanted, not what society expected

ddavitt: Oh..hang on then

DennEditor: I agree freedom is the Heinlein theme

ddavitt: He’s fresh from jungle war

geeairmoe2: Oscar wanted a cause worth fighting for.

ddavitt: Sees ad in paper; hero wanted

Paradis401: Oscar and Star Pledge themselves over the sword. Alternative to marriage?

ddavitt: Next thing he’s on a quest wiht beautiful woman, strong fighter

ddavitt: Looking for the Phoenux Egg

ddavitt: spelling

DennEditor: Phoenix

DennEditor: 😉

Copycat669: parallel to Puppet Masters, eh? Only minus the Old Man.

ddavitt: Get it, go back to star’s world, has everything..gets bored

ddavitt: sets out on Glory road again

ddavitt: I know how to spell it!! Fingers and Eleanor is bothering me

DennEditor: yeah … sure 😉

ddavitt: She is huffing at me now. darm these kids learning to read

Paradis401: 😀

DennEditor: “darm” ? 😉

ddavitt: :-)this is from her

Paradis401: 😛

ddavitt: I expect all my friends to mind read when it comes to my typos

ddavitt: I am two fingered and can’t touch type

ddavitt: If you want it fast, you get typos

DennEditor: Now you know how I feel

ddavitt: Puppet masters…not quite the same plot.

Paradis401: We understand and sympathize, Jane.

Copycat669: I’m an editor rl. hehehe. I don’t see typos. :-)

ddavitt: You must be able to type though?

ddavitt: I spot them in books all the time

DennEditor: “Copycat” ? I should have known. Where do you work?

DavidWrightSr: Two editors. wow we are lucky. O:-)

ddavitt: It’s a neat punny sort of nickname. Copy is what goes into a paper isn’t it?

DavidWrightSr: I am an editor too, but only of discussion logs :-)

ddavitt: # editoes..we need Bill P to make 4

ddavitt: Aargh

Copycat669: I used to work for the methodist church. That’s some really NASTY editing. Now I freelance for local author wannabes. :-) It’s in my blood. I do mostly advertising, PR, and other authoring for a local company now. But I’m lookin

DavidWrightSr: But DennEditor is a newspaper editor, right?

ddavitt: 4 editors

geeairmoe2: Once upon a time I was sports editor of a small bi-weekly.

Copycat669: i’ve done newspaper editing. Talk about THANKLESS

ddavitt: I have never edited anything I didn’t write myself.

DennEditor: Yup. Peoria Times-Observer. 17,000 weekly circulation.

Copycat669: Marion Times for me…

Copycat669: Little town paper. :-)

DennEditor: Thankless is RIGHT.

DennEditor: Marion, Ill.?

Copycat669: iowa

DennEditor: oh. That was close.

DennEditor: I have worked all over Illinois and Missouri.

geeairmoe2: Copperas Cove (TX) Leader-Press.

DavidWrightSr: That would have been too much coincidence. BTW did anybody notice RAH’s error with respect to ‘stars and stripes’?

Copycat669: Just iowa for me. And the most legitimate job I held was with the Methodist Church. The doctrine finally got to me and I had to quit.

Copycat669: no….what’s the error

ddavitt: in GR?

DennEditor: I have left the press more than once. Journalism is a dirty habit, but I am hooked.

DavidWrightSr: At least when I was in the Army, I don’t recall any adds in it. but maybe I am misremembering

DennEditor: What error?

DennEditor: I don’t think the ad in Glory Road was in Stars and Stripes. Or was it? hmmmm

ddavitt: Oh, the paper mentioned in GR

DavidWrightSr: Yep, I believe he saw it there also

Copycat669: What’s stars and stripes? I was kicked out of the army after only 7 weeks so i have no clue…

ddavitt: That he gets whilst in Nice with the Herald Tribune

DavidWrightSr: S&S is army paper

ddavitt: So he had it delivered?

DennEditor: Coincidence? in alt.fan.heinlein, I have met many people who have lived in Central Illinois.

DennEditor: Tian Harter went to school in Peoria. Several regulars spent time at Chanute AFB in Rantoul where I used to live. …

geeairmoe2: My memory of S&S is hazed by 30 years, (I was 10, Army brat, read the comics and sports). Don’t recall ads.

DavidWrightSr: Mine was 30 years ago too, but I don’t recall ads nor comics for that matter

DavidWrightSr: Sorry 40 years ago

ddavitt: Star could do that…but I got the impression the ad is in the Herald Trib

Copycat669: so RAH says there was an ad in S&S in Glory Road? Perhaps that’s his statement about how things changed…

ddavitt: After all; why would the S and S have personals about romantic set ups?

Copycat669: REmember um…..was it in Revolt? Where they had the psychobabble specialists who designed media for optimum mind control?

ddavitt: Gottit

ddavitt: He reads the ad THEN walks over to buy the S and S

DennEditor: International Herald Trib, as I recall for the fateful ad.

ddavitt: And finds the ad there too…

DavidWrightSr: Ah Ha.

ddavitt: Then he gets a letter with the ad in it and gets mad

Copycat669: if other media could be used to promote Patriotism and Loyalty to the “Government”, then why not advertise in the Military Publication? Is it a statement he’s making perhaps?

ddavitt: and goes to rue Dante

ddavitt: Dante…clue there maybe?

DennEditor: I am a big fan of the Original New York Herald-Tribune. Staryted careers of Jimmy Breslin, Homar Bigart, Art Buchwald, Tom Wolfe, etc

ddavitt: It’s Star magic I think

ddavitt: She could have put a doctored copy in that shop just for him

DenvToday has entered the room.

ddavitt: Hi Denv.

DennEditor: If he is out of the military, living in France … what is he doing with Stars and Stripes?

ddavitt: We are discussing GR

DenvToday: Hello Jane. Hi everybody!

DennEditor: Howdy!

DavidWrightSr: He was used to reading it so he picked up a copy.

ddavitt: He buys it to see if he’s going to get benefits; to keep up with the nesw

DennEditor: Where? Do they sell it off Army bases?

ddavitt: He buys it in Nice so they must

Copycat669: Keep in mind that this is HEINLEIN”s world. Maybe they do in his world.

ddavitt: From a kiosk, not even an importer

DennEditor: ok, ok

ddavitt: We get UK papers in canada; price of them, printed in gold leaf and several days late of course

DavidWrightSr: Good question, I don’t know. I never saw them outside of bases myself, but then I wasn’t looking.

Copycat669: I dont’ find it so difficult to believe, when I can get most any publication from the internet now. I can also get real life papers from 10 major cities in the US here in Cedar Rapids, Iowa at a special newstand.

ddavitt: Doid anyone feel disappointed that the magic turned out not to be?

Copycat669: man, i need to get my hands on glory road, it seems

ddavitt: That pentacles and all were science not ‘real’ magic?

ddavitt: You’ll enjoy it, trust us:-)

DenvToday: Who was it that said that magic is simply science we don’t understand yet?

DavidWrightSr: Clarke

ddavitt: I dunno…but I want real magic (if that’s not an oxymoron)

ddavitt: Clarke did the ‘advanced society, science is indistinguishable from magic’ which is true

Copycat669: um…The day after tomorrow…

Copycat669: I believe it was Ardmore

ddavitt: I want the disappearing food from magic Inc..that turns out to be morally corrupt when jake wants it in NOTB

Copycat669: NOTB?

ddavitt: Number of the Beast

DavidWrightSr: Not disappearing food, just disappearing calories :-)

Copycat669: gotta get that one too…:-)

ddavitt: We use acronyms a lot

ddavitt: Saves time and typing

DenvToday: Alternate worlds. What seems like magic to us is simply normal physics in an alternate universe. And quantum physics shows us that alternate universes are very possibly real.

ddavitt: especially with a continua device

Copycat669: i know. I’ve got over 22 of the books right now, but if i’ve not read it, i don’t usually recognize it. I appreciate your patience with me.

ddavitt: which is what they universe hop with in NOTB, Tam

DavidWrightSr: Amazing that you should mention that Denv. I said exactly that in a paper I submitted to Bill.

ddavitt: No; I should apologise for using terms you might not know

DennEditor: Yeah, but do the physics in these other universes allow for carbon-based life? ANy life at all?

ddavitt: Force of habit

KultsiKN: K! I’m back

ddavitt: So am I:-)

DenvToday: David, James Hogan has written several excellent non-fiction essays on that subject. He explains it all so clearly.

Copycat669: actually….in Revolt, they “create” magic as well. Do we have another recurring attitude theme? The debunking of magic?

ddavitt: We’re looking at magic in GR turning out not to be

ddavitt: Could be..

DavidWrightSr: I Like Hogan. one of the few newer writers I do like

DavidWrightSr: Although he is not that new now.

DennEditor: Well, we know the universe began with a band and will collapse. Perhaps alternate universes are this process happening over and over again.

ddavitt: But Heinlein wrote v sympathetically about mind power; telepathy especially

Copycat669: Someone sent me a link to a place where you can exchange RAH books. Anybody remember that site?

ddavitt: But made it scientific in Time For The Stars

ddavitt: Yes, I helped invent it

KultsiKN has left the room.

DennEditor: Copy, are you thinking of “Sixth Column”?

DavidWrightSr: There is that quote in Between Planets about all worlds being possible.

geeairmoe2: I need that packing box in GR that just keeps unpacking and unpacking. If I could fit all my junk into one small box …

ddavitt: Hang on I’ll get addie

DavidWrightSr: Sixth Column is the same as The Day After Tomorrow.

KultsiKN has entered the room.

KultsiKN: Duh!

Copycat669: yes….that’s the orginal title. Mine is “New” having been published in 1949. heeheh

DennEditor: Of course.

ddavitt: http://rahbooks.virtualave.net/

Copycat669: yay! thank you!

geeairmoe2: ‘Revolt’ is the one where the religious dictatorship is overthrown. Similar stories.

ddavitt: No problem; use it if you need to; that’s why it’s there

DennEditor: just ignore the opo-up ad … it caused quite a stir in a.f.h.

ddavitt: Only a few books had different titles

DennEditor: pop-up ad ….

ddavitt: I have Space Family Stone rather than Rolling Stones

DennEditor: d’oh

ddavitt: I did as Teresa suggested and got a free pop up killer; working well

ddavitt: You zap em once and it remembers and adds them to a kill file

DennEditor: Opo up killers can keep browsers from opening up legitimate links on some web sites.

ddavitt: They’re a pain all over the net

DennEditor: POP-UP killers ….grrrrrrrrrr

KultsiKN: That’s a good strategy, Jane.

DavidWrightSr: Jane do the pop-up killers kill the ad at the top of the archived logs?

ddavitt: Well, you can disengage it

Copycat669: Actually, in both Day After Tomorrow/6th Column, AND Revolt, there is a religious dictatorship that is defeated with scientific “magic”

DenvToday: One aspect of the characters you see in GR is a running theme in RAH, namely that people are not always what they seem. Rufio seems like a common, brutihs character. Amusing, but not terribly impressive. We slowly learn…

DennEditor: If a link is set up to open in a new browser winder, some popup killers will prevent you from using them

DenvToday: …he is a famous, accomplished scientist, Star’s most trusted advisor.

ddavitt: Can’t remember. Not if it’s just there, only those irritating ones that open and stop you doing stuff

KultsiKN: So right, Ron

DennEditor: In Sixth Column, the dictatorship is foreign …. from Asia, I believe

ddavitt: And her grandson. That was funny

DavidWrightSr: Not quite Tam, in Sixth Column, they used religion to hide their science against non religious invaders, the Pan Asians

Copycat669: True…but in both stories, the “magic” was actually science. So I’m stretching my point…hey, i’m a newbile. :-) or is that newbie? :-)

ddavitt: And some of the people who were in on the secret converted to it

DavidWrightSr: Tripod, where the logs are used to have pop-ups, but they gave me the option to have it embed, so I was wondering. That’s ok Tam, we are tolerant :-)

geeairmoe2: Title warning. ‘The Day After Tomorrow’ is the title of a movie soon going into production. Its NOT Heinlein, its about global warming.

Copycat669: that killed me. I loved it.

ddavitt: That’s the power of religion i guess

ddavitt: Really? That would have given me a shock

Copycat669: You’ve never worked in the heart of a church, then, I take it? Muahahahhahaah

ddavitt: lapsed Catholic at 14

DennEditor: “New bile” that’s what happens to me whenever CryoRandy posts in A.f.h. …

ddavitt: too young to be involved

ddavitt: Heh heh

KultsiKN: LOL, Bill!

ddavitt: I’m just ignoring him and Reilloc; seems to work

DennEditor: I managed to solve my Web space ad problem by actually paying for Web site hosting. It costs $70 a year.

DavidWrightSr: I have 5 names for CryingRandy in my killfile as well as reilloc

KultsiKN: I k-fed both.

ddavitt: I’m in too may contentious thread on the Buffy group; i need peace

DavidWrightSr: Saves a lot of stress.

DennEditor: I put both those losers in my killfile long time ago. Just people keep responding, giving them what they want.

DenvToday: Dean, anytime you can solve an annoying problem for 70 bucks per year, you’ve made an excellent investment.

ddavitt: Big effort not to reply, then it gets easier and this strange serenity flows over you as they ran into a brick wall

ddavitt: strange

DenvToday: Denn, that is. sorry.

ddavitt: So; quick poll

DennEditor: OK. I was wonder who in the heck “Dean” was. lol

Copycat669: i have a hard time sitting on my fingers when it comes to verbal idiots, myself.

DavidWrightSr: Well, if anyone wants to pay for web space for the archives, I’ll be happy to move them, I would do it myself, but we are saving up for my second son’s wedding :-)

DennEditor: We voting someone off the chat room?

ddavitt: Who would’ve been happy living as Star’s gogolo and not gone back on the GR?

ddavitt: No, silly:-)

Paradis401: Sorry I’ve been away for awhile. I’ll catch up. Ginny sends her regards and regrets to y’all. Gone to bed now.

ddavitt: Gigolo

ddavitt: Tell her hi from me and lots of love

DennEditor: gogolo? If you mean “gigolo” I vote “me.”

Paradis401: Will do.

Copycat669: Ginny heinlein joins us here?

DenvToday: How is Mrs. Heinlein’s health these days?

ddavitt: I type, press send look up and see these horrendous spelling mistakes

ddavitt: She does, yes

DavidWrightSr: Go Go Gigolo, yeah man!

Copycat669: *is not worthy* Takes a moment of silence.

ddavitt: Very honoured to have her

DennEditor: Yes, Copy. She is often posts in a.f.h. too.

KultsiKN: Yes, indeedy, we are.

Paradis401: I will tell her. It means a lot to her.

ddavitt: We miss her on the chats.

KultsiKN: It’s hard on her.

geeairmoe2: Tell her Happy Mother’s Day from her ‘children’.

ddavitt: I hesitate to Im her; i worry that she’s chatting to someone or it will involve her in an effort she’s too polite to avoid

DenvToday: I’m a newcomer to the group, but I feel as if I’ve known her for years through the RAH non-fiction stuff and through Tramp Royale.

DavidWrightSr: Yes, she adds a lot even when she doesn’t say much.

KultsiKN: Chat I mean — she’s losing her eyesight

DennEditor: I will be back soon.

DennEditor has left the room.

ddavitt: OK

ddavitt: Ticky was such a lot of fun to read about

DavidWrightSr: That’s why we tell people to bold their text when she is here.

KultsiKN: Yup

ddavitt: I still get thrills at the thought that I have had the chance to talk to her here and in email. One of those very special people you meet in life so rarely.

Copycat669: You know how sometimes at parties, you’re asked who you’d like to have dinner with? Well Robert Heinlein sits right next to Jesus and Paul McCartney.

KultsiKN: LOL, Tam!

Paradis401: With Ginny, of course.

ddavitt: Heh..good thread that would make

Copycat669: To chat with his wife would really really make my day. I’ll look forward to seeing her, hopefully when we discuss a book i’ve actually read.

DenvToday: Jesus probably only ate kosher food. You’d have to make a note to the chef.

geeairmoe2: But Jesus could whip up some fish and bread if the food gets scarce.

Copycat669: Paul’s a vegan too. The menu would be eclectic. We’d probly just order out.

DenvToday: rofl Good point!

geeairmoe2: Wine, too.

Copycat669: ANYWAY! hehehe. I wanna know who’d be a gigolo even though I’m not completely up on the story…

DavidWrightSr: That would make a good philosophical question. Are Vegans vegans?

DenvToday: Are Vegas Las Vegans?

DenvToday: Vegans

ddavitt: He wins his prize; unlimited wealth and happiness but it’s not enough, even with the woman he loves thrown in

KultsiKN: Ennui

ddavitt: He has no job now; he’s useless

ddavitt: Exactly Kultsi

DavidWrightSr: But he wasn’t happy that was the point. No purpose left

ddavitt: But Star says a Frenchman would enjoy it

DennEditor has entered the room.

DavidWrightSr: And she couldn’t leave her job at the office. O:-)

DennEditor: back.

DenvToday: But he doesn’t give it a decent chance. If Star offered herself to me, I’d give it 15-20 years, then reconsider at that time.

Paradis401: Ennui cannot be properly translated to English. At least I can’t.

DennEditor: My mother had to check her e-mail …

geeairmoe2: Whether a husband or a gigolo, it would depend on who the woman was.

Copycat669: a sort of boredom…only more pleasant.

KultsiKN: But Oscar’s a twisted ‘murrican, so he can’t make it…

DenvToday: Why has nobody offered me that kind of boredom? Why, Oh Lord?

ddavitt: When you’re too bored to have the energy to care about it

geeairmoe2: The question isn’t status, its avoidance of boredom.

ddavitt: Or too apathetic to move out of that ray of sunshine that’s right in your eyes

ddavitt: total soul sickness of life

Paradis401: Closest I can come to ennui is heart/homesick.

KultsiKN: It takes one Rufo to shake ya…

ddavitt: That’s more positive an emotion IMO; that implies yearning

ddavitt: Ennui is past any goal

DavidWrightSr: Speaking of Rufo, I can’t help but picture our Dr. Rufo on AFH the same way as Rufo in the book.

Paradis401: Mother use to claim ennui all the time, my father said he didn’t know what it meant.

ddavitt: But, it might not translate the same ,shrug>

KultsiKN: Oscar ain’t got the distance from it yet; he needs to go home first and see things

DenvToday: I had Danny Devito in my mind for Rufo in GR. Am I strange?

ddavitt: It’s not a nice feeling.

Paradis401: :-[

ddavitt: No,him or Bob Hoskins seemd to be favourite

DenvToday: Hoskins would be excellent.

DennEditor: Lets take inventory: Star is the most beautiful, well-built woman on Earth. She will never get old. She is rich. She doesn’t really object to letting the man in her life have sex with other woman. Hmmm. What should I do?

DenvToday: Did RAH have Sancho Panza in mind for Rufo?

ddavitt: If we’re at a casting thread that’s ominous

KultsiKN: Bob Hoskins’ face is too innocent, I think.

Copycat669: Ennui according to Merriam Webster: a feeling of weariness and dissatisfaction.

DennEditor: The actor chosen for Ruffo need not be short. Look at the casting for LOTR.

Copycat669: Does anyone have any comments on the open sexuality of Heinlein’s worlds?

ddavitt: Some words you have a definition in your head in a perfect festalt..but you can’t express it in words

DavidWrightSr: Neither fit my idea of Rufo. Old from the neck up, but kept young and fit from the neck down.

ddavitt: gestalt

DennEditor: I am in favor it it, Copy.;-)

ddavitt: That’s another theme, Tam

ddavitt: As a young teen it sounded cool.

Paradis401: Travolta miniaturized for Rufo.

ddavitt: Now I’m more, oh, who cares?

Copycat669: David, that’s Lazarus Long at the beginning of Time enough for Love

KultsiKN: Can’t we say that RAH was ahead of his times.

DavidWrightSr: But as a Mother with young daughters ? 😀

DennEditor: No. Not travolta. Nicholas Cage? perhaps Bruce Willis?

DenvToday: Not only can we, we must. He was.

ddavitt: That’s probably why; i see what it leads to

ddavitt: :-)

Paradis401: Please don’t despair Jane. We will improve.

ddavitt: I meant sex….kids…too tired for sex

Copycat669: I guess I think it’s a matter of morality. Society shapes our morality. Look at what we put up with nowadays that our great gramps would shudder at. I like the concept of open loving. Especially in the serial marriage concept.

ddavitt: Bad progression followed by..they leave home…too old for sex

Copycat669: but i’m not willing to allow it for my kids…hehehe. :-)

ddavitt: But H said great gramps wouldn’t have shuddered in private; would have been doing them too

ddavitt: remember when he was born 1907

DennEditor: I have a sneaking feeling our “great gramps” were gettin’ in on a lot more than they let on.

DavidWrightSr: I think RAH was aware that real life hadn’t and wouldn’t change. What changed was the ‘openess’ to talk about it

ddavitt: He was as ol as my grandfather

Copycat669: I suppose. I doubt that my Grams had multiple sex in 1914, but I do know she had a child by a man she wasn’t married to. :-)

DennEditor: Are we really more open?

ddavitt: People don’t change much.

DavidWrightSr: Although, I recall my Grandma saying ‘Ben never touched me except to do his duty’ =-O

ddavitt: Rape and pillage becomes rioting soccer fans..

KultsiKN: Yes, we are, and our kids are more open still.

Copycat669: I think that we aren’t. If I were to bring up bestiality, people would cringe. But if i said that my husband and I did threesomes often, it would be sexy. Society determines what we can be open aobut.

ddavitt: My great aunt had to put ointment on her husband in the bath; he wore shorts while she did it

DennEditor: It’s a different type of puritanism, I think.

geeairmoe2: I have brothers 12 years younger and they’ll discuss things in public I wouldn’t.

ddavitt: My husband and I wander round the house naked without a thought. Ahem When it’s just us and the girls that is.

Copycat669: Homosexuality, Promiscuity, Creative Sexuality, are all socially acceptable. But certain sexual practices aren’t.

Copycat669: and by socially acceptable, i mean fashionable.

ddavitt: But there’s a newsgroup for all of ’em now.

Copycat669: LOL Davitt

ddavitt: progress?

Copycat669: Jane, i mean. I’ll learn

ddavitt: I’m not joking either…some of the names made me blush or feel ill

DenvToday has left the room.

Paradis401: RAH was futuristic in his ideas thoroughout his life. Very advanced.

ddavitt: Jane is fine, ddavitt is fine too

KultsiKN: A friend of mine, a young lady, openly tells me about her sexual adventures.

DavidWrightSr: There are always going to be ‘in’ things and ‘out’ things. In that article for Bill, I mentioned, I talk about a character in a story of deCamp’s where the hero is arrested on a beach not for going nude, but for not covering up his belly button.

ddavitt: ‘hey you’ not so good in this set up :-)

ddavitt: Ankles once were incredibly sexy for the Victorians

Copycat669: That sounds like a Heinlein world..:-)

ddavitt: Forbidden fruit…now nothing is so we cover up bits tantalisingly instead

DavidWrightSr: L. Sprague DeCamp, ‘The Wheels of If’

DavidWrightSr: What do you mean were. Still are to me, but I am just barely out of the Victorian age.

ddavitt: Wasn’t it Fear No Evil where they said a g string is sexier than nudity?

ddavitt: nonsense!

Paradis401: Really. I think a G string is more interesting.

KultsiKN: A bit of clothes is always sexier than total nudity…

ddavitt: You are same age as my mum; she’d slap you for saying that

Copycat669: yes. and the description of Eunice painted as teh mermaid turned me on!

Copycat669: and I’m a WOMAN!

KultsiKN: Which is sexy as well 😉

Paradis401: Exactly!

ddavitt: Body paint seemed like a lot of trouble first thing in the morning

ddavitt: But would have been cool for parties

ddavitt: The mermaid one with the nubbly shells was v intriguing

KultsiKN: I’ve got some very interesting body paint pics.

DavidWrightSr: There was a recent ad in computer magazines where you couldn’t tell if a person had on a bathing suit or whether it was painted on.

Copycat669: I openly resist eyeshadow. Body paint would suck on me. But to see it, well, that’s something I’d like to do before I die.

ddavitt: Tam; did you think Eunice was black or white?

DenvToday has entered the room.

DavidWrightSr: WB Denv.

DenvToday: Thanks.

ddavitt: Just wondered what impression you got from the book?

ddavitt: As it’s one of those frequently debated topics

Copycat669: Wow, Jane. Great question. I’m not sure. But I think she was white because she describes her complexion after joe’s meticulous standards of cleaning as “creamy”

Paradis401: I thought Eunice was nicely coloured – by Joe.

ddavitt: Apparently H wrote it with two photos of lovely women in front of him; one black one white

ddavitt: But she may have been black.

Copycat669: well…and coffee can have cream in it….:-)

ddavitt: This would have added to the ‘shock factor’ in 1970

ddavitt: But it was very subtle if so

Copycat669: POV has a lot do with it too. I’m white. I envision myself as Eunice. :-) A prettier version, anyway.

ddavitt: The other character is Rod from Tunnel in the Sky

DavidWrightSr: Color is always in the eyes of the beholder. Without it being obvious, I always thought of his characters as white. Lingering traces of racism.

Paradis401: Socially speaking – RAH was colourblind. Very advanced man.

ddavitt: true, I did too, i think. I thought of her as a brunetter fro the colours she wears in clothes

Copycat669: I agree. Where that is concerned, I sheepishly admit to being biased that way as well.

ddavitt: natural to identify with hero

DenvToday: RAH was fond of that. Podkayne and Tunnel in the Sky are proof of that.

ddavitt: brb

DenvToday: I was about to use the acronym for Tunnel in the Sky, then thought better of it. lol

Paradis401: 😀

Copycat669: I escape into books. When I’m working on a book, it’s not odd for me to be in a trance with my nose in a book, and then use a phrase like Roz or Grok soon after “returning” to the Real World.

DavidWrightSr: I still have trouble emotionally accepting that Rod was not white, because his and Carolyn’s relationship had a lot to do with my thinking on racism.

DennEditor: Yeah, that could have caused a tittering of laughter.

DennEditor: *ahem*

DenvToday:

DavidWrightSr: Punners, get you hence to an Asimov discussiion 😎

KultsiKN:

DenvToday: lol

Copycat669: *enjoying this very very much*

DennEditor: You are all jealous that *I* thought of it first.

DavidWrightSr: Am I still alone in thinking that Sam Beaux was not black?

KultsiKN: P~~~~

ddavitt: I go away to get lauren some milk and woosh, the conversation plunges punwards

Copycat669: SAM BEAUX! Oh my….

ddavitt: Yes you are.

ddavitt: More puns..sigh

geeairmoe2: Now that the talk of sex has died down, I’ll chance breaking for some supper. I’ll try to rejoin later. Happy Mother’s Day to all the mommies.

ddavitt: H was wicked

ddavitt: Thank you:-)

Paradis401: Was Sam not Black?

ddavitt: But not as much as in Star Beast

DavidWrightSr: Well, think about it. wasn’t all of that just a little too racist for RAH?

KultsiKN: About time to take ten?

DenvToday: See you then!

geeairmoe2 has left the room.

ddavitt: Sure, we can break

ddavitt: But I will have to leave for good once L has had her bottle; bath time is nigh

DavidWrightSr: For those who are in the dark (no pun intended), I have this theory that Marshall Sam Beaux is indeed not black.

DenvToday: It’s past midnight for you, isn’t it Jane?

Paradis401: RAH was never racist. Never, never…. he hated racism as much as stipidity and slavery.

ddavitt: Have you read Star Beast Tam?

ddavitt: No, 6.30 pm

ddavitt: Ontario

Copycat669: But I think that you can be “not racist” on different levels

KultsiKN: Not for Jane; for me, yes.

ddavitt: Hero is john Thomas

DenvToday: Oh…sorry, I keep thinking you’re in the UK

Copycat669: and society again helps define what racism is.

Copycat669: nope…still trying to get Starbeast

DavidWrightSr: RAH goes to a lot of trouble to describe his ‘blackness’, but it is all in his uniform and name. He is never described as being black himself and there is the problem with Richard being the same color.

ddavitt: Great joke about going away to raise John thomas’s that H slipped in over Alice Dalgleish’s editorial eye

DenvToday: Yes, I’ve read about that one. lol

Copycat669: Wait a Menit! I DO have starbeast

ddavitt: I didn’t get it despite having read lady Chatterly’ Lover

ddavitt: And being English.

ddavitt: If you’re not expecting it, it slides past as an innocent coincidence

DavidWrightSr: I never did get it until it was pointed out. But we never used that term in my neighborhood

ddavitt: More of a Uk term maybe

KultsiKN: Nor mine 😉

Copycat669: OMG. How freaky. You are right. It slipped right past me.

DenvToday: Mr. Johnson pointed it out to me.

Paradis401: Maybe you have something there, David. RAH was great at puzzles.

Copycat669: I guess I should read Lady chatt’s lover, too. What is it about that that is so funny?

DennEditor: Heh heh Denv.

ddavitt: John Thomas’s ringed round with flowers is a very funny bit.

DavidWrightSr: Better IM her Jane, so I want have to edit the log for the kids who read it :-)

ddavitt: It wasn’t a shocking book for the sex so much as the social and class boundaries that were crossed

ddavitt: Lady C having a raging affair with the gamekeeper is one thing; leaving her husband for him..tut tut

ddavitt: But John thomas is a slang expression for penis..raising JT’s takes on a whole new meaning

ddavitt: when lummox wants to breed her pets

Copycat669: OMG!! ROFLMAO!

ddavitt: Yes, i did that too when it came up, er got mentioned on afh

Paradis401: Jane, I never thought of that. JT. You are sharp!

DenvToday: It was hard for me to accept.

KultsiKN: ROTFLMAO

ddavitt: Not me; it got pointed out by someone

Copycat669: See, that’s what got me the most. Lummox, the pet, was actually the master. I think my Cat is on the level of Lummox

ddavitt: i’m dim and dense

Paradis401: Here we go again! 😀

ddavitt: we all know that feeling

ddavitt: We pretty much all have cats here I think

DenvToday: Me too Jane. I sometimes feel so thick.

DennEditor: *resist*urge*to*make*bad*puns

Paradis401: Yes. Lots of cats and puns.

ddavitt: I didn’t get the anagrams in NOTB, I found out THIS WEEK about Bertie and Betty in Oz…duh

ddavitt: I need to read the books again MORE CAREFULLY

DennEditor: What is that, Jane?

Copycat669: And the idea that we are all living in an ant farm of some higher being is something I’ve put a lot of thought in on….What’s the Bertie and Betty in Oz?

ddavitt: But I start to and get carried away by the story

DavidWrightSr: It took me 25 years to realize that ‘tanstaafl’ was really ‘TANSTAAFL’ an acronym, even though it was spelled out for me in the book.

ddavitt: Bertie and Betty they meet on mars 10, then on OZ they bump into a couple with similar names

DavidWrightSr: I was glad to find that others had thought the same as I did.

ddavitt: I assumed they were bonafide OZ characters; turns out not

ddavitt: I was puzzled by it too david; not just you

ddavitt: Thye are analogs of the mars 10 couple

KultsiKN: Never read the OZ books…

DavidWrightSr: However, that led to my ‘great thought’. So much of Heinlein depends on ‘unconscious assumptions’.

ddavitt: Like iake in the world without a J

ddavitt: I have the first 12 or so,some are good, others not

ddavitt: I got the later ones because H mentioned them

ddavitt: I read them as a child but not all in print then, just 3 or 4

ddavitt: Read the Barsoom books because of NOTB too

Copycat669: I think it’s phenomenal how one author influences another.

ddavitt: Oh, yes!

ddavitt: And i read jerome K jerome because of have Space Suit

DavidWrightSr: We’ve had several authors here as guest who were greatly influenced by RAH.

ddavitt: Three men in A Boat and the can opener

KultsiKN: found that book in a SA thrift shop recently.

ddavitt: Joel Rosenberg, poul Anderson, Robert Crais…Larry Niven, Jerry pournelle, L Smith..did I miss anyone?

KultsiKN: Haven’t read it.

ddavitt: Great book; very funny. And the sequel and his other works

DenvToday: Spider Robinson

ddavitt: No, as guests here I mean

Paradis401: Tom Clancy

DenvToday: Oh, I see. lol

ddavitt: Nut yes, Spider, big fan

Copycat669: a friend’s trying to get me to read spider robinson. but i have arachnophobia

ddavitt: BUT I meant but

KultsiKN: Appears on a.f.h. occasionally

ddavitt: Heh..they don’t get mentioned past the title page

Copycat669: I’m being facetious. I have little faith in any book written after I was born.

DenvToday: The entire “libertarian” win of SF views RAH as their guru.

ddavitt: Which was….?

DenvToday: wing

ddavitt: I was 38 on Tuesday

DenvToday: Happy Birthday!

AGplusone has entered the room.

ddavitt: Thank you:-)

Paradis401: But Robert was not a libertarian.

DenvToday: Dave, hello!

ddavitt: Hi AG

KultsiKN: Jane! Many happy returns!

Paradis401: Hi AG

DenvToday: Perhaps not, but he edged toward it near the end.

AGplusone: [Hi, all … please go on. I’ll catch up]

ddavitt: I am not bothered by 38; 40 might need some intensive therapy

Copycat669: I’ll be 33 in a month or so. But Koontz and King give me many headaches. but i read them to have intelligent discussion with friends. *smiles* I think I’ve read my last Horror Novel!!!!!

ddavitt: I hate horror and gruesome stories

ddavitt: Never read em

Paradis401: How old is Koontz. King is around 58

ddavitt: But Tam, in that case, lots of H was written after you were born?

Copycat669: age doesn’t matter. Book has to be written before 1969 with the exception of later works of those I deem literarily worthy. Such as RAH. Call me a literary snob. I’ll read anything, but I find that I enjoy much more those

Copycat669: meeting the criteria

ddavitt: Well, i read detective books mostly and there are a lot of excellent authors nowadays

ddavitt: But I still enjoy the classics too. i think you might be limiting yourself there:-)

DavidWrightSr: We almost share a birthday Jane, Mine was the previous Saturday.

ddavitt: Neat!

ddavitt: taurean?(That would bug Heinlein!)

DenvToday: Same here Jane. I grew up on the Travis Magee series. I darn near ran off to Ft. Lauderdale.

Copycat669: Ok…so here’s the question I want to ask RAH at my dinner: What did Betty’s parents do to justify her divorce?

ddavitt: brb; cat emergency

AGplusone: Probably try to overprotect her.

KultsiKN: We are drinking my son’s quarter century over here… Taurus, next Monday

DenvToday: Congratulations!

DavidWrightSr: I thought you were about that age yourself, Kultsi

Paradis401: Ditto

AGplusone: Limit her efforts to be mature.

ddavitt: Good question.

KultsiKN: DUH! A bit more than twice that

Copycat669: It’s not fair that she whispers it to JT. I will refrain from any descriptive comments about whispering to a JT.

ddavitt: (Nearly had an escape into the garden as L just learned to open patio doors)

ddavitt: hehe

DenvToday: Cats are smart.

Copycat669: wait til L learns how to open the fridge. Wait a menit….isn’t L the child?

DavidWrightSr: Well, everybody comes across to me as young on the internet :-)

ddavitt: Talisker can open the sliding doors very well

ddavitt: Lauren yes but the cats took advantage and rushed out into the garden

ddavitt: We had to chase and capture

KultsiKN: David, you ain’t that much senior to me or David AG.

Copycat669: I got the impression that Betty’s parents tried to indoctrine her in religion of some sort from the discussion that was open.

ddavitt: They’re not allowed out this late

AGplusone: My cat can open any door in the house: stands there scratching it until someone gets tired and opens it for him.

DenvToday: Jane, I just sent you an e-mail. I think you’ll find it amusing.

ddavitt: Or at all since a neighbour reported us:-(

ddavitt: I’ll check it out,thanks. Well I better go and bathe the monsters.

DavidWrightSr: I was 62 on May 4th. IIRC, Dan Davis and I had the same birthday. 5-4-40

ddavitt: Can’t believe Canada has byelaws that say cats have to be indoors or stay in their own gardens

AGplusone: Anyone born on the fourth of anything is a good person!

DenvToday: I sent it to you too Dave.

ddavitt: How do you tell a cat that?

DavidWrightSr: My cat who is 22 years old, was de-clawed and she can use her paws just like little hands, she can open a lot of doors.

ddavitt: No email yet; do you have most recent addie?

Copycat669: a 22 year old cat??

Paradis401: Well fed.

DavidWrightSr: Yep. when we took her to the vet’s he had archived her records years ago, thought she had to be dead.

DenvToday: I used it. Thanks Jane

DennEditor: Howdy David!

Copycat669: Betty and JT are talking about his aunt who believes in astrology just before she asks if she’s ever told him why she had to divorce her parents.

DavidWrightSr: She also has this annoying habit of waking me up at 6:00 (almost) on the dot. Adjusts for time changes too.

ddavitt: Right, have to go. AG is there a THS meet tomorrow?

DavidWrightSr: Hi. Dave (the younger). Just now saw that you had arrived.

AGplusone: So far as I know, yes, Jane. Bill’s traveling. Probably be short.

AGplusone: Like an hour

DennEditor: I had to leave for a moment. Did I miss any good puns?

ddavitt: See you there then. Night everyone; thanks for a fun chat.

AGplusone: Hi, Dave

Copycat669: and it’s just plain evil to make two people who are completely alone whisper to each other. That can’t be for any good reason except to give me dinner conversation when we die and eat with Jesus and Paul.

ddavitt has left the room.

DavidWrightSr: Denv. just got your e-mail.

DenvToday: Hope you like it. It gave me a chuckle.

SAcademy has entered the room.

KultsiKN: Jane’s a fast girl…

DennEditor: Hello Mrs. H.

KultsiKN: Hello, Ginny!

DenvToday: Good afternoon Mrs. Heinlein!

Paradis401: Hi Ginny.

Copycat669: Hello, Mrs. Heinlein. I’m new to the group. I’m Tammy. Tam for short.

DavidWrightSr: Welcome Ginny.

SAcademy: Can’t stay. Just dropped in to say hello.

KultsiKN: How’s life?

AGplusone: Hi, Ginny . . . you just missed Jane who just left. Feeling good I hope?

SAcademy: Fair, thank you. I have been very ill.

AGplusone: We were just discussing why Betty Sorenson divorced her parents … in Star Beast.

AGplusone: rather, we were guessing … since she whispers it

SAcademy: Maybe because she didn’t like them

DenvToday: lol As good a reason as I can think of.

DavidWrightSr: If you think about it, RAH threw in a lot of those kind of things. questions that had no answer, I think that he did it to stimulate our own imaginations.

Copycat669: or to give us dinner conversation…:-)

SAcademy: And some of them are coming true right now.

DavidWrightSr: Or give us something to discuss in chat rooms or on newsgroups O:-)

AGplusone: Was thinking: the bureaucracy supervising ‘divorced’ children must not have been too onerous or rule-bound …

DennEditor has left the room.

AGplusone: Otherwise no one would divorce their parents except for the really restricted kids

SAcademy: Nite, all.

DavidWrightSr: There was a movie, can’t remember the name, where the kid wanted to divorce her parents.

AGplusone: Night Ginny.

Copycat669: a professional guardian “didn’t have nutty ideas” and they were just discussing astrology and religion. I think it had more to do with that….

DenvToday: Bye the way…have you all seen the news? A chimp (or is it a gorilla. Can’t remember which) is having a hearing determining whether he has human rights and can be represented in court.

Paradis401: Nite Ginny.

Copycat669: Night mrs. heinlein!

SAcademy has left the room.

DavidWrightSr: s’ pokoijnij nochi Ginny

DenvToday: RAH was about 40 years early on this one.

AGplusone: Really? Is it the one out here where they’re refusing to allow the ‘owners’ to take him from a ‘shelter’ they put him in last year?

DenvToday: I believe so.

AGplusone: “Jerry Was a Man”

DenvToday: Yep!

Copycat669: imagine a jehovah’s witness child suing for divorce to have a blood transfusion….

AGplusone: Could be imagined rather easily. What usually happens, through, is a

AGplusone: children’s court representative does that after being appointed

KultsiKN: Reminds me of a movie I once saw… Waited till she died and then resuscitated

KultsiKN: When the parents did not give their consent

AGplusone: Maybe Betty’s parents refused to consent to allowing her to attend sex education classes: wanted her to be content with “just say no” abstinence classes.

AGplusone: Or insisted she attend “creationism” biology classes rather than evolution ones?

DenvToday: Well, I must be off. Great discussion as always. Bye everybody. Thanks for a terrific afternoon.

KultsiKN: Comes the time when a young lady can’t say no.

AGplusone: See you Bill. IM me, please.

DenvToday has left the room.

Copycat669: DenvToday is bill, right?

AGplusone: ooops, I got confused. No, Denv is “Ron”

KultsiKN: Denv = ron

Paradis401: Well you gonna get an IM

KultsiKN: Denn is Bill

DavidWrightSr: Names are confusing here. We have several each of Davids, Rons, Bills and probably others

DavidWrightSr: Only one Kultsi :-)

KultsiKN: DennEditor, that is.

KultsiKN: Yup.

Paradis401: Only one Denis who spells his name with one n as in willy.

KultsiKN: Y?

Copycat669: hehee. Or John Thomas. *still laughing about that one*

DavidWrightSr: But Bill (DennEditor) is Bill Dennis. still confusing.

Paradis401: Correct, Tam. One N

DavidWrightSr: The ladies are a lot less confusing. I wonder if there is something ominous about that ?:-)

Copycat669: You’ll have to wonder….muahhahahhahaha…

Copycat669: I mean tee hee

KultsiKN: Uh… the people there are talking about ghosts at my homestead…

Paradis401: Meaning?

KultsiKN: They are confused.

Paradis401: 😀

KultsiKN: Instead of there, here.

AGplusone: How can the ladies be “less confusing”? Generically they’re necessarily confusing.

Copycat669: So what book are we going to lead off with for our next chat?

Paradis401: Huh?

Copycat669: As though I could limit my discussion to just ONE Of the delicious morsels.

AGplusone: Brand X … little knowledge of the unknown chromosome exists.

KultsiKN: Ladies are ‘terra incognita’ 😀

Paradis401: The ladies might debate that. Including our Commodora.

AGplusone: [leave this in, Dave. Wanna see if Jane pays me back]

DavidWrightSr: Names are less confusing not the ladies themselves, that’s an oxymoron

Paradis401: She will…. in spades

KultsiKN: Right, Dave!

AGplusone: I’m open to any book. Which one would you like to try, Tom?

KultsiKN: Tammy

AGplusone: Sorry ….

AGplusone: Tammy

Paradis401: Go for it Cat.

DavidWrightSr: How about Sixth Column. Have we done that recently? We were talking about it a little earlier

AGplusone: Need new glasses ….

Paradis401: If this goes on?

Copycat669: Sixth column was good. My favorites are now The Moon, then To Sail, then Fear No Evil

KultsiKN: Good choice, I’ll go for it.

Paradis401: Which of the above?

KultsiKN: Tam, how about Time Enough?

AGplusone: Hehehe … IWFNE … could pick that one. Start with the “Why do people feel it’s so poorly written . . . unedited?”

KultsiKN: AG!

Copycat669: Poorly written!! omg!!

Paradis401: AG Ugh!

AGplusone: I.e., how would you/or RAH “improve” it? (by editing what?)

Copycat669: Time enough…oh yeah…fit that in, um…well, tie it up with To Sail.

Paradis401: TEFL sounds good.

KultsiKN: Yeah, Tam, surely.

DavidWrightSr: I’m agreeable. TEFL

Copycat669: Time enough is a pretty big can of worms. I’m game. :-)

Paradis401: Yay!

DavidWrightSr: Im sorry. IWFNE

KultsiKN: TEFL, my fave.

Paradis401: Me too. Please?

DavidWrightSr: Either. I prefer TEFL myself. IWFNE is not my favorite

KultsiKN: It’s one of Jane’s.

AGplusone: You get to pick, Tam … I think that’s what we’re saying …

DavidWrightSr: Then you don’t have any excuse to stay silent. What am I saying, you didn’t keep silent this time :-)

KultsiKN: Yes, AG: Tam’s choice.

AGplusone: And you can start the ‘war’ by asking the loaded question as TreeTopAngel (Elizabeth) did this last time …. :-)

Copycat669: Let’s go with Time Enough. That opens up the whole trilogy quite nicely. :-)

Paradis401: 😀

AGplusone: ‘kay 😀

KultsiKN: YES!

KultsiKN: My fave.

Copycat669: and next time Kultsi picks. :-)

AGplusone: sex with children and all . . .

DavidWrightSr: In 2 weeks. the 23rd and 25th?

Paradis401: Applause

KultsiKN: Oh, Tam!

Copycat669: Works for me. :-)

Copycat669: Sex with children? Oh no…sit on my hands til next time…

Copycat669: what was treetop’s question?

Copycat669: so that I can prepare my rebuttal?

DavidWrightSr: Did you read my archive. It was the first post

AGplusone: cluckcluckcluck …. (she asked: why does everyone say Oscar is one of the incompetent Heinlein heroes?)

Copycat669: Oscar…i don’t remember Oscar…

Paradis401: Nuhunh, I never said that.

DavidWrightSr: Oscar Gordon, otherwise known as Evelyn Cyril Gordon.

KultsiKN: In GR…

AGplusone: The ‘sex with children’ issue is the one the trolls always pick on to start the war on TEFL … ignorning a few facts such as, fer example, actual “age” . . .

KultsiKN: Or the consanguity

AGplusone: in Da Capo when Ted Bronson is just about to be dropped off . . . on Earth before WW I

KultsiKN: And his escapade with Maureen

AGplusone: so we get into the why isn’t it (1) incest, and (2) child abuse . . . ?

Paradis401: That was most proper.

AGplusone: and then go on to mommie and Ted

Copycat669: I think…oh darn. I’d sit here and chat all night and day if you’d all let me.

AGplusone: and related ‘feminist issues’ . . .

AGplusone: You may

DavidWrightSr: It can be hobbit forming

Paradis401: Ted was always a gentleman.

Copycat669: I LOVED those books!!

Paradis401: No Woody.

KultsiKN: Tam, for me it’s night 😀

Copycat669: OK…i suppose my loose sexual ideas will pin me to the wall in THAT conversation, eh?

KultsiKN: 2.30, AM

DavidWrightSr: How long before sunrise Kultsi?

AGplusone: The post TreeTopAngel made didn’t exactly pin her.

KultsiKN: Four hours

DavidWrightSr: that long. I seem to remember a lot shorter nights when I was in Northern Germany.

KultsiKN: The summer is getting nigh.

AGplusone: No one just sent me an “Instant Greeting” by video did they?

AGplusone: I’m bout to delete it without opening.

DavidWrightSr: Good suggestion.

Paradis401: Ditto.

KultsiKN: Video is not usually bad.

AGplusone: Agree, but I’m tired of spam …

KultsiKN: BTW, you’ve got Mac

DavidWrightSr: Was that an AIM instant video?

AGplusone: Yes, one other reason … half the time the ‘doz requires I download yet one more plug-in …

DavidWrightSr: do you have id of who sent it?

AGplusone: Dunno, it’s gone where deleted spam goes

Copycat669: I don’t send those things for that reason alone. :-)

AGplusone: I rarely send spam to AOL to let them fool with it anymore

AGplusone: Just click delete

DavidWrightSr: I was just wondering. Felicia is on with a new name and thought she might have been the one. ‘infobabefgh’

AGplusone: That was the name she used Thursday, yes?

DavidWrightSr: Right

KultsiKN: I saw it, 2

Copycat669: say ok. So I have AIM. If I log on and don’t have an invite, can I just join on my own somehow?

AGplusone: Yes. On Mac or Windows?

KultsiKN: Yes.

DavidWrightSr: Click on ‘File–>Create Shortcut’ if you are on PC

Copycat669: Choking on the mere IDEA of macintosh. Windows.

AGplusone: If Windows Dave will tell you how to shortcut. If Mac I’ll tell you how to invite yourself.

Copycat669: so i just hit on that and it will link me?

Copycat669 has left the room.

AGplusone: In the immortal words of Daffy Duck, you do realize that “this means war!”

Copycat669 has entered the room.

Copycat669: Yay! it worked!!

KultsiKN: WB, Tam!

DavidWrightSr: File–>Create Shortcut and OK. It will create a link on desktop. It works better if you start AIM first then click on it

DavidWrightSr: Must have hit the wrong button.

AGplusone: AGplusone (4:35:17 PM): In the immortal words of Daffy Duck, you do realize that “this means war!”

AGplusone: You missed that one … so I copied it.

Copycat669: Um, that would be a good translation of Thith meanth war!

AGplusone:

AGplusone: Yes.

Paradis401: Should we be armed for big gear or baby bear?

DavidWrightSr: It works better if you start AIM first then click on the shortcut

KultsiKN: I always do it that way.

Copycat669: I dunno. I’m not sure. But I do say things that aren’t always rated PG.

AGplusone: And as everyone knows, I have modeled my life after Daffy … armored against use of the weapon Marvin the Martian uses …. I forget what he calls it.

AGplusone: Look around and see whether we have any kiddies present, then say it … if not.

Paradis401: Grizzly or just plain bear?

Copycat669: It’s really hard when you’re discussing heinlein, don’t you think? I mean most of his adult novels are just LOADED with sexual innuendo. And his hints make me hotter than most author’s blatant descriptions.

Copycat669: *blushes* I just told a room of virtual strangers that Heinlein makes me hot.

AGplusone: We can discuss that.

AGplusone: Have you heard of The Heinlein Journal?

AGplusone: Do you know THS website?

AGplusone: there’s a link to THJ on the “Links” page.

DavidWrightSr: Arrgh, Got dropped

KultsiKN has left the room.

jilyd has entered the room.

AGplusone: Hi, Dee

KultsiKN has entered the room.

Paradis401: Hi Dee.

DavidWrightSr: Hi Sourthen Lady

DavidWrightSr: Southern

Paradis401: Welcome back Kultsi.

KultsiKN: Saved, and got kicked out. Duh!

jilyd: Hi. If you can’t look at the clock and come at the right time, just look at the calendar and come on the right day, eh?

AGplusone: Close enough for Government work, Dee.

KultsiKN: LOL

KultsiKN: Hi, Dee dear!

DavidWrightSr: Dee are you on my mailing list?

jilyd: Hi, both davids, Hi Cutie & Denis. Who’s Copycat?

DavidWrightSr: That’s Tammy, our newcomer

Paradis401: David W am I on your mailing list?

jilyd: I don’t think so, DW, I’m not getting any mailings. Didn’t realize you had one. Hi Tammy, welcome!

DavidWrightSr: If you didn’t get notice of thursday’s log, then you aren’t or I have wrong address

Copycat669: Hi Dee. I’m tam. :-)

DavidWrightSr: IM me and I’ll add you

Paradis401: What’s new Dee?

AGplusone: Send me a copy of your EMail too Dee, please.

DavidWrightSr: I got it David. I’ll send it to you

jilyd: Getting ready to go to Hamvention next week. Anyone here near Dayton, OH? I would like to ask on the ng, but I don’t really like to advertise that I will be on the road to possible lurkers.

Copycat669: what’s Hamvention?

AGplusone: Durn! No. I think our closest to that area is Ron Harrison and he’s in Illinois, or DennEditor, who’s in Peoria of some such place.

jilyd: An Amateur Radio hamfest (buying and selling, new and used) cum convention. The biggest one in the world, as far as I know. 30,000 – 40,000 attend from all over the world.

AGplusone: Ah, the dididumdumdidi convention.

Copycat669: Ah. WEll Ron and Bill have me beat by a state. I’m in Iowa. :-)

AGplusone: You do know dididumdumdidi, Dee?

Copycat669: But it’s often confused for Ohio…

KultsiKN: Dee, you’re a ham?

AGplusone: In my childhood, when I was about the age of Oscar, my rich uncle made me an Army ham (?) ….

Copycat669: I’ve been called a Pig before. Even a sow. But a HaM?

AGplusone: among other things.

Paradis401: Oh AG, you’re not punning? It’s getting late here.

AGplusone: No. dididumdumdidi is the morse signal for IMI, which means “I say again” in morse, or is a request to “repeat”

jilyd: Well, I passed my 5 wpm, but I haven’t used it since, so I would not say I know it. Got my no-code tech ticket about 8 yrs ago, moved up to t+ just before the new licensing structure. Gotta get to work on General.

AGplusone: but the Army never uses the word “repeat” except for one special thing …

AGplusone: having to do with Artillery firing strikes

KultsiKN: Fyuuu! Tech is a bit tougher…

DavidWrightSr: My brother in law is a HAM and tried to teach me morse when I was 10. Learned it,but never got up any speed, so never became a HAM. :-(

jilyd: In voice mode, recommendation is to use “say again” since “repeat” can sound like “received.”

Copycat669: Um, I’m in voice mode. 😉

AGplusone: “repeat” on an Army net means only “Fire the same barrage again, NOW!”

Copycat669: didididumdumdumdididi

AGplusone: IOI

DavidWrightSr: SOS

Copycat669: was that binary??

AGplusone: yes …

Copycat669: and I only know SOS because of the horrible kitchen cleanser commercials. 😉

DavidWrightSr: The problem is as I see it is that Morse is really trinary, without spaces, you can’t tell things apart

AGplusone: You never write it out. Just learn to recognize it when you hear it

AGplusone: That’s why it’s a signal. You omit the spaces

jilyd: DW, the current maximum speed is 5 wpm for any level license. That is the international minimum, I believe, for the lower bands.

KultsiKN: One common sound on mobile here is dihdihdih dumdum dihdihdih

AGplusone: for example: INT QSA QRK means what is the strength and legibility of my signal? and you don’t put the spaces in.

jilyd: Yeah, AG, everyone recommends against learning CW by sight, say you should learn by sound. Only way to break the 10 wpm barrier, so I hear.

DavidWrightSr: Maximum? Minimum?

jilyd: I never did learn the Q signals, since I only operate phone.

AGplusone: Only way to break 21 . . .

AGplusone: You can’t think about it.

jilyd: DW, 5 is min/max, except for tech which is code-free.

AGplusone: Yes. I remember. Thought about getting a civilian license once.

DavidWrightSr: Without spaces how do you tell dididi dumdum dididi from didididum dumdididi?

KultsiKN: No way?

AGplusone: You just learn the conventions.

jilyd: DW, you use spaces between letter and words, but when a combination of letters makes a special signal, like the Q signals, you “bunch” them.

AGplusone: There is an SOS, but there isn’t VB that means anything in particular

AGplusone: Dee said it another way

Copycat669: well, gang. I’m headed out to go grocery shop. It’s the only guilt free spending I get…

AGplusone: LOL

DavidWrightSr: Made my point. You have to use spaces sometime, so that makes it trinary, not binary.

Copycat669: If you’re still here when I get back, I’ll join back in.

AGplusone: didadididadadadidadidit

jilyd: Good to meet you, CC.

KultsiKN: Bye, Tam, nice having you around!

DavidWrightSr: Thanks for coming Tam

AGplusone: Thinking of it that way, yes, David

Paradis401: Me got to go too, night all, and thanks.

AGplusone: Nice to meet you Tam

Copycat669: You too, dee and all. I’m going to be ecstatic to play in this sandbox.

Paradis401 has left the room.

jilyd: Bye, denis.

AGplusone: Did you find the link Tam?

Copycat669: yep. it’s on my desktop.

AGplusone: for the Journal?

Copycat669: I’m on all the time, btw. So feel free to engage in private chat if you feel like it. You might have to remind me who you are, but I’ll get it eventuatlly

Copycat669: Oh. not for the journal. I’ll get it another time

AGplusone: ‘kay, ask me again if you forget about it

DavidWrightSr: You on DSL?

KultsiKN: K, Tam, got you added on the buddy list…

DavidWrightSr: Ok folks, that looks like it for tonight.

DavidWrightSr: Log officially closed at 8:09 P,M.

KultsiKN: Dave, did you get it all?

AGplusone: G’nite from New York, David

KultsiKN: Nite, AG!

DavidWrightSr: Got everything.

KultsiKN: Good!

DavidWrightSr: Night everyone

jilyd: Good night, AG.

AGplusone: Wanna keep going, Dee?

KultsiKN: Dee?

jilyd: Only for a bit,.

DavidWrightSr: If y’all do and say anything of importance let me have the log.
Final End Of Discussion Log

Click Here to Return to Index

Posted in Readers Group | Leave a comment

Heinlein Reader’s Discussion Group Thursday 05-09-02 09:00 P.M. EDT Glory Road

Heinlein Reader’s Discussion Group

Thursday 05-09-02 09:00 P.M. EDT

Glory Road

Click Here to Return to Index

Here Begin The A.F.H. postings

[Editor’s Note] There was no formal lead-off for this discussion. Elizabeth (TreeTopAngel) started]

I am still a novice in finding discussion points in stories and as I am reading I am taking notes, but none of them seem to be quite what is usually discussed. Help me out, please!

Still trying to figure out why “Scar” Gordon is considered an incompetent…

Thanks,

Elizabeth

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Man who look to stale cookie for advice
probably make good busboy.
Ask waitress for application.
~~Fortune Cookie

On Wed, 24 Apr 2002 18:01:28 GMT, “TreetopAngel”held forth, saying:

>I am still a novice in finding discussion points in stories and as I am
>reading I am taking notes, but none of them seem to be quite what is usually
>discussed. Help me out, please!
>
>Still trying to figure out why “Scar” Gordon is considered an incompetent…

 

? by whom, and in what way? The Army kept promoting him. His getting busted back down had far more to do with his reaction to silly-ass orders than to his overall competence, iirc. Obviously Her Wisdom doesn’t so consider him.

Though as he’s a bit of a square peg in a round planet, there would be those who consider him incompetent for not being like themselves. (hmm. Is that Randy’s problem?)


-denny-
nocturnal curmudgeon, editor

Never try to outstubborn a cat. – Lazarus Long

TreetopAngel wrote:

>Still trying to figure out why “Scar” Gordon is considered an incompetent…

Most “incompetents” in RAH are only so by comparison to his usual characters. Heinlein was certainly messing around with less than usually competent characters in 1962-66 or so, and you could consider Oscar one of them. However, he’s not as much incompetent as clueless and shoved around by circumstances and events well known to and well understood by the other main characters. Since we see the story from his POV, he can come off as incompetent – but then, how well would any of us respond to being tossed into the same situations? :)

| James Gifford – Nitrosyncretic Press |
| http://www.nitrosyncretic.com for the Heinlein FAQ & more |
| Tired of auto-spam… change “not” to “net” for replies |

TreetopAngel wrote:

>I am still a novice in finding discussion points in stories and as I am
>reading I am taking notes, but none of them seem to be quite what is usually
>discussed. Help me out, please!
>
>Still trying to figure out why “Scar” Gordon is considered an incompetent…

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

I perked up my ears at the word “incompetent.”

Evelyn Cyril Gordon is NOT on the first string of any team — with the possible exception of the fencing squad.

His grades are NOT the best. Perhaps this is an application of his dictum that he “never runs faster than he needs to run” hence his nickname of “Easy.”

In the Army, he consistently loses his promotion “stripes” and then earns them back because “the patrols he leads come back safely.”

He is chosen by Her Wisdom CCIV, aka “Star,” to be her personal Hero in the Quest of the Egg of the Phoenix. In which quest he and his “patrol” come back safely.

He “wins” the Irish Sweepstakes without the overt intervention of any “higher power” beyond his own “skill” at poker.

He is a “gentleman” because he has “true courtesy.” Proof: When he has returned to Southern California, he receives a letter from an (unnamed) Congressman in which he is informed that certain errors have been corrected. In the eyes of the US government he is/was a “war orphan” and should have been entitled to a higher financial benefit from said government. Further, there has been an extension granted to allow him to benefit from this change. Oscar writes a thank-you letter to that Congressman, “the best I knew how.”

Ma’am, easier to confound Igli with a paradox than to find “proofs” that the Hero Oscar is incompetent.

 

>Man who look to stale cookie for advice
>probably make good busboy.
>Ask waitress for application.
>~~Fortune Cookie

LOL and ROTFLMAO !!!!! (I think I’ve got that right.) Dr. Rufo (who would gladly accompany the Hero Gordon up the Glory Road, rocks and all) “James Gifford” tells me:

>TreetopAngel wrote:
>
>>Still trying to figure out why “Scar” Gordon is considered an
incompetent…
>
>
>Most “incompetents” in RAH are only so by comparison to his usual
>characters. Heinlein was certainly messing around with less than usually
>competent characters in 1962-66 or so, and you could consider Oscar one
>of them. However, he’s not as much incompetent as clueless and shoved
>around by circumstances and events well known to and well understood by
>the other main characters. Since we see the story from his POV, he can
>come off as incompetent – but then, how well would any of us respond to
>being tossed into the same situations? :)
>

I did notice Oscar telling Star to tell him all and when she began, asked only for the ‘outline.’ Then he asked that he be told about one crisis at a time as they come up. It gives him time to think out strategies for each and not having to worry about the rest at the same time. Personally I think he is doing his best with what he has. I agree that any one of us would be in the same boat if we had been tossed into the circumstances.

Well, off to do laundry and battle some of the Cold Water Gang.

Elizabeth
In article, James Gifford writes…


>Most “incompetents” in RAH are only so by comparison to his usual
>characters. Heinlein was certainly messing around with less than usually
>competent characters in 1962-66 or so, and you could consider Oscar one
>of them.

I thought that you were the one who named this theory? Are you now backing away by putting “incompetents” in quotes? Elihu Nivens gets careless and is captured by the slugs; when we meet Daniel B. Davis he is drinking his troubles away; Juan Rico screws up and gets administrative punishment, etc. What does any of this have to so with 1962-66?

None of Mr. Heinlein’s main characters are “incompetents” in any well worked out sense of the word “incompetent”. In the Multiverse, shit happens, even to heros.

>However, he’s not as much incompetent as clueless and shoved
>around by circumstances and events well known to and well understood by
>the other main characters.

No doubt, but this is not “incompetence”, as you say yourself. Next thing you know, you’ll be telling us that Mannie and Hugh Farnham were incompetent. 😉


Gordon Sollars

Gordon G. Sollars wrote:

>I thought that you were the one who named this theory? Are you now
>backing away by putting “incompetents” in quotes?

No, I believe I’ve always made it clear that my claims of incompetence for many early 1960s characters were relative – none would be judged “incompetent” by us mere mortals, but up against the usual Heinleinian heros who stumble into strange situations and save the girl, the day and the universe with the odds and ends in their pockets, they come up as bumbling boobies.

| James Gifford – Nitrosyncretic Press |
| http://www.nitrosyncretic.com for the Heinlein FAQ & more |
| Tired of auto-spam… change “not” to “net” for replies |

“Ace Quiggle”wrote in message news:

>On 22 Apr 2002 00:40:51 GMT, 43161189 (dont be
>fuelish) wrote:
>
>>David Silver wrote:
>>
>>>if you’d like to participate in our next AIM chat, you
>>>might start on Glory Road, a fantasy that isn’t exactly
>>>a fantasy, which is another decent read.
>>
>>An excellent recommendation! The other choice that
>>came naturally to mind for me was The Cat Who Walked
>>Through Walls.
>
>Don’t do it, Aragorn! The Cat Who Walked Through Walls is a horrid
>affair! It will ruin you for Heinlein, ruin you for Science Fiction,
>and quite possibly give you some sort of disease….

He’s right, you know. I don’t know what happened to me over the last couple of years but recently I picked up this book, about the only Heinlein I’ve only read once and that years ago, and I couldn’t make it past the thirteenth page (Berkley ed., 1986). It’s the sickening pseudo-sexual banter between Colin and Gwen that’s so off-putting.

I’m sure it’s just me and the book’s no worse than it ever was but it did make me gag. Forced, stilted dialogue coupled with ham-handed innuendo and thoroughly laced with Bob’s patented take-back-the-governing of your libido-and-society-while-you’re-at-it polyscibabble.

I remember ’85 well. Nobody talked, acted or thought like that and hadn’t since, well, since ever. It’s his recollection of what the black-and-white classics of the ’40’s could have been without a censor but comes off phlegm noir instead. I can understand how the hardcore male fan would read and swallow it but somebody explain, please, how this guy ever attracted any female readers.

Take the guy’s advice and work your way backwards from TMIAHM. Glory Road’s not a bad choice. It’s cute and even though it fails in the end, he couldn’t find a satisfactory way to bring it to a close, it entertains and tends to preach less.

LNC
TreetopAngel wrote:

>
>I am still a novice in finding discussion points in stories and as I am
>reading I am taking notes, but none of them seem to be quite what is usually
>discussed. Help me out, please!
>
>Still trying to figure out why “Scar” Gordon is considered an incompetent…
>
>Thanks,
>Elizabeth
>

While “Evelyn Cyril Gordon” (a boy named “Sue”?) continually deprecates himself, Mr. Heinlein does not, and nobody else in the book (or here, IIRC) does, either.

Dwelling on one’s shortcomings is one way of paying enough attention to them to overcome them, provided it doesn’t make one oblivious to whatever solution happens along, or what to do with it when it does. But “‘Easy’ Gordon” was’t oblivious to much of anything, either. It’s why the mission was placed in his way, and why he went on it despite not being handsome of face and figure /or/ a red-headed hermaphrodite.

[Dennis M. Hammes]


——(m+
~/:o)_|
You can call your priest anything you want,
except /my/ priest.
http://t-independent.com/scrawlmark-press/

“Dennis M. Hammes” notes;

>TreetopAngel wrote:
>>
>>I am still a novice in finding discussion points in stories and as I am
>>reading I am taking notes, but none of them seem to be quite what is
usually
>>discussed. Help me out, please!
>>
>>Still trying to figure out why “Scar” Gordon is considered an
incompetent…
>>
>>Thanks,
>>Elizabeth
>>
>While “Evelyn Cyril Gordon” (a boy named “Sue”?) continually
>deprecates himself, Mr. Heinlein does not, and nobody else in the
>book (or here, IIRC) does, either.

Speaking of “The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress,” Mr. Gifford states:

“This novel is unusual for Heinlein in that the protagonist, Mannie is not particularly
competent at the tasks with which he is saddled…he is similar to the
protagonist of Heinlein’s immediately preceding novel _Farnham’s Freehold_.
Hugh Farnham, too, is thrown by chance into into (sic) circumstances beyond
his control and is singularly ineffective and incompetent within them. Along
with Oscar of _Glory Road_ (who is competent, but overwhelmed by
circumstances throughout the story) and all of the characters in _Podkayne
Of Mars_, except Clark, Heinlein’s characters of the immediate
post-_Starnger_ period (1962-1965) seem to be exploring the nature of
incompetence.” (pg 130)

Gifford, James, Robert A. Heinlein, A Reader’s Companion (2000)
Nitrosyncretic Press, Citrus Heights, CA.

Mr. Gifford does explain that they are only incompetent in their current circumstances, I question why this makes any of these characters incompetent. Ignorant maybe, but not incompetent. Why are these characters singled out as incompetent? Most anybody thrown into “circumstances beyond his control” would have a hard time of it. They do marvelously well with the knowledge they have and the society they live in. It’s only when they are ‘fish out of water’ that they show any signs of not knowing what to do. Then they do the job anyway! Seems to me Heinlein is really exploring how people react when they are confronted with situations beyond their ken (ignorance.)

Elizabeth

(muy ignorant)

Example: While in nursing school I was ignorant (state of not knowing) of what took place during open heart surgery. Once I watched a double bypass, I realized my incompetence (insufficient ability) and knew I would never have the competence of the cardiac surgeon.
On Wed, 24 Apr 2002 13:59:46 -0700, “Dr. Rufo” held forth, saying:

I have some minor quibbles.

>TreetopAngel wrote:
>
>>I am still a novice in finding discussion points in stories and as I am
>>reading I am taking notes, but none of them seem to be quite what is usually
>>discussed. Help me out, please!
>>
>>Still trying to figure out why “Scar” Gordon is considered an incompetent…
>*******************
>
>I perked up my ears at the word “incompetent.”
>
>Evelyn Cyril Gordon is NOT on the first string of any team —
>with the possible exception of the fencing squad.

Umm, IIRC he was the #1 running back before the school de-emphasized football.

>His grades are NOT the best. Perhaps this is an application of
>his dictum that he “never runs faster than he needs to run” hence
>his nickname of “Easy.”
>
>In the Army, he consistently loses his promotion “stripes” and
>then earns them back because “the patrols he leads come back safely.”

Doesn’t he lose his stripes for stuff akin to insubordination?

>He “wins” the Irish Sweepstakes without the overt intervention of
>any “higher power” beyond his own “skill” at poker.

Are we certain Star had nothing to do with that?

>Ma’am, easier to confound Igli with a paradox than to find
>”proofs” that the Hero Oscar is incompetent.

Yup. 100% agreement from this corner.


-denny-
nocturnal curmudgeon, editor

Never try to outstubborn a cat. – Lazarus Long

“TreetopAngel”wrote in message news:qAOx8.243$

>are ‘fish out of water’ that they show any signs of not knowing what to do.
>Then they do the job anyway! Seems to me Heinlein is really exploring how
>people react when they are confronted with situations beyond their ken
>(ignorance.)

Elizabeth–

Thanks for the quote. I haven’t gotten Jim’s book yet, so my response will have to be based on your quoted passage and general memory of past discussions.

I think the point here has to do with RAH’s general theme of the [super]competent hero. By comparison, there are certain protagonists who are much more “ordinary” in their gifts and abilities, not geniuses, not immortals, etc. (Compare Kip to Peewee, for example.) I would choose Manny as an outstanding example. One could only describe them as incompetent by comparison. It is the glory of these “incompetents” that they do what must be done.

–Dee

ke4lfg:

I’m still trying to grapple with the notion of Heinlein’s {super}competent hero. Except for a few occasions when he’s dealing specifically with supermen, it seems to me that the ordinary run of the Heinlein hero is merely ordinarily competent, falling within the definition Heinlein gave us in TEFL of what it means to be a human being.

I dont know where and when the idea that the “ordinary” human being is a bungler and idiot took over and the ordinarily competent got relegated to the realm of the romantic superhero.

Bill
TreetopAngel wrote:

>Hugh Farnham, too, is thrown by chance into into (sic) circumstances…

Oops. One mark against *my* competence… :)

>Mr. Gifford does explain that they are only incompetent in their current
>circumstances, I question why this makes any of these characters
>incompetent. Ignorant maybe, but not incompetent. Why are these characters
>singled out as incompetent?

Again, I think I’ve made it clear that I’m referring to a special case of “competence” in this analysis. From 1939 to 1985, the vast majority of Heinlein’s major characters are so adaptable, capable and generally super-competent – even when thrown violently into very unusual circumstances – that the characters of this era stand out as something quite different.

All of them would be regarded as more competent than average and even admirably adaptable out here in the real world. However, within Heinlein’s universe, their comparative inabilities and their being dragged along bodily by events is unusual – so much so that it is clear to me that Heinlein was deliberately experimenting with “incompetent” characters in this era – choose your own phrase and definition.

He quickly shook it off and went back to his trademark style, even compensating by going to the super-hyper-competents populating everything from TEfL onwards… :)

| James Gifford – Nitrosyncretic Press |
| http://www.nitrosyncretic.com for the Heinlein FAQ & more |
| Tired of auto-spam… change “not” to “net” for replies |

In article, TreetopAngel writes…


>Mr. Gifford does explain that they are only incompetent in their current
>circumstances, I question why this makes any of these characters
>incompetent.

Two things. First, James picked an unfortunate label for his idea, if for no other reason than because it has connotations for others that he apparently did not intend. Second, labels aside, the idea itself is not nearly as compelling to me as it is to James. He picks out several characters in the 1962-66 range and claims that they are “relatively incompetent”, but he does not draw a sharp boundary, as my pre-1962 examples show. Is Mannie significantly less able to deal with his circumstances (what James seems to mean by “incompetence”) than Dan Davis? Perhaps, but I would like to see more argument.


Gordon Sollars

Gordon G. Sollars wrote:

>Second, labels aside, the idea itself is not
>nearly as compelling to me as it is to James. He picks out several
>characters in the 1962-66 range and claims that they are “relatively
>incompetent”, but he does not draw a sharp boundary, as my pre-1962
>examples show. Is Mannie significantly less able to deal with his
>circumstances (what James seems to mean by “incompetence”) than Dan
>Davis? Perhaps, but I would like to see more argument.

Yes. DB Davis is subjected to at least three life-shattering transitions (loss of Belle and his company, sleep-travel to 2000, time-travel back to 1970) and, in Doc Smith/George O. Smith/prewar RAH broad-shouldered engineer style, shrugs them off and soldiers on in grand style. He ends up with the girl, the gold belt and everything – even the cat.

Mannie Davis is pushed around by events he never does quite understand and never does quite get a grip on (in part because his closest friends and confidants are shining him on and using him shamelessly), contributes almost nothing to the revolution except the delivery of Mike’s friendship, and does an extremely poor job as revolutionary planner, ambassador, War Minister and congressman. At the end, he is simply a leftover unhappy with the long-term results and planning to leave for hopefully greener pastures.

Next question?

| James Gifford – Nitrosyncretic Press |
| http://www.nitrosyncretic.com for the Heinlein FAQ & more |
| Tired of auto-spam… change “not” to “net” for replies |

James Gifford wrote:

[snip]

>
>He quickly shook it off and went back to his trademark style, even
>compensating by going to the super-hyper-competents populating
>everything from TEfL onwards… :)
>

Um, Marjorie Baldwin? Physically, certainly, mentally, with that trick of intuiting a correct answer, maybe; but . . . defend her as super-hyper-competent emotionally, please, James. I’d put her right down among the lower-mimetic both emotionally and maturely. IOW, just plain folks.


David M. Silver
http://www.heinleinsociety.org
http://www.readinggroupsonline.com/groups/heinlein.htm
“The Lieutenant expects your names to shine!”
Robert Anson Heinlein, USNA ’29
Lt (jg)., USN R’td (1907-1988)

James Giffordwrote in message news:…

>Gordon G. Sollars wrote:
>
>>I thought that you were the one who named this theory? Are you now
>>backing away by putting “incompetents” in quotes?
>
>
>No, I believe I’ve always made it clear that my claims of incompetence
>for many early 1960s characters were relative – none would be judged
>”incompetent” by us mere mortals, but up against the usual Heinleinian
>heros who stumble into strange situations and save the girl, the day and
>the universe with the odds and ends in their pockets, they come up as
>bumbling boobies.

You’re kidding around, right? Oscar is far from incompetent.

“usual Heinleinian heros who stumble into strange situations and save the girl, the day and the universe.” Perfectly accurate description of Easy Gordon.

IMO Oscar, as the narrator, is self deprecating to a fault as he outlines success after success, attributing each success always to luck, or being in the right place at the right time, but never to his competence.

BTW, one sign of competence Oscar, as narrator, accidently lets slip through the deprecation is his ability to recite Congo under pressure after what must have been years since he read it. (I can’t do that, in spite of several readings – can you?) Another is his superior intelligence. It’s not played up as Kip’s (or Peewee’s) was – instead it’s in the background. Obvious indications are Oscar’s adaptability; his lack of intellectual concern about attending Heidelburg – he always assumes academic success in his school musings – getting in was the problem; and his re-design of an engineering component after having “glimpsed” one of similar function at Star’s house. Not trivial at all.

Easy Gordon is the typical Heinlein super-competent with an atypical self deprecative manner; he is not to be confused with an incompetent with a agonizingly honest self appraisal. [lal_truckee]
David Silver wrote:

>James Gifford wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>
>>
>>He quickly shook it off and went back to his trademark style, even
>>compensating by going to the super-hyper-competents populating
>>everything from TEfL onwards… :)
>>
>
>Um, Marjorie Baldwin? Physically, certainly, mentally, with that trick
>of intuiting a correct answer, maybe; but . . . defend her as
>super-hyper-competent emotionally, please, James. I’d put her right down
>among the lower-mimetic both emotionally and maturely. IOW, just plain
>folks.
>

And when you finish with her, try Alex Hergensheimer, toy of the betting gods.


David M. Silver
http://www.heinleinsociety.org
http://www.readinggroupsonline.com/groups/heinlein.htm
“The Lieutenant expects your names to shine!”
Robert Anson Heinlein, USNA ’29
Lt (jg)., USN R’td (1907-1988)

David Silver wrote:

>>>He quickly shook it off and went back to his trademark style, even
>>>compensating by going to the super-hyper-competents populating
>>>everything from TEfL onwards… :)

>>Um, Marjorie Baldwin? Physically, certainly, mentally, with that trick
>>of intuiting a correct answer, maybe; but . . . defend her as
>>super-hyper-competent emotionally, please, James. I’d put her right
>>down among the lower-mimetic both emotionally and maturely. IOW, just
>>plain folks.

All of Heinlein’s characters have holes, usually in their emotional or social makeup. I never said they were godlike in their perfection. Friday has the self-esteem of a field mouse, despite many, many reasons to be as arrogantly self-confident as Woody Smith.

And Woody – well, let’s stand him up as the single greatest example of Heinleinian super-competence, and then note that he is the next thing to sociopathic towards everyone outside his exclusive in-group.

>And when you finish with her, try Alex Hergensheimer, toy of the betting
>gods.

I knew someone would point him out – happy to have it be you. :)

Alec is a poor, ‘umble, ignorant, only partially-lettered bumbler who… goes through a multitude of literally life-shattering experiences, throws off a lifetime of cultural and social conditioning in the space of a few weeks, and evolves in relatively short order to the point where he’s sassing deities to their faces. And he wins! He wins the girl, the gold watch (that stops time) and everything (define indefinite afterlife of one’s own designing as not “everything”).

I think you’re all hung up on my definition of the dichotomy as competence vs. incompetence, which is a partial and fuzzy definition. Next time I’ll reach deeply into Frye or Hayakawa and pull out a suitably mysterious and vague term that I can define to my own liking. :)

| James Gifford – Nitrosyncretic Press |
| http://www.nitrosyncretic.com for the Heinlein FAQ & more |
| Tired of auto-spam… change “not” to “net” for replies |

In article, James Giffordwrote:

>
>Yes. DB Davis is subjected to at least three life-shattering transitions
>(loss of Belle and his company, sleep-travel to 2000, time-travel back
>to 1970) and, in Doc Smith/George O. Smith/prewar RAH broad-shouldered
>engineer style, shrugs them off and soldiers on in grand style. He ends
>up with the girl, the gold belt and everything – even the cat.

Of course Davis had already lived through WWIII in the 1960s. I imagine the survivors who didn’t get PTSD were fairly unflappable.

I used to have a neighbor who got drafted at 15 or 16 for the Eastern Front in the ’40s, after which he ended up a guest of the Russians, the Poles (Not sure which order) and finally the Americans (And knowing a good deal when he saw one, he stopped escaping). Very calm fellow, never seemed to get excited about anything. Well, except any hint that someone near to him said something even faintly pro-Nazi, which would provoke prompt reactions from him.

James Nicoll

“I think you mean ‘Could libertarian slave-owning Confederates, led by
SHWIers, have pulled off a transatlantic invasion of Britain, in revenge
for the War of 1812, if they had nukes acquired from the Sea of Time?'”
Alison Brooks (1959-2002)

In article, Dee writes…


>I think the point here has to do with RAH’s general theme of the
>[super]competent hero. By comparison, there are certain protagonists who
>are much more “ordinary” in their gifts and abilities, not geniuses, not
>immortals, etc.

And what is the proportion of such “super competence” prior to 1962 (or after 1966)? Are Dan Davis or Elihu “Sam” Nivens “super competent”? What about Colin Campbell or Alex Hergensheimer? And who are the “super competents” among the juveniles? Of course there are some “super competents”; to be interesting, James’s theory has to say that there is something special about the 1962-66 period. So far as I can see, it doesn’t work.

>(Compare Kip to Peewee, for example.)

Yes, Kip, the guy who goes from a mediocre high school education to rebuilding a space suit (along with the electronics, although, admittedly, his efforts at home-workshop microwave radio were less than industry standard) and, e.g., learning Latin and Spanish, all in two years. Remember what Peewee’s father says to Kip about his abilities.

Of course, Kip is outside the 1962-66 period, and so might be a “super competent” for James. Since you disagree, that is just more evidence that we don’t have a very tight idea to work with here.

>I would choose Manny
>as an outstanding example.

Yes, Mannie, only a “general specialist” who can fix any machinery, who can relieve a cook or field repair a space suit, farmer and an ice miner who loses an arm and then goes on to become the best “computer man” in Luna, but not “really” a full-fledged electronics engineer nor physicist – by his own admission, of course. He steals power and water from the Authority – only air is a more critical resource – without a trace. He is selected for marriage into one of the most respected families, and has the respect of one of the most highly educated men, in Luna. Help him wipe the drool off his bib.

>One could only describe them as incompetent by
>comparison.

With whom? Lazarus? He is clearly a special case.

>It is the glory of these “incompetents” that they do what must
>be done.

That, I think, is the glory of almost all the major characters in Mr. Heinlein’s work.


Gordon Sollars

Gordon G. Sollars wrote:

>Yes, Kip, the guy who goes from a mediocre high school education to
>rebuilding a space suit (along with the electronics, although,
>admittedly, his efforts at home-workshop microwave radio were less than
>industry standard) and, e.g., learning Latin and Spanish, all in two
>years. Remember what Peewee’s father says to Kip about his abilities.

>
>Of course, Kip is outside the 1962-66 period, and so might be a “super
>competent” for James. Since you disagree, that is just more evidence
>that we don’t have a very tight idea to work with here.

Yes, Kip, the son of two of the brightest people on the planet. Kip, who shrugs off his useless education in his sophomore year and self-educates himself in some of the toughest subjects around. Kip, who stumbles a little on finding himself on a flying saucer headed for the Moon, but recovers nicely and saves the girl and the angel with the oddments at hand, then later saves the entire world with his education and superior human nobility.

While my term may be confusing, I think the idea is much tighter than you’re willing to grant.

>Yes, Mannie, only a “general specialist” who can fix any machinery, who
>can relieve a cook or field repair a space suit, farmer and an ice miner
>who loses an arm and then goes on to become the best “computer man” in
>Luna, but not “really” a full-fledged electronics engineer nor physicist
>- by his own admission, of course. He steals power and water from the
>Authority – only air is a more critical resource – without a trace. He
>is selected for marriage into one of the most respected families, and has
>the respect of one of the most highly educated men, in Luna. Help him
>wipe the drool off his bib.

All of which you cite is in the past and in the background, and is beyond dispute. In his element, Mannie is above real-world “normal” competence. *BUT* in the events of the book, he is a ham-handed fumbler who knows little, contributes little, and in fact is something of a screwup at critical points.

>>It is the glory of these “incompetents” that they do what must
>>be done.

Dee, you’ve hit on a crucial element here. The majority of Heinlein’s works dwell on how the best of human qualities can solve “insoluble” problems. I don’t have any problems with with Heinlein’s treatment of competence or super-competence or super-hyper-giga-competence… I’m detecting some resentment in this recent string of posts as if I am objecting to this literary quality.

On the contrary – like many, I recognize that Heinlein’s characters aren’t necessarily meant to be taken as literal examples, but as worthy models whose dogged attempts at coping with extraordinary (and ordinary) situations is worth studying and emulating. Heinlein found it interesting to write about competence and characters who found competence – sometimes loads of it – under unexpected circumstances. (He also liked to point out that “luck” is a matter of careful preparation – and since you don’t know what’s around the next corner, it’s best to be very, very prepared.)

Yes, I think there is something odd going on with his characters in the books from _Glory Road_ to _MiaHM_. Most of the viewpoint and other major characters in those books are very different from his characters in the majority of his other works. Bill has suggested that I have the right idea but may be wrong in my conclusion; I’m open to input and evaluation on the topic. But simply denying that it exists and misrepresenting the characters and situations, as in Gordon’s two examples above, doesn’t advance us any.

| James Gifford – Nitrosyncretic Press |
| http://www.nitrosyncretic.com for the Heinlein FAQ & more |
| Tired of auto-spam… change “not” to “net” for replies |

“BPRAL22169″wrote in message news:

>I dont know where and when the idea that the “ordinary” human being is a
>bungler and idiot took over and the ordinarily competent got relegated to the
>realm of the romantic superhero.

Doesn’t the hero, in myth, acquire his superiority in the course of the quest, in that each challenge brings out another aspect of inner resourcefulness? They don’t start out as ‘proven’ heroes. It occurs to me that whereas RAH’s protagonists might be much more developed individuals by the end of the narrative, they wouldn’t necessarily see themselves as heroic whilst they’re coping with what they encounter.

Jani

(re-reading TPM. Might come up with something on-topic at some point)
TreetopAngel wrote:

>
>”Dennis M. Hammes” notes;
>
>>TreetopAngel wrote:
>>>
>>>I am still a novice in finding discussion points in stories and as I am
>>>reading I am taking notes, but none of them seem to be quite what is
>usually
>>>discussed. Help me out, please!
>>>
>>>Still trying to figure out why “Scar” Gordon is considered an
>incompetent…
>>>
>>>Thanks,
>>>Elizabeth
>>>
>>While “Evelyn Cyril Gordon” (a boy named “Sue”?) continually
>>deprecates himself, Mr. Heinlein does not, and nobody else in the
>>book (or here, IIRC) does, either.
>
>Speaking of “The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress,” Mr. Gifford states: “This novel
>is unusual for Heinlein in that the protagonist, Mannie is not particularly
>competent at the tasks with which he is saddled…he is similar to the
>protagonist of Heinlein’s immediately preceding novel _Farnham’s Freehold_.
>Hugh Farnham, too, is thrown by chance into into (sic) circumstances beyond
>his control and is singularly ineffective and incompetent within them. Along
>with Oscar of _Glory Road_ (who is competent, but overwhelmed by
>circumstances throughout the story) and all of the characters in _Podkayne
>Of Mars_, except Clark, Heinlein’s characters of the immediate
>post-_Starnger_ period (1962-1965) seem to be exploring the nature of
>incompetence.” (pg 130)
>
>Gifford, James, Robert A. Heinlein, A Reader’s Companion (2000)
>Nitrosyncretic Press, Citrus Heights, CA.
>
>Mr. Gifford does explain that they are only incompetent in their current
>circumstances, I question why this makes any of these characters
>incompetent. Ignorant maybe, but not incompetent. Why are these characters
>singled out as incompetent? Most anybody thrown into “circumstances beyond
>his control” would have a hard time of it. They do marvelously well with
>the knowledge they have and the society they live in. It’s only when they
>are ‘fish out of water’ that they show any signs of not knowing what to do.
>Then they do the job anyway! Seems to me Heinlein is really exploring how
>people react when they are confronted with situations beyond their ken
>(ignorance.)
>
>Elizabeth
>(muy ignorant)
>
>Example: While in nursing school I was ignorant (state of not knowing) of
>what took place during open heart surgery. Once I watched a double bypass,
>I realized my incompetence (insufficient ability) and knew I would never
>have the competence of the cardiac surgeon.

Hm. I have not read Mr. Gifford’s book, and I suppose I do not put most UseNet posts “in my perms.”

I will certainly agree with him, that Mr. Heinlein’s characters in the stated period were in over their heads, but I’d have to say the same of just about all of them, and indeed of most characters in literature. Since /we/ are generally in over our heads wherever we’re standing at the moment, the condition is precisely what makes them worth reading (whether for the instruction or the company); e.g., “Quasimodo” and “Robinson Crusoe” have far more to offer than “Superman” or “Flash Gordon” (the “original,” not Mr. Heinlein’s nick-namesake).

I do not, and I don’t see that Mr. Heinlein did, mistake ignorance for incompetence. The first is an accident of personal history; the latter is a chosen error in method. If I can have any argument with Mr. Gifford, it is a matter of that definition only.

Mr. Heinlein’s characters are certainly /temporarily/ (not “singularly”) “ineffective”; it is precisely that ineffect that yields most of the Seven Standard Plots (“Man Against _____”), not to mention the infamous Lit’ry Epiphany itself.

Were they “incompetent,” they /could not resolve/ their ineffect.

And that would not be Lithrachur; that would be the Congressional Record.

[Dennis M. Hammes]


——(m+
~/:o)_|
You can call your priest anything you want,
except /my/ priest.
http://t-independent.com/scrawlmark-press/

In article, James Gifford writes…


>Yes. DB Davis is subjected to at least three life-shattering transitions
>(loss of Belle and his company, sleep-travel to 2000, time-travel back
>to 1970) and, in Doc Smith/George O. Smith/prewar RAH broad-shouldered
>engineer style, shrugs them off and soldiers on in grand style. He ends
>up with the girl, the gold belt and everything – even the cat.

When we meet him, he is drowning his sorrows in a bottle. When he gets his courage, he botches the attempt to fix things in the here and now, and gets hijacked into a future he could never have returned from on his own.

Note that Hugh Farnham also gets the girl and in the end his civilizing efforts help change the whole future of mankind.

>Mannie Davis is pushed around by events he never does quite understand
>and never does quite get a grip on (in part because his closest friends
>and confidants are shining him on and using him shamelessly),

You are referring to his being “used” on the trip to Earth? That hardly justifies “never does quite understand and never does quite get a grip on”. Is it possible that your antipathy towards the book’s libertarian viewpoint has colored your judgment here?

>contributes almost nothing to the revolution except the delivery of
>Mike’s friendship,

The most important element. “Chance favors the prepared mind.”

>and does an extremely poor job as revolutionary
>planner, ambassador, War Minister and congressman.

He /says/ that he does (just as lal_truckee noted that Oscar does), but he off the cuff sketches an improvement to revolutionary-cell structure. It is hardly his fault that Mike is a super computer and Mannie is not.

>At the end, he is
>simply a leftover unhappy with the long-term results and planning to
>leave for hopefully greener pastures.

He is unhappy over the “death” of Mike, which has already happened. DB Davis is not sanguine about Pete’s future, either, and hides his unhappiness with the thought of an after life. But these issues, for both of them, do not affect their basic stance on life. Mannie’s, “My word, I’m not even a hundred yet” is not the slogan of a “leftover unhappy”.

I think that Mannie’s situation at the end of Moon is a side effect of the fact that he is made to illustrate Mr. Heinlein’s view that the ideal of liberty is only found on a frontier. Dan Davis does not have to play that role.

>Next question?

Sure. Why do you make Clark an exception? He gets suckered and then screws up big time, failing to save Podkayne’s life. What I think is going on is that you are reacting to his many abilities, which clearly show he is not “incompetent”. But Mannie (and Hugh, too) has many abilities. This does not translate into “coping well with his circumstances”, which is what you seem to have meant to suggest by the “incompetent” label.

I think that all of the Heinlein heros are strongly competent people, though some, of course, have more abilities than others. Further, I think that there are Heinlein heros coping more or less well with their circumstances throughout the corpus – there is nothing special about 1962-66. Finally, I think that conjoining “incompetent” and “failing to cope well with circumstances” is a mistake. Competency, as I understand it, refers to traits, abilities, etc., that – while extremely valuable for “coping” – by no means ensure success.


Gordon Sollars

“TreetopAngel”wrote in message news:YpCx8.227$

>I am still a novice in finding discussion points in stories and as I am
>reading I am taking notes, but none of them seem to be quite what is usually
>discussed. Help me out, please!

TTA–

For a novice, you sure got something going in a hurry! :-)

–Dee

>I think you’re all hung up on my definition of the dichotomy as
>competence vs. incompetence, which is a partial and fuzzy definition.

I agree to both points. Let me introduce another paradigm to investigate — I think you’ve got hold of *something* Heinlein is doing in the books immediately following Starnger, but the relative “competence” of the characters is just a secondary effect of whatever else it is he might be doing.

I think the first step in identifying what it is that Heinlein is doing primarily is to take his own statement about what was different about the books immediately following Starship Troopers — which would include Starnger, of course — and that is that he is deliberately and consciously writing his own stuff, his own way. Or perhaps what he thought was his own stuff at the time and his idea of his own stuff changed over the next thirty years or so. There is also the very interesting and possibly significant set of facts that (1) Starship Troopers was written to be a Scribner’s juvenile; he added the last 1/4 of the book when it went to Putnam’s and (2) he said that ST and Starnger are complementary and deal with some of the same important themes — and I believe I have run across a later reference that includes Glory Road with ST and Starnger; (3) until JOB, Glory Road was Heinlein’s most clearly Cabellian book, as it uses the form of the Cabellian comedy, which characteristically turns on finding out that what one wanted and worked toward was not what one wants, after all — or, alternatively, not achieving what one wanted and finding it doesn’t matter at all. That’s why he was so incensed that an editor wanted to cut the last 100 pages of the book — the part that makes it a Cabellian comedy instead of a sword-and-sworcery romance. And (4) I’ve been able to detect more Cabellian material in the books before TMIAHM and after ST. This subject is dealt with at greater (though not much greater) length in the Cabell Prize essay. I just checked my link, and it seems to have been taken down recently. If we wind up going out on this topic, I’ll try to excerpt what I said at greater length.

I don’t have a solid idea where this would go, so I’m laying out the notions to play around with.

Bill
In article, James Gifford writes…


>Yes, Kip, the son of two of the brightest people on the planet. Kip, who
>shrugs off his useless education in his sophomore year and self-educates
>himself in some of the toughest subjects around.

Right, James. I was singing Kip’s praises myself.


>While my term may be confusing, I think the idea is much tighter than
>you’re willing to grant.

So far it isn’t, and, as I noted, I take Dee’s use of Kip (where you and I happen to agree) as evidence.


>In his element, Mannie is above real-world “normal”
>competence. *BUT* in the events of the book, he is a ham-handed fumbler
>who knows little, contributes little, and in fact is something of a
>screwup at critical points.

I have tied to address this in another post nearby.


>I’m
>detecting some resentment in this recent string of posts as if I am
>objecting to this literary quality.

Not from me, James. I am merely unconvinced. You’ll know when I get to resentment; I’ll start appending “, shithead.” to my replies. 😉


>Yes, I think there is something odd going on with his characters in the
>books from _Glory Road_ to _MiaHM_. Most of the viewpoint and other
>major characters in those books are very different from his characters
>in the majority of his other works. Bill has suggested that I have the
>right idea but may be wrong in my conclusion; I’m open to input and
>evaluation on the topic. But simply denying that it exists and
>misrepresenting the characters and situations, as in Gordon’s two
>examples above, doesn’t advance us any.

Which two examples were those? I agree with you about Kip. As I noted above, I have another recent post in which I try to show that nothing especially odd is going on during 1962-66. But in the message you already replied to, you jumped past this:

“And what is the proportion of such “super competence” prior to 1962 (or after 1966)? Are Dan Davis or Elihu “Sam” Nivens “super competent”? What about Colin Campbell or Alex Hergensheimer? And who are the “super competents” among the juveniles? Of course there are some “super competents”; to be interesting, James’s theory has to say that there is something special about the 1962-66 period. So far as I can see, it doesn’t work.”

Let me add now, having seen your reply to David, that it has always been clear to me that Alex has the “right stuff” in spades. This is crucial to the story. But what, exactly, are his competencies? Can he separate photo dyes from film? Do triple integrals in his head? Repair a space suit? As I say in my other post, I don’t think that you have latched on to a good term here.

But, as I also said, let’s get away from “competence/incompetence” and focus on “coping well with his circumstances”. I still don’t see that these is especially less of this during the 1962-66 period.


Gordon Sollars

BPRAL22169 wrote:

>
>ke4lfg:
>
>I’m still trying to grapple with the notion of Heinlein’s {super}competent
>hero. Except for a few occasions when he’s dealing specifically with supermen,
>it seems to me that the ordinary run of the Heinlein hero is merely ordinarily
>competent, falling within the definition Heinlein gave us in TEFL of what it
>means to be a human being.
>
>I dont know where and when the idea that the “ordinary” human being is a
>bungler and idiot took over and the ordinarily competent got relegated to the
>realm of the romantic superhero.
>Bill

Ayn Rand says in /Atlas Shrugged/ that it happened before 1957; in /The Fountainhead/ that it happened before 1943.

[Dennis M. Hammes]


——(m+
~/:o)_|
You can call your priest anything you want,
except /my/ priest.
http://t-independent.com/scrawlmark-press/

>Doesn’t the hero, in myth, acquire his superiority in the course of the
>quest,

But the point of the hero is surely that he is exemplary — an example of us. If he were not us in some important respect, he would not be important to us.

We also know that ordinary people placed in extraordinary circumstances can behave in extraordary ways, though their ordinary circumstances might never bring anything extraordinary out of them.

Bill
Jani wrote:

>
>”BPRAL22169″ wrote in message
>news:
>
>>I dont know where and when the idea that the “ordinary” human being is a
>>bungler and idiot took over and the ordinarily competent got relegated to
>the
>>realm of the romantic superhero.
>
>Doesn’t the hero, in myth, acquire his superiority in the course of the
>quest, in that each challenge brings out another aspect of inner
>resourcefulness? They don’t start out as ‘proven’ heroes. It occurs to me
>that whereas RAH’s protagonists might be much more developed individuals by
>the end of the narrative, they wouldn’t necessarily see themselves as heroic
>whilst they’re coping with what they encounter.
>
>Jani
>(re-reading TPM. Might come up with something on-topic at some point)

No. He’s born under a red sun or a yellow sun. Or he’s bitten by a spider.


——(m+
~/:o)_|
You can call your priest anything you want,
except /my/ priest.
http://t-independent.com/scrawlmark-press/

Dee wrote:

>there are certain protagonists who are much more
>”ordinary” in their gifts and abilities, not geniuses, not
>immortals, etc. (Compare Kip to Peewee, for example.)
>I would choose Manny as an outstanding example.

Having a socket set for the left arm is ordinary?

Tian Harter
http://tian.greens.org

Yesterday, working the crowd at the San Jose State Earth
Day event, a woman told me “Michigan thinks public
transportation means cars for everybody.” Friends told
me my picuter was on A-13 of Tuesday’s SF Chroicle.

James Gifford wrote:

>

>Yes, Kip, the son of two of the brightest people on the planet. Kip, who
>shrugs off his useless education in his sophomore year and self-educates
>himself in some of the toughest subjects around. Kip, who stumbles a
>little on finding himself on a flying saucer headed for the Moon, but
>recovers nicely and saves the girl and the angel with the oddments at
>hand, then later saves the entire world with his education and superior
>human nobility.

… [sticking paddle in on one side only, thus circling] I don’t remember any “Kip,” so I prolly didn’t read it. But I hope you’re not weighting your analysis with this character all that much.

Mr. Heinlein is aware of something that /this/ argument seems not to be; call it a “trickle-down theory.”

Is a teenager /today/ a supergenius/hero because he can, at his age, program a VCR or PC when his grandfather couldn’t at the same age — or even at present?

When a young character is stuck into a milieu full of tech superpowers, they /will/ rub off on him. Hall (/The Silent Language/) calls this “Informal Learning” and demonstrates that it produces a far higher average competence in the sample than does either “Formal” or “Technical Learning.” What’s the difference between Kip’s doping out a flying saucer and my own young buddies’ turning a junkyard heap into a cherry ’57 Chevy street rod using only a hairpin and spit?

I shrugged off my useless eddicashun in fourth grade, and built both chemistry and electronics labs in my “bedroom” using a paper-route, bottle deposits, and the City Dump. I taught (not “assisted”) general science in 7th and 8th grades, chemistry and physics in high school, and electronics and fencing in college. And my biggest peeve at the Protestant Kulchur then and now is that these superpowers are /grunt-ordinary/.


——(m+
~/:o)_|
You can call your priest anything you want,
except /my/ priest.
http://t-independent.com/scrawlmark-press/

“BPRAL22169″wrote in message news:

>>Doesn’t the hero, in myth, acquire his superiority in the course of the
>>quest,
>
>But the point of the hero is surely that he is exemplary — an example of us.
>If he were not us in some important respect, he would not be important to us.

Midway between ordinary humanity and the gods, with a foot in both camps? But .. the mythic heroes come back as rulers, because of their experiences and acquired wisdom: they join the elite, in effect.

>We also know that ordinary people placed in extraordinary circumstances can
>behave in extraordary ways, though their ordinary circumstances might never
>bring anything extraordinary out of them.

True. But the heroism of the caryatid under her stone *still isn’t going to make her into Gilgamesh or Ulysses. Heroes tend to start off privileged, one way or another – they just haven’t done their fieldwork yet. People like Scar and Sam are already way above the common herd, they just haven’t been tested.

Jani
In article, dont be fuelish writes…


>Yesterday, working the crowd at the San Jose State Earth
>Day event, a woman told me “Michigan thinks public
>transportation means cars for everybody.”

As one might expect at such an event, pure socialism. Each person should buy his own car. 😉


Gordon Sollars

James Gifford wrote:

>
>TreetopAngel wrote:
>
>>Hugh Farnham, too, is thrown by chance into into (sic) circumstances…
>
>Oops. One mark against *my* competence… :)
>
>>Mr. Gifford does explain that they are only incompetent in their current
>>circumstances, I question why this makes any of these characters
>>incompetent. Ignorant maybe, but not incompetent. Why are these characters
>>singled out as incompetent?
>
>Again, I think I’ve made it clear that I’m referring to a special case
>of “competence” in this analysis. From 1939 to 1985, the vast majority
>of Heinlein’s major characters are so adaptable, capable and generally
>super-competent – even when thrown violently into very unusual
>circumstances – that the characters of this era stand out as something
>quite different.

Whereas the Gray Lensman, Tarzan, and the Phantom do not. Holey bagels, Ba…

Lit’rarily, it might be nothing more than a reaction by a reactionary against the incredible super-incompetence of the likes of Leopold Bloom or the Green Hornet, recently reproduced in the antics of /Piece of Cake/’s “Hornet Squadron,” who evidently won the Battle of Britain primarily by screwing the pooch, can one believe the book.

>
>All of them would be regarded as more competent than average and even
>admirably adaptable out here in the real world. However, within
>Heinlein’s universe, their comparative inabilities and their being
>dragged along bodily by events is unusual – so much so that it is clear
>to me that Heinlein was deliberately experimenting with “incompetent”
>characters in this era – choose your own phrase and definition.

Hm. I wonder if the difference is between young(er) characters and really-old “Howard” characters. There’s something of a production watershed there, too.

When we really “meet” Lazarus, he’s 2000 years old; his fellows are 3-600 years old. Whereas V.M.Smith is “only an egg,” E.C.Gordon is rather fresh out of high school, and most of the rest are, well, kids.

>
>He quickly shook it off and went back to his trademark style, even
>compensating by going to the super-hyper-competents populating
>everything from TEfL onwards… :)
>

Hm. You mean when two super-hypercomputers came back as girls (“Slipstick” and “Minerva”).

Two cries and a chin-quiver for /that/ generality…

And one chin-quiver for /me/, since I’m prolly gonna get my arse shot off in the Dark Ages for helping a, well, less-than-super-hyper-competent through the barbed wire of his own linguistic singularity.

[Dennis M. Hammes]


——(m+
~/:o)_|
You can call your priest anything you want,
except /my/ priest.
http://t-independent.com/scrawlmark-press/

BPRAL22169 wrote:

[snip lots of stuff I’ll be back to, again.]

>
>I think the first step in identifying what it is that Heinlein is doing
>primarily is to take his own statement about what was different about the books
>immediately following Starship Troopers — which would include Starnger, of
>course — and that is that he is deliberately and consciously writing his own
>stuff, his own way. . . . [snip more interesting stuff] . . . There
>is also the very interesting and possibly significant set of facts that (1)
>Starship Troopers was written to be a Scribner’s juvenile; he added the last
>1/4 of the book when it went to Putnam’s and . . . [snip yet more] . . .

Say what? That’s new! I always throught Putnam took the Scribner-refused juvenile virtually unchanged. Added from where? Into where? Page 237 in the 308-page hardbound begins the last quarter, at Chapter XIII, with Third Lieutenant Rico boarding the Tours under Captain Blackstone for his test cruise. That last third, or what, Bill?

>I don’t have a solid idea where this would go, so I’m laying out the notions to
>play around with.
>

Let’s play; but I wanna include Troopers in the game!

I think I see part of where this might go.


David M. Silver
http://www.heinleinsociety.org
http://www.readinggroupsonline.com/groups/heinlein.htm
“The Lieutenant expects your names to shine!”
Robert Anson Heinlein, USNA ’29
Lt (jg)., USN R’td (1907-1988)

“Gordon G. Sollars”wrote in message news:

>And what is the proportion of such “super competence” prior to 1962 (or
>after 1966)? Are Dan Davis or Elihu “Sam” Nivens “super competent”?
>What about Colin Campbell or Alex Hergensheimer? And who are the “super
>competents” among the juveniles? Of course there are some “super
>competents”; to be interesting, James’s theory has to say that there is
>something special about the 1962-66 period. So far as I can see, it
>doesn’t work.

Gordon, I don’t know anything about the time frames. I’m afraid I haven’t paid that much attention to publication dates. What I meant to say was that RAH has (at least) two sorts of protagonists–The people like LL, Friday, Deety, Libby, Star, Peewee, and lots more, I’m sure, whose innate abilities are truly extraordinary, the ones I referred to as the supercompetent, for lack of a better word in this discussion, and the “ordinary” Heinlein heroes, who are “only” very intelligent, physically capable, and witty, but their character is such that they have applied themselves studiously to making the most of themselves.

>>(Compare Kip to Peewee, for example.)
>
>Yes, Kip, the guy who goes from a mediocre high school education to
>rebuilding a space suit (along with the electronics, although,
>admittedly, his efforts at home-workshop microwave radio were less than
>industry standard) and, e.g., learning Latin and Spanish, all in two
>years. Remember what Peewee’s father says to Kip about his abilities.

No, I don’t remember, specifically, I’ll have to go back and look. But really, I was talking about the comparison. Kip is an extremely intellligent young man, but to his intelligence is also amplified by lots of hard work and study. I have known young men that Kip reminded me of, I have not know little girls that reminded me of Peewee.

>>I would choose Manny
>>as an outstanding example.
>
>Yes, Mannie, only a “general specialist” who can fix any machinery, who
>can relieve a cook or field repair a space suit, farmer and an ice miner
>who loses an arm and then goes on to become the best “computer man” in
>Luna, but not “really” a full-fledged electronics engineer nor physicist
>- by his own admission, of course. He steals power and water from the
>Authority – only air is a more critical resource – without a trace. He
>is selected for marriage into one of the most respected families, and has
>the respect of one of the most highly educated men, in Luna. Help him
>wipe the drool off his bib.

Again, “wipe the drool off his bib” was not implied. But he is much more of an “ordinary man” to me than some of the “supercompetent” types are. I have known numerous people who had not a lot of formal education, nor a lot of paper credentials, but were very intelligent, and through their own hard work made themselves excellent at their field(s). Manny strikes me as part of the “cream” of the “ordinary folks.”

>>One could only describe them as incompetent by
>>comparison.
>With whom? Lazarus? He is clearly a special case.

Well, like I said, compare Kip to Peewee, as one example. What I was trying to say was that some of Heinlein’s protagonists are very intelligent, very educated, very physically fit, and of exceptionally good character, but they can still remind me of real people I have known. Some other protagonists are just completely off the scale, larger than life.

>>It is the glory of these “incompetents” that they do what must
>>be done.
>That, I think, is the glory of almost all the major characters in Mr.
>Heinlein’s work.

Oh, agreed, to be sure. But even greater for those who are more “ordinary.”

–Dee

>I always throught Putnam took the Scribner-refused
>juvenile virtually unchanged.

As I understand it, they bought the book on the basis of the Scribner’s ms, but there are two mss in the file at UCSC; the marked up one — i.e., the one sent by copyeditor to printer — is something like 98 pp (without looking up my notes) longer than the other one. Everything after Rico goes to OCS, except the last 9 or 10 pages, which was the ending in both versions, was added between the first ms. and the second — about the last quarter of the book. I assume that the rest of the book was written specifically to be a Scribner’s juvenile, but that the added material was the rest of what he thought needed to be said or clarifying material — since he didn’t go back and rewrite.

I guess there is a lot of factual material in the public part of the archives that isn’t widely known. But it’s publicly available.

Bill

>Midway between ordinary humanity and the gods, with a foot in both camps?

Frye said of heroes that they were like us in kind but different in degree, whereas the gods were superior to us both in kind and in degree.

I still think Heinlein relied a lot on new circumstances bringing out abilities that were there all along but would not be expressed in “ordinary” circumstances — Libby of “Misfit” is the classic example. it’s a Darwinian/Evolutionary thing. And when he said a human being able to do a whole host of things, it’s implicit that his vision of the quotidian human being includes the ability to learn all the technical material involved in all of those things. The particular context in which that quote came up was of pioneering, and it’s manifest that the ordinary people who did actually create farms and civilization out of the prairie did have to demonstrate that kind of versatility.

What we are dealing with is a literary convention; we have come to accept the ironic convention of the degraded protagonist (similar to us in kind but inferior in degree) as the default condition.

Bill
James Gifford wrote:

>Gordon G. Sollars wrote:
>
>>I thought that you were the one who named this theory? Are you now
>>backing away by putting “incompetents” in quotes?
>
>No, I believe I’ve always made it clear that my claims of incompetence
>for many early 1960s characters were relative – none would be judged
>”incompetent” by us mere mortals, but up against the usual Heinleinian
>heros who stumble into strange situations and save the girl, the day and
>the universe with the odds and ends in their pockets, they come up as
>bumbling boobies.
>
>–
>
>| James Gifford – Nitrosyncretic Press |
>| http://www.nitrosyncretic.com for the Heinlein FAQ & more |
>| Tired of auto-spam… change “not” to “net” for replies |

I’m afraid your referring to EE “Doc” Smith, there- perhaps Space Hounds of IPC?

Which “competent” Heinlein heroes saved the day with items in their pockets?

As I recall, they used brain power! Including EC Gordon! (Although he does have LUCK!)

Roger
In article, Dee writes…


>Gordon, I don’t know anything about the time frames.

OK, but that is a key part of James’s claim. Your main point is different from his, so I should have explicit that I was taking your reply not on its own, but as a stick to beat James with. 😉

Before going on, I want to stress again that I think that James was getting at “coping well with circumstances” and that I think that this is something different (though, not of course, completely unrelated) to “competencies”. In what follows, I will address competencies, which seems to be your issue, different from what James really meant (as at least I use the term).

>What I meant to say
>was that RAH has (at least) two sorts of protagonists–The people like LL,
>Friday, Deety, Libby, Star, Peewee, and lots more, I’m sure, whose innate
>abilities are truly extraordinary, the ones I referred to as the

Well, Friday is genetically enhanced. Libby might or might not have been a great mathematician without his/her special talent. Star’s judgment is enhanced by memory imprints. And are LL’s abilities “truly extraordinary”? It is true that he has the time to master many disciplines. But, prior to 1962, all we know about his abilities, beyond being smart and quick with his hands, its that he had the ability to “borrow” Libby’s patent for spaceship controls for his own ship. Would that really have been beyond Mannie’s abilities?

I think that we find a mix of competencies – from “merely” impressive to “super competent” throughout the Heinlein corpus. If that is all you are saying, then OK by me. But I do not think that there is a quantum gap between two sets of characters, and I don’t think, if there were such a gap, that it has anything to do with a particular period such as 1962-66.

>>Remember what Peewee’s father says to Kip about his abilities.
>
>No, I don’t remember, specifically, I’ll have to go back and look.

Reisfeld to Kip: “The greatest mathematical psychologist of our generation… this man married his star pupil. I doubt if their offspring is less bright than my own child.”


>Well, like I said, compare Kip to Peewee, as one example.

I think that you might be drawing the wrong conclusion from Kip’s modesty. Remember, he is telling the story. lal-truckee makes the same point about Oscar.

>What I was trying
>to say was that some of Heinlein’s protagonists are very intelligent, very
>educated, very physically fit, and of exceptionally good character, but they
>can still remind me of real people I have known. Some other protagonists
>are just completely off the scale, larger than life.

I think that a person’s stand on this may be a function of the people he or she has met. I am just smart enough to know that I have been, on a few occasions, in the presence of someone who was “off the scale”.


Gordon Sollars

On 25 Apr 2002 18:38:45 GMT, 41020719 (dont be fuelish) held forth, saying:

>Dee wrote:
>
>>there are certain protagonists who are much more
>>”ordinary” in their gifts and abilities, not geniuses, not
>>immortals, etc. (Compare Kip to Peewee, for example.)
>>I would choose Manny as an outstanding example.
>
>Having a socket set for the left arm is ordinary?

For a man with one arm and a stump, in a high-tech society, it might be. But the socket set and other arms are *tools*; the knowledge and skills required to use those tools aren’t particularly ordinary.

Note how Mannie acquired a chunk of his computech skills; he subjected himself to Earth’s gravity et al.


-denny-
nocturnal curmudgeon, editor

Never try to outstubborn a cat. – Lazarus Long

BPRAL22169 wrote:

>>I always throught Putnam took the Scribner-refused
>>juvenile virtually unchanged.
>>
>
>As I understand it, they bought the book on the basis of the Scribner’s ms, but
>there are two mss in the file at UCSC; the marked up one — i.e., the one sent
>by copyeditor to printer — is something like 98 pp (without looking up my
>notes) longer than the other one. Everything after Rico goes to OCS, except
>the last 9 or 10 pages, which was the ending in both versions, was added
>between the first ms. and the second — about the last quarter of the book. I
>assume that the rest of the book was written specifically to be a Scribner’s
>juvenile, but that the added material was the rest of what he thought needed to
>be said or clarifying material — since he didn’t go back and rewrite.
>

That’s very interesting and exactly why I asked: I read you as saying he added the entire OCS sequence, including all of OCS and the test cruise and battle, up to and including the rescue of Rico by Nardi’s and Brumby’s sacrifice and capture of the queen/brain bug by Zim. That is what makes the hackneyed plot unique: it’s a good plot, though trite, because we’ve seen it done so nicely before: John Wayne’s Sands of Iwo Jima, Richard Widmark’s and Karl Malden’s Take the High Ground, and Jack Webb’s D.I. — even deconstructed by Kubrick in Full Metal Jacket.

One is a juvenile plot, perfectly satisfactory for the aims of a juvenile; but not much new, except setting and the political system of qualifying voters and return to use of corporeal punishment. The later takes the “once more unto the breach” aspect and adds its problems and efforts to more fulfill of the soldier’s life, just as Oscar Gordon realizes in Glory Road that the initial hero’s journey doesn’t conclude a hero’s life. The one is a romance, as well a novel of maturization, and the other’s a satire.

>I guess there is a lot of factual material in the public part of the archives
>that isn’t widely known. But it’s publicly available.

Are you sure we can’t arrange to have the archives at UCSC opened, at least briefly in late August, before ConJosé?


David M. Silver
http://www.heinleinsociety.org
http://www.readinggroupsonline.com/groups/heinlein.htm
“The Lieutenant expects your names to shine!”
Robert Anson Heinlein, USNA ’29
Lt (jg)., USN R’td (1907-1988)

Dennis M. Hammes wrote:

 

>When we really “meet” Lazarus, he’s 2000 years old;

Please, sir, the “first time” we meet LL he is 213 years old. [p.10 — Methuselah’s Children]

 

>E.C.Gordon
>is rather fresh out of high school,

It appears to me that the factual statement in the book that Easy is “just out of high school” has to be tempered by the realization that Glory Road is reminiscence. It is NOT the high school senior who is writing this story. This is the product of a man who has already been up the Glory Road and has succeeded in a number of tryiing situations. Perhaps, he recalls “generously” his reactions at the time?

Your mileage, etc.

Dr. Rufo
James Gifford wrote:

>
>David Silver wrote:
>
>>>>He quickly shook it off and went back to his trademark style, even
>>>>compensating by going to the super-hyper-competents populating
>>>>everything from TEfL onwards… :)
>
>>>Um, Marjorie Baldwin? Physically, certainly, mentally, with that trick
>>>of intuiting a correct answer, maybe; but . . . defend her as
>>>super-hyper-competent emotionally, please, James. I’d put her right
>>>down among the lower-mimetic both emotionally and maturely. IOW, just
>>>plain folks.
>
>All of Heinlein’s characters have holes, usually in their emotional or
>social makeup. I never said they were godlike in their perfection.
>Friday has the self-esteem of a field mouse, despite many, many reasons
>to be as arrogantly self-confident as Woody Smith.

?? Which edition of “Woody” were you reading? Cliff’s?

>
>And Woody – well, let’s stand him up as the single greatest example of
>Heinleinian super-competence, and then note that he is the next thing to
>sociopathic towards everyone outside his exclusive in-group.

This bit of “analysis” /really/ wants the meaning of the very-professional term, “sociopathic,” since “Woodrow Wilson Smith” (outside his own description of himself at the age of five), is about as archetypally opposite to the defined sociopath as literature has to offer.

And you can look that up.

The one outstanding deus-ex-supermachina I can recall in Mr. Heinlein’s stable is the mystically-inexplicable “Andrew Jackson ‘Slipstick’ Libby,” who can sit in for a busted Cray and solve three-body problems in real time on a little algebra, a little trig, and less caffiene than half a jolt of Mountain Dew. Everybody else worked for his muttons.

>
>>And when you finish with her, try Alex Hergensheimer, toy of the betting
>>gods.
>
>I knew someone would point him out – happy to have it be you. :)
>
>Alec is a poor, ‘umble, ignorant, only partially-lettered bumbler who…
>goes through a multitude of literally life-shattering experiences,
>throws off a lifetime of cultural and social conditioning in the space
>of a few weeks, and evolves in relatively short order to the point where
>he’s sassing deities to their faces.

Pf. Took me about two hours in eighth grade. Only I didn’t sass; I threw an equation. Three whole letters. F=ma.

>And he wins! He wins the girl, the
>gold watch (that stops time) and everything (define indefinite afterlife
>of one’s own designing as not “everything”).

The designing of an indefinite afterlife (the actual Greek says “world to come,” and means, situationally, “next minute, next hour, next week, next century, next lifetime”) of one’s own choosing is fairly common and completely mundane (equations, again), even if the, well, less-than-super-hyper-competent copy bits of the gestures and noises as “religion,” John.

Or would the SuperMcGee be too much of a reach? Even statistically, he should have been alligator bait about three times more often in his two decades than Woody Smith in his two millenia.

Which detracts not a whit from /his/ company, since I have more of that from “him” than I have from most of my “friends,” as the dictionary puts them, provided they’re not here at the moment, either.

>
>I think you’re all hung up on my definition of the dichotomy as
>competence vs. incompetence, which is a partial and fuzzy definition.
>Next time I’ll reach deeply into Frye or Hayakawa and pull out a
>suitably mysterious and vague term that I can define to my own liking. :)

There’s really nothing wrong with “ignorance” /or/ “incompetence” as subject terms correctly used, and I don’t need to referee Whorf and Korzybski for the observation.

Though I have (K.’s only real problem is speaking with the marbles still in his mouth, but as his native tongue was one I cannot speak at all, I merely remove my hat without throwing it into /that/ ring).

Either /pure/ term could be used in your analysis, but you don’t keep the latter pure. You take it in the public sense of its having an added “somehow”-mitigating permanent component when it is essentially instant, and you add a few nudges of your own to that component.

In the root case, “incompetence” is strictly circumstantial, and refers solely to the accidental relation between the actor and the milieu of the moment, and as such would necessarily apply to any character, stuck by his author into a situation he couldn’t possibly have made, solely so that the author could show us how he learned to handle /it/ — not all 666 numbers of the Beast. But that analysis is /static/, being only of the instant relation. It is that dynamic, Romantic, plunge-for-the-purpose-of-recovery, which implies a learning curve, which gives that the at-least-more-correct word would be “ignorance,” which also implies a learning curve. But in your analyses, these characters acquire the permanent psychological attributes, many of which Mr. Heinlein did /not/ author, of /other real people/, including an assertion of “permanent” incompetence in the fact that, in the best tradition of the Adventure Yarn, the /author/ keeps throwing them over their heads into the rose bushes fairly the moment they crawl from the previous dimension out of the living room window as the whole house collapses.

And even /in situ/, you continue to insist on missing the point that /they/ didn’t cause the house to collapse — and that even Hugo Pinero could not duck the Author’s Big Black Eraser.

Hayakawa had something to say about that, yes. It was in Chapter One of all three principal texts, and it concerned “taking the word for the object.”

Well, the chancel couldn’t exist, and fiction wouldn’t be salable, without it, so.

But the /fact/ is that “Lazarus Long” (and all the rest) did nothing, felt nothing, and couldn’t consider himself egomaniacally superior to anybody at all, being no more than a few blots of ink at the top of page 36 and having thus no more observable reality than Winnie the Pooh. In that sense, /any/ character who survives his author (that being definitively more sociopathic than a priest), is super-hyper-competent.

But the only actual competence /anybody/ can observe in /any/ of these stories is Mr. Heinlein’s own. And, considering the number of characters and universes he juggled without dropping any of them, I think What We Have Heah (besides a failuah tew c’MUnicate), is a /real/ example of a “super-hyper-competent.”

Though at this point, I can only hope that the residuals agree, because, you see, Virginia, there is no Santa Claus.

[Dennis M. Hammes]


——(m+
~/:o)_|
You can call your priest anything you want,
except /my/ priest.
http://t-independent.com/scrawlmark-press/

Gordon G. Sollars wrote:

>
>I think that a person’s stand on this may be a function of the people he
>or she has met. I am just smart enough to know that I have been, on a
>few occasions, in the presence of someone who was “off the scale”.
>

It’s a very rare thing. I started grammar school with a boy who, one day, quite suddenly, was no longer a classmate. We asked. “He’s gone to another school, where he’ll be challenged,” said Mrs. Gray, our first-grade teacher. A year later, my own far more modest attainments and potential got me invited to attend the same school, as a second grader. He was there — a sixth grader and only loosely doing what the other sixth graders did. What do you do with a seven-year-old who belongs, at least intellectually, in college? A year later we moved to the West Coast. I wonder what become of him. His name was Richard Kish.


David M. Silver
http://www.heinleinsociety.org
http://www.readinggroupsonline.com/groups/heinlein.htm
“The Lieutenant expects your names to shine!”
Robert Anson Heinlein, USNA ’29
Lt (jg)., USN R’td (1907-1988)

BPRAL22169 wrote:

>>It is NOT the high
>>school senior who is writing this story.
>
>Wasn’t it rather that he went to SE Asia just out of high school? IIRC he was
>finished with at least one tour of duty when we found him in France.
>Bill

He graduated= 18

He got drafted after 6-8 mo

He completed his “enlistment” (2 yrs) = 20

So Discharged to South France at 21

All of “Glory” road is about 1 year, including marriage to Her Wisdom?

So he returns to Southern CA at 22

Really ancient!

Yeah, he’s seen a little of the world, and a little of the multiverse that Star rules, but in essence, he’s still pretty much an uneducated bumpkin!

Roger
Roger Connor wrote:

>BPRAL22169 wrote:
>
>>>It is NOT the high
>>>school senior who is writing this story.
>>
>>Wasn’t it rather that he went to SE Asia just out of high school? IIRC he was
>>finished with at least one tour of duty when we found him in France.
>>Bill
>
>He graduated= 18
>He got drafted after 6-8 mo
>He completed his “enlistment” (2 yrs) = 20
>So Discharged to South France at 21
>All of “Glory” road is about 1 year, including marriage to Her Wisdom?
>So he returns to Southern CA at 22
>Really ancient!
>
>Yeah, he’s seen a little of the world, and a little of the multiverse that Star
>rules, but in essence, he’s still pretty much an uneducated bumpkin!
>Roger

And I forgot the 2 years in college – that makes him all of 24!

Roger
James Gifford wrote:

>
>Gordon G. Sollars wrote:
>
>>Second, labels aside, the idea itself is not
>>nearly as compelling to me as it is to James. He picks out several
>>characters in the 1962-66 range and claims that they are “relatively
>>incompetent”, but he does not draw a sharp boundary, as my pre-1962
>>examples show. Is Mannie significantly less able to deal with his
>>circumstances (what James seems to mean by “incompetence”) than Dan
>>Davis? Perhaps, but I would like to see more argument.
>
>Yes. DB Davis is subjected to at least three life-shattering transitions
>(loss of Belle and his company, sleep-travel to 2000, time-travel back
>to 1970) and, in Doc Smith/George O. Smith/prewar RAH broad-shouldered
>engineer style, shrugs them off and soldiers on in grand style. He ends
>up with the girl, the gold belt and everything – even the cat.
>
>Mannie Davis is pushed around by events he never does quite understand
>and never does quite get a grip on (in part because his closest friends
>and confidants are shining him on and using him shamelessly),
>contributes almost nothing to the revolution except the delivery of
>Mike’s friendship, and does an extremely poor job as revolutionary
>planner, ambassador, War Minister and congressman. At the end, he is
>simply a leftover unhappy with the long-term results and planning to
>leave for hopefully greener pastures.
>
>Next question?
>| James Gifford

Were “Manuel O’Kelly Davis” the protagonist of /The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress/, I could be very inclined to agree with the classification, even the analysis.

But “Manny” is /not/ the protagonist of /Moon/; he’s the old “First-Person Narrator” Trick, 99, and as such is about as instrumental to the plot as a key-diving cockroach, complete with similar physical and linguistic intrusions on the read narrative. Of all the characters in /Moon/, only “Manny” has the personal mobility the /author/ requires to “report” rather than speculate.

And not much more. Plot /”Manny’s”/ plot: boy gets friend; boy has adventures on raft (okay, BIG raft); boy loses friend (who said, somewhere here, “file the serial numbers off a guilty Twain, get Bob”?). Yet by dwelling behind /his/ eyes and between /his/ ears, we get a feel for the place — and for the people that so shamelessly use his happiness to /be/ used — that we would not, /could/ not, get from the protagonist.

Primarily because the super-hyper-competent protagonist-Hero of /Moon/ is “Mycroft Holmes IV,” aka “Adam Selene,” Leader Of And Martyr For The Cause.

Something, perhaps, to remember on this roughly-anniversary of the Post-Office Riot, esp since it was /called/ a “riot” by the /winners/.

(Pearce, we hardly knew ye…)


——(m+
~/:o)_|
You can call your priest anything you want,
except /my/ priest.
http://t-independent.com/scrawlmark-press/

>Thanks for the quote. I haven’t gotten Jim’s book yet, so my response
>will have to be based on your quoted passage and general memory of past
>discussions.
>I think the point here has to do with RAH’s general theme of the
>[super]competent hero. By comparison, there are certain protagonists who
>are much more “ordinary” in their gifts and abilities, not geniuses, not
>immortals, etc. (Compare Kip to Peewee, for example.) I would choose Manny
>as an outstanding example. One could only describe them as incompetent by
>comparison. It is the glory of these “incompetents” that they do what must
>be done.
>–Dee
>
>

Super competent hero’s? See E. E. Smith. By that comparison, even Lazarus is a bumbling 2 digit IQ twit. Why The Senior never took a weekend and invented a whole new branch of physics AND the technology to go with it that I remember ;)).

GMC
“James Gifford”wrote in message news:

>TreetopAngel wrote:
>
>
>
>Again, I think I’ve made it clear that I’m referring to a special case
>of “competence” in this analysis. From 1939 to 1985, the vast majority
>of Heinlein’s major characters are so adaptable, capable and generally
>super-competent – even when thrown violently into very unusual
>circumstances – that the characters of this era stand out as something
>quite different.
>
>All of them would be regarded as more competent than average and even
>admirably adaptable out here in the real world. However, within
>Heinlein’s universe, their comparative inabilities and their being
>dragged along bodily by events is unusual – so much so that it is clear
>to me that Heinlein was deliberately experimenting with “incompetent”
>characters in this era – choose your own phrase and definition.
>
>He quickly shook it off and went back to his trademark style, even
>compensating by going to the super-hyper-competents populating
>everything from TEfL onwards… :)
>
>–

I’m amazed nobody has yet put their finger on Heinleins’ hero’s one common denominator and strongest point. They ALWAYS (unless being set up for a ‘lesson’) recognize reality and respond to it appropriately. The vast majority of people in the world ‘Never let the facts alter their view of the way things SHOULD be’ (c 1974, me ..or have i stolen one of the masters?) Heinleins heroes are never guilty of this punishable by death offense. THAT is what makes them ‘super competent’. They’re not busy ignoring the events that are trying to do them in.

Oh god..my first serious comment….(cringe!)

GMC

>Are you sure we can’t arrange to have the archives at UCSC opened, at
>least briefly in late August, before ConJosé?

I’ll check to find out when the archives are completely closed down; I was told that they will have extended hours this summer (i.e., more than 2 hours per day) but I don’t know whether that will also be true just before school recommences.

San Jose is about 29 miles from Santa Cruz — a very scenic drive. So a half-day trip would be very easy to arrange.

Bill

>It is NOT the high
>school senior who is writing this story.

Wasn’t it rather that he went to SE Asia just out of high school? IIRC he was finished with at least one tour of duty when we found him in France.

Bill
In article, says…

>No, I believe I’ve always made it clear that my claims of incompetence
>for many early 1960s characters were relative – none would be judged
>”incompetent” by us mere mortals, but up against the usual Heinleinian
>heros who stumble into strange situations and save the girl, the day and
>the universe with the odds and ends in their pockets, they come up as
>bumbling boobies.
>

I consider those early 60s characters “the usual Heinleinian heros.” They’re usually only nails that stand out.


RDKirk
“It’s always socially unacceptable to be right too soon.” — RAH

BPRAL22169 wrote:

>>It is NOT the high
>>school senior who is writing this story.
>>
>
>Wasn’t it rather that he went to SE Asia just out of high school? IIRC he was
>finished with at least one tour of duty when we found him in France.
>Bill
>
>

My most sincere apologies, in an excess of zeal I neglected to check the facts. On p. 14 of the text we find “Flash” Gordon saying that “at the end of my sophomore year they de-emphasized football.” The last line of the same page has “I turned twenty-one that summer . . . .”

Further, as you say, he had at least one tour of duty in SE Asia. I checked the portion describing his hospitalization and the thought segue into Heidelberg for his degree then maybe a doctorate. Just so, he WAS NOT a high school student but rather a “man, full grown, with battle experience.”

Sheepishly,

Dr. Rufo

(Who sincerely wishes he were qualified to be a RAH “competent” character rather than a member of the “control group” against which they are measured.)
cmaj7dmin7 wrote:

>
>>It doesn’t “fail in the end.” Heinlein successfully reproduces in the
>>reader the same ennui (in the midst of luxury) that Oscar was feeling.
>>
>
>Agreed. He bores the unholy shit of all of us at the end. Interesting you
>felt it but told yourself it was writing skill and are ready to argue it.
>You should be allowed the luxury of your delusion.
>

Reilloc and Randy at the same time..gee, and it was so peaceful ’round here…

Reilloc, just who does, ‘all of us’ comprise? Not me….and don’t willfully misunderstand just to give yourself an excuse to be caustic; it’s OK, we haven’t forgotten you, no need to come on so strong just to remind us :-).

The boring bit was the ‘reward’ of untold wealth, leisure and safety. Oscar rejecting this (and Star to a certain extent) was Heinlein taking ‘happily ever after’ a few pages further. A little like the end of ‘The Princess Bride’ in a way.

The ‘final’ ending of continued danger, adventures and romance was the real reward for a hero; not the only way it could have ended but it worked for me.

One avenue we could look at is alternative endings; could Heinlein have turned it tragic? Have a disillusioned Oscar go back to Earth, and turn into a slob, blearily remembering his past triumphs through a haze of alcohol or drugs? When a hero retires, does he go downhill faster than most? Or a tragic but heroic end, Oscar dying in some rescue attempt, re enlisting and this time not surviving? Or, scariest of all, marrying a mundane and settling for that pool and garage…but Heinlein didn’t go for sad endings often..or did he?

(I’m going to relabel this for the chat; shame to waste GR discussion. Elizabeth, do you want to relabel your thread too as it’s off to such a good start? Chat can be next Thursday but one and Saturday which gives us 2 weeks to continue posts and read the book? I can help out some of those dates if you want to be the main host.)

Jane


http://www.heinleinsociety.org

In article, Jane Davittwrote:

>>>It doesn’t “fail in the end.” Heinlein successfully reproduces in the
>>>reader the same ennui (in the midst of luxury) that Oscar was feeling.

>>Agreed. He bores the unholy shit of all of us at the end. Interesting you
>>felt it but told yourself it was writing skill and are ready to argue it.
>>You should be allowed the luxury of your delusion.

>The boring bit was the ‘reward’ of untold wealth, leisure and
>safety. Oscar rejecting this (and Star to a certain extent) was
>Heinlein taking ‘happily ever after’ a few pages further. A little

Very well put, Jane. I alwasy saw GR as RAH’s take on Sword and Sorcery, but he just couldn’t leave it at “… and they all lived happily ever after ’till the end of their days, la di la di da.” And given what Scar had gone through, as I put myself in his shoes (as I would expect to do while reading the story from his viewpoint), I don’t think I could settle for that ending myself.

>One avenue we could look at is alternative endings; could Heinlein
>have turned it tragic? Have a disillusioned Oscar go back to Earth,
>and turn into a slob, blearily remembering his past triumphs through
>a haze of alcohol or drugs? When a hero retires, does he go downhill

Hmmm… is it just me, or does anyone else get kind of a “Stephen R Donaldson” feel from the scenario Jane describes above? (I never did finish that series; just too darned depressing)

Cheers!


Brian Maranta ~ Kingston, Ontario, Canada ~
URL: http://home.cogeco.ca/~bmaranta ~ ICQ#16149211
Canadian Army Signals – Royal Military College of Canada, Class of ’89
“You live and learn – or you don’t live long.” – R.A. Heinlein
Mac Evangelist – Dispelling the Mac Myths!

“Jane Davitt”wrote in message news:

>cmaj7dmin7 wrote:
>
>
>>
>>>It doesn’t “fail in the end.” Heinlein successfully reproduces in the
>>>reader the same ennui (in the midst of luxury) that Oscar was feeling.
>>>
>>
>>Agreed. He bores the unholy shit of all of us at the end. Interesting you
>>felt it but told yourself it was writing skill and are ready to argue it.
>>You should be allowed the luxury of your delusion.
>>
>
>
>Reilloc and Randy at the same time..gee, and it was so peaceful
>’round here…

Sorry, I don’t know Randy but he or she’s apparently not an unthinking hero-worshipper, huh? Probably a damn, un-Libertarian Panshin spouter, too, eh? Know her/his Heinlein, does he/she? Annoying, isn’t it?

>
>Reilloc,just who does, ‘all of us’ comprise? Not me….and don’t
>willfully misunderstand just to give yourself an excuse to be
>caustic; it’s OK, we haven’t forgotten you, no need to come on so
>strong just to remind us :-).

Jane, you igno…no, that would be trite and perceived as too over the top. Besides, you’re a mother now and may be mellower than you used to be. I know I got that way when somebody called me that.

>The boring bit was the ‘reward’ of untold wealth, leisure and
>safety. Oscar rejecting this (and Star to a certain extent) was
>Heinlein taking ‘happily ever after’ a few pages further. A little
>like the end of ‘The Princess Bride’ in a way.

Starined, Jane. A passing mention that Mandy would make a great dread pirate Roberts isn’t anything more than a suggestion but, as you wish.

>The ‘final’ ending of continued danger, adventures and romance was
>the real reward for a hero; not the only way it could have ended but
>it worked for me.

Compare, GR’s ending and NOTB’s. Zeb and Cyril, Star and Deety, swords and sorcerers (Jake and Rufo) and tell me where the imagination went. All these elements and ground covered twice and what’s the ending? None. For a guy with all the answers where’s the resolution? Ain’t none. Why’s that?

GR set up the sequel but Bob couldn’t pull it off. Oh, sure, he wrote a book and it’s got everyone talking and it’s not a bad book for as self-indulgent a forced sale as it is but where’s the ending? My guesses are GR was old-style Heinlein when the business of writing was on his mind and he was really leaving the door open to a sequel or series and NOTB is corrupt-Heinlein where his fans would buy anything (even absolute garbage like IWFNE). Consequently, you don’t really deserve an ending, do you? You take what you can get and hang on every crumb, ready to dissect them and attribute god-like qualities to their creator. Silly, really. Who wouldn’t be flattered, though?

>
>One avenue we could look at is alternative endings; could Heinlein
>have turned it tragic? Have a disillusioned Oscar go back to Earth,
>and turn into a slob, blearily remembering his past triumphs through
>a haze of alcohol or drugs? When a hero retires, does he go downhill
>faster than most? Or a tragic but heroic end, Oscar dying in some
>rescue attempt, re enlisting and this time not surviving? Or,
>scariest of all, marrying a mundane and settling for that pool and
>garage…but Heinlein didn’t go for sad endings often..or did he?

See, above.

>(I’m going to relabel this for the chat; shame to waste GR
>discussion. Elizabeth, do you want to relabel your thread too as
>it’s off to such a good start? Chat can be next Thursday but one and
>Saturday which gives us 2 weeks to continue posts and read the book?
>I can help out some of those dates if you want to be the main host.)
>
>Jane
>
>–
>http://www.heinleinsociety.org
>

LNC
On Fri, 26 Apr 2002 04:03:03 GMT, “cmaj7dmin7″ wrote:

>
>”Jane Davitt” wrote in message
>news:
>>cmaj7dmin7 wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>It doesn’t “fail in the end.” Heinlein successfully reproduces in the
>>>>reader the same ennui (in the midst of luxury) that Oscar was feeling.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Agreed. He bores the unholy shit of all of us at the end. Interesting you
>>>felt it but told yourself it was writing skill and are ready to argue it.
>>>You should be allowed the luxury of your delusion.
>>>
>>
>>
>>Reilloc and Randy at the same time..gee, and it was so peaceful
>>’round here…
>
>Sorry, I don’t know Randy but he or she’s apparently not an unthinking
>hero-worshipper, huh? Probably a damn, un-Libertarian Panshin spouter, too,
>eh? Know her/his Heinlein, does he/she? Annoying, isn’t it?
>>
>>Reilloc,just who does, ‘all of us’ comprise? Not me….and don’t
>>willfully misunderstand just to give yourself an excuse to be
>>caustic; it’s OK, we haven’t forgotten you, no need to come on so
>>strong just to remind us :-).
>
>Jane, you igno…no, that would be trite and perceived as too over the top.
>Besides, you’re a mother now and may be mellower than you used to be. I know
>I got that way when somebody called me that.
>
>>The boring bit was the ‘reward’ of untold wealth, leisure and
>>safety. Oscar rejecting this (and Star to a certain extent) was
>>Heinlein taking ‘happily ever after’ a few pages further. A little
>>like the end of ‘The Princess Bride’ in a way.
>
>Starined, Jane. A passing mention that Mandy would make a great dread pirate
>Roberts isn’t anything more than a suggestion but, as you wish.
>
>>The ‘final’ ending of continued danger, adventures and romance was
>>the real reward for a hero; not the only way it could have ended but
>>it worked for me.
>
>Compare, GR’s ending and NOTB’s. Zeb and Cyril, Star and Deety, swords and
>sorcerers (Jake and Rufo) and tell me where the imagination went. All these
>elements and ground covered twice and what’s the ending? None. For a guy
>with all the answers where’s the resolution? Ain’t none. Why’s that?
>
>GR set up the sequel but Bob couldn’t pull it off. Oh, sure, he wrote a book
>and it’s got everyone talking and it’s not a bad book for as self-indulgent
>a forced sale as it is but where’s the ending? My guesses are GR was
>old-style Heinlein when the business of writing was on his mind and he was
>really leaving the door open to a sequel or series and NOTB is
>corrupt-Heinlein where his fans would buy anything (even absolute garbage
>like IWFNE). Consequently, you don’t really deserve an ending, do you? You
>take what you can get and hang on every crumb, ready to dissect them and
>attribute god-like qualities to their creator. Silly, really. Who wouldn’t
>be flattered, though?
>>
>>One avenue we could look at is alternative endings; could Heinlein
>>have turned it tragic? Have a disillusioned Oscar go back to Earth,
>>and turn into a slob, blearily remembering his past triumphs through
>>a haze of alcohol or drugs? When a hero retires, does he go downhill
>>faster than most? Or a tragic but heroic end, Oscar dying in some
>>rescue attempt, re enlisting and this time not surviving? Or,
>>scariest of all, marrying a mundane and settling for that pool and
>>garage…but Heinlein didn’t go for sad endings often..or did he?
>
>See, above.
>
>>(I’m going to relabel this for the chat; shame to waste GR
>>discussion. Elizabeth, do you want to relabel your thread too as
>>it’s off to such a good start? Chat can be next Thursday but one and
>>Saturday which gives us 2 weeks to continue posts and read the book?
>>I can help out some of those dates if you want to be the main host.)
>>
>>Jane
>>
>>–
>>http://www.heinleinsociety.org
>>
>LNC
>
>

First we get Randy and his frozen head filled with delusions of grandiose anarchy and now we have LNC who’s posts appear to be the ramblings of a failed and ill-mannered AI experiment.

“Thank you dear Lord for providing us with such splendid cannonfodder.”

Steve

http://afhpics.mnsdesigns.com/
http://www.mnsdesigns.com/

BPRAL22169 wrote:

>
>. . . [snip] I
>think you’ve got hold of *something* Heinlein is doing in the books immediately
>following Starnger, but the relative “competence” of the characters is just a
>secondary effect of whatever else it is he might be doing.
>. . . [snip] until JOB, Glory Road was Heinlein’s most clearly Cabellian
>book, as it uses the form of the Cabellian comedy, which characteristically
>turns on finding out that what one wanted and worked toward was not what one
>wants, after all — or, alternatively, not achieving what one wanted and
>finding it doesn’t matter at all. That’s why he was so incensed that an editor
>wanted to cut the last 100 pages of the book — the part that makes it a
>Cabellian comedy instead of a sword-and-sworcery romance. And (4) I’ve been
>able to detect more Cabellian material in the books before TMIAHM and after ST.
>This subject is dealt with at greater (though not much greater) length in the
>Cabell Prize essay. I just checked my link, and it seems to have been taken
>down recently. If we wind up going out on this topic, I’ll try to excerpt what
>I said at greater length.
>

Try: http://www.library.vcu.edu/jbc/speccoll/exhibit/cabell/Prize3.html


David M. Silver
http://www.heinleinsociety.org
http://www.readinggroupsonline.com/groups/heinlein.htm
“The Lieutenant expects your names to shine!”
Robert Anson Heinlein, USNA ’29
Lt (jg)., USN R’td (1907-1988)

denny wrote:

>On Wed, 24 Apr 2002 13:59:46 -0700, “Dr. Rufo”
>held forth, saying:

>>He “wins” the Irish Sweepstakes without the overt intervention of
>>any “higher power” beyond his own “skill” at poker.
>
>Are we certain Star had nothing to do with that?
>

Dr. Rufo did say “overt”. Oscar did make a reasonable amount even without the Irish Sweepstakes win.

Simon

Never try to outstubborn Lazarus Long – a cat.

“Dr. Rufo” wrote:

>
>Dennis M. Hammes wrote:
>
>
>
>>When we really “meet” Lazarus, he’s 2000 years old;
>
>Please, sir, the “first time” we meet LL he is 213 years old.
>[p.10 — Methuselah’s Children]

As adventure yarn yes; as discussion of self, I wait for /Time Enough…/

But 213 years old in a Kulchur whose average age is not much more than 21 (even leave out the kids and peg the “average adult” at 39) changes, well, what part of the argument?

>
>
>
>>E.C.Gordon
>>is rather fresh out of high school,
>
>It appears to me that the factual statement in the book that Easy
>is “just out of high school” has to be tempered by the
>realization that Glory Road is reminiscence. It is NOT the high
>school senior who is writing this story. This is the product of
>a man who has already been up the Glory Road and has succeeded in
>a number of tryiing situations. Perhaps, he recalls “generously”
>his reactions at the time?
>
>Your mileage, etc.
>Dr. Rufo

Your point taken, but his own tone toward himself (I’d say /because/ it is reminiscence) is fairly disparaging-flip throughout the book, i.e., “how’d that dumb kid survive /that/?,” mixed with some tones indicating that some opponents weren’t as tough as they seemed, mixed with some reports of fights severe enough that his own memory of them (or his report of it) drops clean out of the equation.

The reporter is reminiscing; the actor was fairly fresh out of school. He reports the “toughing exercises” (any of which could have killed him, the narrow escapes, too, discussed) that permitted him to get /to/ the Egg Fight.

So, two points; he isn’t a “super-hyper-hero,” and he doesn’t tout himself as one.


——(m+
~/:o)_|
You can call your priest anything you want,
except /my/ priest.
http://t-independent.com/scrawlmark-press/

Dennis M. Hammes wrote:


>I don’t remember any “Kip,” so I prolly didn’t read it.

The protagonist of “Have Space Suit – Will Travel”
James Gifford wrote:


>In his element, Mannie is above real-world “normal”
>competence. *BUT* in the events of the book, he is a ham-handed fumbler
>who knows little, contributes little, and in fact is something of a
>screwup at critical points.

Without Mannie, the revolutionaries would never have got Mike on their side, and the revolution would almost certainly have failed. Mannie also explains the “throwing rocks” strategy to Prof and Wyoh (the professional revolutionaries), devises a number of the disruptive tactics used in the pre-revolutionary period, designs a more efficient revolutionary cell structure and even out-thinks Mike in the matter of using telescopes to spot incoming warships.

The only lack of competency I can think of is a lack of diplomacy, wrt going earthside and the question of Howard Wright. In the former case, Prof and Mike anticipate potential problems, and keep Mannie in the dark for his own good. In the latter – another RAH character once said something like “some people’s toes were born to be stepped on”; Gospodin Wright is one of those.

Where did you think Mannie was a screwup?

Simon
GMC wrote:


>Super competent hero’s? See E. E. Smith. By that comparison, even Lazarus
>is a bumbling 2 digit IQ twit. Why The Senior never took a weekend and
>invented a whole new branch of physics AND the technology to go with it that
>I remember ;)).

I remember “Spacehounds of IPC”; the hero “Steve” (Percy) Stevens is marooned with his girfriend and the remnants of a lifeboat on Ganymede (IIRC). He builds a hydroelectric power plant, and then a working spaceship with two different weapons (UV and IR lasers) while fighting a small war singlehanded against some unfriendly natives, using a longbow.

In his essay on Doc Smith (called “Larger than Life”, included in EU) RAH states that Doc wouldn’t have had his heroes doing anything he couldn’t have done himself.

(Hmmm – Percy Stevens – it just occurred to me that Pete/Mac in “Friday” is really called Percy.)
Dennis M. Hammes wrote:

>James Gifford wrote:
>>
>>David Silver wrote:
>>


>The one outstanding deus-ex-supermachina I can recall in Mr.
>Heinlein’s stable is the mystically-inexplicable “Andrew Jackson
>’Slipstick’ Libby,” who can sit in for a busted Cray and solve
>three-body problems in real time on a little algebra, a little trig,
>and less caffiene than half a jolt of Mountain Dew. Everybody else
>worked for his muttons.

Deety in NotB is as smart as slipstick Libby, and her father is smarter. VM Smith (SiaSL) has abilities that would normally be regarded as superhuman, though these are apparently available to anyone who can speak Martian.

Friday Baldwin is a supergenius and physically superior to any modern-day athlete, but then she was designed that way. Dan Davis invents an entire industry in TDiS, including CAD/CAM systems in 2000 which noone else had thought of in the 30 years since he designed Hired Girl.

Clark Fries (age 11) can not only smuggle a nuclear device through customs in PoM, but dismantle and reactivate it. Waldo Jones starts off as a myasthenic cripple (though a genius), and ends up as a “ballet-tap” dancer and surgeon.

>>
>>>And when you finish with her, try Alex Hergensheimer, toy of the
betting
>>>gods.
>>
>>I knew someone would point him out – happy to have it be you. :)
>>
>>Alec is a poor, ‘umble, ignorant, only partially-lettered bumbler who…
>>goes through a multitude of literally life-shattering experiences,
>>throws off a lifetime of cultural and social conditioning in the space
>>of a few weeks, and evolves in relatively short order to the point where
>>he’s sassing deities to their faces.
>
>Pf. Took me about two hours in eighth grade. Only I didn’t sass; I
>threw an equation. Three whole letters. F=ma.
>

Which deities?


>But the only actual competence /anybody/ can observe in /any/ of
>these stories is Mr. Heinlein’s own. And, considering the number of
>characters and universes he juggled without dropping any of them, I
>think What We Have Heah (besides a failuah tew c’MUnicate), is a
>/real/ example of a “super-hyper-competent.”

Well, some critics you just can’t reach. For the rest of us, what we read was how Mr. Heinlein wanted it. Well, we got it. I think I liked it as much as you.

Simon
cmaj7dmin7 wrote:

>
>”Jane Davitt” wrote in message
>news:
>>cmaj7dmin7 wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>It doesn’t “fail in the end.” Heinlein successfully reproduces in the
>>>>reader the same ennui (in the midst of luxury) that Oscar was feeling.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Agreed. He bores the unholy shit of all of us at the end. Interesting
>you
>>>felt it but told yourself it was writing skill and are ready to argue
>it.
>>>You should be allowed the luxury of your delusion.
>>>
>>
>>
>>Reilloc and Randy at the same time..gee, and it was so peaceful
>>’round here…
>
>Sorry, I don’t know Randy but he or she’s apparently not an unthinking
>hero-worshipper, huh? Probably a damn, un-Libertarian Panshin spouter, too,
>eh? Know her/his Heinlein, does he/she? Annoying, isn’t it?
>>
>>Reilloc,just who does, ‘all of us’ comprise? Not me….and don’t
>>willfully misunderstand just to give yourself an excuse to be
>>caustic; it’s OK, we haven’t forgotten you, no need to come on so
>>strong just to remind us :-).
>
>Jane, you igno…no, that would be trite and perceived as too over the top.
>Besides, you’re a mother now and may be mellower than you used to be. I know
>I got that way when somebody called me that.
>
>>The boring bit was the ‘reward’ of untold wealth, leisure and
>>safety. Oscar rejecting this (and Star to a certain extent) was
>>Heinlein taking ‘happily ever after’ a few pages further. A little
>>like the end of ‘The Princess Bride’ in a way.
>
>Starined, Jane. A passing mention that Mandy would make a great dread pirate
>Roberts isn’t anything more than a suggestion but, as you wish.
>
>>The ‘final’ ending of continued danger, adventures and romance was
>>the real reward for a hero; not the only way it could have ended but
>>it worked for me.
>
>Compare, GR’s ending and NOTB’s. Zeb and Cyril, Star and Deety, swords and
>sorcerers (Jake and Rufo) and tell me where the imagination went. All these
>elements and ground covered twice and what’s the ending? None. For a guy
>with all the answers where’s the resolution? Ain’t none. Why’s that?
>
>GR set up the sequel but Bob couldn’t pull it off. Oh, sure, he wrote a book
>and it’s got everyone talking and it’s not a bad book for as self-indulgent
>a forced sale as it is but where’s the ending? My guesses are GR was
>old-style Heinlein when the business of writing was on his mind and he was
>really leaving the door open to a sequel or series and NOTB is
>corrupt-Heinlein where his fans would buy anything (even absolute garbage
>like IWFNE). Consequently, you don’t really deserve an ending, do you? You
>take what you can get and hang on every crumb, ready to dissect them and
>attribute god-like qualities to their creator. Silly, really. Who wouldn’t
>be flattered, though?
>>
>>One avenue we could look at is alternative endings; could Heinlein
>>have turned it tragic? Have a disillusioned Oscar go back to Earth,
>>and turn into a slob, blearily remembering his past triumphs through
>>a haze of alcohol or drugs? When a hero retires, does he go downhill
>>faster than most? Or a tragic but heroic end, Oscar dying in some
>>rescue attempt, re enlisting and this time not surviving? Or,
>>scariest of all, marrying a mundane and settling for that pool and
>>garage…but Heinlein didn’t go for sad endings often..or did he?
>
>See, above.
>
>>(I’m going to relabel this for the chat; shame to waste GR
>>discussion. Elizabeth, do you want to relabel your thread too as
>>it’s off to such a good start? Chat can be next Thursday but one and
>>Saturday which gives us 2 weeks to continue posts and read the book?
>>I can help out some of those dates if you want to be the main host.)
>>
>>Jane
>>
>>–
>>http://www.heinleinsociety.org
>>
>LNC

My. What a lot of Critical Expertise from one who cannot write a simple declarative sentence.

Child, one who so often tells another’s /words/ to go fuck themselves (and from the safety of a can tied to a long string!) should really have considered what happens when he has to tell another’s /sword/ to go fuck itself.

Especially as Mr. Heinlein so often deals in words for the sword.

Because it means that rather a lot of his readers do, too…

(“ROTFLMAO,” I think you guys put it?)

Oh, Gee, I Forgot. You don’t /have/ a sword (that’s self-evident).

You say elsewhere that you have a “We.” Being larger than a dog, you can use Sargent’s Capsules for that.


——(m+
~/:o)_|
You can call your priest anything you want,
except /my/ priest.
http://t-independent.com/scrawlmark-press/

“Simon Jester”

>Dan Davis invents an entire industry in TDiS, including CAD/CAM systems in
>2000 which noone else had thought of in the 30 years since he designed Hired
>Girl.

Original patent for Drafting Dan is 1971. He discovers the Machine in 2001, but he thought up the gag on the way to the confrontation with Myles and Belle. He created on his return trip to 1971.

NW
David Wright wrote:

>Don’t worry Jane, I am going to pick up all of the Glory Road thread to post
>at the beginning of the upcoming Glory Road discussion.
>
>David W.
>
>

You are archiver par excellence David :-)

Jane http://www.heinleinsociety.org

cmaj7dmin7 wrote:

>Sorry, I don’t know Randy but he or she’s apparently not an unthinking
>hero-worshipper, huh? Probably a damn, un-Libertarian Panshin spouter, too,
>eh? Know her/his Heinlein, does he/she? Annoying, isn’t it?

Heh. Hardly. You really don’t know Randy, do you? But I’m sure you’d get along great.

>
>Jane, you igno…no, that would be trite and perceived as too over the top.
>Besides, you’re a mother now and may be mellower than you used to be. I know
>I got that way when somebody called me that.

Mellow? Me? Nah. And in all the time you’ve known me, I’ve had children so no change there. Helps me to deal with the overgrown variety I run into on the net.Take that personally, please.

>
>
>>The boring bit was the ‘reward’ of untold wealth, leisure and
>>safety. Oscar rejecting this (and Star to a certain extent) was
>>Heinlein taking ‘happily ever after’ a few pages further. A little
>>like the end of ‘The Princess Bride’ in a way.
>>
>
>Starined, Jane. A passing mention that Mandy would make a great dread pirate
>Roberts isn’t anything more than a suggestion but, as you wish.

Ooh, even when you use that line, it gets me shivery. Say it again, Reilloc..before I feed you to a ROUS :-)) And in my copy of PB, Goldman not only makes most of the book about what happens after the girl meets the prince (the wrong one of course) but provides an ending paragraph setting out all the problems the gang probably face in the future, which most fairy stories don’t. Maybe you got the abridged version….

>
>
>>The ‘final’ ending of continued danger, adventures and romance was
>>the real reward for a hero; not the only way it could have ended but
>>it worked for me.
>>
>
>Compare, GR’s ending and NOTB’s.

Why should I? We’re talking about GR’s ending. You can compare it to another book if you want but why not discuss it as it stands?

Jane


http://www.heinleinsociety.org

Brian Maranta wrote:

>Hmmm… is it just me, or does anyone else get kind of a “Stephen R
>Donaldson” feel from the scenario Jane describes above? (I never did
>finish that series; just too darned depressing)
>
>Cheers!
>
>

I read the ones about a girl who went through a mirror into another world (Mordant’s Need books) but the Covenant ones were dire.Couldn’t get into them at all.

Jane


http://www.heinleinsociety.org

On Fri, 26 Apr 2002 06:38:38 GMT, in alt.fan.heinlein, David Silverquoth:

>BPRAL22169 wrote:
>
>
>>
>>. . . [snip] I
>>think you’ve got hold of *something* Heinlein is doing in the books immediately
>>following Starnger, but the relative “competence” of the characters is just a
>>secondary effect of whatever else it is he might be doing.
>>. . . [snip] until JOB, Glory Road was Heinlein’s most clearly Cabellian
>>book, as it uses the form of the Cabellian comedy, which characteristically
>>turns on finding out that what one wanted and worked toward was not what one
>>wants, after all — or, alternatively, not achieving what one wanted and
>>finding it doesn’t matter at all. That’s why he was so incensed that an editor
>>wanted to cut the last 100 pages of the book — the part that makes it a
>>Cabellian comedy instead of a sword-and-sworcery romance. And (4) I’ve been
>>able to detect more Cabellian material in the books before TMIAHM and after ST.
>>This subject is dealt with at greater (though not much greater) length in the
>>Cabell Prize essay. I just checked my link, and it seems to have been taken
>>down recently. If we wind up going out on this topic, I’ll try to excerpt what
>>I said at greater length.
>>
>
>
>Try: http://www.library.vcu.edu/jbc/speccoll/exhibit/cabell/Prize3.html

My Alma Mater. The library is called the James Branch Cabell library, as I think I have mentioned here before. Not surprising that this work is shown here. :-)


~teresa~

^..^ “Never try to outstubborn a cat.” Robert A. Heinlein ^..^
http://www.heinleinsociety.org/ & http://rahbooks.virtualave.net/
“Blert!!!” quoth Pixel, a small, yellow cat.
email me at pixelmeow at aol dot com or yahoo dot com
MSN messenger ID =
Yahoo Messenger ID =
AIM id = pixelmeow

“Jane Davitt” asks:

>(I’m going to relabel this for the chat; shame to waste GR
>discussion. Elizabeth, do you want to relabel your thread too as
>it’s off to such a good start? Chat can be next Thursday but one and
>Saturday which gives us 2 weeks to continue posts and read the book?
>I can help out some of those dates if you want to be the main host.)
>
>Jane
>
>–
>http://www.heinleinsociety.org

Me??? Be the host of a chat?!? Yikes!! I could possibly be the host on the Thursday meet, but Saturday is right out! I must work and my old folks would miss me (truthfully, I would miss them) Hosting…I wouldn’t know where to start, help would be much appreciated. I had no idea my silly little ponder would cause such an uproar! I have only been able to read through most of the posts till now as I picked up an extra shift at work and still have not had time to think about all of it! And I am soon off to bed for another round of three twelve-hour shifts. I will try to get caught up and read “Glory Road” again, yes I have the time, I can read it in two afternoons!

Sitting in the corner,

Elizabeth

(how do you create the log for the chat?)
“David Wright” reassures me:

>
>”Jane Davitt” wrote in message
>news:
>>cmaj7dmin7 wrote:
>
>
>(snip)
>
>>(I’m going to relabel this for the chat; shame to waste GR
>>discussion. Elizabeth, do you want to relabel your thread too as
>>it’s off to such a good start? Chat can be next Thursday but one and
>>Saturday which gives us 2 weeks to continue posts and read the book?
>>I can help out some of those dates if you want to be the main host.)
>>
>
>Don’t worry Jane, I am going to pick up all of the Glory Road thread to post
>at the beginning of the upcoming Glory Road discussion.
>
>David W.

Thanks a bunch (of bananas)

Elizabeth

(delirium has set in)
In article, Roger Connor writes…


>I’m afraid your referring to EE “Doc” Smith, there- perhaps Space Hounds of
>IPC?
>Which “competent” Heinlein heroes saved the day with items in their pockets?

Let us not forget the wonderful scene in HSSWT where Kip actually does survey the contents of his pockets and concludes that they contain nothing that will enable him to save the day.


Gordon Sollars

In article, Dennis M. Hammes writes…


>So, two points; he isn’t a “super-hyper-hero,” and he doesn’t tout
>himself as one.

Perhaps not a “super-hyper” hero, but remember that Oscar’s tone is always modest:

“Just inside the cover of trees, they jumped us. Horned Ghosts, I mean, not the Cold Water Gang. An ambush from all sides, I don’t know how many. Rufo killed four or five and Star at least two and I danced around, looking active and trying to survive.

“We had to /climb up and over bodies/ to move on, /too many to count/.” [emphasis added]

Did all those uncountables beyond Rufo’s and Star’s seven or so just die of fright?


Gordon Sollars

Roger Connor wrote:

>Which “competent” Heinlein heroes saved the day with items in their pockets?

Sorry, it’s an obscure reference to the text on the “Heinlein Hero” t-shirt. Humor alert. :)

Note to all: I am not abandoning the “competence” thread but my personal competencies are being exercised maximally in the mundane world. I will readdress the subject shortly.

| James Gifford – Nitrosyncretic Press |
| http://www.nitrosyncretic.com for the Heinlein FAQ & more |
| Tired of auto-spam… change “not” to “net” for replies |

Gordon G. Sollars wrote:

>Let us not forget the wonderful scene in HSSWT where Kip actually does
>survey the contents of his pockets and concludes that they contain
>nothing that will enable him to save the day.

Which is exactly what I was thinking of when I wrote the t-shirt.

| James Gifford – Nitrosyncretic Press |
| http://www.nitrosyncretic.com for the Heinlein FAQ & more |
| Tired of auto-spam… change “not” to “net” for replies |

Simon Jester wrote:

>James Gifford wrote:
>Without Mannie, the revolutionaries would never have got Mike on their side…

Right, I already credited him with this one contribution – passing along Mike’s friendship.

>Where did you think Mannie was a screwup?

I’ll address it when I have time to write a more comprehensive reply. I think much confusion has arisen from my choice of “competence” and “incompetence.” I will be inventing my own term in my next pass. :)

| James Gifford – Nitrosyncretic Press |
| http://www.nitrosyncretic.com for the Heinlein FAQ & more |
| Tired of auto-spam… change “not” to “net” for replies |

TreetopAngel wrote:

>
>Me??? Be the host of a chat?!? Yikes!!

OK, I think that’s enough to qualify for volunteering :-) Elizabeth,

the log will be kept by David Wright who does a great job of saving all our typos , or, failing that, anyone who’s been there from the start of the chat can save it and email it to Dave to go on the page. On my version of AIM you simply click save and all the text is selected and goes onto your hard drive wherever you want it. It can then be attached as a file to an e mail.

I can be there from 9.40 pm onwards on Thursday, possibly not Saturday but there are lots of people who can make Saturday so that’s covered. And if there aren’t lots of people, then there’s no chat, so no problem :-)

Hosting is easy; greet people as they enter, bring them up to date on what’s happening, if the conversation lags (not usually an issue) fling out a question to get it going again or pick on someone else to do so.

It’s a lot of fun.

Jane

http://www.heinleinsociety.org

Dee wrote

>>What I was trying
>>to say was that some of Heinlein’s protagonists are very intelligent, very
>>educated, very physically fit, and of exceptionally good character, but they
>>can still remind me of real people I have known. Some other protagonists
>>are just completely off the scale, larger than life.

Gordon G. Sollars wrote:

>I think that a person’s stand on this may be a function of the people he
>or she has met. I am just smart enough to know that I have been, on a
>few occasions, in the presence of someone who was “off the scale”.

Gordon–

You may have something there, but “have met” and “have Known” are two entirely different things. If you have _known_ several of those “off the scale” types, then your life must have travelled a very interesting route.

As David says, it is a rare thing.

By larger than life, I don’t mean that these people don’t exist, but that they are almost a completely different critter from the “merely” very intelligent, very fit, etc.

–Dee

David Silver re the URL for the Cabell Prize essay:

that’s it. I have no idea why my link to the University’s Cabell page wouldn’t work. I assumed they had taken the page down to redo it.

Bill

>Without Mannie, the revolutionaries would never have got Mike on their side,
>and the revolution would almost certainly have failed. Mannie also explains
>the “throwing rocks” strategy to Prof and Wyoh (the professional
>revolutionaries), devises a number of the disruptive tactics used in the
>pre-revolutionary period, designs a more efficient revolutionary cell
>structure and even out-thinks Mike in the matter of using telescopes to spot
>incoming warships.
>
>The only lack of competency I can think of is a lack of diplomacy, wrt going
>earthside and the question of Howard Wright. In the former case, Prof and
>Mike anticipate potential problems, and keep Mannie in the dark for his own good.

All good points – and I really think Manny is portrayed as a more blunt and direct personality type than the others, not as intellectually or otherwise challenged, even relatively speaking. You might refer this to the “engineer type,” but *somebody* in that bunch has to be a speaker of plain truths, and Manny fills the role admirably, IMO.

Bill
BPRAL22169 wrote:

>David Silver re the URL for the Cabell Prize essay:
>
>that’s it. I have no idea why my link to the University’s Cabell page wouldn’t
>work. I assumed they had taken the page down to redo it.

Well, let’s give the appropriate part of that paper a try then, as a basis for discussion, since it’s germane to what is Glory Road, and what Glory Road is not. It’s not too difficult to read and is probably one of the best parts of the paper:

from “The Heir of James Branch Cabell:

the Biography of the Life of Manuel (A Comedy of Inheritances)”

©2001 By Bill Patterson

* * * * *

“3.2.2 Glory Road – a Cabellian Comedy

“Heinlein’s 1963 novel Glory Road is ostensibly an essay in the
sword-and-sorcery genre that was then coming back into vogue.
Sword-and-sorcery is a subset of the heroic/quest fantasy form
conventionalized by pulp writers such as Robert E. Howard, in which
warriors and magic-users band together to combat warriors and
magic-users. At the time Glory Road was published, pirated paperback
editions of Tolkein’s Lord of the Rings were enthusiastically
circulating among college students in the U.S. The popularity of the
sub-genre has continued to accelerate over the intervening decades,
moving out of print and into role-playing games such as Dungeons and
Dragons, and films of extremely variable quality.

“It would have been wildly uncharacteristic of Heinlein to write a story
that conforms to the narrow conventions of the field, and, indeed, he
did not. He enlarged the possibilities of the genre by writing his
sword-and-sorcery story as a Cabellian comedy — and he takes Cabell’s
own cue by making it a “fairy story” (i.e., an allegorical fable), as well.

“Cabell explicitly stated the form of the Cabellian comedy in several
places, most notably in the Epistle Dedicatory (which became the
Storisende edition preface) to The Lineage of Lichfield.

“‘For I do not find the comedy ever to be much altered in its essentials
. . . The first act is the imagining of the place where contentment
exists and may be come to; and the second act reveals the striving
toward, and the third act the falling short of, that shining goal, or
else (the difference here being negligible) the attaining of it, to
discover that happiness, after all, abides a thought farther down the
bogged, rocky, clogged, befogged, heart-breaking road, if anywhere. That
is the comedy which, to my finding, . . . the life I write about has
enacted over and over again on every stage between Poictesme and
Lichfield.’ [quoted in Van Doren at 62]

“Heinlein joins his warrior — a disillusioned veteran of a Southeast
Asian conflict (in 1963!) — ‘Scar’ (instead of ‘Flash’) Gordon — to
the geomantic ‘Star’ (cf. Etarre), a ‘white witch,’ and they go off
adventuring in quest of first marriage and then ‘the Egg of the
Phoenix.’ Betimes, the context of their adventures widens for the Hero,
and he discovers that his adventures are science fictional, after all,
and not those of a fantasy. The Egg is the data core of a unique
teaching machine, a super-high-tech artifact, rather than a magical
talisman. Heinlein has taken [Sir] Arthur Clarke’s dictum that ‘any
sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic’ to
make a story of the type named by science fiction fan Walt Liebscher a
‘gay deceiver’ — a story of apparently fantastic doings given, at the
end, a mundane explanation. The ‘mundane’ is here a matter of relatives.
Star’s geomancy — indeed, all her ‘magic’ — is explained as an
application of super-high-order mathematics (geometry) (a subject with
which Heinlein has been preoccupied since at least high high school
years and which has figured in a number of his stories — e.g., inter
alia, ‘Pied Piper,’ ”And He Built a Crooked House–‘,’ Starman Jones,
Tunnel in the Sky, Starnger in a Starnge Land).

“Star is not only the magic-user of the sword-and-sorcery form; she is
also the conventional ‘damsel’ (princess) in distress of the fairy-tale
form — or, rather, she is the Empress of the Twenty Universes, and the
Egg is her teacher, for it contains, and she must assimilate, the
combined ‘wisdom’ of all her predecessors in that office.

“The story pivots at the capture of the Egg in a way which is
particularly Cabellian, for it focuses now on the marriage, as Cabell
was ever wont to do — but with Heinlein’s own, unique twist. Star is
content in the power and glory of her administration, but Oscar now
feels like a fifth wheel when the domestic virtues of judgment and
administration are wanted, and not heroics. He decides, ultimately, to
offer his services to anyone in need of a hero, to take up again the
Glory Road. Scar Gordon thus returns to his starting situation, and the
Glory Road assumes its place as myth and archetype.

“Thus Glory Road is not merely ‘a’ Cabellian comedy, it is a reply, in
Heinlein’s own terms, to a specific Cabellian comedy — Something About
Eve. Oscar Gordon is not Gerald Musgrave, pottering with visitors in
Maya’s domestic comfort of Mispec Moor. Heinlein does not share Cabell’s
fatalistic notion that hero-artists necessarily fall from their pursuit
of the ideal into the arms of Maya, Sereda, or even Her Wisdom Star.
This seems to be Heinlein’s central disagreement with Cabell, and it is
pervasive through his corpus. The compromise (of which Mispec Moor is an
anagram) would not appeal to a Hero in the first place. Heinlein seems
to rejoin, indirectly, that this particular compromise with domestic
usage is bourgeois, and not either gallant or chivalric. Even less is it
the compromise of an artist — the route Scar Gordon chooses. As Tolkein
was contemporaneously assuring American college students,'”the road goes
ever on and on.’

“Heinlein knew precisely what he was doing and why. When his first editor
wanted to cut the last hundred pages from the manuscript — the
Cabellian third act, after the capture of the Egg — Heinlein protested:

‘. . . I am not interested in his offer . . . What I do object to is that
he wants me simply to chop off the last hundred pages.

‘If I do this, what is left is merely a sexed up fairy story, with no
meaning and no explanations. I do not want this story published in such
an amputated form. . . I am quite unwilling simply to chop the story off
at the point where they capture the Egg of the Phoenix. It leaves the
story without meaning.’ [Grumbles, letter of RAH to Lurton Blassingame
dated 9/30/62, pp 170-171]

“The ‘meaning’ of the story is in the finding that ‘happiness, after all,
abides a thought farther down the bogged, rocky, clogged, befogged,
heart-breaking road, if anywhere.’ Without the third act of the
Cabellian comedy, the story is left ‘without meaning.’ Heinlein’s
intention is clearly a Cabellian comedy. He is standing deliberately
apart from the genre conventions at which his editor is aiming. He has
no interest in writing a marketable, highly commercial ‘sexed up fairy
story.’ He is aiming, as would become gradually more clear, at a higher
art.” [end extract from Patterson’s paper.]

* * * * *

Has anyone read (or watched) “All About Eve?” I haven’t read it; and it’s been so many years since I watched that old movie, I’ve forgotten what it’s about.

What does Bill mean when he says:

” . . . Cabell’s fatalistic notion that hero-artists necessarily fall
from their pursuit of the ideal into the arms of Maya, Sereda, or even
Her Wisdom Star. This seems to be Heinlein’s central disagreement with
Cabell, and it is pervasive through his corpus. The compromise (of which
Mispec Moor is an anagram) would not appeal to a Hero in the first
place. Heinlein seems to rejoin, indirectly, that this particular
compromise with domestic usage is bourgeois, and not either gallant or
chivalric.”

What’s the anagram, Jane?


David M. Silver
http://www.heinleinsociety.org
http://www.readinggroupsonline.com/groups/heinlein.htm
“The Lieutenant expects your names to shine!”
Robert Anson Heinlein, USNA ’29
Lt (jg)., USN R’td (1907-1988)

I wrote:

>
>Has anyone read (or watched) “All About Eve?” I haven’t read it; and
>it’s been so many years since I watched that old movie, I’ve forgotten
>what it’s about.
>

D’oh! The novel by Cabell is _Something About Eve_ not what is above; and the relationship of the Bette Davis 1950 movie, if any, is unknown.

>
>What does Bill mean when he says:
>
>
>” . . . Cabell’s fatalistic notion that hero-artists necessarily fall
>from their pursuit of the ideal into the arms of Maya, Sereda, or even
>Her Wisdom Star. This seems to be Heinlein’s central disagreement with
>Cabell, and it is pervasive through his corpus. The compromise (of which
>Mispec Moor is an anagram) would not appeal to a Hero in the first
>place. Heinlein seems to rejoin, indirectly, that this particular
>compromise with domestic usage is bourgeois, and not either gallant or
>chivalric.”
>
>What’s the anagram, Jane?
>


David M. Silver
http://www.heinleinsociety.org
http://www.readinggroupsonline.com/groups/heinlein.htm
“The Lieutenant expects your names to shine!”
Robert Anson Heinlein, USNA ’29
Lt (jg)., USN R’td (1907-1988)

On Fri, 26 Apr 2002 02:12:26 GMT, Jane Davittwrote:

It doesn’t “fail in the end.” Heinlein successfully reproduces
in the reader the same ennui (in the midst of luxury) that Oscar
was feeling.
**********************************
CMAJ7DMIN7:
>>Agreed. He bores the unholy shit of all of us at the end. Interesting you
>>felt it but told yourself it was writing skill and are ready to argue it.
>>You should be allowed the luxury of your delusion.
***********************

Jane, if you wrote the above, I concur. Oscar has gone from high school into some rather interesting combat in Vietnam. Then he went to Europe and then the south of France. He then gets to travel with Star and Rufo and have some rather interesting adventures.

He then resides, briefly, at Center… After his adventures I do not believe it improable he would experience ennui.

In the same manner, his return to the his own country, and trying school, even work, might well bore him.

No wonder he would jump at the opportunity that Dr. Rufo would be prepared to offer him.

Some people are constitutionally able to be scholars. Others adventurers.

Others, simply trolls determined to snip at others and to make barbed comments about an author who can write and achieve far more than they apparently have been able…

—Mac
“David Silver”wrote in message news:

>I wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Has anyone read (or watched) “All About Eve?” I haven’t read it; and
>>it’s been so many years since I watched that old movie, I’ve forgotten
>>what it’s about.
>>
>
>
>D’oh! The novel by Cabell is _Something About Eve_ not what is above;
>and the relationship of the Bette Davis 1950 movie, if any, is unknown.
>
>
>>
>>What does Bill mean when he says:
>>
>>
>>” . . . Cabell’s fatalistic notion that hero-artists necessarily fall
>>from their pursuit of the ideal into the arms of Maya, Sereda, or even
>>Her Wisdom Star. This seems to be Heinlein’s central disagreement with
>>Cabell, and it is pervasive through his corpus. The compromise (of which
>>Mispec Moor is an anagram) would not appeal to a Hero in the first
>>place. Heinlein seems to rejoin, indirectly, that this particular
>>compromise with domestic usage is bourgeois, and not either gallant or
>>chivalric.”
>>
>>What’s the anagram, Jane?
>>
>
>
>
>–

Mr. Silver!

I’m shocked! Having a senior moment? ;)) Mispec Moor is an anagram of Compromise.

Either i’m an idiot or you’re feeling a bit dumb.

George
David Silver wrote:

>
>What does Bill mean when he says:
>
>
>” . . . Cabell’s fatalistic notion that hero-artists necessarily fall
>from their pursuit of the ideal into the arms of Maya, Sereda, or even
>Her Wisdom Star. This seems to be Heinlein’s central disagreement with
>Cabell, and it is pervasive through his corpus. The compromise (of which
>Mispec Moor is an anagram) would not appeal to a Hero in the first
>place. Heinlein seems to rejoin, indirectly, that this particular
>compromise with domestic usage is bourgeois, and not either gallant or
>chivalric.”
>
>What’s the anagram, Jane?
>
>
>
>

? Bill says it; Mispec Moor = compromise.I haven’t read the Cabell book but Bill’s saying that Cabell’s hero settled for what Oscar rejected, I think. A paradox; the quest has a glittering prize as a carrot for a hero but to a true hero ‘action is his reward’. (That film looks fun; I might go for my birthday treat :-))

Jane

http://www.heinleinsociety.org

Mac wrote:

>On Fri, 26 Apr 2002 02:12:26 GMT, Jane Davitt
>wrote:
>
>It doesn’t “fail in the end.” Heinlein successfully reproduces
>in the reader the same ennui (in the midst of luxury) that Oscar
>was feeling.
>**********************************

>Jane, if you wrote the above, I concur.

No, it wasn’t me (though I agree with it) but my new and improved newsreader won’t do what the previous edition would, which is hard to describe but made going back through posts easy as it numbered them and clicking on the previous number showed you the post to which the last poster was replying ..err, it was better, OK? Anyway, I don’t know who said it.

Jane


http://www.heinleinsociety.org

“Jane Davitt”wrote in message news:

>>It doesn’t “fail in the end.” Heinlein successfully reproduces
>>in the reader the same ennui (in the midst of luxury) that Oscar
>>was feeling.
>>**********************************
>
>>Jane, if you wrote the above, I concur.
>
>No, it wasn’t me (though I agree with it) but my new and improved
>newsreader won’t do what the previous edition would, which is hard
>to describe but made going back through posts easy as it numbered
>them and clicking on the previous number showed you the post to
>which the last poster was replying ..err, it was better, OK? Anyway,
>I don’t know who said it.

Jane & Mac–

It wa R.D. Kirk.

–Dee
In article, says…

>Perhaps not a “super-hyper” hero, but remember that Oscar’s tone is
>always modest:
>
>”Just inside the cover of trees, they jumped us. Horned Ghosts, I mean,
>not the Cold Water Gang. An ambush from all sides, I don’t know how
>many. Rufo killed four or five and Star at least two and I danced
>around, looking active and trying to survive.
>
>”We had to /climb up and over bodies/ to move on, /too many to count/.”
>[emphasis added]
>
>Did all those uncountables beyond Rufo’s and Star’s seven or so just die
>of fright?
>

When I was in high school, a good buddy of mine was deeply into Karate before martial arts became cool in the US (the fact that his mother was Japanese might have some influence).

One evening a group of hooligans attacked him and his girlfriend as they left the dojo (she was into martial arts as well).

He told me that he didn’t clearly remember what happened next, although when it was over all the miscreants were running or limping away.


RDKirk
“It’s always socially unacceptable to be right too soon.” — RAH

GMC wrote:

>”David Silver” wrote in message
>news:
>
>>I wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Has anyone read (or watched) “All About Eve?” I haven’t read it; and
>>>it’s been so many years since I watched that old movie, I’ve forgotten
>>>what it’s about.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>D’oh! The novel by Cabell is _Something About Eve_ not what is above;
>>and the relationship of the Bette Davis 1950 movie, if any, is unknown.
>>
>>
>>
>>>What does Bill mean when he says:
>>>
>>>
>>>” . . . Cabell’s fatalistic notion that hero-artists necessarily fall
>>>from their pursuit of the ideal into the arms of Maya, Sereda, or even
>>>Her Wisdom Star. This seems to be Heinlein’s central disagreement with
>>>Cabell, and it is pervasive through his corpus. The compromise (of which
>>>Mispec Moor is an anagram) would not appeal to a Hero in the first
>>>place. Heinlein seems to rejoin, indirectly, that this particular
>>>compromise with domestic usage is bourgeois, and not either gallant or
>>>chivalric.”
>>>
>>>What’s the anagram, Jane?
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>–
>>
>Mr. Silver!
>I’m shocked! Having a senior moment? ;)) Mispec Moor is an anagram of
>Compromise.
>Either i’m an idiot or you’re feeling a bit dumb.
>
>George
>
>
>

Anagrams are my weakness. I have to be shoved into them up to my elbows to see the answers. Thanks. I frequently feel dumb!


David M. Silver
http://www.heinleinsociety.org
http://www.readinggroupsonline.com/groups/heinlein.htm
“The Lieutenant expects your names to shine!”
Robert Anson Heinlein, USNA ’29
Lt (jg)., USN R’td (1907-1988)

I wrote, quoting from Bill Patterson’s Cabell Prize essay:

[snip]
>”Cabell explicitly stated the form of the Cabellian comedy in
>several places, most notably in the Epistle Dedicatory (which became the
>Storisende edition preface) to The Lineage of Lichfield.
>
>”‘For I do not find the comedy ever to be much altered in its
>essentials . . . The first act is the imagining of the place where
>contentment exists and may be come to; and the second act reveals the
>striving toward, and the third act the falling short of, that shining
>goal, or else (the difference here being negligible) the attaining of
>it, to discover that happiness, after all, abides a thought farther down
>the bogged, rocky, clogged, befogged, heart-breaking road, if anywhere.
>That is the comedy which, to my finding, . . . the life I write about
>has enacted over and over again on every stage between Poictesme and
>Lichfield.’ [quoted in Van Doren at 62]

Poictesme and Lichfield are, if I understand what I’ve read about Cabell’s series of works, two ends of a spectrum, Poictesme in the remote past and Lichfield in the ‘present’ to which the stories travel.

This “life . . . enacted over and over” is the condition of life of everyone of us, past, present, and in the future, everyone of us who were, are, and will be human.

It reads to me as if Cabell, and Heinlein, are both expressing a view toward an idea the poet John Keats may have also been working towards when he wrote, in 1817, a letter to a friend stating:

” . . several things dovetailed in my mind, & at once it struck me,
what quality went to form a Man of Achievement especially in Literature
& which Shakespeare possessed so enormously–I mean Negative Capability,
that is when man is capable of being in uncertainties, Mysteries,
doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact & reason . . . . This
pursued through Volumes would perhaps take us no further than this, that
with a great poet the sense of Beauty overcomes every other
consideration, or rather obliterates all consideration.”

Now let’s look at Oscar in Glory Road and see whether or how this may apply:

>
>”Heinlein joins his warrior — a disillusioned veteran of a
>Southeast Asian conflict (in 1963!) — ‘Scar’ (instead of ‘Flash’)
>Gordon — to the geomantic ‘Star’ (cf. Etarre), a ‘white witch,’ and
>they go off adventuring in quest of first marriage and then ‘the Egg of
>the Phoenix.’ [snip much]
>
>”The story pivots at the capture of the Egg in a way which is
>particularly Cabellian, for it focuses now on the marriage, as Cabell
>was ever wont to do — but with Heinlein’s own, unique twist. Star is
>content in the power and glory of her administration, but Oscar now
>feels like a fifth wheel when the domestic virtues of judgment and
>administration are wanted, and not heroics. He decides, ultimately, to
>offer his services to anyone in need of a hero, to take up again the
>Glory Road. Scar Gordon thus returns to his starting situation, and the
>Glory Road assumes its place as myth and archetype.

The “myth and archetype” I think is perhaps identical to Keats’ “Negative Capability,” that quality which in Oscar’s mind now exists, his ability at the end of the story, “capable of being in uncertainties, Mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact & reason,” something he was unable or unwilling to accept at the beginning. He has found his fit place in the adult, albeit for him, a very romantic, adult world.

This, perhaps, ties into Patterson’s final conclusion about the story:

>
>”The ‘meaning’ of the story is in the finding that ‘happiness, after
>all, abides a thought farther down the bogged, rocky, clogged, befogged,
>heart-breaking road, if anywhere.’ Without the third act of the
>Cabellian comedy, the story is left ‘without meaning.’ Heinlein’s
>intention is clearly a Cabellian comedy. He is standing deliberately
>apart from the genre conventions at which his editor is aiming. He has
>no interest in writing a marketable, highly commercial ‘sexed up fairy
>story.’ He is aiming, as would become gradually more clear, at a higher
>art.” [end extract from Patterson’s paper.]

What, then, however, is the “higher art” aimed at?

Where else is Glory Road taking us?


David M. Silver
http://www.heinleinsociety.org
http://www.readinggroupsonline.com/groups/heinlein.htm
“The Lieutenant expects your names to shine!”
Robert Anson Heinlein, USNA ’29
Lt (jg)., USN R’td (1907-1988)

“Jane Davitt”wrote in message news:

>>It doesn’t “fail in the end.” Heinlein successfully reproduces
>>in the reader the same ennui (in the midst of luxury) that Oscar
>>was feeling.
>>**********************************
>Jane, if you wrote the above, I concur.

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

>No, it wasn’t me (though I agree with it) but my new and improved
>newsreader won’t do what the previous edition would, which is hard
>to describe but made going back through posts easy as it numbered
>them and clicking on the previous number showed you the post to
>which the last poster was replying ..err, it was better, OK? Anyway,
>I don’t know who said it.
***************
Jane & Mac–
It was R.D. Kirk.
–Dee
*********************

Thank you.

For some reason I am having more than enough trouble checking previous messages, what-not.

Again, thanks for the heads-up.

AND, R.D. Kirk, I do concur.

—Mac
David Silver wrote:

>
>I wrote, quoting from Bill Patterson’s
>
>Cabell Prize essay:
>[snip]
>>”Cabell explicitly stated the form of the Cabellian comedy in
>>several places, most notably in the Epistle Dedicatory (which became the
>>Storisende edition preface) to The Lineage of Lichfield.
>>
>>”‘For I do not find the comedy ever to be much altered in its
>>essentials . . . The first act is the imagining of the place where
>>contentment exists and may be come to; and the second act reveals the
>>striving toward, and the third act the falling short of, that shining
>>goal, or else (the difference here being negligible) the attaining of
>>it, to discover that happiness, after all, abides a thought farther down
>>the bogged, rocky, clogged, befogged, heart-breaking road, if anywhere.
>>That is the comedy which, to my finding, . . . the life I write about
>>has enacted over and over again on every stage between Poictesme and
>>Lichfield.’ [quoted in Van Doren at 62]
>
>Poictesme and Lichfield are, if I understand what I’ve read about
>Cabell’s series of works, two ends of a spectrum, Poictesme in the
>remote past and Lichfield in the ‘present’ to which the stories travel.
>
>This “life . . . enacted over and over” is the condition of life of
>everyone of us, past, present, and in the future, everyone of us who
>were, are, and will be human.
>
>It reads to me as if Cabell, and Heinlein, are both expressing a view
>toward an idea the poet John Keats may have also been working towards
>when he wrote, in 1817, a letter to a friend stating:
>
>” . . several things dovetailed in my mind, & at once it struck me,
>what quality went to form a Man of Achievement especially in Literature
>& which Shakespeare possessed so enormously–I mean Negative Capability,
>that is when man is capable of being in uncertainties, Mysteries,
>doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact & reason . . . . This
>pursued through Volumes would perhaps take us no further than this, that
>with a great poet the sense of Beauty overcomes every other
>consideration, or rather obliterates all consideration.”
>
>Now let’s look at Oscar in Glory Road and see whether or how this may apply:
>
>>
>>”Heinlein joins his warrior — a disillusioned veteran of a
>>Southeast Asian conflict (in 1963!) — ‘Scar’ (instead of ‘Flash’)
>>Gordon — to the geomantic ‘Star’ (cf. Etarre), a ‘white witch,’ and
>>they go off adventuring in quest of first marriage and then ‘the Egg of
>>the Phoenix.’ [snip much]
>>
>>”The story pivots at the capture of the Egg in a way which is
>>particularly Cabellian, for it focuses now on the marriage, as Cabell
>>was ever wont to do — but with Heinlein’s own, unique twist. Star is
>>content in the power and glory of her administration, but Oscar now
>>feels like a fifth wheel when the domestic virtues of judgment and
>>administration are wanted, and not heroics. He decides, ultimately, to
>>offer his services to anyone in need of a hero, to take up again the
>>Glory Road. Scar Gordon thus returns to his starting situation, and the
>>Glory Road assumes its place as myth and archetype.
>
>The “myth and archetype” I think is perhaps identical to Keats’
>”Negative Capability,” that quality which in Oscar’s mind now exists,
>his ability at the end of the story, “capable of being in uncertainties,
>Mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact & reason,”
>something he was unable or unwilling to accept at the beginning. He has
>found his fit place in the adult, albeit for him, a very romantic, adult
>world.
>
>This, perhaps, ties into Patterson’s final conclusion about the story:
>
>>
>>”The ‘meaning’ of the story is in the finding that ‘happiness, after
>>all, abides a thought farther down the bogged, rocky, clogged, befogged,
>>heart-breaking road, if anywhere.’ Without the third act of the
>>Cabellian comedy, the story is left ‘without meaning.’ Heinlein’s
>>intention is clearly a Cabellian comedy. He is standing deliberately
>>apart from the genre conventions at which his editor is aiming. He has
>>no interest in writing a marketable, highly commercial ‘sexed up fairy
>>story.’ He is aiming, as would become gradually more clear, at a higher
>>art.” [end extract from Patterson’s paper.]
>
>What, then, however, is the “higher art” aimed at?

That “Negative Capability,” to steal Keats, though I’ve no use for his term however his definition may be adequate. (It should be noted that Keats was aware of his own impending demise almost from the time he started writing, a career that lasted only four years by the calendar, only 2.5 in actual production. It /hurried/ everything he wrote until he settled in the “Odes” — which were his last works.)

The minor linguistic problem that persists in all these analyses, from Keats’ (not badly) through Cabell’s (apparently severely) through those written here (misdirected by the Kulchur /to/ those arguments), is in the term “aimed at,” since the Glory Road (the real “one” and the book), do not “aim at” anything; they are a /way of travelling/. Mr. Heinlein certainly knew that, as “Oscar,” “Star,” and “Rufo” all know it; “Oscar’s” coming to that realisation is the “point” of the book, however it also succeeds at its economic purpose of providing a very salable yarn with which to carry its point.

Here, when the finger points to the Moon, we /should/ be looking at the finger.

>
>Where else is Glory Road taking us?

Lift your foot.

>
>–
>David M. Silver

[Dennis M. Hammes]


——(m+
~/:o)_|
You can call your priest anything you want,
except /my/ priest.
http://t-independent.com/scrawlmark-press/

Dennis M. Hammes wrote:

>David Silver wrote:
>
>>I wrote, quoting from Bill Patterson’s
>>Cabell Prize essay:
[beaucoup snip]
>>>
>>The “myth and archetype” I think is perhaps identical to Keats’
>>”Negative Capability,” that quality which in Oscar’s mind now exists,
>>his ability at the end of the story, “capable of being in uncertainties,
>>Mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact & reason,”
>>something he was unable or unwilling to accept at the beginning. He has
>>found his fit place in the adult, albeit for him, a very romantic, adult
>>world.
>>
>>This, perhaps, ties into Patterson’s final conclusion about the story:
>>
>>
>>>”The ‘meaning’ of the story is in the finding that ‘happiness, after
>>>all, abides a thought farther down the bogged, rocky, clogged, befogged,
>>>heart-breaking road, if anywhere.’ Without the third act of the
>>>Cabellian comedy, the story is left ‘without meaning.’ Heinlein’s
>>>intention is clearly a Cabellian comedy. He is standing deliberately
>>>apart from the genre conventions at which his editor is aiming. He has
>>>no interest in writing a marketable, highly commercial ‘sexed up fairy
>>>story.’ He is aiming, as would become gradually more clear, at a higher
>>>art.” [end extract from Patterson’s paper.]
>>>
>>What, then, however, is the “higher art” aimed at?
>>
>
>That “Negative Capability,” to steal Keats, though I’ve no use for
>his term however his definition may be adequate. (It should be
>noted that Keats was aware of his own impending demise almost from
>the time he started writing, a career that lasted only four years by
>the calendar, only 2.5 in actual production. It /hurried/
>everything he wrote until he settled in the “Odes” — which were his
>last works.)

Yes, a damned hurry; and what is surprising was the output. The ambivalence of mind, if that’s a better phrase, and it probably isn’t, can try to explain a lot.

>The minor linguistic problem that persists in all these analyses,
>from Keats’ (not badly) through Cabell’s (apparently severely)
>through those written here (misdirected by the Kulchur /to/ those
>arguments), is in the term “aimed at,” since the Glory Road (the
>real “one” and the book), do not “aim at” anything; they are a /way
>of travelling/. Mr. Heinlein certainly knew that, as “Oscar,”
>”Star,” and “Rufo” all know it; “Oscar’s” coming to that realisation
>is the “point” of the book, however it also succeeds at its economic
>purpose of providing a very salable yarn with which to carry its
>point.

I completely agree, Dennis, looking at Glory Road, all by itself. It’s the process, not the goods produced.

>Here, when the finger points to the Moon, we /should/ be looking
>at the finger.

But my question is directed at Bill’s statement about Heinlein’s aims which I read as Heinlein’s future aims. Is he going to return to other variations on this theme, develope them into something else? Cabell resolves the human question into “compromise” which Heinlein (and Oscar at age 25 or so), Patterson says, rejects. That’s a salable resolution to the yarn, as you’ve put it. As Oscar put it early on, he didn’t understand quite what the fuss generated by post-World War I generation of Hemmingway and Fitzgerald and others (likely Cabell belongs in with them) was all about: all they had to worry about was wood alcohol in their bootleg booze; so Oscar was inclined from outset to reject the compromise writers of the 1920s wrote.

Oscar’s resolution seems, however, “romantic” to me; or put another way quite early Victorian: “to seek, to strive, and not to yield” perhaps even “To Sail Beyond the Sunset.” What lesson’s up next in the Heinlein opera?

Do we ultimately get another resolution that isn’t a variation on this theme? Or is it forever simply Da Capo?

>
>>Where else is Glory Road taking us?
>>
>
>Lift your foot.
>

Got it. Been there, done that, earned most of that farm I think (I was lucky, many in my generation have by now ‘bought’ it instead). Still dawdling on down “dat road” as they sing in The Wiz. What’s next? Or rather, what else am I going to find in Heinlein, if anything?


David M. Silver
http://www.heinleinsociety.org
http://www.readinggroupsonline.com/groups/heinlein.htm
“The Lieutenant expects your names to shine!”
Robert Anson Heinlein, USNA ’29
Lt (jg)., USN R’td (1907-1988)

It has been asked on another thread about the significance of using Cyrano de Bergerac as a foil (pun somewhat intended) against Oscar.

Do you have any insight into this?

David W. (a very unliterary reader)
David Wright:

>It has been asked on another thread about the significance of using Cyrano
>de Bergerac as a foil (pun somewhat intended) against Oscar.
>
>Do you have any insight into this?

I don’t know how good an insight it is, but — noting that it isn’t really Cyrano, it’s a construct of some kind masquerading as Cyrano — I think it is “the greatest swordsman” confronting “the greatest swordsman” and thereby identifying Oscar as a poet/artist. All the most important confrontations are, after all, with oneself.

And that brings to mind another of Mr. Cabell’s most enduring (through the Biography, at any rate) ideas: “What a deal of living it takes to make a little art!” The artist is ruthlessly and sometimes self-destructively “economical” in exploiting his life-experiences to make art. Oscar found his art in the making of the Glory Road — after trying out domestic arts and fine arts and decorative arts in Star’s palace. (This may show an awareness of Sinclair Lewis’ _Work of Art_, in which he treats hostelry as an art form.)

I have been following with interest the argument that the Glory Road is the road that goes ever on and on and that the book is thus connected more to TEFL and the World as Myth books than they are to Methuselah’s Children, but I rather think that in this case it was a specific Tao of the Mythic (or at least archetypal) Hero he was talking about. That seems to make sense particularly of the book’s obvious relationship with Cabell, inasmuch as Cabell’s Biography of the Life of Manuel follows Manuel’s life-force into his descendents from Poictesme to Litchfield in three specific taos: the tao of Chivalry, the tao of Gallantry, and the tao of poetry (as a general term for artists and artistry)

Bill
“David Wright”wrote in message news:aafb9b$a8p2t$

>It has been asked on another thread about the significance of using Cyrano
>de Bergerac as a foil (pun somewhat intended) against Oscar.
>
>Do you have any insight into this?
>
>David W. (a very unliterary reader)

How about RAH meeting Cyrano on Philip Jose Farmer’s Riverworld? Or Sam Clemens?

[William Dennis]
On Fri, 26 Apr 2002 13:20:38 GMT, Jane Davitt held forth, saying:

>Brian Maranta wrote:
>
>
>>Hmmm… is it just me, or does anyone else get kind of a “Stephen R
>>Donaldson” feel from the scenario Jane describes above? (I never did
>>finish that series; just too darned depressing)
>>
>>Cheers!
>>
>>
>
>I read the ones about a girl who went through a mirror into another
>world (Mordant’s Need books) but the Covenant ones were
>dire.Couldn’t get into them at all.

I think I deserve some kind of award. Through sheer stubbornness I soldiered on to the very end of the Chronicles of TC the Unbeliever.

I would not so waste my time today. ugh. ack. urgh. and similar. Though there’s this: the companies which make antidepressants should get a huge hype going in order to have *everyone* read those Chronicles. Think of all the drug sales.


-denny-
nocturnal curmudgeon, editor

Never try to outstubborn a cat. – Lazarus Long

BPRAL22169 wrote:

>
>David Wright: >It has been asked on another thread about the significance of
>using Cyrano
>>de Bergerac as a foil (pun somewhat intended) against Oscar.
>>
>>Do you have any insight into this?
>
>I don’t know how good an insight it is, but — noting that it isn’t really
>Cyrano, it’s a construct of some kind masquerading as Cyrano — I think it is
>”the greatest swordsman” confronting “the greatest swordsman” and thereby
>identifying Oscar as a poet/artist. All the most important confrontations are,
>after all, with oneself.

But the encounter /was/ with himself, and only began with the poet/swordsman aspect. See the briefly-reported (but apparently extensive) fugue following the coup de grace.

Cut him up pretty badly, too, as “Oscar” gave the only two hits reported in the duel.

Little is given of his actual “dragons” in that encounter(s), but it is noteworthy that the only “dragons” competent to give a Hero a good run are his own.

But that’s just like everybody else…

>
>And that brings to mind another of Mr. Cabell’s most enduring (through the
>Biography, at any rate) ideas: “What a deal of living it takes to make a
>little art!”

Well, he got that right.

All poetry (e.g.) necessarily uses other people’s words for 99.9…% of its substance; that’s language. But the smarmiest poetry is that which asserts to be using other people’s knowledge (Earth) /by/ using their words (Air).

(Earth and Air is Dust, and since Dust is what everybody, not just the artist, leaves lying around of himself for a minute or a millooneyum, it’s what we’re stuck with — and why that old Trick works, 99.)

>The artist is ruthlessly and sometimes self-destructively
>”economical” in exploiting his life-experiences to make art.

Heh. And exploiting his art to make life experiences.

Hey. That’s what it’s /for/. The smart artist, the really-sneaky artist, the downright dirty-dog dealing-from-the-bottom-of-the-deck artist, is the one who gets his art to exploit /other people/ into life experiences (Aristotle said so, making it TrVth), but we don’t know any moderns like /that/…

>Oscar found his
>art in the making of the Glory Road — after trying out domestic arts and fine
>arts and decorative arts in Star’s palace. (This may show an awareness of
>Sinclair Lewis’ _Work of Art_, in which he treats hostelry as an art form.)
>
>I have been following with interest the argument that the Glory Road is the
>road that goes ever on and on and that the book is thus connected more to TEFL
>and the World as Myth books than they are to Methuselah’s Children, but I
>rather think that in this case it was a specific Tao of the Mythic (or at least
>archetypal) Hero he was talking about. That seems to make sense particularly
>of the book’s obvious relationship with Cabell, inasmuch as Cabell’s Biography
>of the Life of Manuel follows Manuel’s life-force into his descendents from
>Poictesme to Litchfield in three specific taos: the tao of Chivalry, the tao
>of Gallantry, and the tao of poetry (as a general term for artists and
>artistry)
>Bill

P.S.: I think Mr. Heinlein’s characters, but esp. “Lazarus Long” (and “Oscar”) have more connection with the “Hero of a Thousand Faces” (Gilgamesh gets mention, e.g.) than they do with Cabell’s arguments as reported here, but in any case they are Mr. Heinlein’s own.

And (like Campbell’s “Hero,” for that matter) there is in them no “life-force” flowing or following from anybody to anybody; these characters (and the “Hero”) arise in their own lives on their own merits.

But Mr. Heinlein is perfectly aware that words are mind-altering chemicals, and that when you sugar-coat a little wad of them (carefully-selected to produce a specific disease, ah, syndrome, ah, /idea/, dammit), you have a “virus.” And that it can flow from anybody to anybody entirely without any plan — or even life — of its own.

[Dennis M. Hammes]


——(m+
~/:o)_|
You can call your priest anything you want,
except /my/ priest.
http://t-independent.com/scrawlmark-press/

>P.S.: I think Mr. Heinlein’s characters, but esp. “Lazarus Long”
>(and “Oscar”) have more connection with the “Hero of a Thousand
>Faces” (Gilgamesh gets mention, e.g.) than they do with Cabell’s
>arguments as reported here

This is a true but trivial observation (meaning only that it doesn’t get us anywhere in particular). The magic passes you saw when the magic word “Hero” was written were Heinlein’s geomancy, moving his story into the range of archetype, and myth. Campbell’s point was that all hero stories are patterns of archetypes… and we have just been discussing a duel with the hero-self as an archetype projected into Oscar’s personal reality. So I kind of thought we were really already there and looking around for the routes to the next thought.

Bill
On Sat, 27 Apr 2002 19:12:33 -0400, “David Wright”wrote:

>It has been asked on another thread about the significance of using Cyrano
>de Bergerac as a foil (pun somewhat intended) against Oscar.
>
>Do you have any insight into this?
>
>David W. (a very unliterary reader)

There’s a scene toward the end of the play “Cyrano de Bergerac” where Cyrano says:

“‘Struck down by the sword of a hero let me fall,
Steel in my heart and laughter on my lips’
Yes, I said that once. How Fate loves a jest!–
Behold me ambushed–taken in the rear–
My battlefield a gutter–my noble foe
A lackey with a log of wood…”

I’ve often thought this was Heinlein’s way of giving Cyrano a better death: at the hands of the Hero Gordon.

-Chris Zakes
Texas

“I’m a homicidal maniac. They look just like
everybody else.”

-Wednesday Addams

Chris Zakes wrote:

>On Sat, 27 Apr 2002 19:12:33 -0400, “David Wright”
>wrote:
>
>
>>It has been asked on another thread about the significance of using Cyrano
>>de Bergerac as a foil (pun somewhat intended) against Oscar.
>>
>>Do you have any insight into this?
>>
>>David W. (a very unliterary reader)
>>
>
>There’s a scene toward the end of the play “Cyrano de Bergerac” where
>Cyrano says:
>
>”‘Struck down by the sword of a hero let me fall,
>Steel in my heart and laughter on my lips’
>Yes, I said that once. How Fate loves a jest!–
>Behold me ambushed–taken in the rear–
>My battlefield a gutter–my noble foe
>A lackey with a log of wood…”
>
>I’ve often thought this was Heinlein’s way of giving Cyrano a better
>death: at the hands of the Hero Gordon.
>
>-Chris Zakes
>Texas
>

B R A V O ! ! ! !

May you, also, always have a “white plume” to decorate your soul.

Dr. Rufo
Dr. Rufo wrote:

>Chris Zakes wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 27 Apr 2002 19:12:33 -0400, “David Wright”
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>It has been asked on another thread about the significance of using
>>>Cyrano
>>>de Bergerac as a foil (pun somewhat intended) against Oscar.
>>>
>>>Do you have any insight into this?
>>>
>>>David W. (a very unliterary reader)
>>>
>>
>>There’s a scene toward the end of the play “Cyrano de Bergerac” where
>>Cyrano says:
>>
>>”‘Struck down by the sword of a hero let me fall,
>>Steel in my heart and laughter on my lips’
>>Yes, I said that once. How Fate loves a jest!–
>>Behold me ambushed–taken in the rear–
>>My battlefield a gutter–my noble foe
>>A lackey with a log of wood…”
>>
>>I’ve often thought this was Heinlein’s way of giving Cyrano a better
>>death: at the hands of the Hero Gordon.
>>
>>-Chris Zakes
>> Texas
>>
>
>B R A V O ! ! ! !
>
>May you, also, always have a “white plume” to decorate your soul.
>
>Dr. Rufo
>
>
>

That’s as good an explanation as I’ve heard, Chris; and I like it a lot better than that he’s just a “construct” one.


David M. Silver
http://www.heinleinsociety.org
http://www.readinggroupsonline.com/groups/heinlein.htm
“The Lieutenant expects your names to shine!”
Robert Anson Heinlein, USNA ’29
Lt (jg)., USN R’td (1907-1988)

“William Dennis”wrote in message news:qKJy8.67999$

>
>”David Wright” wrote in message
>news:aafb9b$a8p2t$
>>It has been asked on another thread about the significance of using
>Cyrano
>>de Bergerac as a foil (pun somewhat intended) against Oscar.
>>
>>Do you have any insight into this?
>>
>>David W. (a very unliterary reader)
>
>How about RAH meeting Cyrano on Philip Jose Farmer’s Riverworld? Or Sam
>Clemens?
>

RAH, Cyrano, Sam Clemens and Randy have a poker game on riverworld where they win randy’s grail and throw him into the deep end..

GMC
Dennis M. Hammes wrote:

>But the only actual competence /anybody/ can observe in /any/ of
>these stories is Mr. Heinlein’s own. And, considering the number of
>characters and universes he juggled without dropping any of them, I
>think What We Have Heah (besides a failuah tew c’MUnicate), is a
>/real/ example of a “super-hyper-competent.”
>Though at this point, I can only hope that the residuals
>agree, because, you see, Virginia, there is no Santa Claus.

I was getting an apartment in Orange County, and when the manager found out I was from Virginia, she yelled down from the second floor “Virginia, there really is a Santa Claus.”

My personal opinion is that I have seen Santa Cruz.

Tian Harter
http://tian.greens.org

Yesterday there was an Earth Day Celebration in Los Gatos.
The highlight of the event was an electric car show that
featured two Corbin Sparrows and several EV1s.
One of the EV1 owners was drinking EV1 brand water.

After having some time to think, read over my notes and the ng replies, I offer this:

First of all:

My quote from Mr. Gifford’s book was not a challenge, I replied only to where I had gotten the idea that Oscar Gordon was considered an incompetent. It was an idle wonder and I was surprised (I didn’t remember writng any notes from said book) when I found that I had gotten it from RAH:ARC. (note for James Gifford: you should see me read the newspaper with my blue pencil, not a critisism, but a true citation direct from the text, I didn’t see it the first time! 😉

Secondly:

I still consider the word ‘incompetent’ unfortunate, but, have come to see why it was used and that a literal translation of the word is my failing, not that of the author. Having been called incompetent and ignorant, I much prefer ignorant, at least that way I have an excuse for my not-knowing.

Thirdly:

Thanks for the discussion and next time I have an “idle question” I will pose it on a Monday, rather than the day before I have to go to work, so I will have the time to respond to the thread. 😉

I hope to see all of you in the chat room on May 9th, Jane Davitt, I believe has offered to host on May 11th. I will be at work on Saturday the 11th and will miss that chat. Unless I can plan to have pneumonia and/or break a limb so I can get the day off. (fat chance)

Elizabeth
I’m going to take a look at GR from the perspective of the very first words; not, “I know a place where there is no smog..” but the quotation in the dedication which sets the tone of the whole book IMO. It reads,

“BRITANNUS (shocked):
Caesar, this is not proper.
THEODOTUS (outraged):
HOW?
CAESAR (recovering his self-possession):
Pardon him, Theodotus: he is a barbarian, and thinks that the
customs of his tribe and island are the laws of nature.
_Caesar and Cleopatra_Act II GEORGE BERNARD SHAW

It seems to me that this is a theme that runs throughout Heinlein’s work, starting perhaps in the early juvenile, _Space Cadet_ with the ‘eating pie with a fork’ incident. In that, the cadet is told that there’s an overall way of doing things that will take you everywhere. This might seem to be a counter illustration but I don’t think it is; rather, Tex learned that just because he did it one way at home didn’t mean that was suitable for all occasions.

Moving on to Thorby of COTG, we see an adaptable youngster continually going with the flow and fitting in with diametrically opposed ‘rules’ as he moves from planet to ship to army to mansion. He knows that it would be pointless to apply the standards of his life as a slave to his life aboard a highly organised ship for instance.

Mike from SIASL transcends Earthly custom if it doesn’t suit him, as does his mentor, Jubal but in a way, both are aware of the parochial nature of those customs so they are more in tune with Caesar than it seems.

But back to Oscar….he has to learn this lesson and it takes him a while. He begins the book with a list of aims that will come to seem petty and pointless,

” ….single minded pursuit of the three-car garage, the swimming
pool, and the safe & secure retirement benefits.
I am not being holier_than_thou: I was after that same
three-car-garage myself.”

In the society that sees these goals as laudable there is no room for independence of thought and tolerance of different behaviour. Ironically, there isn’t on Nevia either…in fact, everywhere Oscar goes is another version of Earth in its inflexibility but (and this is the important part) they’re all the same in different ways and they all think their way is the right way.

So we have Oscar playing by Earthly rules in Nevia and turning down the wife and daughters of his host as sleeping partners…which is a mortal insult and nearly gets him killed. Neither Nevia or Earth are wrong in their rules exactly but where Oscar made his mistake was in bringing his own rules with him.

That’s all very obvious but what I question is the value of the lesson. Is there then, a pie with a fork attitude to sex? A mode of behavior that fits all places? Are we not allowed any scruples or individual preferences? If we have to adapt to where we are, if we can take nothing with us, never follow our own carefully thought out beliefs, then what point is there in evolving such beliefs? Is it right to make visitors conform in such matters? By making Oscar sleep with his wife, was Jocko being an inconsiderate host?

True, once assured that he wasn’t doing something wrong, or hurtful to Star, Oscar leapt at the chance to have lots of sex with talented and uninhibited females (hmm…odd that :-)) but would that conforming to local standards have been so easy if he’d had to do something distasteful? Was it a true test of his adaptability and ability to step outside the lessons he learned on Earth?

Jane

http://www.heinleinsociety.org

Jane:

>it’s [NOTB] been discussed quite a
>few times over the years.

You might also want to look up Gharlane of Eddore’s discussion of the book before going back to read it again. Will someone assist with a URL? Bill
Jane:

>it’s [NOTB] been discussed quite a
>few times over the years.

You might also want to look up Gharlane of Eddore’s discussion of the book before going back to read it again. Will someone assist with a URL?

Bill

>That’s all very obvious but what I question is the value of the
>lesson. Is there then, a pie with a fork attitude to sex? A mode of
>behavior that fits all places?

I think,rather, this is a challenge to Tex’s lesson — a showing that there is, in fact no truly “universal” mode of behavior and that all “modes of behavior” are ipso facto local to their cultures. What we might glean from this is that the interplanetary civilizations of Space Cadet are in fact all one culture.

What Oscar tripped up on was that by acting on the behavioral standards of his culture, he rendered a deadly insult to his hosts. He could have achieved the same end in different ways — every culture has ways of doing anything in particular you might want to do — and what he should have done was to ask for guidance. But he didn’t trust Star enough at that point to ask her for it.

The lesson I get from that is that the most dangerous thing to you in the cosmos at large is the particular hypocrisies of your particular culture, and that is where you have to concentrate your efforts.

Bill
Jane Davitt wrote:

>I’m going to take a look at GR from the perspective of the very
>first words; not, “I know a place where there is no smog..”
>but the quotation in the dedication which sets the tone of the whole
>book IMO.
>It reads,
>”BRITANNUS (shocked):
>Caesar, this is not proper.
>THEODOTUS (outraged):
>HOW?
>CAESAR (recovering his self-possession):
>Pardon him, Theodotus: he is a barbarian, and thinks that the
>customs of his tribe and island are the laws of nature.
>_Caesar and Cleopatra_Act II GEORGE BERNARD SHAW
>
>It seems to me that this is a theme that runs throughout Heinlein’s
>work, starting perhaps in the early juvenile, _Space Cadet_ with the
>’eating pie with a fork’ incident. In that, the cadet is told that
>there’s an overall way of doing things that will take you
>everywhere. This might seem to be a counter illustration but I don’t
>think it is; rather, Tex learned that just because he did it one way
>at home didn’t mean that was suitable for all occasions.
>
>Moving on to Thorby of COTG, we see an adaptable youngster
>continually going with the flow and fitting in with diametrically
>opposed ‘rules’ as he moves from planet to ship to army to mansion.
>He knows that it would be pointless to apply the standards of his
>life as a slave to his life aboard a highly organised ship for
>instance.
>Mike from SIASL transcends Earthly custom if it doesn’t suit him, as
>does his mentor, Jubal but in a way, both are aware of the parochial
>nature of those customs so they are more in tune with Caesar than it
>seems.
>But back to Oscar….he has to learn this lesson and it takes him a
>while. He begins the book with a list of aims that will come to seem
>petty and pointless,
>” ….single minded pursuit of the three-car garage, the swimming
>pool, and the safe & secure retirement benefits.
>I am not being holier_than_thou: I was after that same
>three-car-garage myself.”
>In the society that sees these goals as laudable there is no room
>for independence of thought and tolerance of different behaviour.
>Ironically, there isn’t on Nevia either…in fact, everywhere Oscar
>goes is another version of Earth in its inflexibility but (and this
>is the important part) they’re all the same in different ways and
>they all think their way is the right way.
>So we have Oscar playing by Earthly rules in Nevia and turning down
>the wife and daughters of his host as sleeping partners…which is a
>mortal insult and nearly gets him killed.
>Neither Nevia or Earth are wrong in their rules exactly but where
>Oscar made his mistake was in bringing his own rules with him.
>
>That’s all very obvious but what I question is the value of the
>lesson. Is there then, a pie with a fork attitude to sex? A mode of
>behavior that fits all places? Are we not allowed any scruples or
>individual preferences? If we have to adapt to where we are, if we
>can take nothing with us, never follow our own carefully thought out
>beliefs, then what point is there in evolving such beliefs? Is it
>right to make visitors conform in such matters? By making Oscar
>sleep with his wife, was Jocko being an inconsiderate host?
>
>True, once assured that he wasn’t doing something wrong, or hurtful
>to Star, Oscar leapt at the chance to have lots of sex with talented
>and uninhibited females (hmm…odd that :-)) but would that
>conforming to local standards have been so easy if he’d had to do
>something distasteful? Was it a true test of his adaptability and
>ability to step outside the lessons he learned on Earth?
>
>Jane
>
>–
>http://www.heinleinsociety.org

In GR, Oscar has already commented about the availability of “little brown sister” and the freedom of the French island, long before he gets to Jocko’s. It’s not his mistake, it’s Star & Rufo’s- they’ve been here before and are also familiar with the local customs of Oscar’s tribe. They should have mentioned to Oscar about what was to be expected. The same as Oscar! Jensen, the cadet from Venus did about the local customs on Venus when the disastrous landing on Venus happened in Space Cadet. (Remember the sudden change in gender?) The same as the Free Traders did when making Thorby one of themselves. They didn’t believe their customs were universal, they /knew/ they weren’t, and acted accordingly, to teach Thorby the “customs of the tribe”.

What I’ve learned is:

1-Every culture has it’s own set of customs, traditions, taboos, acceptable and unacceptable behavior.

2-Most people are blind to most of their own culture’s irrational peculiarities.

(Why can’t our society do away with ties as men’s proper dress clothing?)

3-Most people think the more obvious of another culture’s differences as “quaint”, but of no importance.

(Electric power in the US is 60Hz, 120v single phase AC, the rest of the world uses 50Hz, 220v 3-phase AC)

4-Members of each culture think their’s is the “right” way. (And thus, wars begin!)

5-Defining your own personal integrity with respect to multiple cultures is difficult, particularly when dealing with mutually exclusive “irrational” customs. “When in Rome, be a Roman candle!” may not fit your own personal integrity.

(As a quick for instance: an alcoholic that must “socialize” in situations where the wine and booze are flowing, but he, personally, must refuse to drink those alcoholic drinks, as must a follower of Islam or a Mormon.)

6-RAH’s message seems to be “Find out what is the acceptable behavior for the situation, and in public, follow it. When in private, make sure that Mrs. Grundy won’t find out, and then do as your personal desires and integrity allow. (I noticed early that he believes in /personal/ integrity! )

[Roger Connor]
Roger Connor wrote:

The same as the Free Traders did
>when making Thorby one of themselves. They didn’t believe their customs
>were universal, they /knew/ they weren’t, and acted accordingly, to
>teach Thorby the “customs of the tribe”.
>
>

Yes; when he makes a mistake they don’t come down on him hard..because the very fact that he made it shows that he isn’t mature enough to be held responsible; in their culture he’s still an egg.

They had many customs I don’t like but that logic is quite kindly meant I think.

Jane

http://www.heinleinsociety.org

>Oscar, I think, failed to ask Star for help not because he didn’t
>trust her but because,
>1. He was embarrassed.Sexual discussion between opposite sexes =
>blushing, shuffling of feet, secrecy and hypocrisy.
>2. He was being tactful; you don’t tell a woman you are falling for
>that another woman has propositioned you.Either she gets jealous or
>it looks like you’re boasting.
>

Yes, well, I would say both of these are matters of trust. She knew the lay of the land (pun not intended) but Oscar didn’t trust her enough to make himself vulnerable to her or to realize that she would not be offended by an imaginary lack of tact on his part in this case.

Bill
BPRAL22169 wrote:

>
>Yes, well, I would say both of these are matters of trust. She knew the lay of
>the land (pun not intended) but Oscar didn’t trust her enough to make himself
>vulnerable to her or to realize that she would not be offended by an imaginary
>lack of tact on his part in this case.
>Bill
>
>

I really don’t think trust came into it exactly; it just didn’t occur to him as an option because he comes from a culture where all the emphasis is on men and women being adversaries not partners (Battle of the Sexes, Men are From Mars etc….). As Mike would have noticed, all the humour about male/female relationships is based on mistrust, conning each other, getting one over on the missus…if that’s what we think is _funny_ then we’re doomed or severely handicapped in the search for an across the board, equal but different, hook up.

Jane

http://www.heinleinsociety.org

>I really don’t think trust came into it exactly; it just didn’t
>occur to him as an option because he comes from a culture where all
>the emphasis is on men and women being adversaries not partners

I don’t disagree with the particular points you make, but I really do see these as matters of trust in a relationship. If what you have to work with in a relationship is the general social rules of thumb about adversarial relationships, that’s really not much of a relationship. The gravamen of a relationship is that you repose confidence in your partner that he/she _will not_ approach you as an adversary. That’s the nature of intimacy. Some one remarked, and I can’t recall who at this moment, that intimacy is the state of a relationship in which we dispense with ritual.

Bill
BPRAL22169 wrote:

>That’s the nature of intimacy. Some one
>remarked, and I can’t recall who at this moment, that intimacy is the state of
>a relationship in which we dispense with ritual.
>Bill

And yet there’s that Notebook quotation about formal politeness being even more important between husband and wife than between strangers. I’d class courtesy as a ritual. Odd; I find myself agreeing with both views in part yet they seem to be mutually exclusive.

Jane

http://www.heinleinsociety.org

>And yet there’s that Notebook quotation about formal politeness
>being even more important between husband and wife than between
>strangers. I’d class courtesy as a ritual.
>Odd; I find myself agreeing with both views in part yet they seem to
>be mutually exclusive.

I would tend to agree — but . . . here’s an anecdote dating from 1978 when I was involved in putting IguanaCon II together. There was a serious division of opinion on the concom and the meetings degenerated to what I would regard as an extreme of discourtesy. It was suggested that we institute formal address — Mr. or Ms. or Mrs. — as a way of holding the line and preventing any further deterioration.

Just such a small thing as that did stabilize the deterioration of personal relations in that case. Perhaps Heinlein insisted on formal courtesy between husband and wife for two reasons: first, as marking the line to be held, because if you never let go of formal courtesy there is no change that your public relationship will ever degenerate to interpersonal discourtesy — and second as a way of marking the boundary between the just-between-the-two-of-us and the relatively more public en famille. And, of course, that leads to no. 3 — teaching the children how to do it. Strong boundaries may be the most important job parents have.

Bill

“Jane Davitt” writes:
>BPRAL22169 wrote:
>
>>That’s the nature of intimacy. Some one
>>remarked, and I can’t recall who at this moment, that intimacy is the state of
>>a relationship in which we dispense with ritual.
>>Bill
>>
>>
>
>And yet there’s that Notebook quotation about formal politeness
>being even more important between husband and wife than between
>strangers. I’d class courtesy as a ritual.
>Odd; I find myself agreeing with both views in part yet they seem to
>be mutually exclusive.
>
>Jane

I take the quote from Notebook to mean: it is even more important to say “please,” “thank-you,” “I’m sorry,” etc. to your spouse rather than any formal response when intimate. Starngers, casual acquaintances and the like don’t need the constant ‘greasing’ of the way as do married folks.

Also in Notebook is the quote: “Darling, a true lady takes off her dignity with her clothes and does her whorish best. At other times you can be as modest and dignified as your _persona_ requires.” In order to do this, there cannot be anything held back and complete trust is necessary between partners. Once the intimate moment is over “politeness” must kick in. Unless you LIKE an adversarial relationship with your spouse.

Elizabeth

(21 years with the same exasperating and totally lovable man)
BPRAL22169 wrote:

[Jane wrote:]
>>Oscar, I think, failed to ask Star for help not because he didn’t
>>trust her but because,
>>1. He was embarrassed.Sexual discussion between opposite sexes =
>>blushing, shuffling of feet, secrecy and hypocrisy.
>>2. He was being tactful; you don’t tell a woman you are falling for
>>that another woman has propositioned you.Either she gets jealous or
>>it looks like you’re boasting.
>>
>
>Yes, well, I would say both of these are matters of trust. She knew the lay of
>the land (pun not intended) but Oscar didn’t trust her enough to make himself
>vulnerable to her or to realize that she would not be offended by an imaginary
>lack of tact on his part in this case.
>Bill
>

I think you’re both being a bit hard on Oscar. When Oscar, Star and Rufo first arrived at the Doral’s “farmhouse”, the Doral offers “‘hospitality of roof … and table …and bed'”. At this point, Oscar says “I had no chance to look at Star for a hint. And I wanted a hint. The person who says smugly that good manners are the same everywhere and people are just people hasn’t been farther out of Podunk than the next whistle stop. I’m no sophisticate but I had been around enough to know that.”

Neither Star nor Rufo had thought to warn Oscar beforehand that something like this was coming. Neither of them informed him afterwards of the meaning of what he had accepted – as Oscar says later, beds are multipurpose equipment; sometimes people use them just to sleep.

Both Star and Rufo are aware that Oscar is a barbarian. Star later pleads ignorance of American customs, but some of her subsequent actions show a greater knowledge of American culture than she will admit. Both of them should have been aware of this pitfall, yet neither of them advised Oscar about it. In the absence of further information, Oscar acted the best way he knew.

When the crucial moment came – when the Doral’s wife and two favourite daughters appeared in Oscar’s bedroom – neither Star nor Rufo were available for advice. Oscar could conceivably have stalled the ladies and gone looking for his companions for advice – but wouldn’t this have been as hurtful to them as his pleading that he wasn’t up to it that evening?

Star seems to have made the assumption that Oscar would automatically have taken the culturally correct course, because it was the right choice. This seems to me as provincial as any of Oscar’s actions, and far more culpably so – Oscar is a barbarian chosen for his big muscles and small brain, Star is Her Wisdom, the ruler of eighty thousand universes; if anyone should be aware of cultural differences, she should.

Simon
Simon Jester wrote:

>
>Star seems to have made the assumption that Oscar would automatically have
>taken the culturally correct course, because it was the right choice. This
>seems to me as provincial as any of Oscar’s actions, and far more culpably
>so – Oscar is a barbarian chosen for his big muscles and small brain, Star
>is Her Wisdom, the ruler of eighty thousand universes; if anyone should be
>aware of cultural differences, she should.
>
>Simon
>

Good points..which make me almost certain now that Star and Rufo did it on purpose.

As you say, both know Earth, both know how Oscar is likely to react..yet they throw him in at the deep end and walk away as he flounders to the edge…then tell him off for getting wet. It has to be just one more lesson, one more stage in the forging of a hero. At the end, Star tells Oscar that she could have just skipped most of the adventures and taken them directly to the place with the Egg but the journey was vital to train him, accustom him to his new life. Learning to adapt to local customs wouldn’t have been necessary for the fight but it was if she could take her new pet..err, husband, back to the cosmopolitan world of Center.

Jane

http://www.heinleinsociety.org

Simon Jester:

>I think you’re both being a bit hard on Oscar.

John Connor raised this same point earlier, and I think you are both right — Star and Rufo had an obligation to apprise Oscar of the local “map” of customs and didn’t. This could be a lack of trust on their part — but I think it’s more likely to be just the “shakedown” part of their quest, the process of becoming a team. This part shows they aren’t yet.

Bill
BPRAL22169 wrote:

>Simon Jester:
>
>
>>I think you’re both being a bit hard on Oscar.
>>
>
>John Connor raised this same point earlier, and I think you are both right —
>Star and Rufo had an obligation to apprise Oscar of the local “map” of customs
>and didn’t. This could be a lack of trust on their part — but I think it’s
>more likely to be just the “shakedown” part of their quest, the process of
>becoming a team. This part shows they aren’t yet.
>Bill
>

Though it may seem that I make defense for my “namesake” (or “patron saint”, if you prefer), I agree with the position that Her Wisdom CCIV and her grandson, Rufo, had an “agenda” which they wished to follow. The person who created that agenda was, of course, Her Wisdom and Rufo had no choice but to follow — you stick by your family, through everything! Even if she IS an Old Bag!! As you say, Bill, Star was in the process of “vetting” Milord Hero Oscar for the Eater of Souls. The pains involved in the process were necessary. By allowing him to fail she allowed him to “succeed” later.

As for Sancho, er . . . Rufo, I don’t believe he really had anything to do with strategy — just logistics. Rather like, “first we dig ’em; then we die in ’em.” Oscar “ate what was set before him.”

Dr. Rufo (and I DON’T BELIEVE what Her Wisdom said! I KNOW she “witched” that first arrow that the Hero-in-training shot — she knew that EC’s self-esteem would have been offended by the corpulent Rufo besting him with the longbow. — YMMV, of course.)
(BPRAL22169) wrote:

[Quoting some, unnamed, person]

>>That’s all very obvious but what I question is the value of the
>>lesson. Is there then, a pie with a fork attitude to sex? A mode of
>>behavior that fits all places?

>I think,rather, this is a challenge to Tex’s lesson — a showing that there is,
>in fact no truly “universal” mode of behavior and that all “modes of behavior”
>are ipso facto local to their cultures. What we might glean from this is that
>the interplanetary civilizations of Space Cadet are in fact all one culture.
>
>What Oscar tripped up on was that by acting on the behavioral standards of his
>culture, he rendered a deadly insult to his hosts. He could have achieved the
>same end in different ways — every culture has ways of doing anything in
>particular you might want to do — and what he should have done was to ask for
>guidance. But he didn’t trust Star enough at that point to ask her for it.
>The lesson I get from that is that the most dangerous thing to you in the
>cosmos at large is the particular hypocrisies of your particular culture, and
>that is where you have to concentrate your efforts.

This is one of the weak parts of the book for me. Oscar was, nominally, from my era. Long before I went to Parris Island, as an *Army* brat I learned the military golden rule – “Never assume, it just makes an ass out of u and me.” In Glory Road, despite his military training, combat experience, and a period at college, Oscar is depicted many times making assumptions that could make an ass out of himself, Star, and Rufo; assumptions that, given his putative background, he shouldn’t have made. The required “suspension of disbelief” got me through the book the first time, and through several rereads. It is still in the top half of my favorite RAH novels, but I still have to bite my tongue sometimes while reading it.

OJ III

[OK, I *think* I remember when I was twenty-something, and maybe the fact that he had the hots for Star may have clouded his mind, and that is what has preserved my tongue from serious damage.]
“Ogden Johnson III”wrote in message news:

> (BPRAL22169) wrote:
>
>This is one of the weak parts of the book for me. Oscar was,
>nominally, from my era. Long before I went to Parris Island, as an
>*Army* brat I learned the military golden rule – “Never assume, it
>just makes an ass out of u and me.” In Glory Road, despite his
>military training, combat experience, and a period at college, Oscar
>is depicted many times making assumptions that could make an ass out
>of himself, Star, and Rufo; assumptions that, given his putative
>background, he shouldn’t have made. The required “suspension of
>disbelief” got me through the book the first time, and through several
>rereads. It is still in the top half of my favorite RAH novels, but I
>still have to bite my tongue sometimes while reading it.
>
>OJ III
>[OK, I *think* I remember when I was twenty-something, and maybe the
>fact that he had the hots for Star may have clouded his mind, and that
>is what has preserved my tongue from serious damage.]
>

I see Heinlein using this method often to make his point/lesson to the reader. The character makes unwarranted/foolish assumptions and we watch him/her being corrected. From the lofty god perspective of the reader we can think…Ha! foolish mortal..thus he shows us that ASSuming makes an ass out of you and me with no pain to the student.

That has always been one of the most important aspects of his work for me. When I started reading him at about age 10, his juveniles were most important to a child (me) trying to define my personal ethics and ‘world view’. Heinlein taught me many things with this method and in an entertaining way. Among the early lessons I attribute to him are…ALWAYS consider the actual facts before you decide how things MUST be..Sometimes you DO have to be cruel to be kind, as either all heart or all head are both bad ways to make decisions, Duty, Honor and Country..(in that order), Question Authority and make them PROVE it and never sit with your back to the door ;).

I’m too old to have heros (i’m pushing 50) but RAH is still mine for being there when I needed some good guidance (that i’d listen to heh)

Gad I begin to ramble..oh well I think i’ll leave it as is and hit ‘send’.

George
GMC wrote:

>”Ogden Johnson III” wrote in message
>news:
>
>> (BPRAL22169) wrote:
>>
>>This is one of the weak parts of the book for me. Oscar was,
>>nominally, from my era. Long before I went to Parris Island, as an
>>*Army* brat I learned the military golden rule – “Never assume, it
>>just makes an ass out of u and me.” In Glory Road, despite his
>>military training, combat experience, and a period at college, Oscar
>>is depicted many times making assumptions that could make an ass out
>>of himself, Star, and Rufo; assumptions that, given his putative
>>background, he shouldn’t have made. The required “suspension of
>>disbelief” got me through the book the first time, and through several
>>rereads. It is still in the top half of my favorite RAH novels, but I
>>still have to bite my tongue sometimes while reading it.
>>
>>OJ III
>>[OK, I *think* I remember when I was twenty-something, and maybe the
>>fact that he had the hots for Star may have clouded his mind, and that
>>is what has preserved my tongue from serious damage.]
>>
>>
>I see Heinlein using this method often to make his point/lesson to the
>reader. The character makes unwarranted/foolish assumptions and we watch
>him/her being corrected. From the lofty god perspective of the reader we can
>think…Ha! foolish mortal..thus he shows us that ASSuming makes an ass out
>of you and me with no pain to the student.
>That has always been one of the most important aspects of his work for me.
>When I started reading him at about age 10, his juveniles were most
>important to a child (me) trying to define my personal ethics and ‘world
>view’. Heinlein taught me many things with this method and in an
>entertaining way. Among the early lessons I attribute to him are…ALWAYS
>consider the actual facts before you decide how things MUST be..Sometimes
>you DO have to be cruel to be kind, as either all heart or all head are both
>bad ways to make decisions, Duty, Honor and Country..(in that order),
>Question Authority and make them PROVE it and never sit with your back to
>the door ;).
>I’m too old to have heros (i’m pushing 50) but RAH is still mine for being
>there when I needed some good guidance (that i’d listen to heh)
>
>Gad I begin to ramble..oh well I think i’ll leave it as is and hit ‘send’.
>
>George

I agree, sir, with ALL you have said EXCEPT “I’m too old to have heros (i’m [sic] pushing 50). . . .”

I HAVE PUSHED BEYOND 50 (not by much, granted, but beyond). I claim my heros and will do so proudly! I won’t try your patience with a listing of them but I agree with citing RAH. I WILL mention also the little, old priest who died giving the Last Rites last September on a very busy day in Manhattan. Whatever else Fr. Mychal may have been, that day he EARNED being acclaimed a Hero!

RAH said,

There comes a time in the life of every human when he or she must decide to risk “his life, his fortune, and his sacred honor” on an outcome dubious.

–Starnger In A Starnge Land, pg 56

Shabbes shalom,

Dr. Rufo

(from one old Rambler to another, if you take my meaning?)
On 02 May 2002 20:40:05 GMT, (BPRAL22169) held forth, saying:

>What Oscar tripped up on was that by acting on the behavioral standards of his
>culture, he rendered a deadly insult to his hosts. He could have achieved the
>same end in different ways — every culture has ways of doing anything in
>particular you might want to do — and what he should have done was to ask for
>guidance. But he didn’t trust Star enough at that point to ask her for it.

My take is that he didn’t even realize the potential for such a contretemps. This was his first exposure to an off-Earth culture, and he was still quite parochial in his outlook. Which of us would not be?


-denny-
nocturnal curmudgeon, editor

Never try to outstubborn a cat. – Lazarus Long

“Jane Davitt” writes:

>So we have Oscar playing by Earthly rules in Nevia and turning down
>the wife and daughters of his host as sleeping partners…which is a
>mortal insult and nearly gets him killed.
>Neither Nevia or Earth are wrong in their rules exactly but where
>Oscar made his mistake was in bringing his own rules with him.
>
>That’s all very obvious but what I question is the value of the
>lesson. Is there then, a pie with a fork attitude to sex? A mode of
>behavior that fits all places? Are we not allowed any scruples or
>individual preferences? If we have to adapt to where we are, if we
>can take nothing with us, never follow our own carefully thought out
>beliefs, then what point is there in evolving such beliefs? Is it
>right to make visitors conform in such matters? By making Oscar
>sleep with his wife, was Jocko being an inconsiderate host?
>
>True, once assured that he wasn’t doing something wrong, or hurtful
>to Star, Oscar leapt at the chance to have lots of sex with talented
>and uninhibited females (hmm…odd that :-)) but would that
>conforming to local standards have been so easy if he’d had to do
>something distasteful? Was it a true test of his adaptability and
>ability to step outside the lessons he learned on Earth?
>
>

In this one scenario, Oscar has several things tossed at him at once:

1. He is falling for and lusts after Star, his first choice.

2. Having sex with women not of his choosing and unaware he had agreed to do so when responding to a formal greeting (many formal greetings in our culture, i.e. “my house is yours” are not to be taken literally, I would have a problem with a guest who sold my house to another party…)

3. Having sex with the wife of his host.

4. Having sex with the daughter(s) of his host.

5. His aversion to having sex with “little” girls, a big taboo in our culture.

6. Having THREE females show up at the same time for the night, overwhelming! He says he could have handled it if they had shown up one at a time.

Of course he cannot cope. Too many decisions and feelings of guilt over several taboos. Personal taboos being the hardest to overcome. So he picks what he considers to be a gallant excuse, tiredness. We know this was a wrong decision, but unfortunately Oscar doesn’t. He doesn’t even understand the brush off in the morning, because Star and Rufo still don’t explain it until he asks the right questions.

His two guides, Star and Rufo, are sorely negligent in helping Oscar understand his circumstances and they should both know better. Rufo, especially, since he is so fond of Earth and has spent so much time there.

Elizabeth
TreetopAngel wrote:

>
>His two guides, Star and Rufo, are sorely negligent in helping Oscar
>understand his circumstances and they should both know better. Rufo,
>especially, since he is so fond of Earth and has spent so much time there.
>
>Elizabeth
>
>
>

Yes, you’re right. And I think he knows that which is why he loses patience with Star when she begins to chew him out. He is embarrassed that he put his foot in it and endangered them…but he’s intelligent enough to spot that the blame isn’t all or even mostly his.

[Jane Davitt]

http://www.heinleinsociety.org

Jane Davitt wrote:

>
>I’m going to take a look at GR from the perspective of the very
>first words; not, “I know a place where there is no smog..”
>but the quotation in the dedication which sets the tone of the whole
>book IMO.
>It reads,
>”BRITANNUS (shocked):
>Caesar, this is not proper.
>THEODOTUS (outraged):
>HOW?
>CAESAR (recovering his self-possession):
>Pardon him, Theodotus: he is a barbarian, and thinks that the
>customs of his tribe and island are the laws of nature.
> _Caesar and Cleopatra_Act II GEORGE BERNARD SHAW
>
>It seems to me that this is a theme that runs throughout Heinlein’s
>work, starting perhaps in the early juvenile, _Space Cadet_ with the
>’eating pie with a fork’ incident. In that, the cadet is told that
>there’s an overall way of doing things that will take you
>everywhere. This might seem to be a counter illustration but I don’t
>think it is; rather, Tex learned that just because he did it one way
>at home didn’t mean that was suitable for all occasions.
>
>Moving on to Thorby of COTG, we see an adaptable youngster
>continually going with the flow and fitting in with diametrically
>opposed ‘rules’ as he moves from planet to ship to army to mansion.
>He knows that it would be pointless to apply the standards of his
>life as a slave to his life aboard a highly organised ship for
>instance.
>Mike from SIASL transcends Earthly custom if it doesn’t suit him, as
>does his mentor, Jubal but in a way, both are aware of the parochial
>nature of those customs so they are more in tune with Caesar than it
>seems.
>But back to Oscar….he has to learn this lesson and it takes him a
>while. He begins the book with a list of aims that will come to seem
> petty and pointless,
>” ….single minded pursuit of the three-car garage, the swimming
>pool, and the safe & secure retirement benefits.
>I am not being holier_than_thou: I was after that same
>three-car-garage myself.”
>In the society that sees these goals as laudable there is no room
>for independence of thought and tolerance of different behaviour.
>Ironically, there isn’t on Nevia either…in fact, everywhere Oscar
>goes is another version of Earth in its inflexibility but (and this
>is the important part) they’re all the same in different ways and
>they all think their way is the right way.
>So we have Oscar playing by Earthly rules in Nevia and turning down
>the wife and daughters of his host as sleeping partners…which is a
>mortal insult and nearly gets him killed.
>Neither Nevia or Earth are wrong in their rules exactly but where
>Oscar made his mistake was in bringing his own rules with him.
>
>That’s all very obvious but what I question is the value of the
>lesson. Is there then, a pie with a fork attitude to sex? A mode of
>behavior that fits all places? Are we not allowed any scruples or
>individual preferences? If we have to adapt to where we are, if we
>can take nothing with us, never follow our own carefully thought out
>beliefs, then what point is there in evolving such beliefs? Is it
>right to make visitors conform in such matters? By making Oscar
>sleep with his wife, was Jocko being an inconsiderate host?
>
>True, once assured that he wasn’t doing something wrong, or hurtful
>to Star, Oscar leapt at the chance to have lots of sex with talented
>and uninhibited females (hmm…odd that :-)) but would that
>conforming to local standards have been so easy if he’d had to do
>something distasteful? Was it a true test of his adaptability and
>ability to step outside the lessons he learned on Earth?
>
>Jane
>

A pie and a fork a la mode:

I submit that while getting a machete in his face in SEA, smelling Igli’s armpits, making a wishbone of a horned ghost and kebab of the Eater of Souls, and listening to Beat poetry with a girl with dirty feet was “conforming to local custom,” I find nowhere that Mr. Heinlein indicates that “Ocsar” found it particularly tasteworthy. “Rufo” warned him about Igli. The village sign warned him about the g-string. His DI warned him about Little Brown Brother. “Star” warned him about dragons and horned ghosts. Both warned him about the Eater of Souls. When thus “clued in,” “Oscar” turned in a performance the local custom found quite suitable. Nobody warned him about The Doral’s sleeping customs or Beat poets.

“Oscar” brought a lifetime of habits to SEA, to l’Ile du Levant, to the riverbank, to the fights with Igli, the horned ghosts, the dragons, the guards, the Eater of Souls. And acquired more in each incident. “Star” makes the point that this /was/ the point. And Mr. Heinlein makes the point that he brought a lifetime of habits to The Doral’s guestroom — /and/ to his own marriage. He’s to do without which? Under what circumstances?

I thus fail to see that “on Earth” vs. “not on Earth” is a valid distinction, but that was /Shaw’s/ point.

The True Test Of Adaptability is “last man standing, wins.” Mother Nature is a bitch we’re /all/ married to, 99. But I can’t take credit for that conclusion, since it was Mr. Heinlein’s point. “Oscar” makes it informally; “Lazarus” keeps making it formally.


——(m+
~/:o)_|
You can call your priest anything you want,
except /my/ priest.
http://t-independent.com/scrawlmark-press/

Go To Postings

Here Begins The Discussion Log

You have just entered room “Heinlein Readers Group chat.”

TreetopAngelRN has entered the room.

DavidWrightSr: Hi Elizabeth

TreetopAngelRN: Hi David!

TreetopAngelRN: How goes it?

DavidWrightSr: Nobody here but us chickens, I expect others to start joining soon. Going good. Finally rested up after a long weekend

TreetopAngelRN: I barely made it in time…laundry, blech!

Paradis401 has entered the room.

DavidWrightSr: Hi Denis. Welcome

Paradis401: Hi David. How have you been?

TreetopAngelRN: Hello Denis

Paradis401: Hi Elizabeth.

DavidWrightSr: Good.

Paradis401: David, do you know what happened to Steve’s sites?

DavidWrightSr: Steve who?

Paradis401: Junp101. Unofficial NASA Web

DavidWrightSr: No, I wasn’t aware of his sites. Have they disappeared?

TreetopAngelRN: They are no longer listed in his sig, I just noticed

Paradis401: Yes. Best site of NASA missions I’ve ever seen.

TreetopAngelRN: The AHFPics site is down, too! and MNSdesigns

Paradis401: I know. Has he gotten the hatchet? It’s been about 10 days now.

DavidWrightSr: I hope not, but things are chancy these days.

TreetopAngelRN: I know he has been having trouble with his puter the last few days, since he got back online

Paradis401: Can somebody bump him off the net. All his sites?

TreetopAngelRN: I don’t know

Paradis401: That would be sad.

DavidWrightSr: It would depend on what ISP is hosting his sites. If they are having trouble or he is having trouble with them, they could do it.

TreetopAngelRN: could be as simple as being offline until he gets setup again after moving

Paradis401: I hope it’s that simple. That gentleman is a genius.

TreetopAngelRN: no kidding…and funny, too!

Paradis401: I agree. He programs changes faster than superman.

TreetopAngelRN: next to him, I am still in pre-school when it comes to computers

Paradis401: Me too. But David W is quite a wiz himself.

DavidWrightSr: Just lots and lots of years, but these younger guys go way ahead of me.

Paradis401: You are as humble as Jubal.

TreetopAngelRN: I bet you built your first one from parts bought at Radio Shack:-D

DavidWrightSr: No. I go back before RS was offering computer kits.

TreetopAngelRN: LOL

TreetopAngelRN: I remember the catalogs laying around that Dad bought his parts from

DavidWrightSr: My first program was written in the fall of 1965.

DavidWrightSr: Hang on. Got to feed my cat.

Paradis401: Is there a meeting tonite, Elizabeth?

TreetopAngelRN: Yes, we were to discuss and wrangle about Glory Road.

Paradis401: I thought so. I wonder where everybody is at?

TreetopAngelRN: Just catching the end of ST:TNG???

TreetopAngelRN: Me too, about 4 in the morning.

Paradis401: =-O

TreetopAngelRN: I just woke up about two hours ago

Paradis401: Oh, my. Starnge hours.

TreetopAngelRN: Sitting here sipping latte in my jammies…not if you work the nightshift!

mertide has entered the room.

TreetopAngelRN: Hello Mertide

Paradis401: Ah. I understand.

mertide: hi

DavidWrightSr: Ok. I expected a large crowd, with that spirited exchange that has been going on.

TreetopAngelRN: Yeah, I got to sleep in today

DavidWrightSr: Hi Mertide.

mertide: Not at work then?

mertide: Hi David, call me Carolyn please

TreetopAngelRN: oh no, just hanging at home

Paradis401: Carolyn, I’m Denis.

TreetopAngelRN: Sorry Carolyn, we met last time and I forgot your name

mertide: don’t tell me they gave a nurse a night off!

mertide: Hi Denis

DavidWrightSr: Carolyn Evans?

mertide: C’est moi!

TreetopAngelRN: I got online quick so they couldn’t call me in!

mertide: haha

ddavitt has entered the room.

TreetopAngelRN: Hi Jane!

DavidWrightSr: Hi Jane. Welcome.

ddavitt: Hi everyone

DavidWrightSr: Light crowd so far.

Paradis401: Hi Jane.

mertide: I’m quite intimidated by all the posting about that book

ddavitt: I’m playing hooky from exercise

ddavitt: What book is that?

mertide: Hi Jane

mertide: Glory Road

mertide: isn’t that why we’re here? Glup!

ddavitt: The topic, of course :-)

TreetopAngelRN: It’s easy Carolyn, I used to feel the same way

mertide: Or am I in the Twilight Zone

TreetopAngelRN: Glory Road it is

ddavitt: Still early; more people will probably show up

TreetopAngelRN: I can’t find my notes:-(

TreetopAngelRN: BRB

ddavitt: I’m ashamed to admit I didn’t get to read GR again

TreetopAngelRN: Found ’em:-$

pjscott100 has entered the room.

ddavitt: Hi Peter

TreetopAngelRN: Hi Peter

pjscott100: Hi Jane

ddavitt: Notes; you’re so organised Elizabeth:-)

Paradis401: Hi Peter.

TreetopAngelRN: Notes: I suffer from working with Alzheimer patients and forget what real life is supposed to be

pjscott100: Sorry, not familiar with names aside from Jayne and David

TreetopAngelRN: Elizabeth here

ddavitt: Jane here

Paradis401: I’m Denis

mertide: I’m Carolyn

pjscott100: er, Jane

pjscott100: Jane, that is

SageMerlin has entered the room.

DavidWrightSr: And this is Alan.

ddavitt: What time is it for you Carolyn?

pjscott100: Hullo all!

ddavitt: No problem Peter

TreetopAngelRN: Hi Alan

SageMerlin: Good evening

ddavitt: Hi Alan

mertide: 11.10am, Friday

Paradis401: Now we have a doctor, a nurse, and a blood banker.

ddavitt: 9 pm thursday for me

SageMerlin: who’s the blood banker

ddavitt: And a housewife!

pjscott100: 6pm for me

Paradis401: Me.

mertide: Thunderstorming there? I was just talking to a friend in Delaware who’s being boom boomed

TreetopAngelRN: 7 pm here

ddavitt: We had one this morning in Ontario

pjscott100: I am on travel in Los Angeles and dialing in from hotel room

DavidWrightSr: My we are spread around :-)

TreetopAngelRN: It was snowing here this morning

DavidWrightSr: Where?

ddavitt: We’re having crazy weather too.

TreetopAngelRN: Montana

mertide: Love that English weather

Paradis401: Michigan today.

mertide: Now why did I think you were British?

mertide: my bad

DavidWrightSr: Just like on that Prarie house program. they had snow in june/july

pjscott100: It snowed briefly on Vancouver Island ~ 5 days ago

ddavitt: I’m English, emigrated to canada 5 yrs ago

TreetopAngelRN: We had bad snow last year in June

mertide: that must be it, sorry

ddavitt: Can’t you tell by my accent?:-)

pjscott100: Jane: ditto (except spent 18 years in LA in between and thus have US citizenship also)

ddavitt: Where from in UK?

pjscott100: Sarfend, er, Southend

ddavitt: I was born in the Potteries, moved to portsmouth

mertide: I’m sure our spelling lets our origins out as well

pjscott100: Much nicer than Southend

ddavitt: Yep; my spell checker hates me

ddavitt: Going back this summer for a holiday

mertide: Only time of year to go :-)

ddavitt: Think this is enough to start Elizabeth?

pjscott100: Victoria (motto: We put the British in British Columbia) is like Britain used to be in the 60s in many ways

geeairmoe2 has entered the room.

ddavitt: Hi Will

mertide: We’ve had almost the first rain this year this week – major drought season

TreetopAngelRN: Yeah, Let’s hit the Glory Road!

Paradis401: Hi Will.

geeairmoe2: Hello, Jane, everyone.

ddavitt: You go, Empress

mertide: hottest April since white settlement

TreetopAngelRN: Errr…..Let’s see, Oscar Gordon is being taken in by Star and Rofo…agreed?

TreetopAngelRN: Rufo, sorry

ddavitt: Fooled him every step

ddavitt: Had to I suppose

TreetopAngelRN: In fact it isn’t until after the SoulEater that he is told most of it.

ddavitt: He didn’t resent it as much as I expected

ddavitt: Once the adventure is over, yes.

pjscott100: He was in love :-)

ddavitt: But even then, it’s not until the talk with Rufo that he gets the full story on Star

ddavitt: And leaves a few weeks later.

TreetopAngelRN: I like how Professor Rufo described it “carried around like a cat in a sack…”

mertide: We assume no incompetence on their part then? All poor communication and seeming errors were their training programme?

ddavitt: I got that impression

ddavitt: Weed out the weaklings

ddavitt: He wasn’t the first to try and retrieve the Egg

TreetopAngelRN: But they specifically set out to recruit Oscar, the others were only to map out the route

pjscott100: Doesn’t She say that their chances were estimated at x%? What was it?

mertide: I suppose that was the book that didn’t get written, where the hero gets all the info and that causes them to fail?

ddavitt: weren’t there others in reserve though, in case he got killed in combat in the jungle?

DavidWrightSr: They had backups IIRC in case he was killed or whatever.

Paradis401: I believe Glory Road was written by Robert as a love story for Ginny (Star).

ddavitt: It mentions other candidates being honed

TreetopAngelRN: I thought Star said they would have to wait until they found another, according to the computer program that found Oscar

DavidWrightSr: I heard that he wrote it in 23 days.

ddavitt: That is an interesting slant on it Denis.

Paradis401: Inspiration. Often happened with Ginny around.

ddavitt: Star is a very special lady; larger than life.

Paradis401: So is Ginny.

mertide: It feels like it, like it was written in one continuous thought, rather than re-written

ddavitt: With a very difficult job to do

DavidWrightSr: One of the few who wasn’t red-headed though

ddavitt: That’s true

ddavitt: But the outside wasn’t important

ddavitt: Ginny didn’t have to look like Star or vice versa

TreetopAngelRN: Aha! Page 217…explains how the computers picked Oscar, a hero type

Paradis401: She did when Robert met her.

ddavitt: The way Star was described was a perfect match for a Sword and Sorcery novel

mertide: a touch of the amazon fighting corp in the later books

pjscott100: I have a version here (printed 1986) for which the cover art shows a Star whose appearance from behind very much looks like Ginny from the 40s

ddavitt: I’ve seen a photo of Ginny back then and she looked diffeernt than i imagine Star was but I’ll bow to your knowledge on that

ddavitt: Maybe my cover is influencing me

ddavitt: Star looks impossibly gorgeous

ddavitt: I’m jealous:-)

pjscott100: Not that much of her face is visible… but she is not an Amazon type… build is just like picture of Ginny & Robert on DM set

Paradis401: So did Ginny – at age 60.

ddavitt: My cover girl is built like Deety; 40, 21,34

Paradis401: Nice.

ddavitt: It’s a lovely cover actually; all green mountains, hazy in the setting sun

ddavitt: Star and Rufo are small figures walking along a trail

ddavitt: Oscar I mean

geeairmoe2: My vision of Star was always Ursula Andress from “Dr. No”.

pjscott100 has left the room.

pjscott100 has entered the room.

TreetopAngelRN: Oscar’s soliloquy…discussing how students were not allowed to have opinions

ddavitt: Yes, that’s like this cover but Star is topless. Which is painful when you’re that big.

Paradis401: Yes. Andress was indeed lovely.

ddavitt: Did Heinlein see himself as Oscar then?

Paradis401: I donno. Maybe not.

ddavitt: Learning to expand his horizons and drop preconceptions?

TreetopAngelRN: Seems Heinlein was already seeing the time when students were not allowed opinion and had to accept and conform to group thinking in order to pass, the “lowest common denominator.’

ddavitt: Falling educational standards are a recurrent theme

ddavitt: in his books

ddavitt: Especially the juveniles

TreetopAngelRN: I really see it now, in talking with my sibs and the troubles they have with their kids in school

ddavitt: I see it in newsgroup posts.

ddavitt: I keep thinking that they must be people to whom English is second language…

pjscott100: Boston Public is not fiction… it’s documentary

ddavitt: But then we get posters like Kultsi from finland who are word perfect

ddavitt: and put them to shame

TreetopAngelRN: True

SageMerlin: Ah…who says

SageMerlin: Boston Public is documentary?

pjscott100: Somewhere RAH said that in his fanmail the letters from outside the US were of a far higher standard

SageMerlin: That’s news to us here in Boston.

ddavitt: Yes he did.

geeairmoe2: If you suggest making English the official language in the U.S. you get called a racist.

ddavitt: Ad in that letter about Canada, he urged them not to let their standards slip to match the US

SageMerlin: No, about Boston Public being a documentary….who says?

pjscott100: I read that a lot of kids say that Boston Public is very much like their school…

pjscott100: TV Guide asserted it FWIW

SageMerlin: Absolute bull turd.

ddavitt: Isn’t it? The official language?

ddavitt: All your signs are in English

ddavitt: In ontario, we have to have Englsih and French on stuff

TreetopAngelRN: there are many groups trying to get that changed, Jane.

ddavitt: To what for heavens sake?

SageMerlin: I never been in a Boston school, and I’ve never seen the program, but I can tell you that no one in this city thinks that show is remotely realistic.

geeairmoe2: The U.S. doesn’t have an ‘official’ language. Election ballots are required to be mulit-language in many states.

pjscott100: Interesting

SageMerlin: In fact most of the people I have spoken to hate the program.

TreetopAngelRN: Some communities, Spanish, Mexican.

SageMerlin: In what languge is the US Passport written?

SageMerlin: English and French if I am not mistaken .

mertide: The Swiss seem to manage a comfortable multi-lingual country by having cantons with different languages used

TreetopAngelRN: I wouldn’t know.

pjscott100: I have mine here

pjscott100: The page which tells furriners to treat the holder with deference is in English, French, Spanish

SageMerlin: At least it isn’t in Russian

ddavitt: Hmm, interesting

SageMerlin: Or Chinese

ddavitt: My british one is just in Englsih, I’m certain.

ddavitt: I keep spelling English wrong

ddavitt: Retribution for slagging off posters who can’t spell or use correct grammar

TreetopAngelRN: funny, I didn’t notish

ddavitt: Don’t they teach apostrophe use anymore?

ddavitt: :-)

ddavitt: We’re wandering…slap us about the head Elizabeth

Paradis401: Robert was an expert at swordsmanship. Maybe it helped with Glory Road eh?

ddavitt: The fights rang true.

TreetopAngelRN:

TreetopAngelRN: I like the swordplay and the quick lessons, makes me able to visualize, and think I could do it, too!

ddavitt: But so did the hunting in Tunnel and he got those details from Lurton didn’t he?

pjscott100: It was hard to reread the fight scene without flashing on Princess Bride

ddavitt: A good writer can make any skill sound convincing I suppose

TreetopAngelRN: I had the same problem Peter!

pjscott100: “…I also am left-handed!”

TreetopAngelRN: LOL

ddavitt: Yes; that seemed to take a lot from GR

ddavitt: Great book

SageMerlin: Oh, so we are discussing GLORY ROAD.

ddavitt: Life is unfair’ was a catch phrase for my friend and me as teens

TreetopAngelRN: Yes, Glory Road

ddavitt: Yes, that is the topic Alan.

SageMerlin: I am building a 4 dim spreadsheet in another window so it is easy for me to get lost.

mertide: We used to say “All men are bastards”, but that’s another topic :-)

ddavitt: Well i just did but don’t explain it:-)

pjscott100: I happened to reread GR about 6 weeks ago… and not for the first time felt that I would rather reread anything by RAH than anything written by anyone else in the last 5 years

SageMerlin: doesn’t say much for women to call all men bastards

ddavitt: ‘As you wish”

ddavitt: Loved that in the film

mertide: teenage girls, mate

Paradis401: Thank you Peter. I feel the same way about all RAH books.

mertide: romantic hopes and dreams dashed by pimply heartbreakers

TreetopAngelRN: I was supposed to reread Glory Road again, but got caught up and am almost finished with NOTB for the umpteenth time

pjscott100: Many books can be a “good read” but few aside from Heinlein can leave me feeling good about myself, Life, and everything

geeairmoe2: To “all men are bastards” the reply is: When you’re good at something, stick to it!

ddavitt: GR nice reversal; Oscar had his dreams smashed by Star

pjscott100: Eh? How do you get that?

ddavitt: But it was OK; he built them again but stronger this time

DavidWrightSr: He just realized how shallow his dreams had been before.

ddavitt: He did the quest, got the girl and it all fell to pieces

ddavitt: turned to ashes

TreetopAngelRN: True, he was looking to get married and have the kids and the house and got snared by Star and was made into a Hero

mertide: when you realise the girl is actually superwoman, where can the relationship go?

ddavitt: And the grandmother of Rufo..that had to be weird

pjscott100: Starnge… I read it like he was not getting very far… denied the GI Bill etc

ddavitt: He was marrying a Howard in a way..but unlike Dora he took the chance at long life for himself

pjscott100: Had just missed on the lottery…

mertide: how would any of us deal with realising our love object was truly out of our league

TreetopAngelRN: Peter, I think some of that may have been engineered by Star and Rufo.

pjscott100: I dealt with it about every month when I was a teen :-)

Paradis401: Me too.

ddavitt: It was Conan’s problem; can’t be a retired hero

mertide: Still, we’re talking about the difference between say me and Mel Gibson here :-)

ddavitt: Anyone read the Pratchett books with the Horde in them?

TreetopAngelRN: Yes! They are hysterical!

ddavitt: Ancient old men tottering around with swords and false teeth

pjscott100: IMHO Star didn’t crush his dreams… just didn’t tell Oscar that he’d likely end up feeling a 5th wheel

ddavitt: But still capbable of gutting you in a split second

pjscott100: And why should she… he’s a big boy

ddavitt: He was expecting happy ever after

ddavitt: He became a gigolo

TreetopAngelRN: Star is still there for him in between heroing

mertide: ends justified the means?

pjscott100: This is another example of the Hero dragged kicking and screaming into maturity… by which I mean an advanced level of maturity

ddavitt: He didn’t have anything to do and was temperamentally unsuited for idleness

ddavitt: he had to go back on the Road again; the chance to do that was his real H.E

mertide: a relationship without true respect with one manipulating the other for her ultimate goal, however worthy – she was a cad

pjscott100: But better to have trod the Glory Road and faced the boredom at the end than never to have had the chance

ddavitt: But isn’t heroing essentially an adolescent fantasy?

TreetopAngelRN: Star KNEW he would not be happy to hang out all the time, but Oscar had to figure it out for himself.

ddavitt:

ddavitt: True; she pushed him into going subtly

geeairmoe2: I think Oscar gave up the perfect adolescent fantasy.

ddavitt: And Rufo did the dirty work..again

pjscott100: I don’t think any hero is consciously a hero… they do heroic acts because they see they need to be done, not out of fantasy fulfillment

geeairmoe2: Call me when you need me, otherwise leave me alone.

TreetopAngelRN: How many guys you know wouldn’t rather be still hitting the Glory Road??? Even my hubby still wishes for it at 56.

pjscott100: During the act, anyone sane would be scared witless, not much of a fantasy

ddavitt: By the end of the book he’s conscious of it; ‘Got any dragons you want killed/’

SageMerlin: I get the impression that everyone is missing something here.

pjscott100: Go for it

TreetopAngelRN: But, instead of waiting for the dragons he sets out to find them.

SageMerlin: Who’s the real hero of this story?

ddavitt: Not that many Elizabeth…I bet if they really had the chance, most would stay home. That’s why Oscar’s are special

SageMerlin: Who gets the job done? Oscar or Rufo?

mertide: So having come out of the adventure, he’s living only for the adrenalin rush? Or has he become a parody of himself?

ddavitt: Oscar is the horse who runs the race, Rufo the trainer, Star the jockey; a team

pjscott100: He has found his metier (sp?)

SageMerlin: Horses aren’t brave. Riders are.

ddavitt: Yes they are!

ddavitt: Ever read Dick francis?

mertide: Does he have the capacity to develop wisdom, to reach Star’s level mentally? Was she like him in her youth?

TreetopAngelRN: Horses are very brave and most of the time more sensible than their riders.

pjscott100: By the same token, Star was just as brave

SageMerlin: No, they’re not. They are stupid dumb brutes that we have romanticized into a creature from an alternative universe.

ddavitt: It was her job and her duty

SageMerlin: I read everything Dick wrote for years…until I actually had to ride horses for work, after which I agreed with the latter thesis.

pjscott100: Doesn’t preclude braveness

Paradis401: Oscar and Rufo are different sorts of heroes. Rufo was Star’s son.

ddavitt: I’ve shovelled horse manure, i don’t romanticise them

TreetopAngelRN: me too and herded dumb ones.

SageMerlin: Ever seen a ten year old kid bossing around a 1 1/2 ton animal who could crush him in an instant. That qualifes as dumb to me.

ddavitt: Police horses, horses in battle…they are brave. Trained but still brave.

Paradis401: Not they are just gentle by nature.

SageMerlin: The kid was my son and he as much as he loves horses, he is even more adamant about their dumbness and he used to break them in as a hobby.

SageMerlin: But Oscar isn;t really a horse.

SageMerlin: Bravery requires an awareness of consequences.

mertide: They’re just social animals like dogs, they can easily be dominated mentally

ddavitt: Anyway, don’t get sidetracked by my analogy

SageMerlin: Which requires consciousness

pjscott100: In some ways he is

mertide: so maybe not a hero but a patsy

geeairmoe2: Star acted bravely because she was desparate for something. What prompted Oscar’s bravery?

SageMerlin: but the crucial issue about bravery is choice.

Paradis401: Love

mertide: His ignorance?

pjscott100: If braveness or heroism is doing what you believe to be right when you’re scared for your survival, Oscar qualifies

TreetopAngelRN: Oscar was a patsy who was trained into being a hero, by the time the lessons were over, they didn’t need him anymore.

SageMerlin: Trained or tricked.

geeairmoe2: Boredom, perhaps; after having been in combat.

TreetopAngelRN: patsy covers the tricked part, i.e. going along in the first place, training covered in his adventures

mertide: He was happy to lay down his life for her, she knew the stakes were much higher than that

SageMerlin: My father talks about some of the stuff he has been through and about the conception of bravery….his view (and with his scars I will take his word for it) is that most heroes are scared shitless, afterward.

TreetopAngelRN: I agree with that, Alan.

SageMerlin: When it’s happening it’s pure adreneline and kneejerk reaction

TreetopAngelRN: yup!

geeairmoe2: Many ‘common’ people say, after doing something heroic, it wasn’t until after it was all over did fear arise.

mertide: On the horse analogy, it’s like only the rider knows what’s on the other side of the jump, the horse needs to trust he won’t be killed by the blind fall

SageMerlin: Any anyone too stupid to be scared doesn’t qualify as a hero because a hero can’t be stupid and still be a hero.

Paradis401: You are quoting Robert, Alan.

SageMerlin: Not on purpose

Paradis401: I know.

SageMerlin: After forty years of total immersion something had to rub off.

Paradis401: Doen’t it though?

pjscott100: Bravery is reflex?

SageMerlin: trained reflex

TreetopAngelRN: Potty break, feed the cat, mix another time??? Break for ten minutes?

ddavitt: Sounds good.

Paradis401: OK by me.

SageMerlin: For example, if I step into a situation where it is necessary for me to take action, the fact that I have practiced that action over and over again simply takes over. I don’t about it.

SageMerlin: think

Paradis401: Exactly.

pjscott100: Horses would certainly qualify for bravery then… they operate on trained reflex frequently

TreetopAngelRN: Okay, ten minutes and then back at it, time to go beat the spouse!

TreetopAngelRN: to the bathroom I mean!:-D

ddavitt: Hmm.. I just got plonked for the first time on a newgroup.

ddavitt: There goes my reputation…

TreetopAngelRN: who plonked you Jnae?

TreetopAngelRN: Jane

ddavitt: A real nucase on the Buffy group

ddavitt: nutcase

ddavitt: We tangled before IIRC when he said a woman on the show deserved to die for threatending to tell the police she was raped

pjscott100: Life is too short to take the Internet seriously :-)

TreetopAngelRN: my plonker has been working overtime in afh

ddavitt: She had been kidnapped with that intention and was killed trying to escape; so no rape and her threat merited death

ddavitt: Whatever.

TreetopAngelRN: I need to start watching Buffy, I enjoyed the movie.

ddavitt: The Buffy group is very tense after Tuesday’s ep

ddavitt: Movie not a lot like the series but I can recommend it

pjscott100: I liked the movie too, but couldn’t get into the series

ddavitt: Start at the beginning if you can

TreetopAngelRN: I have seen one episode so I can’t really have an opinion.

ddavitt: Well, we had attemped rape (again) and the shooting death of a major character

TreetopAngelRN: I think I can rent them.

ddavitt: Very dark, lots of emotions. Fans of the dead character are going nuts practically issuing death threats against the writers

TreetopAngelRN: I saw the episode when Buffy goes to college.

ddavitt: Taking it a bit too seriously

TreetopAngelRN: It’s hard to remember it’s fiction sometimes.

ddavitt: That was so real; i felt that not fitting in anywhere feeling

pjscott100: “People, back away from the keyboards… go outside, get some fresh air, look at a tree or two…”

ddavitt: True; especially when you’re involved in the ng too

pjscott100: Not you guys :-)

TreetopAngelRN: I would but I packed my snowshoes away

ddavitt: TV show groups are v different from book ones

ddavitt: Much more immediate and there’s all the spoilers

TreetopAngelRN: When Charlie asks what’s on TV I tell him a picture of the grandkids…

TreetopAngelRN: I don’t watch it much

ddavitt: I know what is going to happen to the end of the season no will power:-(

TreetopAngelRN: always have a book around though

ddavitt: I just watch buffy and Angel

geeairmoe2: Is ‘plonk’ what they used to call ‘flame’?

ddavitt: Yes; for the commercials

pjscott100: No, it means they have killfiled you so they won’t see what you say any more

ddavitt: Plonk means he will never see my posts

geeairmoe2: (Been away from NGs for a while.)

mertide: OT: The plans of the Colorado house were fascinating, but is there any information available on the California circular house?

TreetopAngelRN: I have a book for traffic lights also8-)

ddavitt: Unless someone else quotes from them who he hasn’t plonked

DavidWrightSr: Plonking is lovely when it comes to certain people. :-)

ddavitt: It’s the equiv of the Martina srolling up in red Planet

pjscott100: Hahaha

ddavitt: I don’t bother…you see them in other posts and it doesn’t bother them

ddavitt: My spelling…tired fingers

TreetopAngelRN: Ten minutes are UP! Who’s next???

pjscott100: Picks for movie casting for GR?

ddavitt: I wrote an article on RP once and spelled Martians martinas all the way through; the way the keys are I guess

pjscott100: Star: Milla Jojovich (go ahead… flame away)

ddavitt: What about secondary characters?

TreetopAngelRN: Hugh Jackman as Oscar and Ashley Judd for Star.

geeairmoe2: Loved her in Joan of Arc.

ddavitt: Do any stand out apart from the trio?

pjscott100: Rufo: Danny Devito

ddavitt: I can’t do casting threads; don’t know actors names

TreetopAngelRN: Tes, Danny Devito!

TreetopAngelRN: Yes, even

ddavitt: I know him!

TreetopAngelRN: Ashley Judd is Charlie’s pick.

pjscott100: I got your husband’s number :-)

Infobabefgh has entered the room.

ddavitt: Hi felicia

Infobabefgh: Evening all

ddavitt: Just chatting about Glory Road

pjscott100: 10 years ago, Bruce Willis for Oscar

Paradis401: Hi felicia!

ddavitt: Not hunky enough

TreetopAngelRN: Hi Felicia

pjscott100: It was not a criterion I valued highly :-)

Infobabefgh: George Clooney for Scar

pjscott100: Hello Felicia

ddavitt: Hercules/Xena maybe…

TreetopAngelRN: Of course I would watch Hugh Jackman stand in a garbage can and read the phone book…

geeairmoe2: Alexandra Tydings for Star. She played “Aphrodite” on Hercules and Xena.

Infobabefgh: Hear, hear

mertide: You’d need a good, powerfully built, comic actress I think

pjscott100: ??? Rhys-Jones (Sliders/Raiders of the Lost Ark) for The Doral

Paradis401: Yes.

TreetopAngelRN: Yes, he would be good.

mertide: Even as the “straight man” to Rufo she’d need the timing

Infobabefgh: Bob Hoskins for Rufo

pjscott100: good one

Paradis401: Better than Danny.

geeairmoe2: I was trying to think of someone British for Rufo.

ddavitt: He’s gnomelike..why?

TreetopAngelRN: Hoskins would be very good.

pjscott100: British are too reserved, Rufo has an unrestrained mouth

pjscott100: I think it has to be a New Yorker :-)

ddavitt: Reserved? Stereotype us much?

ddavitt: Our men are not all Hugh Grant types

Infobabefgh: Like all those reserved Monty Python members

geeairmoe2: New Yorker, huh? Woody Allen.

ddavitt: Quite.

pjscott100: Tsk, I am British as well you know

ddavitt: Gnome like and bald..white hair in a fringe round a pink scalp

Infobabefgh: Well, no, I didn’t.

pjscott100: Is Patrick Moore still alive?

Paradis401: Richard Harris.

Infobabefgh: Sounds like Patrick Stewart to me

ddavitt: It came up earlier..but Peter has forgotten his heritage:-)

TreetopAngelRN: Too tall and thin

ddavitt: Merry smile and hard eyes.

pjscott100: Oooh, I got it… Mel Smith

ddavitt: That’s about it for description.

ddavitt: Heh, heh

ddavitt: But he’s not gnome like

Infobabefgh: Joel says Danny DeVito

pjscott100: Mel has been getting more and more gnomelike as the years go by

DavidWrightSr: Use special effects like in ‘lord of Rings’. they made rhys-davies into gnome

ddavitt: Leaving aside the casting; could it be filmed with that ending?

Infobabefgh: A Dwarve not a gnome

DavidWrightSr: Sorry.

DavidWrightSr: :-)

ddavitt: Or would they do what the editor wanted and chop it off after the Egg is found?

pjscott100: I don’t see it

mertide: would you start with the ending and “flash back” for the action?

pjscott100: Except as an indie

TreetopAngelRN: Fantastic Idea Carolyn!

SageMerlin: help have lost the beep

SageMerlin: beep is back

mertide: I can beep for you

DavidWrightSr: I see Oscar and Rufo riding off into the sunset in search of new adventures

ddavitt: Could start with him depressed in the cafe

mertide: because really it’s a tragedy

ddavitt: After he’s come back to earth

Infobabefgh: “Louis, this could be the start of a beautiful friendship.”

TreetopAngelRN: Scene one: jewels falling from his hand

ddavitt: Flash back for the story, then back to present and end happy as Rufo gets in touch

TreetopAngelRN: Yes,It would work that way

ddavitt: Whihc is pretty much what the book does

ddavitt: It starts with him saying there’s a land and he could go back

ddavitt: So i just cribbed from the master

TreetopAngelRN: but do the whole ending

TreetopAngelRN: except for riding off with Rufo

ddavitt: Ends with him hearing from Rufo in real time, excited and rushed as if he’s scribbling a few last words in a diary

ddavitt: GR has some of H’s most poetic bits

mertide: His destiny, though, is to die fighting, not to reach a point of buddhist-like enlightenment

ddavitt: Nostalgia so thick you can taste it

ddavitt: Remember that thread we had on afh once?

ddavitt: About the books referenced in that passage in the start?

pjscott100: Nostalgia or sentiment?

TreetopAngelRN: I don’t think Oscar is the type to find enlightenment, just action.

ddavitt: ‘I wanted a Roc’s egg…” that one

ddavitt: Someone on another heinlein group read that at their wedding I think

ddavitt: marvellous bit.

ddavitt: I think it was just a yearning for that sense of wonder that gets sanded off us by life

pjscott100: What is rather interesting is how H puts Oscar in the Boomer generation and describes it from his point of view… even though H was from a very different generation 2 generations earlier

mertide: so that”s his tragedy, that he never really evolves as a character to become the true companion she must desperately need

ddavitt: ‘I wanted the world to be what they had promised me it was going to be – instead of the tawdry, lousy, fouled up mess it is.”

TreetopAngelRN: Sorry, I was looking for that bit…

ddavitt: p28 ish

ddavitt: Just as he’s on the train to Nice after he’s met Star

pjscott100: Yes!!! (And I don’t even know half the references)

ddavitt: Well, he put him in a Vietnam type war too

ddavitt: We nailed them all on afh I think if you’re interested

ddavitt: Gogle it, should be there

ddavitt: Google

pjscott100: I’ll look for that some time… thanks

TreetopAngelRN: Found it, pg 35 Ace ppb

TreetopAngelRN: It is lovely

pjscott100: I was wrong… not a Boomer generation, but the one before, so-called Silents

ddavitt: Yes..very evocative as is the description of the Singing waters a little later

pjscott100: How many fictional worlds have an income tax…

ddavitt: Heinlein gets slammed for not doing descriptions and such..but when he does, he makes them count

TreetopAngelRN: There is a lot in the book that enjoy reading and maybe soon will have the hubby read to me…

pjscott100: Not many fantasies where the hero gets dinged for an expired registration while he’s chasing the dragon, if you get my drift

ddavitt: I read a historical novel set in 1700’s last week where they’re bemoaning a rise to 3 % income tax :-)

ddavitt: Not many where he kills the dragon and feels guilty as the baby dragon turns up orphaned

pjscott100: I think I would rather face a dragon than the IRS… easier to understand the rules

TreetopAngelRN: much easier

pjscott100: CCRA or Inland Revenue, for our non-USA friends :-)

ddavitt: i know those dread initials:-)

mertide: ATO

pjscott100: I was trying to be culturally inclusive

ddavitt: i used to work for part of the DHSS in UK; now we;ve merged with the Inland revenue

ddavitt: So I escaped in time

ddavitt: I always felt a little hurt when a H character slammed civil servants

TreetopAngelRN: to which time?:-D

ddavitt: Bur Mr Kiku made up for it

ddavitt: Funny:-)

ddavitt: Though we have someone here from friday so it is possible:-)

TreetopAngelRN: NOTB on the brain

TreetopAngelRN: about twnety pages left

TreetopAngelRN: twenty

pjscott100: So if GR was a movie today… would Star’s character be ahead of her time, feminism-wise, or behind?

mertide: Friday afternoon now

pjscott100: Let me say, “perceived as…”

geeairmoe2: I think the feminist would dislike her needing a man, Oscar, to help her.

mertide: She’s outside feminism, because she has only duty, not really free choices

ddavitt: Good point

ddavitt: And she has men inside her head too..she’s not pure female in that way

ddavitt: She can access male memories; like Eunice and johann sort of

TreetopAngelRN: agrees with last three statements

ddavitt: She is unique

pjscott100: Personally I believe that the femimism movement has yet to catch up with H’s characters, but I could get castrated in some circles for that viewpoint

ddavitt: I’m not an ‘ist’, I’m just me.

TreetopAngelRN: not an ‘isti either

mertide: She’s almost not human, another speices in a human body (but what a body!)

ddavitt: Your bits and bobs are safe from me:-)

pjscott100: She’s like a Bene Gesserit… only more fun

SageMerlin: please I just watched that last night

TreetopAngelRN: I like being superior, rather than equal:-D

SageMerlin: when you reach that point, we will let you know

ddavitt: ooh…nasty.

mertide: so she’s a tragic figure too, unable ever to find her own potential because “the race” pre-empted her life

SageMerlin: just keeping the troops touched up

pjscott100: Which one? David Lynch or the Sci-Fi Channel?

SageMerlin: SF channel

pjscott100: Is there any character that John Hurt hasn’t played like they’re in a coma?

mertide: Is Rufo the only one with all the answers, who still has a choice about whether to do what he does, then the actual hero

SageMerlin: got it in one at 10:40 PM

TreetopAngelRN: Sorry, Carolyn

mertide: why sorry me?

TreetopAngelRN: I didn’t track your last question.

SageMerlin: Rufo has the other essential element of a true hero, the tragic

pjscott100: What makes you think Rufo has all the answers?

mertide: And it took me all the way till 12.40 Friday, mate, I’m a little slow

SageMerlin: I read the ending first

mertide: He knows the background that is kept from Oscar

SageMerlin: He plays Oscar like a cheap guitar

ddavitt: I’m going to have to bail; getting hard to stay awake…recovering from a cold bug that’s been going round.

pjscott100: H has a habit of bringing in a character who seems to have all the answers… until they’re upstaged by someone else who is even wiser

mertide: And in the end he patronisingly “walks the dog” to reward him for good behavior

TreetopAngelRN: Yes, he was brought along by Star because SHE wanted him along, not by his choice. He was just following Her orders.

ddavitt: Enjoyed the chat; well done hosting Elizabeth!

ddavitt: See; it’s fun

TreetopAngelRN: It is fun!

ddavitt: See some of you on Saturday maybe.

Paradis401: Night Jane.

ddavitt: Night.

pjscott100: So by now I just wonder whether the story ran out before an even wiser character showed up

TreetopAngelRN: Good Night Jane! Do you have Saturday Night?

ddavitt has left the room.

mertide: goodnight, get better

Infobabefgh: Good night Jane

pjscott100: Bye Jane

mertide: Or the author perhaps? :-)

TreetopAngelRN: she’s way too fast for us!

Infobabefgh: I’m exhausted too. See you on Saturday

Infobabefgh has left the room.

TreetopAngelRN: We have about fifteen more minutes left.

Paradis401: Nite Felicia.

TreetopAngelRN: dropping like flies.

mertide: pre-emptive goodnight before you all leave :-)

pjscott100: I try to imagine what a story would be like where someone came along who put Jubal Harshaw in his place

geeairmoe2: Assuming Jubal could be put in his place.

TreetopAngelRN: That would be one tough character

Paradis401: Didn’t Mike do that?

pjscott100: Jubal vs Lazarus… did that happen? Too long since I read all the post-NOTB books

TreetopAngelRN: I am just now getting there, I’ll let you know

TreetopAngelRN: been too long since I read them

geeairmoe2: I’d forgotten that Star and Oscar show up in NOTB. That gathering was so crowded.

pjscott100: Mike catalyzed an awakening for Jubal, but didn’t put him down in the sense I was thinking

Paradis401: In a way. Maybe Jubal got the message.

mertide: There were those characters Lazarus met that were like Gods – I don’t think he ever quite got back there to challenge them

TreetopAngelRN: I think Jubal learned alot from Mike, but was never overawed by him. And was grateful for the learning.

TreetopAngelRN: Jubal was the only person who really understood where Mike came from and why Mike was the person he was.

mertide: He certainly thought he did, but I doubt it

mertide: He understood the human side of Mike better than the rest, but no-one could really grok Mike’s Martian-ness

pjscott100: Jubal was the Wise Father Figure who discovered that even at his stage of life he could go through a spiritual catharsis and epiphany… IMHO

Paradis401: True.

mertide: but then, who ever really understands any one else, we don’t understand ourselves

pjscott100: Cats understand us :-)

Paradis401: Yes!

TreetopAngelRN: Hey Folks! Thanks for the chat and I hope some, if not all of you can be here Saturday night. AFAIK Jane will be hosting. Keep chatting as long as you wish, my sister is knocking and want to talk. So I must dash.

mertide: Cat’s don’t care enough as long as the tins keep getting opened

Paradis401: Thanks Elizabeth. Nice job.

TreetopAngelRN: Thanks Denis!

pjscott100: I will call it a night also then… but won’t be around Saturday. Thanks Elizabeth.

mertide: very nice chat indeed, thanks

mertide: goodnight all as well

DavidWrightSr: Good Job. Elizabeth

TreetopAngelRN: Good Night (afternoon) Carolyn!

mertide: time for lunch! :-)

pjscott100: Meet you along the Glory Road…

TreetopAngelRN: Thanks David and Peter

Paradis401: Bye Peter, Carolyn, All. Nice chat!

Paradis401 has left the room.

pjscott100: Thanks all

TreetopAngelRN: Good Night All!

geeairmoe2: Missed these chats. What is the time Saturday, Texas time?

pjscott100 has left the room.

TreetopAngelRN: What time are you on, Will?

DavidWrightSr: 5:00 EDT

geeairmoe2: Central Time, USA. Right now it is 9:55 PM.

TreetopAngelRN: * PM your time, then.

TreetopAngelRN: 8

DavidWrightSr: 4:00 then for you

TreetopAngelRN: Sorry, I forgot it was earlier on Saturday’s

geeairmoe2: That’ll be 4 PM here deepinthehearta Texas. Think I might be able to swing it.

TreetopAngelRN: 4 PM will!:-[

mertide: I’ve got a nasty suspicion it’s 7am Sunday morning for me then

mertide: Ugh

geeairmoe2: See you then, hopefully.

geeairmoe2 has left the room.

TreetopAngelRN: I’ll be getting off work then, Carolyn

mertide: I’ll be snoring gently :-)

mertide: but thinking of Heinlein of course

TreetopAngelRN: Hopefully i WON’T be:-D

TreetopAngelRN has left the room.

mertide: au revoir, and nice to meet you guys

DavidWrightSr: Log officially closed at 11:00 P.M. EDT
Final End Of Discussion Log

Click Here to Return to Index

Posted in Readers Group | Leave a comment

Heinlein Reader’s Discussion Group Saturday 04-20-2002 5:00 P.M. The Moon is a Harsh Mistress

Heinlein Reader’s Discussion Group

Saturday 04-20-2002 5:00 P.M.

The Moon is a Harsh Mistress

Click Here to Return to Index

Here Begin The A.F.H. postings
Robert Heinlein Reading Group chat

Theme: “The Moon is a Harsh Mistress”

Dates and times: Saturday, 20 Apr, 2002, 5 PM to 8 PM, EST (note the abbreviated time; also, no Thursday chat)

Chat Host: ?

Place: AIM chatroom “Heinlein Readers Group chat”

To attend our chats, and any reasonable person is welcome, you may receive instructions on how to download and use AIM freeware on the website located at

http://www.alltel.net/~dwrighsr/heinlein.html

Email David Silver, or or Dave Wright, Sr, if you require further help getting the freeware or getting into the room.

Are there any Heinlein fans who haven’t read “The Moon is a Harsh Mistress”? There are probably a few, so for their benefit – and the hypothetical man from Mars named Smith – here’s a short summary:

The book is set in the mid-2070’s, and follows the progress of a revolution in a future lunar colony. The story is told in flashback, from the viewpoint of one of the main conspirators – Manuel Garcia O’Kelly Davis.

His main co-conspirators are Wyoming Knott, a firebrand political activist who starts out trying to foment a popular uprising, before turning to a more covert form of revolution; Professor Bernardo de la Paz, a political exile and professional revolutionary; and Mycroft Holmes, a sentient supercomputer with a sense of humour.

TMiaHM is one of Heinlein’s best known and most popular works – it won the Hugo award for best novel of 1966. It also coined the term TANSTAAFL – an acronym for “There ain’t no such thing as a free lunch” – and introduced the use of kinetic energy weapons (large rocks thrown from orbit, impacting with the energy of small nuclear bombs), as seen more recently in works such as “Footfall”, by Niven and Pournelle, and the TV series “Babylon 5”.

On the other hand, Alexei Panshin thought its main interest was “as dramatized lecture” on running a revolution.

Some commentators have expressed the opinion that TMiaHM is one of the least complicated of Heinlein’s later works, apparently based on its relatively straight-forward plot. In my opinion, it shows Heinlein at his best – it introduces a wide range of concepts so smoothly that the reader doesn’t register the sheer volume of ideas being presented, but simply accepts them.

For example, Heinlein doesn’t produce a long exposition on the variety of human marriage customs and the multiplicity of possible arrangements – instead, he shows them in practise.

He doesn’t preach about the inefficiency of command economies and their potential for corruption – he demonstrates it.

At one point, he throws out nearly a dozen different ideas for different forms of representational government – as (IIRC) Spider Robinson has observed, any one of these could be the basis for a book in its own right.

I also think that the narrator is one of Heinlein’s most interesting characters. Manuel doesn’t fit into some critics’ stereotype of a Heinlein character – he isn’t a young, muscular supergenius, who knows how the universe works and why it works. Instead, he is a middle-aged, crippled, bloody-minded computer technician with no interest in politics. He is also compassionate enough to talk to a lonely, bored, self-aware computer, something noone else had done. This is what ensures the success of the revolution, as it had no chance for success without Mike. Without the revolution, the Lunar colonies would have devolved into food riots, cannibalism and mass starvation, as the Moon’s very limited resources were exhausted by an uninterested Earth.

Ultimately, the lives of millions of people are saved by Mannie performing a small act of compassion.

These are just a few thoughts on a subtly complex book – further points for discussion would include:

What else could be seen in it? What strengths and weaknesses? How does it fit into the development of Heinlein’s writing style? What does it say about Heinlein’s politics, given overt approval of a near-anarchistic system, yet one which eventually turns into a more conventional form of government?

The floor is open for answers to these questions, or other questions of your own. As always, the more pre-meeting posts, the better the chats.

See you in a couple of weeks in the chat room.

[Simon Jester]
Simon Jester wrote:

>Robert Heinlein Reading Group chat
>
>Theme: “The Moon is a Harsh Mistress”
[snip]
>
>The floor is open for answers to these questions, or other questions of your
>own. As always, the more pre-meeting posts, the better the chats.
>

I’ve always wondered why Heinlein picked May 13, 2075, for the date of the meeting where Manny meets Wyoh. Why make a point of a specific date if it alludes to nothing much?

Nothing in particular seems to have happened on May 13, 1775, in U.S. History.

As to other years:

May 13 — from the Kiddies’ Today in History website 1607:

English colonists led by John Rolfe land near the James River in Virginia. Disease, starvation, and attacks by Native Americans will continually threaten the colony’s very existence, but it will survive and eventually thrive.

[That, of course, was the first successful English colony founded in what became the United States.]

1648: Margaret Jones of Plymouth Colony is found guilty of witchcraft and is sentenced to be hanged by the neck.

1846: The U.S. finally declares war on Mexico, some two months after the fighting began.

1821: Samuel Rust of New York City patents the first practical printing press to be built in the U.S.; up ’til now presses were imported from Great Britain, France, or Germany.

1888: Brazil becomes the last New World nation to abolish slavery.

1947: In a setback for the U.S. labor movement, the Senate approves the Taft-Hartley Act, which limits the power of unions.

1968: Peace talks between the U.S. and North Vietnam begin in Paris; they will drag on for years.

Otherwise, in 1864, the first soldier was buried at Arlington — a Confederate who died a POW, btw; and in 1908, Teddy Roosevelt established a National Parks Act.

But nothing like the Boston Massacre, or anything else to equate to the Warden’s goons attacking the political protest, seems to have occurred on that date in 1775. Or am I missing something critical, such as Lexington and Concord? “The shot fired heard ’round the world.”

Anyone have any ideas?


David M. Silver
http://www.heinleinsociety.org
http://www.readinggroupsonline.com/groups/heinlein.htm
“The Lieutenant expects your names to shine!”
Robert Anson Heinlein, USNA ’29
Lt (jg)., USN R’td (1907-1988)

On Fri, 05 Apr 2002 14:56:13 GMT, David Silverwrote:

>Simon Jester wrote:
>
>>Robert Heinlein Reading Group chat
>>
>>Theme: “The Moon is a Harsh Mistress”
>[snip]
>>
>>The floor is open for answers to these questions, or other questions of your
>>own. As always, the more pre-meeting posts, the better the chats.
>>
>
>I’ve always wondered why Heinlein picked May 13, 2075, for the date of
>the meeting where Manny meets Wyoh. Why make a point of a specific date
>if it alludes to nothing much?
>
>Nothing in particular seems to have happened on May 13, 1775, in U.S.
>History.
>
>As to other years:
>
>May 13 — from the Kiddies’ Today in History website
>1607:
>English colonists led by John Rolfe land near the James River in
>Virginia. Disease, starvation, and attacks by Native Americans will
>continually threaten the colony’s very existence, but it will survive
>and eventually thrive.
>
>[That, of course, was the first successful English colony founded in
>what became the United States.]
>
>1648: Margaret Jones of Plymouth Colony is found guilty of witchcraft
>and is sentenced to be hanged by the neck.
>1846: The U.S. finally declares war on Mexico, some two months after the
>fighting began.
>1821: Samuel Rust of New York City patents the first practical printing
>press to be built in the U.S.; up ’til now presses were imported from
>Great Britain, France, or Germany.
>1888: Brazil becomes the last New World nation to abolish slavery.
>1947: In a setback for the U.S. labor movement, the Senate approves the
>Taft-Hartley Act, which limits the power of unions.
>1968: Peace talks between the U.S. and North Vietnam begin in Paris;
>they will drag on for years.
>
>Otherwise, in 1864, the first soldier was buried at Arlington — a
>Confederate who died a POW, btw; and in 1908, Teddy Roosevelt
>established a National Parks Act.
>
>But nothing like the Boston Massacre, or anything else to equate to the
>Warden’s goons attacking the political protest, seems to have occurred
>on that date in 1775. Or am I missing something critical, such as
>Lexington and Concord? “The shot fired heard ’round the world.”
>
>Anyone have any ideas?
>
>–
>David M. Silver
>http://www.heinleinsociety.org
>http://www.readinggroupsonline.com/groups/heinlein.htm
>”The Lieutenant expects your names to shine!”
>Robert Anson Heinlein, USNA ’29
>Lt (jg)., USN R’td (1907-1988)
>

I am as puzzled as you, David, but here is my historical list. Perhaps you can see something in it that i did not.

1373 – Author Julian of Norwich was miraculously healed after a series of visions. Her works explored the profound mysteries of the Christian faith and are considered, by some, among the most beautiful expressions of mysticism of the Middle Ages.

1501 – Merchant/Navigator Amerigo Vespucci sets sail on his second expedition to the New World.

1637 – The table knife was created by Cardinal Richelieu in France. Until this time, daggers were used to cut meat, as well as to pick one’s teeth.

1779 – France abandons Goree, West Africa, to Britain.

1809 – French army under Napoleon Bonaparte takes Vienna.

1835 – Death of John Nash, British architect who developed London’s Regent’s Park and Regent Street.

1842 – Birth of Sir Arthur Sullivan (died 1900), English composer. He is best known for his collaboration with W.S Gilbert in light operas that include HMS Pinafore (1878); The Mikado (1885) and The Gondoliers(1889).

1864 – Battle of Newmarket. 247 cadets of the Virginia Military Academy marched forward and captured Federal artillery suffering 10 killed and 47 wounded.

1871 – The Law of Guarantees in Italy declares the Pope’s person inviolable and allows him possession of the Vatican.

1872 – Mother’s Day, begun by Julia Ward Howe. Originally called Mothers’ Peace Day.

1890 – Nikola Tesla was issued a patent for an electric generator (No. 428,057).

1908 – Navy Nurse Corps established.

1913 – The first four-engine airplane was first built and flown by Igor Sikorsky of Russia.

1917 – Three peasant children near Fatima, Portugal, reported seeing a vision of the Virgin Mary.

1932 – France and Japan sign an agreement on commerce in Indochina, in which some imported products of the two sides receive preferential duties.

1940 – In his first speech as prime minister of Britain, Winston Churchill told the House of Commons, “I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and sweat.”

1943 – Bureau of Navigation renamed Bureau of Naval Personnel

1945 – Aircraft from fast carrier task force begin 2-day attack on Kyushu airfields, Japan

1955 – The Geneva Agreements on Indochina signed on July 20, 1954 following Viet Nam’s victory over the French in Dien Bien Phu, allows the French in North Viet Nam to re-group to Ben Nghieng Village of Do Son District, Hai Phong, in preparation for their final evacuation from Indochina.

Additionally, here is a large list of scientists’ births and deaths – http://www.todayinsci.com/cgi-bin/indexpage.pl?http://todayinsci.tripod.com/5/5_13.htm

Steve

http://afhpics.mnsdesigns.com/
http://www.mnsdesigns.com/

“Simon Jester”wrote in message news:

>Robert Heinlein Reading Group chat
>
>Theme: “The Moon is a Harsh Mistress”
>Dates and times: Saturday, 20 Apr, 2002, 5 PM to 8 PM, EST (note the
>abbreviated time; also, no Thursday chat)
>Chat Host: ?
>Place: AIM chatroom “Heinlein Readers Group chat”

(snip)

>
>The floor is open for answers to these questions, or other questions of
your
>own. As always, the more pre-meeting posts, the better the chats.
>
>See you in a couple of weeks in the chat room.
>
>

For a work that is supposed to be as popular as TMIAHM, I am surprised at the lack of postings about it.

In any case, I’ll throw out a couple of things.

I have always been somewhat surprised that libertarians considered this such an important work since the end result of the revolution was anything like what libertarians would like, (at least as far as I understand it).

I have always been surprised at the reaction against Prof’s ‘rational anarchist’ philosophy. I wrote an essay on this subject at http://dwrighsr.tripod.com/heinlein/RatAnarch/

TMIAHM was a very important step in my finally understanding the fill-in-the blank technique that RAH used. This came about when I finally cleared up a 25 year old misconception about the use of the term ‘tanstaafl’. This lead directly to the importance of ‘unconscious assumptions’ when reading him.

David Wright
In article, David Silverwrites:

>I’ve always wondered why Heinlein picked May 13, 2075, for the date of
>the meeting where Manny meets Wyoh. Why make a point of a specific date
>if it alludes to nothing much?
>
>Nothing in particular seems to have happened on May 13, 1775, in U.S.
>History.

Given the context, I suspect a Tuckerism. When did RAH meet Ginny?


Peter Scott

Good afternoon, On Fri, 5 Apr 2002, David Wright wrote:

>TMIAHM was a very important step in my finally understanding the fill-in-the
>blank technique that RAH used. This came about when I finally cleared up a
>25 year old misconception about the use of the term ‘tanstaafl’. This lead
>directly to the importance of ‘unconscious assumptions’ when reading him.

It’s easy to misunderstand, just from the spell-out. I’ve noticed quite a few people who haven’t ready RAH’s works interpret TANSTAAFL as synonymous with “you get what you pay for”. While the words alone may suggest the similarity, there’s a much deeper meaning, an implication, of TANSTAAFL.

In my mind, YGWYPF is of limited scope — you pay $100 for a car, don’t expect it to be in mint condition. TANSTAAFL suggests a deeper understanding. YGWYPF is a special-case of TANSTAAFL. Some other aspects of TANSTAAFL that aren’t encompassed in YGWYPF:

– Even if you aren’t physically paying for goods or services you’re using,
someone is. And if it isn’t cost-beneficial to them to continue to do
so, they won’t pay for them forever. (dot-bomb, anyone?)
– If it is cost-beneficial for someone else to pay for goods or services
you’re using, it’s because you are paying indirectly. (“…or the
beer would be cheaper.”)
– Recognition of an obligation, of personal responsibility, of
stewardship.
— Debts must be repaid. If you can’t repay the debt, don’t take on
the debt. Debts need not be repaid monetarily. (Habitat for
Humanity comes to mind)
— The benefits of society do not come at no cost. Some can be paid
for by governmental revenue. Some require a more personal
acceptance of stewardship. Sometimes as simple as encouraging
good manners by demonstrating them yourself (such as by offering
your seat on a bus to a lady). Sometimes with a commitment of
greater duration, such as the person who becomes a teacher because
an educated society requires teachers, or the person who becomes a
police officer because sometimes police officers are needed when
people forget their obligations to society, or the person who
becomes a public defender because even those who can’t afford a
lawyer deserve legal representation in court, or the person who
recognizes that medics are needed even in townships that can’t
afford full-time EMTs and so becomes a volunteer EMT.

(You may suspect from the preceding paragraph that I’m an advocate
of public service, and I am. I strongly encourage everyone to
pay something back to society, not necessarily as a profession,
but maybe for a couple years. I’m equally opposed to mandatory
public service, because a virtue isn’t a virtue if it’s
required, and it is no great demonstration of personal
responsibility to do something when you’ll go to jail if you
don’t do it.)

Hmm. Seemed to have gotten a bit long-winded there, but that’s my interpretation of TANSTAAFL. Any other interpretations?

Take care,

cb


Christopher A. Bohn ____________|____________
http://www.cis.ohio-state.edu/~bohn/ ‘ ** ** ” (o) ” ** ** ‘
“Technology and air power are integrally and synergistically
related.” – P Meilinger, “Ten Propositions Regarding Air Power”

“David Silver” 7LT;>wrote in message news:

>Simon Jester wrote:
>
>>Robert Heinlein Reading Group chat
>>
>>Theme: “The Moon is a Harsh Mistress”
>[snip]
>>
>>The floor is open for answers to these questions, or other questions of your
>>own. As always, the more pre-meeting posts, the better the chats.
>>
>
>I’ve always wondered why Heinlein picked May 13, 2075, for the date of
>the meeting where Manny meets Wyoh. Why make a point of a specific date
>if it alludes to nothing much?

The Second Continental Congress ran from May 10, 1775 to March 2, 1789.

For the proceedings of that day, go here.

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:@field(DOCID+@lit(jc0028))

Not sure if there is anything to this, have not read it all yet.

Jim
“Nuclear Waste”wrote in message news:

>
>”David Silver” wrote in message
>news:
>>Simon Jester wrote:
>>
>>>Robert Heinlein Reading Group chat
>>>
>>>Theme: “The Moon is a Harsh Mistress”
>>[snip]
>>>
>>>The floor is open for answers to these questions, or other questions of your
>>>own. As always, the more pre-meeting posts, the better the chats.
>>>
>>
>>I’ve always wondered why Heinlein picked May 13, 2075, for the date of
>>the meeting where Manny meets Wyoh. Why make a point of a specific date
>>if it alludes to nothing much?
>
>The Second Continental Congress ran from May 10, 1775 to March 2, 1789.
>
>For the proceedings of that day, go here.
>
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:@field(DOCID+@lit(jc0028))
>Not sure if there is anything to this, have not read it all yet.
>
>Jim
>

It may be stretching it, but the minutes of that day deal with the admission of a Doctor Lyman Hall from the Parish of St. Johns in Savannah. It would appear that St. Johns and Dr. Hall were attending in spite of the fact that Savannah had refused to send delegates. Seems to fit somewhat Profs characteristics or am I looking too hard?

David W
Simon Jester wrote:

[snip]

>
>The book is set in the mid-2070’s, and follows the progress of a revolution
>in a future lunar colony. The story is told in flashback, from the
>viewpoint of one of the main conspirators – Manuel Garcia O’Kelly Davis.
>
>His main co-conspirators are Wyoming Knott, a firebrand political activist
>who starts out trying to foment a popular uprising, before turning to a more
>covert form of revolution; Professor Bernardo de la Paz, a political exile
>and professional revolutionary; and Mycroft Holmes, a sentient supercomputer
>with a sense of humour.
>

Simon’s asked for “strengths and weaknesses.” Try these:

I’m reading my copy of TMiaHM for the last time. It cost 95 cents 34 years ago, and it’s flaking small pieces of yellow-brown acid-based paper this time. Time enough for a new one; and I’m reading it in a definitely contrarian mood this time: the “firebrand political activist” doesn’t appeal to me as much as previously, her beauty and long sad tale of undeserved injury by Authority notwithstanding. Knott is a severely damaged piece of goods, mentally and emotionally. She’s obsessed with a personal desire for revenge against the Lunar Authority whom she blames for a radiation-damaged child born her.

Why was the damaged child born? A pilot landed her emigrant’s vessel shortly before a solar flare storm. The pilot was a cyborg, so she only blames him incidentally. He beat the storm, but evidently forgot or it didn’t matter to sterilized him that a quarantine period was required on the ground — four hours, and so emigrants were exposed to excess radiation. Her position is three million people should have been exposed to plague. Quarantines must again be one of those unjustifiable governmental placements of the individual over society she discusses with Manuel and de la Paz later in the room at Raffles. Years later her child was born a physical defective. The “monster” as she calls it, “had to be destroyed.” In the decades before TMiaHM was written, thousands of children were born physically damaged as a result of the too-early certification of thalidimide. As Manuel quietly points out at first mention of this motivation, she might much more easily tried again for a child as the radiation damaged egg might easily be succeeded next time with a healtthy one. In a population of three million, assuming two males to one female there must have been hundreds of women incapable of conception whatever. Knott instead took the drastic step of having her tubes tied, divorcing both husbands, and sinking herself into a lifetime of plotting injury to Authority.

Knott doesn’t particularly care whom she injures in her thirst for revenge either. Humans, except those few who have entered into the conspiracy with her, really aren’t human to her — as she’s worried about is whether Manuel’s ‘friend,’ the sentient computer, can feel pain. Assured he cannot, she’s content to blow the central complex containing Michael Holmes to smithereens. To hell with how many ‘finks’ for authority she kills, disrupting Authority is what counts. Give this woman a bomb to strap to her chest, and she’d walk into a wedding if it would cause sufficient damange to Authority. She’s a classic terrorist, safe as fulminate of mercury to be around, driven by her permanent bloodlust for revenge. Propose any damage against Authority and her answer to you would be the pun on her name, “Why not.”

Bernardo de la Paz, plainly isn’t simply a romatic figure. Forget the happy sparkle in his eyes, the dimples, the exquisite manners, He’s not romantic at all, but simply an old murderer. Look what admittedly was among the cause of his exile: “in my younger or bomb-throwing days my experience was limited to something on the order of the one-kilogram chemical explosive of which you spoke, Manuel. But I assume you two know what you’re talking about.” In a disarmed society, who is the one person in that meeting who pulls out his own laser weapon, smuggled onto Luna at enormous cost? Who knows the “Istanbul twist”? Who first defines the revolution they will conduct as based on the historical principle of “terrorism?”Who set the tone? Call them “yellow jackets” all you wish. The simple fact is nine cops out of a police force of twenty-seven in a population of three million attempted to declare an unlawful assembly and arrest its participants, perhaps for sedition. They all died immediately except one, taken wounded. His was murdered, helpless. And their principal murderer — he accounted for at least three himself — directed their bodies be ground up and flushed down a sewer. [“Their mates went out on an easy mission. _Nothing_ came back.”] No wonder they snatched him up and tossed him in a bag the one day he went for a stroll undisguised in Lima, Peru. He’s lucky he wasn’t hanged summarily.

Bernardo de la Paz: “Bernard,” from Bernhart, Old High German [“bero” meaning bear + “hart” meaning bold or HARD]. Hard Bear of Peace. Peace is a truce. Deacon told Rod Walker to beware the Truce of the Bear, didn’t he? This disarmingly named de la Paz has devoted his life to his first profession as devoutly as Yassir Arafat. Even Dub-yah has finally got his number.

This is a rather unsavory twosome Manuel falls in among, isn’t it? I’m not sure I like these two characters, “the old murderer” and the “blonde bombshell bomber,” even if food riots are to come in seven years, with cannibalism to come two years later, according to the bored computer Manuel is kind to.

What do you think?


David M. Silver
http://www.heinleinsociety.org
http://www.readinggroupsonline.com/groups/heinlein.htm
“The Lieutenant expects your names to shine!”
Robert Anson Heinlein, USNA ’29
Lt (jg)., USN R’td (1907-1988)

David Silver wrote:

Did I say this?

>
>Quarantines must again be one of those unjustifiable
>governmental placements of the *individual* over *society* she discusses
>with Manuel and de la Paz later in the room at Raffles.
>

Naw, impossible! It was some unidentified being (probably Mike Holmes) controlling input to this newsgroup that reversed the word “society” with “individual” to make me read like a contrarian idiot. Read it t’other way! Where’s that proof reader’s advertisement, James?


David M. Silver
http://www.heinleinsociety.org
http://www.readinggroupsonline.com/groups/heinlein.htm
“The Lieutenant expects your names to shine!”
Robert Anson Heinlein, USNA ’29
Lt (jg)., USN R’td (1907-1988)

David Silver wrote:

>This is a rather unsavory twosome Manuel falls in among, isn’t it? I’m
>not sure I like these two characters, “the old murderer” and the “blonde
>bombshell bomber,” even if food riots are to come in seven years, with
>cannibalism to come two years later, according to the bored computer
>Manuel is kind to.
>
>What do you think?
>
>–
>David M. Silver
>http://www.heinleinsociety.org
>http://www.readinggroupsonline.com/groups/heinlein.htm
>”The Lieutenant expects your names to shine!”
>Robert Anson Heinlein, USNA ’29
>Lt (jg)., USN R’td (1907-1988)
>

OTOH, is Mannie himself a particularly savoury character? At the start of the book, he describes his ancestry: pure convict, a combination of “armed violence”, “subversive activity”, “juvenile delinquency female type”, etc, and adds that he was proud of his ancestry.

Mannie has no qualms about using the central computer – which controlled air, water, humidity, temperature and sewage for several cities – for his personal gain (initially, purely monetary). The computer was already sufficiently overloaded to have started behaving very erratically – having acquired a “sense of humour” – yet rather than try to “fix” it, Mannie encourages it to become still more erratic. He puts several million (?) people at risk purely to boost his consulting fees.

When Mannie attends his first revolution meeting, he is only allowed in because a convicted murderer describes him by saying “He’s as mean as they come.” The same murderer is last seen killing two cops by smacking their heads together so hard that they “popped like eggs.”

Throughout the revolution, Mannie shows no compunction about using either small children or his own family as pawns in the struggle against the Authority.

At the end of the book, he quite cheerfully orders the use of weapons with the destructive power of nuclear weapons. The detonations on land wouldn’t kill anyone who didn’t go out of their way to stand under many tons of falling rock, but can the same be said of the “water shots”? I don’t know about American cities, but London has long been prone to flooding; the tsunami from a kilotonne-scale detonation in the Thames Estuary would do more than make a few bridges wet.

In short, Mannie is a violent, vicious, ruthless, self-centred thug.

What a bunch for a decent aristocrat to fall in with…

😉

Simon


tanstaafl

In article, Simon Jesterwrote:

>OTOH, is Mannie himself a particularly savoury character? At the start of
>the book, he describes his ancestry: pure convict, a combination of “armed
>violence”, “subversive activity”, “juvenile delinquency female type”, etc,
>and adds that he was proud of his ancestry.

But lots of people romanticise ancestors they might not want to be in the same room with, so I don’t think this counts as strongly as your other points.

snip

>At the end of the book, he quite cheerfully orders the use of weapons with
>the destructive power of nuclear weapons. The detonations on land wouldn’t
>kill anyone who didn’t go out of their way to stand under many tons of
>falling rock, but can the same be said of the “water shots”? I don’t know
>about American cities, but London has long been prone to flooding; the
>tsunami from a kilotonne-scale detonation in the Thames Estuary would do
>more than make a few bridges wet.

Hmmm. Impact physics is different from nuclear weapon physics (less energy goes into light and other EMR and more into kinetic energy so you get bigger holes and fewer fires). Luckily I don’t have to guess using _The Effects of Nuclear Weapons_ because I have _Hazards Due to Comets & Asteroids_ handy.

Says here on page 787 that the depth of the body of water limits the size of the wave and that a larger fraction of the energy of the object ends up driving the tsunami in smaller impacts than in large ones. The Loonies used little ones, right, about Hiroshima sized?

The equation given for the full height h of the terminal wave for an impact Y at distance r in shallow water of depth d is given as

h = 1450 meter (d/r) (Y/gigaton)^0.25

So a 10 kt pop a km away in 10 meter water would result in a wave a bit under a meter tall. If they hit a deep part of the Thames (Well, after the first shot, that bit _will_ be deeper) the wave will be larger. Note that wave height drops linearly with distance from the impact spot (Which is why waves generated by a quake in Chile can kill people in Japan). Also, you can get standing waves which don’t drop much with distance if the river/canal is shaped correctly, so although the numbers I get are small, they also may be wrong, under- estimating the damage.

They give a very rough rule of thumb for how far inland such a wave will run which is

X = 1.0 km (h/10 meters)^4/3

So assumimg that’s right, the wave will go around 30 meters inland. Annoying but not all that bad, really. Wouldn’t surprise me if the original catpult was designed with a maximum payload such that the worst side-effects of a bungle launch were tolerable unless it actually hit a city. Even in MisHM, most of the land surface would be unoccupied.

Of course, maybe the Loonies can pack more energy into the playload (More mass or a higher velocity) than they did. A 1 MT pop in 100 meter water (In the Channel, say) would give you a 25 meter wave a km away, which might run as far as 3.4 km inland. _That_ would be annoying. Focussed by running up a river bed might be worse. Landing it offshore of Bangladesh, where the average land height is low, the slopes shallow and the rule of thumb given above way round on the low side would be very bad. I can’t recall, did they hit the subcontinent?

James Nicoll


“I think you mean ‘Could libertarian slave-owning Confederates, led by
SHWIers, have pulled off a transatlantic invasion of Britain, in revenge
for the War of 1812, if they had nukes acquired from the Sea of Time?'”
Alison Brooks (1959-2002)

James Nicoll wrote:

>In article ,
>Simon Jester wrote:
>
>
>>OTOH, is Mannie himself a particularly savoury character? At the start of
>>the book, he describes his ancestry: pure convict, a combination of
“armed
>>violence”, “subversive activity”, “juvenile delinquency female type”,
etc,
>>and adds that he was proud of his ancestry.
>
>But lots of people romanticise ancestors they might not want
>to be in the same room with, so I don’t think this counts as strongly
>as your other points.
>

True – but the ancestors I was discussing were grandparents, not more distant ancestors. (Mannie did also mention more remote ancestors, such as an “ancestress hanged in Salem for witchcraft, a g’g’g’greatgrandfather broken on wheel for piracy, another ancestress in first shipload to Botany Bay”.)

>
>snip
>
>>At the end of the book, he quite cheerfully orders the use of weapons with
>>the destructive power of nuclear weapons. The detonations on land wouldn’t
>>kill anyone who didn’t go out of their way to stand under many tons of
>>falling rock, but can the same be said of the “water shots”? I don’t know
>>about American cities, but London has long been prone to flooding; the
>>tsunami from a kilotonne-scale detonation in the Thames Estuary would do
>>more than make a few bridges wet.
>
>Hmmm. Impact physics is different from nuclear weapon physics
>(less energy goes into light and other EMR and more into kinetic
>energy so you get bigger holes and fewer fires). Luckily I don’t
>have to guess using _The Effects of Nuclear Weapons_ because I have
>_Hazards Due to Comets & Asteroids_ handy.
>
>Says here on page 787 that the depth of the body of water
>limits the size of the wave and that a larger fraction of the energy
>of the object ends up driving the tsunami in smaller impacts than
>in large ones. The Loonies used little ones, right, about Hiroshima
>sized?

When the cabal initially start discussing “throwing rocks” (at the start of chapter 8), a mass of 100 tonnes is initially discussed, producing a yield approaching a two-kilotonne detonation. I can’t find any other figures for the size of rocks used. IIRC, the Hiroshima bomb was circa 15 kilotonnes.

>
>The equation given for the full height h of the terminal wave
>for an impact Y at distance r in shallow water of depth d is given as
>
>
>h = 1450 meter (d/r) (Y/gigaton)^0.25
>
>So a 10 kt pop a km away in 10 meter water would result in
>a wave a bit under a meter tall. If they hit a deep part of the Thames
>(Well, after the first shot, that bit _will_ be deeper) the wave will
>be larger.

Well, I feel silly.

There’s no indication that London would get more than one shot. The only nations likely to receive multiple shots were the seven veto powers, of which Mitteleuropa is the only nation that England would seem likely to join. OTOH, Belgium and Holland are explicitly mentioned as independant nations, so it seems more likely that Britain (or England) is also independant.

The Loonie warnings for the Thames shot stated that the impact would be “north of Dover Straits opposite London Estuary”. Looking at the map of England in my atlas, this makes an impact at roughly 1.5 degrees East by 51.5 degrees North seem most probable.

The depth of the water at this point is indicated no more precisely than between 0 and 50m. It is a long way from any deeper water, so probably not much more than 20m.

The closest town to the impact would be Margate, on the Kent coast, which would be roughly 15km away. (Central London would be roughly 110km away, as the pig flies.) The height of the waves at Margate would therefore be circa 7cm high (approx 3 inches), given a 2 kt impact.

OTOH, the Loonies warn that the impact “would cause disturbances far up Thames”.

If the impact was significantly further west, it could produce much higher waves, as the shape of the river could “funnel” the disturbances.

>Note that wave height drops linearly with distance from
>the impact spot (Which is why waves generated by a quake in Chile can
>kill people in Japan). Also, you can get standing waves which don’t
>drop much with distance if the river/canal is shaped correctly, so
>although the numbers I get are small, they also may be wrong, under-
>estimating the damage.
>
>They give a very rough rule of thumb for how far inland such a
>wave will run which is
>
>X = 1.0 km (h/10 meters)^4/3
>
>So assumimg that’s right, the wave will go around 30 meters
>inland. Annoying but not all that bad, really. Wouldn’t surprise me
>if the original catpult was designed with a maximum payload such
>that the worst side-effects of a bungle launch were tolerable unless
>it actually hit a city. Even in MisHM, most of the land surface
>would be unoccupied.
>
>Of course, maybe the Loonies can pack more energy into
>the playload (More mass or a higher velocity) than they did. A
>1 MT pop in 100 meter water (In the Channel, say) would give you
>a 25 meter wave a km away, which might run as far as 3.4 km inland.
>_That_ would be annoying. Focussed by running up a river bed might
>be worse. Landing it offshore of Bangladesh, where the average
>land height is low, the slopes shallow and the rule of thumb given
>above way round on the low side would be very bad. I can’t recall,
>did they hit the subcontinent?
>

Both land and sea targets – India was one of the veto powers. It isn’t clear whether any of these would have been offshore of (what is currently) Bangladesh – it has a relatively short coastline, compared to India or even Pakistan.

The Indian government was furious over the fish killed.

Simon

“Simon Jester”wrote in news::

>David Silver wrote:
>…
>>This is a rather unsavory twosome Manuel falls in among, isn’t it?
>>I’m not sure I like these two characters, “the old murderer” and the
>>”blonde
>>bombshell bomber,” even if food riots are to come in seven years,
>>with
>>cannibalism to come two years later, according to the bored computer
>>Manuel is kind to.
>>
>>What do you think?
>>
>>–
>>David M. Silver
>>http://www.heinleinsociety.org
>>http://www.readinggroupsonline.com/groups/heinlein.htm
>>”The Lieutenant expects your names to shine!”
>>Robert Anson Heinlein, USNA ’29
>>Lt (jg)., USN R’td (1907-1988)
>>
>
>OTOH, is Mannie himself a particularly savoury character? At the start
>of the book, he describes his ancestry: pure convict, a combination of
>”armed violence”, “subversive activity”, “juvenile delinquency female
>type”, etc, and adds that he was proud of his ancestry.
>
>Mannie has no qualms about using the central computer – which
>controlled air, water, humidity, temperature and sewage for several
>cities – for his personal gain (initially, purely monetary). The
>computer was already sufficiently overloaded to have started behaving
>very erratically – having acquired a “sense of humour” – yet rather
>than try to “fix” it, Mannie encourages it to become still more
>erratic. He puts several million (?) people at risk purely to boost
>his consulting fees.
>
>When Mannie attends his first revolution meeting, he is only allowed
>in because a convicted murderer describes him by saying “He’s as mean
>as they come.” The same murderer is last seen killing two cops by
>smacking their heads together so hard that they “popped like eggs.”
>
>Throughout the revolution, Mannie shows no compunction about using
>either small children or his own family as pawns in the struggle
>against the Authority.
>
>At the end of the book, he quite cheerfully orders the use of weapons
>with the destructive power of nuclear weapons. The detonations on land
>wouldn’t kill anyone who didn’t go out of their way to stand under
>many tons of falling rock, but can the same be said of the “water
>shots”? I don’t know about American cities, but London has long been
>prone to flooding; the tsunami from a kilotonne-scale detonation in
>the Thames Estuary would do more than make a few bridges wet.
>
>In short, Mannie is a violent, vicious, ruthless, self-centred thug.
>
Wow, he could come to earth and work for Andersen!!

>What a bunch for a decent aristocrat to fall in with…
>;-)
>
>Simon
>–

Manny seemed to have ‘practical’ ethics. He looked after himself and his family, Helped out fellow lunies but expected payback. Had no qualms about shoving someone out an airlock if they wouldn’t pay a debt.

His word was good enough for the stilyagi to select him as a judge, and to accept his ruling.

So in his environment, he was a well-respected citizen.

In LA or London or Sydney he’d be considered dangerous and unruly, unless he went into politics or corporate management.

djinn wrote:

“Simon Jester”wrote in news::

>David Silver wrote:

>>[snip comments I wrote concerning “unsavoriness” of character
>>of co-conspirators Knott and de la Paz]

>[snip comments Simon Jester wrote of dishonesty and ruthless-ness of Manuel O’Kelley Davis]

[snip comments of Dave Jennings concerning Davis’ “‘practical'” ethics
and fact that “in his environment, he was a well-respected citizen.”]

What’s most surprising to me is notwithstanding all the vicious slurs we’ve used as juicy bait thus far characterizing Knott, de la Paz, and Davis, so few fish have risen from the depths of this newsgroup to defend them. These three portrayed by Heinlein don’t sound very much like Benjamin Franklin, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, do they? Not even much like those more ‘radical firebrands’ Thomas Paine, Samuel Adams, Patrick Henry?

The winners write history but, surely, agents of agitprop such as Paine, Samuel Adams, and Henry cannot have been white-washed that much, can they? Or not? What exactly was it that “fiery” Samuel Adams did? He had a lot to do with mobs forming, including the one that provided the victims of the Boston Massacre that Prof de la Paz keeps looking to find.

What surprises me about the plot of TMiaHM is how so little detail is portrayed of the consequences of the agitprop employed between the time the conspiracy is formed between Knott, de la Paz, Davis and Adam Selene and the “rape-murder” of Marie Lyons, the stock control clerk living in the Authority Complex.

That’s an odd name evocation, btw. Seems to me, iirc, the collaborating Vichy government permitted the Nazis to ship quite a few suspected marquis along with huge numbers of ‘lesser’ subhumans out of Lyons to the camps in the East for ‘final solution’ as resistance to the Nazis grew among the French during World War II.

All we’re told in TMiaHM is it became popular to engage in derision further undermining Authority (vicious humor and counterfeiting of passports), and occasional murders of isolated F.N. occupation troops occurred. No bombs exploded in the Authority complex among the ‘civil servants,’ despite Knott’s fiery inclinations and the Prof’s youthful murderous bomb-thrower history. A bit of bribery of folk in high places and collection of petitions by the chronic petition signers occurs, but otherwise attempts to generate sympathy for the Loonies on Earth before the Lyons rape-murder seem scanty.

What’s really odd is how Heinlein portrayed no immediate reprisals by Mort the Wart and Alvarez. When the French Marquis killed the odd soldier in occupied Vichy, in would wheel a battalion of S.S. and they’d pick one out of ten men from the nearest village and put them up against the wall, execute them along with the mayor, the city council, and leading citizens; and then they’d ship half of the rest of the town East to the “labor camps.”

Look at the activities of the Spaniards under General Weyler against the insurgency set off by Marti in Cuba just before the Spanish-American War of 1898. Then take a look at the British under Kitchener against the Boers in Orange and Transvaal and the Americans under Bell against the Filipinos in the Visayas a scant year or four later. They all may not have executed one out of ten, but villages were put to the torch, fields and wealth was laid waste, the first “concentration camps” were employed, refugees starved, and the insurgent populations died in numbers far exceeding dead occupation troops.

Instead Heinlein portrays leadership on both sides as acting very nearly benignly, controlling natural bloody reactions. It simplifies things, of course; and it also evokes reader sympathy for the co-conspirators. There’s not even a mild, nearly idealized Tea Party in Boston Harbor.

That’s a fairly antiseptic viewpoint of steps leading up to rebellion. By comparison both _Sixth Column_ and _”If This Goes On …”_ seem a bit more bloody and, possibly, far more a realistic portrayal of insurgency. Heinlein once wrote that his reluctance of writing the true facts necessary to sustain a rebellion was one reason why he never wrote “The Stone Pillow.” It’s pretty plain to me his reluctance to really portray a rebellion continued to this later effort.

Is this abbreviated reality a weakness of the novel? Or is a strength for the purposes to which Heinlein wrote? Simon noted that one putative critic seems to think TMiaHM is merely a manual on how to conduct a revolution. Is it? What major purposes, if any, other than that do you think Heinlein may have had?


David M. Silver
http://www.heinleinsociety.org
http://www.readinggroupsonline.com/groups/heinlein.htm
“The Lieutenant expects your names to shine!”
Robert Anson Heinlein, USNA ’29
Lt (jg)., USN R’td (1907-1988)

David Silverwrote in news::

>djinn wrote:
>
>”Simon Jester” wrote in
>news::
>
>>David Silver wrote:
>
>>>[snip comments I wrote concerning “unsavoriness” of character
>>>of co-conspirators Knott and de la Paz]
>
>>[snip comments Simon Jester wrote of dishonesty and ruthless-
>>ness of Manuel O’Kelley Davis]
>
>[snip comments of Dave Jennings concerning Davis’ “‘practical'” ethics
>and fact that “in his environment, he was a well-respected citizen.”]
>

I know that history whitewashes quite a bit. I grew up in a part of the US that was mainly Loyalist during the Revolution. Local history is studied in schools there. There was a lot of terror, evening of grudges and uprooting going on. Augusta, Georgia changed hands several times, each change involved getting rid of ‘collaborators’ with the other side. Local history is quite bloody and not much of it is included in general histories of the Revolution.

And as for the other rebellion, Augusta was on Shermans’ March to the Sea. the history books do describe that.

>Is it? What major purposes, if any, other than that do you
>think Heinlein may have had?
>
>

David Friedman (the economist) pointed out that Heinlein had sketched in a working libertarian society. He gives Heinlein credit for his current interest in how limited government economy might work.
djinn wrote:

[snip]
>I know that history whitewashes quite a bit. I grew up in a part of the US
>that was mainly Loyalist during the Revolution. Local history is
>studied in schools there. There was a lot of terror, evening of grudges and
>uprooting going on. Augusta, Georgia changed hands several times, each
>change involved getting rid of ‘collaborators’ with the other side. Local
>history is quite bloody and not much of it is included in general histories
>of the Revolution.
>

James Oglethorpe’s Georgia colony may have been the closest of them all to what is described in TMiaHM. Large numbers of exiled convicts serving out involuntary indentures, most for economic crimes, of course, but a number of political exiles, including disposed Scots and Irish following the “troubles” involving the Stuarts.

[The funniest thing, to me (and I am weird), in TMiaHM is Wyoh Knott’s knotheaded characterization of the complex ‘civil servants’ as “finks” for Authority. Most are as much convicts as any of Mannie’s ancestors, selected for their skills and assigned ‘fink’ jobs, rather than to the labor camps where ninety percent will die before they learn to use their P-suits. She distinguishes ‘contracting’ with from direct slavery to the largest employer available. How kind of her! How knotheaded and simple-minded, also. The “crack” F.N. “peace-keeping” troops are also convicts. What’s the difference between convicts? Which end of the gun pointed which way he’s on? And the fact that one wears a yellow uniform or regimentals while the other wears a denim jumpsuit? The boy from Shropshire with white belts crossing his scarlet uniform on his chest shoots his Brown Bess at the boy from Concord wearing farming clothing who shoots his squirrel rifle back? Or vice-a-versa?]

>And as for the other rebellion, Augusta was on Shermans’ March to the Sea. >the history books do describe that. >

Or as we beknighted children from the North used to sing gleefully in grammer school: “Tramp, tramp, tramp, the boys are marching . . . ” ;-( Rebellion’s a tough business to get into, and get out of. Took us more than a century, hasn’t it? The reason there were few, if any families of Southern sympathies, in the part of Missouri in which Heinlein was born was the Union Army disposed and cleared the area of everyone during the war. Heinlein’s family, just as Maureen Johnson’s, moved down and settled it after the war from the Northern States and Union areas.

>
>>Is it? What major purposes, if any, other than that do you
>>think Heinlein may have had?
>>
>>
>>
>David Friedman (the economist) pointed out that Heinlein had sketched in a
>working libertarian society. He gives Heinlein credit for his current
>interest in how limited government economy might work.
>

“Working?” Might it really work IRL? Howso and how long, Dave?


David M. Silver
http://www.heinleinsociety.org
http://www.readinggroupsonline.com/groups/heinlein.htm
“The Lieutenant expects your names to shine!”
Robert Anson Heinlein, USNA ’29
Lt (jg)., USN R’td (1907-1988)

David Silverwrote in news::

>
>
>James Oglethorpe’s Georgia colony may have been the closest of them
>all to what is described in TMiaHM. Large numbers of exiled convicts
>serving out involuntary indentures, most for economic crimes, of
>course, but a number of political exiles, including disposed Scots and
>Irish following the “troubles” involving the Stuarts.
>
Yes, there were some resemblences. Religious dissenters, convicts,
political prisoners. Oglethorpe made sure the colony was well-planned and
supplied though, so there was a difference. The ‘Authority’ in Georgia was
fairly well liked. HM government less so, partially because the British
government had decided slavery was a Bad Thing.

>[The funniest thing, to me (and I am weird), in TMiaHM is Wyoh Knott’s
>knotheaded characterization of the complex ‘civil servants’ as “finks”
>for Authority. Most are as much convicts as any of Mannie’s ancestors,
>selected for their skills and assigned ‘fink’ jobs, rather than to the
>labor camps where ninety percent will die before they learn to use
>their P-suits. She distinguishes ‘contracting’ with from direct
>slavery to the largest employer available. How kind of her! How
>knotheaded and simple-minded, also. The “crack” F.N. “peace-keeping”
>troops are also convicts. What’s the difference between convicts?
>Which end of the gun pointed which way he’s on? And the fact that one
>wears a yellow uniform or regimentals while the other wears a denim
>jumpsuit? The boy from Shropshire with white belts crossing his
>scarlet uniform on his chest shoots his Brown Bess at the boy from
>Concord wearing farming clothing who shoots his squirrel rifle back?
>Or vice-a-versa?]
>

She probably would have been at home on a Georgia plantation. Damn government might ban slavery! Revolt!. She would have been happy to hang the Militia, which remained loyalist in a large part, and supported the Patriot irregulars.

Mannie, it seems to me, probably woulndn’t have gotten involved if he didn’t think the starvation would come. He did seem to look at it as an interesting thing to do. That is, rather than a noble desire for freedom rather the urge to poke a hornets nest with a stick to see what happens.

The part I didn’t see in Moon was the internecine conflict. Everyone hated the Authority. No-one hated other Lunies. Real revolts ususally involve a bit of back-stabbing and grudge resolving.

>
>>And as for the other rebellion, Augusta was on Shermans’ March to the
>>Sea. the history books do describe that.
>>
>
>
Heinlein’s family, just as Maureen Johnson’s,
>moved down and settled it after the war from the Northern States and
>Union areas.
>

It might be interesting to some here that apparently my family’s farm wasn’t burned in the MttS because Sherman used the farmhouse as HQ for a day or two. There was a Masonic emblem on the wall of the room, so he ordered that the house be left intact. Widows and orphans, you see… (The major farm animals were hidden in the swamp ’til he was gone – great- great grandma was a Heinlein Woman ).

>
>>
>>>Is it? What major purposes, if any, other than that do you
>>>think Heinlein may have had?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>David Friedman (the economist) pointed out that Heinlein had sketched
>>in a working libertarian society. He gives Heinlein credit for his
>>current interest in how limited government economy might work.
>>
>
>
>”Working?” Might it really work IRL? Howso and how long, Dave?
>
It worked in TMIAHM….

Beats me. From what I’ve read and heard of the early days in Georgia things were somewhat like the Lunar Colony. They haven’t stayed that way, although I still know of people who resemble Mannie in some ways. They regarding laws, especially Federal laws, as inconveniences for instance. ( not that I know anything about this of course). Even in Moon, Mannie starts off regretting that things have changed since the early days.

I think the security of a more regulated society wins out over the opportunity of a ‘free’ society for most people. The conflict comes in how much regulation.

[djinn]
djinn wrote:

[snip]

>Mannie, it seems to me, probably woulndn’t have gotten involved if he
>didn’t think the starvation would come. He did seem to look at it as an
>interesting thing to do. That is, rather than a noble desire for freedom
>[he was motivated by] the urge to poke a hornets nest with a stick to see

>what happens.

If Mike the artificial mind can be trusted, near imminent starvation is the only justification apparent. Other than the ‘slavery’ that all seem to ‘labor’ under — of course Mannie’s family doesn’t seem to be doing too badly, except for the limited responsibility they evidence to anyone outside their immediate family. Some might call that a slave mentality. Cf. Mentok in Farnham’s Freehold. He probably enjoys a fat choice cut from Ponce’s table every once in a while too.

>The part I didn’t see in Moon was the internecine conflict. Everyone hated
>the Authority. No-one hated other Lunies. Real revolts ususally involve a
>bit of back-stabbing and grudge resolving.
>

None of the active loyalists survive in TMiaHM, not even the guy who lasted a few months by changing his name and habitat. No Halifax or Bermuda handy to flee to. I wonder if, after the war, there were any “cases on Hunter’s Estate” in the Loonie Courts.

>It might be interesting to some here that apparently my family’s farm
>wasn’t burned in the MttS because Sherman used the farmhouse as HQ for a
>day or two. There was a Masonic emblem on the wall of the room, so he
>ordered that the house be left intact. Widows and orphans, you see…
>(The major farm animals were hidden in the swamp ’til he was gone – great-
>great grandma was a Heinlein Woman ).
>

I wonder how many folk notice the Square and Compass device “Turkey Creek Jack” whatever’snamewas wore around his neck in Kevin Costner’s version of Wyatt Earp? That might have prevented someone from bayoneting or shooting him again in the belly after he’d been shot down during the Civil War, or even during the war between Earps and the Clantons. Or using the Istanbul Twist on him, as the old murderer de la Paz does to the wounded yellow jacket early on.

>>>David Friedman (the economist) pointed out that Heinlein had sketched
>>>in a working libertarian society. He gives Heinlein credit for his
>>>current interest in how limited government economy might work.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>”Working?” Might it really work IRL? Howso and how long, Dave?
>>
>>
>It worked in TMIAHM….
>
>Beats me. From what I’ve read and heard of the early days in Georgia things
>were somewhat like the Lunar Colony. They haven’t stayed that way,
>although I still know of people who resemble Mannie in some ways. They
>regarding laws, especially Federal laws, as inconveniences for instance. (
>not that I know anything about this of course). Even in Moon, Mannie starts
>off regretting that things have changed since the early days.
>
>I think the security of a more regulated society wins out over the
>opportunity of a ‘free’ society for most people. The conflict comes in how
>much regulation.
>

This, of course, is the ‘sexy’ issue in TMiaHM, today. More on it later. Let’s see if we can entice someone else to weigh in here. :) There must be a big-L libertarian out there?


David M. Silver
http://www.heinleinsociety.org
http://www.readinggroupsonline.com/groups/heinlein.htm
“The Lieutenant expects your names to shine!”
Robert Anson Heinlein, USNA ’29
Lt (jg)., USN R’td (1907-1988)

In article, David Silverwrote:

>djinn wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>
>>Mannie, it seems to me, probably woulndn’t have gotten involved if he
>>didn’t think the starvation would come. He did seem to look at it as an
>>interesting thing to do. That is, rather than a noble desire for freedom
>>[he was motivated by] the urge to poke a hornets nest with a stick to see
>
>>what happens.
>
>If Mike the artificial mind can be trusted, near imminent starvation is
>the only justification apparent.

It just occurs to me that we only have Mannie’s word that Mike existed at all. Consider what Mannie’s job was. He had lots of opportunity to set up a simulated personality while working on the central computer. The Prof might have seen through it but gee, the Prof died right after the revolution succeeded.

If Mannie faked Mike, then maybe all the models through Mike were also faked. A successful revolution leaves Mannie’s family a big fish in a small pond, rather than a tiny minnow in an ocean.


“I think you mean ‘Could libertarian slave-owning Confederates, led by
SHWIers, have pulled off a transatlantic invasion of Britain, in revenge
for the War of 1812, if they had nukes acquired from the Sea of Time?'”
Alison Brooks (1959-2002)
[James Nicoll]

James Nicoll wrote:

>In article ,
>David Silver wrote:
>
>>djinn wrote:
>>
>>[snip]
>>
>>
>>
>>>Mannie, it seems to me, probably woulndn’t have gotten involved if he
>>>didn’t think the starvation would come. He did seem to look at it as an
>>>interesting thing to do. That is, rather than a noble desire for freedom
>>>[he was motivated by] the urge to poke a hornets nest with a stick to see
>>>
>>>what happens.
>>>
>>If Mike the artificial mind can be trusted, near imminent starvation is
>>the only justification apparent.
>>
>
>It just occurs to me that we only have Mannie’s word that
>Mike existed at all. Consider what Mannie’s job was. He had lots
>of opportunity to set up a simulated personality while working on
>the central computer. The Prof might have seen through it but gee,
>the Prof died right after the revolution succeeded.
>
>If Mannie faked Mike, then maybe all the models through
>Mike were also faked. A successful revolution leaves Mannie’s
>family a big fish in a small pond, rather than a tiny minnow
>in an ocean.
>

Hehehe! Revisionist history, the great joy of bored historians. Who really did what to whom, eh? You did note Manuel winds up working with Laz and gang in The Cat, didn’t you? A measure of real importance!

That was quite an illuminating discussion of impact physics upthread, James. Thank you for it. :-)


David M. Silver
http://www.heinleinsociety.org
http://www.readinggroupsonline.com/groups/heinlein.htm
“The Lieutenant expects your names to shine!”
Robert Anson Heinlein, USNA ’29
Lt (jg)., USN R’td (1907-1988)

In article, David Silverwrote: >James Nicoll wrote:

>
>>In article ,
>>David Silver wrote:
>>
>>>djinn wrote:
>>>
>>>[snip]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Mannie, it seems to me, probably woulndn’t have gotten involved if he
>>>>didn’t think the starvation would come. He did seem to look at it as an
>>>>interesting thing to do. That is, rather than a noble desire for freedom
>>>>[he was motivated by] the urge to poke a hornets nest with a stick to see
>>>>
>>>>what happens.
>>>>
>>>If Mike the artificial mind can be trusted, near imminent starvation is
>>>the only justification apparent.
>>>
>>
>>It just occurs to me that we only have Mannie’s word that
>>Mike existed at all. Consider what Mannie’s job was. He had lots
>>of opportunity to set up a simulated personality while working on
>>the central computer. The Prof might have seen through it but gee,
>>the Prof died right after the revolution succeeded.
>>
>>If Mannie faked Mike, then maybe all the models through
>>Mike were also faked. A successful revolution leaves Mannie’s
>>family a big fish in a small pond, rather than a tiny minnow
>>in an ocean.
>>
>
>Hehehe! Revisionist history, the great joy of bored historians. Who
>really did what to whom, eh? You did note Manuel winds up working with
>Laz and gang in The Cat, didn’t you? A measure of real importance!

And it explains why Mike became sentient when no other computer of a similar type ever sprouted intelligence. Answer: he didn’t, it was all a dwarf in a box moving the chess pieces.

It suggests a terrible fate for poor deluded Wyoh, though. After all, she might someday realise she was had if she lives, which suggests she didn’t live, at least not for long. The Moon is such a dangerous place and it is so easy for someone to stumble into an airlock, accidentally punch the eleven digit over-ride and get evacuated onto the surface…

Mannie seems displeased with how things evolved after the revolution but that is generally the base with revolutions. He’s lucky he didn’t end up a revered statesman like Lenin did, carefully preserved in a box.

>That was quite an illuminating discussion of impact physics upthread,
>James. Thank you for it. :-)

No problem. I recommend all of the University of Arizona space series. Lots of crunchy numbers and eqns to play with.


“I think you mean ‘Could libertarian slave-owning Confederates, led by
SHWIers, have pulled off a transatlantic invasion of Britain, in revenge
for the War of 1812, if they had nukes acquired from the Sea of Time?'”
Alison Brooks (1959-2002)
[James Nicoll]

[James Nicoll:]

>>>It just occurs to me that we only have Mannie’s word that
>>>Mike existed at all. Consider what Mannie’s job was. He had lots
>>>of opportunity to set up a simulated personality while working on
>>>the central computer. The Prof might have seen through it but gee,
>>>the Prof died right after the revolution succeeded.
>>>
>>>If Mannie faked Mike, then maybe all the models through
>>>Mike were also faked. A successful revolution leaves Mannie’s
>>>family a big fish in a small pond, rather than a tiny minnow
>>>in an ocean.
>>>

[David Silver:]
>>Hehehe! Revisionist history, the great joy of bored historians. Who
>>really did what to whom, eh? You did note Manuel winds up working with
>>Laz and gang in The Cat, didn’t you? A measure of real importance!

[James Nicoll:]
>And it explains why Mike became sentient when no other computer
>of a similar type ever sprouted intelligence. Answer: he didn’t, it was
>all a dwarf in a box moving the chess pieces.

Possibly – but I don’t think Mannie could successfully have preprogrammed Mike for Mychelle’s chats with Wyoh.

(I wish I could think of a pun involving Young Turk revolutionaries.)

>It suggests a terrible fate for poor deluded Wyoh, though.
>After all, she might someday realise she was had if she lives, which
>suggests she didn’t live, at least not for long. The Moon is such a
>dangerous place and it is so easy for someone to stumble into an airlock,
>accidentally punch the eleven digit over-ride and get evacuated onto
>the surface…

Even if Wyoh had figured it out, why should it matter? The revolution turned her into a hero and fulfilled her political aims; afterwards, it would not have been in her interest to reveal the deception.

Simon
“David Silver”wrote in message news:… >James Oglethorpe’s Georgia colony may have been the closest of them all >to what is described in TMiaHM. Large numbers of exiled convicts serving >out involuntary indentures, most for economic crimes, of course, but a >number of political exiles, including disposed Scots and Irish following >the “troubles” involving the Stuarts. BTW, the original colony forbade slavery, “papists”, and lawyers. None of the prohibitions lasted. –Dee David Silver wrote:

>djinn wrote:

>>David Friedman (the economist) pointed out that Heinlein had sketched in
a
>>working libertarian society. He gives Heinlein credit for his current
>>interest in how limited government economy might work.
>>
>
>
>”Working?” Might it really work IRL? Howso and how long, Dave?
>

This brings me to an aspect of TMiaHM I’ve been considering for a while. Most discussion of the book’s real life inspiration has centred around the American revolution.

This may be true of some of the characters and the politics involved – but there are certain other aspects which seem quite different.

One aspect is that the Lunar colonies are portrayed as being on the very edge of sustainability, particularly with regards to water. By contrast, the American colonies were not just self-sustaining, but quite rich in resources.

Another aspect is size and position – Prof envisages Luna’s future as being the gateway between a rich, much larger planet and the rest of the solar system. By the time of independence, the American colonies were much larger than the Old Country.

Is it just coincidence that one of the largest Lunar colonies is called Hong Kong Luna?

TMiaHM was written in the mid-1960’s, pretty close to the historical high water-mark for socialist economics. At the time, Hong Kong had possibly the most limited government interference in its economy anywhere in the world.

Hong Kong also combined minimal government interference and free speech with minimal political power for the inhabitants – Britain imposed a governor and that was that.

I believe Hong Kong was also dependent on mainland China for its fresh water supplies.

Not only that, but the main reason for the colony’s existence was to act as a deep water port – IIRC, the name Hong Kong means “Fragrant Harbour”. Consequently, given its history and location, it was (and is) ideally placed to act as a gateway for trade between China and the West.

Any comments?

[Simon Jester]
David Wright wrote:


>I have always been surprised at the reaction against Prof’s ‘rational
>anarchist’ philosophy. I wrote an essay on this subject at
>http://dwrighsr.tripod.com/heinlein/RatAnarch/

As you observe in your essay, Prof describes his philosophy by saying: “My point is that one person is responsible. Always. If H-bombs exist-and they do-some man controls them. In terms of morals there is no such thing as a ‘state.’ Just men. Individuals. Each responsible for his own acts.”

There is another Heinlein character who makes a similar statement: “Anything that it is right for a group to do is right for one person to do.”

Clark Fries says this in _Podkayne of Mars_, in the context of using a small (1/2 kilotonne) nuclear device.

Clark is normally regarded as a clever but totally amoral individual. Elsewhere on this thread, David Silver has observed that Prof is “simply an old murderer”. Does this mean that we are simply to regard Rational Anarchism as a piece of sophistry, to excuse any act of violence? Or is this a statement of a universal truth, no matter how dubious the source(s)?

Simon


“There is no such thing as ‘Society’; there are only individuals, and their
families.”

David Wright wrote:


>I have always been surprised at the reaction against Prof’s ‘rational
>anarchist’ philosophy. I wrote an essay on this subject at
>http://dwrighsr.tripod.com/heinlein/RatAnarch/

As you observe in your essay, Prof describes his philosophy by saying: “My point is that one person is responsible. Always. If H-bombs exist-and they do-some man controls them. In terms of morals there is no such thing as a ‘state.’ Just men. Individuals. Each responsible for his own acts.”

There is another Heinlein character who makes a similar statement: “Anything that it is right for a group to do is right for one person to do.”

Clark Fries says this in _Podkayne of Mars_, in the context of using a small (1/2 kilotonne) nuclear device.

Clark is normally regarded as a clever but totally amoral individual. Elsewhere on this thread, David Silver has observed that Prof is “simply an old murderer”. Does this mean that we are simply to regard Rational Anarchism as a piece of sophistry, to excuse any act of violence? Or is this a statement of a universal truth, no matter how dubious the source(s)?

Simon


“There is no such thing as ‘Society’; there are only individuals, and their
families.”

Jackie wrote: >”Simon Jester”wrote in message >news:… > snip] >> >>See you in a couple of weeks in the chat room. >> > >I hope I’ll have time to be there; I just finished reading The Moon is a >Harsh Mistress very recently. > >~*~Jackie~*~ We really do, too, Jackie. Don’t let the fact that some of us are amusing ourselves playing “been there, done that” with weird theories about the novel disuade you. We really are capable of also discussing “straight” questions concerning TMiaHM in these upcoming couple weeks, if you care to pose any. 😉 — David M. Silver http://www.heinleinsociety.org http://www.readinggroupsonline.com/groups/heinlein.htm “The Lieutenant expects your names to shine!” Robert Anson Heinlein, USNA ’29 Lt (jg)., USN R’td (1907-1988) In article, Simon Jesterwrote:

>
snip differences between Luna and the Thirteen Colonies

>Another aspect is size and position – Prof envisages Luna’s future as being
>the gateway between a rich, much larger planet and the rest of the solar
>system. By the time of independence, the American colonies were much larger
>than the Old Country.
>
>Is it just coincidence that one of the largest Lunar colonies is called Hong
>Kong Luna?
>
>TMiaHM was written in the mid-1960’s, pretty close to the historical high
>water-mark for socialist economics. At the time, Hong Kong had possibly the
>most limited government interference in its economy anywhere in the world.
>
>Hong Kong also combined minimal government interference and free speech with
>minimal political power for the inhabitants – Britain imposed a governor and
>that was that.
>
>I believe Hong Kong was also dependent on mainland China for its fresh water
>supplies.
>
>Not only that, but the main reason for the colony’s existence was to act as
>a deep water port – IIRC, the name Hong Kong means “Fragrant Harbour”.
>Consequently, given its history and location, it was (and is) ideally placed
>to act as a gateway for trade between China and the West.
>
>Any comments?

If Earth is China, who do you see as the West? What offworld markets are there in MiaHM?

I don’t think HK is the right analog. Maybe some historical asshole of the universe frontier town which is unpleasant but which is conveniently situated to send expeditionary missions out from.

Anyone watching _Shackleford_ on A&E? I’m thinking of the various sealing and whaling stations around the Antarctic circle. Nasty places to live but useful as expedition bases. Except there are no Antarctic colonies at present, so maybe not the best analogy.

One long term problem that the Loonies would face is that other places are easier to get to Earth from and can get to Earth easier than the Moon. Some bright fellow may get the idea of building facilities there, to take some of the business away from the Moon.


“I think you mean ‘Could libertarian slave-owning Confederates, led by
SHWIers, have pulled off a transatlantic invasion of Britain, in revenge
for the War of 1812, if they had nukes acquired from the Sea of Time?'”
Alison Brooks (1959-2002)
[James Nicoll]

On Mon, 08 Apr 2002 00:43:22 GMT, in alt.fan.heinlein, David Silverquoth:

>djinn wrote:
>
>”Simon Jester” wrote in
>news::
>
>>David Silver wrote:
>
>>>[snip comments I wrote concerning “unsavoriness” of character
>>>of co-conspirators Knott and de la Paz]
>
>>[snip comments Simon Jester wrote of dishonesty and ruthless-
>>ness of Manuel O’Kelley Davis]
>
>[snip comments of Dave Jennings concerning Davis’ “‘practical'” ethics
>and fact that “in his environment, he was a well-respected citizen.”]
>
>What’s most surprising to me is notwithstanding all the vicious slurs
>we’ve used as juicy bait thus far characterizing Knott, de la Paz, and
>Davis, so few fish have risen from the depths of this newsgroup to
>defend them.

It’s surprising to me, as well, since I figured I was the only one who felt that way about them. I read Moon with a touch of distaste, every time, because I can’t imagine being like these people. Lately, it makes me think of the Middle East crisis, with one side claiming it’s putting down terrorism (while at the same time practicing assassination) and the other side claiming it’s fighting occupation (while extremists kill innocent people). Neither side has anything beneficial about what they’re doing, in my eyes, but then again, I’m not there experiencing it, so who am I to even have an opinion on it???

In that light, thinking of Moon and the characters, I must say that I agree with the assessment of Mannie as greedy, uncaring of his fellow man (with exceptions, but a general uncaring), and pretty ruthless. His rationalization of how to get bigger consulting fees makes me very uncomfortable, and it gets worse from there. I just get caught up in the story, and try to ignore those things. Then comes Wyoh, who is so willing to just kill everyone, very vindictive, not likable at all. The cutesy way she acts with Mannie and Mike just make me want to be sick. Prof is the only one I can be comfortable with, he doesn’t seem to make excuses for everything. I don’t see him rationalizing his behavior, or his ideals, but I’m also writing from memory–the book is not right here with me! :-)

But I think it’s one of those things that RAH did so well, getting us to identify with unsavory characters as “heroes”. Think of Alex, how much we dislike his “beliefs”, but it’s a good story! (IMNSHO) Then there’s Hugh, whom a few here dislike, but even so, it’s a good story. (once again, IMNSHO)

Every revolution has death, treachery, vindictiveness, all that. At least, so far as I have heard… All stories have at least one more point of view than however many people “witnessed” it…

Okay, enough rambling for now, you know how I go with a tangent (or three) sometimes! :-)


~teresa~

^..^ “Never try to outstubborn a cat.” Robert A. Heinlein ^..^
http://www.heinleinsociety.org/ & http://rahbooks.virtualave.net/
“Blert!!!” quoth Pixel, a small, yellow cat.
email me at pixelmeow at aol dot com or yahoo dot com
MSN messenger ID =
Yahoo Messenger ID =
AIM id = pixelmeow

“David Silver” performs his own form of agitprop:

>What’s most surprising to me is notwithstanding all the vicious slurs
>we’ve used as juicy bait thus far characterizing Knott, de la Paz, and
>Davis, so few fish have risen from the depths of this newsgroup to
>defend them.

Here Fishy,Fishy…:)

Actually I have taken your “vicious slurs” and am using that lens as I read the book over again. As yet I have not formed a complete and intelligent response. My ‘knee-jerk’ response a couple of days ago was to report on my own ancestors, (a horse thief, maternal great-uncle, and a hobo, paternal grandfather) and how I don’t feel that just because they were unsavory types, the horse thief was hung in a public square in Kansas by vigilantes, that it makes me and mine “bad people.” But, then I am doing what I just stated, looking at characters I have always had respect for and putting the “criminal” focus on them. I have just got to the part when Manny and Prof return to Luna…am off to finish the book (most likely fall asleep) and formulate some rational response.

Elizabeth

(make me think will ya!)
djinn wrote:

>David Silverwrote

>>James Oglethorpe’s Georgia colony may have been the closest of
>>them all to what is described in TMiaHM. Large numbers of exiled
>>convicts serving out involuntary indentures, most for economic
>>crimes, of course, but a number of political exiles, including
>>disposed Scots and Irish following the “troubles” involving the
>>Stuarts.

>Yes, there were some resemblences. Religious dissenters, convicts,
>political prisoners. Oglethorpe made sure the colony was well-
>planned and supplied though, so there was a difference. The
>’Authority’ in Georgia was fairly well liked. HM government
>less so, partially because the British government had decided
>slavery was a Bad Thing.

It’s a funny thing, but the Technology guy at the top of the heap when I worked for AOL was a guy named Oglethorpe. The first time I mentioned him to my father, he wanted to know if that Oglethorpe was related to the Georgia Aristocracy from the Prison Colony days. I gave him a “how should I know?” type of response, which he found very insufficient. I’m still curious. It would be something if it turned out that burried in the corporate oligarchy is a batch of closet blue bloods….

>The part I didn’t see in Moon was the internecine conflict.
>Everyone hated the Authority. No-one hated other Lunies.
>Real revolts ususally involve a bit of back-stabbing and
>grudge resolving.

That’s what all the yammerheads were doing. Mannie avoided that stuff, so we didn’t get to read about it.

>I think the security of a more regulated society wins out over the
>opportunity of a ‘free’ society for most people. The conflict comes
>in how much regulation.

Catch people in a feeding frenzy where the regulation was too minimal, and they scatter like cockroaches. Sometimes I think California culture is based on the idea “lets run away as soon as somebody says ‘government’.”

Tian Harter


http://tian.greens.org
Saturday I saw the San Jose EarthQuakes beat the New England
Revolution 2 to 1 at Spartan Stadium. Going in the gate, they
gave everyone a #1 FAN ring comemorating their becoming
2001 MLS Champions on 10/21/01.

>>It suggests a terrible fate for poor deluded Wyoh, though.
>>After all, she might someday realise she was had if she lives, which
>>suggests she didn’t live, at least not for long. The Moon is such a
>>dangerous place and it is so easy for someone to stumble into an airlock,
>>accidentally punch the eleven digit over-ride and get evacuated onto
>>the surface…

Isn’t there a mention, in one of the other, later books, by Mannie that Wyoh died years later (although early by Loonie standards) of cancer arising from her enforced stay on the surface when first brought to the Moon?

—Mac
01913981 (dont be fuelish) wrote in news::

>djinn wrote:
>
>
>It’s a funny thing, but the Technology guy at the top of the heap
>when I worked for AOL was a guy named Oglethorpe. The first
>time I mentioned him to my father, he wanted to know if that
>Oglethorpe was related to the Georgia Aristocracy from the Prison
>Colony days. I gave him a “how should I know?” type of response,
>which he found very insufficient. I’m still curious. It would be
>something if it turned out that burried in the corporate oligarchy
>is a batch of closet blue bloods….
>

The General himself didn’t stay in GA. Don’t believe any of his descendents did.

Georgia was less a prison colony than an experiment by social reformers. Very few of the colonists were violent criminals. There were debtors, the ‘homeless’ of the day, Scots who were considered political problems back home, etc.

>>The part I didn’t see in Moon was the internecine conflict.
>>Everyone hated the Authority. No-one hated other Lunies.
>>Real revolts ususally involve a bit of back-stabbing and
>>grudge resolving.
>
>That’s what all the yammerheads were doing. Mannie
>avoided that stuff, so we didn’t get to read about it.
>
>>I think the security of a more regulated society wins out over the
>>opportunity of a ‘free’ society for most people. The conflict comes
>>in how much regulation.
>
>Catch people in a feeding frenzy where the regulation was too
>minimal, and they scatter like cockroaches. Sometimes I think
>California culture is based on the idea “lets run away as soon as
>somebody says ‘government’.”
>

Interesting, my observation has been more like, “if there’s not a government agency to regulate that, why don’t we form one, and our relatives can work in it”.

Really CA govn’t is annoying to someone from another state.

Its not surprising the Libertarian party was formed here.

For a real-life ‘Manny’ kind of person, check

http://ngeorgia.com/people/musgrove.html

[djinn]
“Mac”wrote in message news:

>
>>>It suggests a terrible fate for poor deluded Wyoh, though.
>>>After all, she might someday realise she was had if she lives, which
>>>suggests she didn’t live, at least not for long. The Moon is such a
>>>dangerous place and it is so easy for someone to stumble into an airlock,
>>>accidentally punch the eleven digit over-ride and get evacuated onto
>>>the surface…
>Isn’t there a mention, in one of the other, later books, by
>Mannie that Wyoh died years later (although early by Loonie
>standards) of cancer arising from her enforced stay on the
>surface when first brought to the Moon?
>—Mac

Hazel told Colin about it in _Cat_.

Bryan
Simon’s asked for “strengths and weaknesses.” Try these:

I’m reading my copy of TMiaHM for the last time. It cost 95 cents
34 years ago, and it’s flaking small pieces of yellow-brown
acid-based paper this time. Time enough for a new one; and I’m
reading it in a definitely contrarian mood this time: the
“firebrand political activist” doesn’t appeal to me as much as
previously, her beauty and long sad tale of undeserved injury by
Authority notwithstanding. Knott is a severely damaged piece of
goods, mentally and emotionally. She’s obsessed with a
personal desire for revenge against the Lunar Authority whom she
blames for a radiation-damaged child born her.

Why was the damaged child born? A pilot landed her emigrant’s
vessel shortly before a solar flare storm. The pilot was a
cyborg, so she only blames him incidentally. He beat the storm,
but evidently forgot or it didn’t matter to sterilized him that a
quarantine period was required on the ground — four hours, and
so emigrants were exposed to excess radiation. Her position is
three million people should have been exposed to plague.
Quarantines must again be one of those unjustifiable
governmental placements of the individual over society she
discusses with Manuel and de la Paz later in the room at Raffles.

REPLY:

If LunarAuthority is receiving shipments of convicts on a regular basis then why was no “Quarantine” constructed to house and shelter during this period of time rather than having everyone wait within a cramped ship, on Lunar soil, exposed to anything and everything in the way of radiation?

Perhaps the anger Wyoh has is quite justified. She must not have been the only young female so treated, so exposed.

On that vessel there must have been quite a few other females. If “Authority” is shipping people up, then why not prepare some cavern, divide it into male/female quarters, put in some bunks and while the New Chums are there, begin (via Screen) some orientation.

How long would “Quarantine” be?

Twelve hours? Three days? A week; a fortnight?

Authority, in this instance, might well have done more to “protect their investment”. They chose not to do so.

*******

DAVID SILVER:
Years later her child was born a physical defective. The
“monster” as she calls it, “had to be destroyed.” In the
decades before TMiaHM was written, thousands of
children were born physically damaged as a result of the
too-early certification of thalidimide. As Manuel quietly points
out at first mention of this motivation, she might much more
easily tried again for a child as the radiation damaged egg might
easily be succeeded next time with a healtthy one. In a
population of three million, assuming two males to one female
there must have been hundreds of women incapable of conception
whatever. Knott instead took the drastic step of having her
tubes tied, divorcing both husbands, and sinking herself into a
lifetime of plotting injury to Authority.

REPLY:

Well, fortunately, there is not a description of the “monster”. No idea of the exact damage that was done. And it is later that, with help from Mannie’s co-wives, that Wyoh has the tubal ligation reversed. Depending exactly upon the extent of the genetic abnormality, can we really understand the position of Wyoh who is depicted as being a full-bodied woman and carrying such a terribly distorted child within her for all those months? From such outstanding beauty, to have a “monster” come forth?

Traumatizing?

At least, with the help of the women in Mannie’s family, a beginning was made on that particular healing.

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

Knott doesn’t particularly care whom she injures in her thirst
for revenge either. Humans, except those few who have entered
into the conspiracy with her, really aren’t human to her — as
she’s worried about is whether Manuel’s ‘friend,’ the sentient
computer, can feel pain. Assured he cannot, she’s content to blow
the central complex containing Michael Holmes to smithereens. To
hell with how many ‘finks’ for authority she kills, disrupting
Authority is what counts. Give this woman a bomb to strap to her
chest, and she’d walk into a wedding if it would cause sufficient
damage to Authority. She’s a classic terrorist, safe as
fulminate of mercury to be around, driven by her permanent
bloodlust for revenge. Propose any damage against Authority and
her answer to you would be the pun on her name, “Why not.”

REPLY: Yes, at the stage wherein she is introduced, Wyoh is definitely damaged goods and a danger to any and all — including Mycroft!!

Slowly, strangely, within the parameters of the revolution, does she begin to become human once more.

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

Bernardo de la Paz, plainly isn’t simply a romantic figure.
Forget the happy sparkle in his eyes, the dimples, the exquisite
manners, He’s not romantic at all, but simply an old murderer.
Look what admittedly was among the cause of his exile: “in my
younger or bomb-throwing days my experience was limited to
something on the order of the one-kilogram chemical explosive of
which you spoke, Manuel. But I assume you two know what you’re
talking about.”
In a disarmed society, who is the one person in that meeting who
pulls out his own laser weapon, smuggled onto Luna at enormous
cost? Who knows the “Istanbul twist”? Who first defines the
revolution they will conduct as based on the historical principle
of “terrorism?”

REPLY:

Yes, I am having some trouble with this.

Some.

There is no indication that the Professor was an indiscriminate terrorist bombing women and children.

Is he a murderer?

Yes; here in Luna. And certainly against Authority.

Before that?

I don’t know.

Yes, he states he used to throw bombs ——- what were the targets? Dictators? Repressive military? Babies in carriages.?

As for his actions on Luna it is Authority who has the weapons and imposes rule and dictates terms. A populace without redress, without arms, could not negotiate better terms; could not battle forthrightly. How the Professor got the weapon is amazing but will have to consider that he is resourceful. And is it a crime? Yes, to an Authority that does not want the serfs to be armed and able to resist whatever is dictated to them.

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

Who set the tone? Call them “yellow jackets” all you wish.
The simple fact is nine cops out of a police force of
twenty-seven in a population of three million attempted to
declare an unlawful assembly and arrest its participants, perhaps
for sedition. They all died immediately except one, taken
wounded. His was murdered, helpless. And their principal murderer
— he accounted for at least three himself — directed their
bodies be ground up and flushed down a sewer. [“Their
mates went out on an easy mission. _Nothing_ came back.”] No
wonder they snatched him up and tossed him in a bag the one day
he went for a stroll undisguised in Lima, Peru. He’s lucky he
wasn’t hanged summarily.

REPLY:

Well, in that battle with maybe a handful of potential Revolutionaries against Authority, an Authority backed by weapons and a planet of resources, some action had to be taken to strike fear and ensure some degree of trepidation. Was it the correct action ——— what might have been reported back if they had been allowed to live? Whose lives would then have been in danger? Maybe a dozen or so in attendance, if not more. And, is it sedition to become aware of danger so overwhelming as to threaten a society? And discuss possibilities, especially if there is then no law banning Assembly?

And exactly when and where did these convicts and former convicts consent to be governed and by whom?

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

This is a rather unsavory twosome Manuel falls in among, isn’t
it? I’m not sure I like these two characters, “the old murderer”
and the “blonde bombshell bomber,” even if food riots are to come
in seven years, with cannibalism to come two years later,
according to the bored computer Manuel is kind to.
What do you think?

REPLY:

Well, I do not find them as unsavory as you do. And, as the novel progresses, they “grow into” their roles of aiding Luna be free.

And, once again, Mr. Heinlein begins with a character with flaws and advances them into the challenge and resolution.


David M. Silver

On Tue, 09 Apr 2002 00:36:26 -0700, in messageMac wrote:

>Why was the damaged child born? A pilot landed her emigrant’s
>vessel shortly before a solar flare storm. The pilot was a
>cyborg, so she only blames him incidentally. He beat the storm,
>but evidently forgot or it didn’t matter to sterilized him that a
>quarantine period was required on the ground

How could he have avoided it? A solar flare is hardly less damaging in space. The only defense against it would be to hide in the shadow of Luna and I doubt that he had the reaction mass or the time. The ship should have been better shielded. Ship constructed by Authority. Blame lies with them.

Pete LaGrange
TreetopAngel wrote:


>My ‘knee-jerk’ response a couple of days ago was to report on my
>own ancestors, (a horse thief, maternal great-uncle, and a hobo, paternal
>grandfather) and how I don’t feel that just because they were unsavory
>types, the horse thief was hung in a public square in Kansas by vigilantes,
>that it makes me and mine “bad people.”

Mannie wasn’t necessarily a bad person for having unsavoury grandparents, but thinking well of them for *being* criminals does not reflect well on him, IMO. Also, grandparents seem to be a little recent to romanticise.

Simon
James Nicoll wrote:

>In article ,
>Simon Jester wrote:
.Snip contention that Luna is partially inspired by Hong Kong.
>
>If Earth is China, who do you see as the West? What offworld
>markets are there in MiaHM?
>

Potentially, the rest of the Solar System. In Prof’s words: “Luna’s future lies in her unique position at the top of a gravity well over a rich planet, and in her cheap power and plentiful real estate. If we Loonies have sense enough in the centuries ahead to remain a free port and to stay out of entangling alliances, we will become the crossroads for two planets, three planets, the entire Solar System.”

>I don’t think HK is the right analog. Maybe some historical asshole
>of the universe frontier town which is unpleasant but which is conveniently
>situated to send expeditionary missions out from.
>
>Anyone watching _Shackleford_ on A&E? I’m thinking of the various
>sealing and whaling stations around the Antarctic circle. Nasty places
>to live but useful as expedition bases. Except there are no Antarctic
>colonies at present, so maybe not the best analogy.
>
>One long term problem that the Loonies would face is that
>other places are easier to get to Earth from and can get to Earth
>easier than the Moon. Some bright fellow may get the idea of building
>facilities there, to take some of the business away from the Moon.
>

– although those facilities have not been built at the time of TMiaHM. Using the Moon would be more convenient than going direct between the Earth and the rest of the Solar System. Building more convenient facilities (eg. at Lagrange points) might be more economical in the long term – but Lunar facilities already existed, and Loonies were experts in spacial logistics.

[Simon Jester]
Peter Scott wrote:

>In article ,
>David Silver writes:
>
>>I’ve always wondered why Heinlein picked May 13, 2075, for the date of
>>the meeting where Manny meets Wyoh. Why make a point of a specific date
>>if it alludes to nothing much?
>>
>>Nothing in particular seems to have happened on May 13, 1775, in U.S.
>>History.
>>
>
>Given the context, I suspect a Tuckerism. When did RAH meet Ginny?
>
>

Perhaps it is a Tuckerism. However, another significant date in TMiaHM turns out to be October 12 [2076], the date the F.N. forces attempt to land an invasion force, which is defeated and annilated. October 12, 1492, of course, is the date of Columbus’ landfall in the West Indies, still a National Holiday in the United States, and one of those dates we memorized as children in Grammar School.

Perhaps the significance of May 13 is May 13, 1607, the date of landing of British colonists at Jamestown, Virginia, first permanent settlement of English-speaking colonists in what was “the New World.” That was another of those dates we did memorize, although not ever a National Holiday.


David M. Silver
http://www.heinleinsociety.org
http://www.readinggroupsonline.com/groups/heinlein.htm
“The Lieutenant expects your names to shine!”
Robert Anson Heinlein, USNA ’29
Lt (jg)., USN R’td (1907-1988)

“Simon Jester” says:

>TreetopAngel wrote:
>…
>>My ‘knee-jerk’ response a couple of days ago was to report on my
>>own ancestors, (a horse thief, maternal great-uncle, and a hobo, paternal
>>grandfather) and how I don’t feel that just because they were unsavory
>>types, the horse thief was hung in a public square in Kansas by vigilantes,
>>that it makes me and mine “bad people.”
>…
>
>Mannie wasn’t necessarily a bad person for having unsavoury grandparents,
>but thinking well of them for *being* criminals does not reflect well on
>him, IMO. Also, grandparents seem to be a little recent to romanticise.
>
>Simon
>

But, I only know about my nefarious Grandparents and their generation. Who knows what lies and schemes THEIR ancestors used to get into the US. I assume, since there are no anecdotes, that they were just as bad or maybe worse than Mannie’s ancestors. OR maybe they were all hard-working, good people who never did anything of import and thus never had stories told about them. One whole side of my family (paternal grandfather) has no history, because my Grandfather never spoke of it and would tell anyone who asked, it was none of their business. My Dad even suspects his name is false, the man had no history, that we can find before he met my Grandmother.

Elizabeth
“Simon Jester”wrote in message news:

>TreetopAngel wrote:
>…
>>My ‘knee-jerk’ response a couple of days ago was to report on my
>>own ancestors, (a horse thief, maternal great-uncle, and a hobo, paternal
>>grandfather) and how I don’t feel that just because they were unsavory
>>types, the horse thief was hung in a public square in Kansas by vigilantes,
>>that it makes me and mine “bad people.”
>…
>
>Mannie wasn’t necessarily a bad person for having unsavoury grandparents,
>but thinking well of them for *being* criminals does not reflect well on
>him, IMO. Also, grandparents seem to be a little recent to romanticise.

Sort of like Americans being proud of criminal ancestors who revolted against their rightful English government for insufficient reasons?

NW
Mac wrote:

>Knott is a severely damaged piece of goods, mentally and
>emotionally. She’s obsessed with a personal desire for
>revenge against the Lunar Authority whom she blames
>for a radiation-damaged child born her.

Everybody that makes real change in this world is a square peg trying to fit into a round hole. That seems to be the way the world we live in works. All the normal people are busy raising their normal children and suffering through all the same conflicts as each other.

It wasn’t until I saw Brin’s Postman movie that I realized that it isn’t just these leaders, it is the way people work with them that makes a difference. If the guy hadn’t had an idea they wanted implamented, he would have starved in the woods. They wanted mail delivery, so they encouraged him to make it happen.

In a similar way, she wanted revolution, and bit by bit the people that could make it happen as a win-win crawled out of the woodwork. They shared her desire for change, and that was it.

If she hadn’t been in the right place at the right time, it wouldn’t have been a story worthy of Heinlein’s time. Instead, maybe she would have just been an idea that crossed his mind in the shower one day, or something like that, if anything.

Tian Harter


http://members.aol.com/RAHfan147
Sometime this week, a visitor to the above site will
clock the number of the beast on the hit counter.

>Perhaps it is a Tuckerism. However, another significant date in TMiaHM
>turns out to be October 12 [2076], the date the F.N. forces attempt to
>land an invasion force, which is defeated and annilated. October 12,
>1492, of course, is the date of Columbus’ landfall in the West Indies,
>still a National Holiday in the United States, and one of those dates we
>memorized as children in Grammar School.

Considering that he personally started the slave trade, this ought to be a day of mourning.

>Perhaps the significance of May 13 is May 13, 1607, the date of landing
>of British colonists at Jamestown, Virginia, first permanent settlement
>of English-speaking colonists in what was “the New World.” That was
>another of those dates we did memorize, although not ever a National
>Holiday.

Do we know the date the lost Roanoke group landed? I’ve heard one of their log books was recovered.

>>David Friedman (the economist) pointed out that Heinlein had sketched in a
>>working libertarian society. He gives Heinlein credit for his current
>>interest in how limited government economy might work.

>”Working?” Might it really work IRL? Howso and how long, Dave?

It worked in Iceland for 350 years. Friedman discusses this in “The Machinery of Freedom.” I have a hunch that most of these ideas were not Heinlein’s own but were suggested by Robert LeFevre (Prof).

>>Catch people in a feeding frenzy where the regulation was too
>>minimal, and they scatter like cockroaches. Sometimes I think
>>California culture is based on the idea “lets run away as soon as
>>somebody says ‘government’.”

>Interesting, my observation has been more like, “if there’s not a
>government agency to regulate that, why don’t we form one, and our
>relatives can work in it”.
>
>Really CA govn’t is annoying to someone from another state.
>
>Its not surprising the Libertarian party was formed here.

Sorry, that was in Colorado.

But you’re sure right about the over-regulation here. California’s urban areas are so infested with socialists they might as well be on the east coast. Our rural areas are saner, but don’t have the votes to split the state.

But I sure wish we could deport Hanoi Jane and her ilk to New York.
David Silver wrote:

>Perhaps it is a Tuckerism. However, another significant date in TMiaHM
>turns out to be October 12 [2076], the date the F.N. forces attempt to
>land an invasion force, which is defeated and annilated. October 12,
>1492, of course, is the date of Columbus’ landfall in the West Indies,
>still a National Holiday in the United States, and one of those dates we
>memorized as children in Grammar School.

I would never have thought of Heinlein as a member of the “500 years of resistance” crowd. At least attacking the moon, they really were going to an uninhabited world. At least I think it’s uninhabited.

>Perhaps the significance of May 13 is May 13, 1607, the date of landing
>of British colonists at Jamestown, Virginia, first permanent settlement
>of English-speaking colonists in what was “the New World.” That was
>another of those dates we did memorize, although not ever a National
>Holiday.

Thank you. All I knew about was the 1607 part. Although what “high mountains and limited fertility” have to do with Virginia is beyond me. When I think of Virginia, I think of roads that have been used for a thousand years to trade tobacco that are now superhighways.

Tian Harter


http://members.aol.com/RAHfan147
Sometime this week, a visitor to the above site will
clock the number of the beast on the hit counter.

“dont be fuelish”>Tian Harter

>–
>http://members.aol.com/RAHfan147
>Sometime this week, a visitor to the above site will
>clock the number of the beast on the hit counter.

It was me…I hit the counter! :)

The Number Of The Beast!

Elizabeth/TreetopAngel

(the things I will do for entertainment)
TreetopAngel wrote:

>
>”dont be fuelish”>Tian Harter
>>–
>>http://members.aol.com/RAHfan147
>>Sometime this week, a visitor to the above site will
>>clock the number of the beast on the hit counter.
>
>It was me…I hit the counter! :)
>
>The Number Of The Beast!
>
>Elizabeth/TreetopAngel
>(the things I will do for entertainment)

I have updated my sig for your entertainment.

Tian Harter


http://members.aol.com/RAHfan147
TreetopAngel, AKA Elizabeth, is TheBeast.

“Simon Jester” wrote:

>As you observe in your essay, Prof describes his philosophy by saying:
>”My point is that one person is responsible. Always. If H-bombs exist-and
>they do-some man controls them. In terms of morals there is no such thing as
>a ‘state.’ Just men. Individuals. Each responsible for his own acts.”
>
>There is another Heinlein character who makes a similar statement:
>”Anything that it is right for a group to do is right for one person to do.”
>
>Clark Fries says this in _Podkayne of Mars_, in the context of using a small
>(1/2 kilotonne) nuclear device.
>
>Clark is normally regarded as a clever but totally amoral individual.
>Elsewhere on this thread, David Silver has observed that Prof is “simply an
>old murderer”. Does this mean that we are simply to regard Rational
>Anarchism as a piece of sophistry, to excuse any act of violence? Or is this
>a statement of a universal truth, no matter how dubious the source(s)?

I don’t regard Prof (or LeFevre) as a dubious source at all. And I see Prof’s statement as a universal truth, one of the cardinal axioms of libertarianism.

And from there, one quickly realizes that governments are not sources of legitimacy at all: they are merely organizations whose members use force, and claim a monopoly on force, and which the well-connected and the politically skillful can use as a means of bullying other people. And in any given set of circumstances, using the government to compel someone is morally exactly the same as doing the same bullying yourself (it is just a means of doing so). If I have injured you and you are entitled to use the courts to collect damages, you would be equally justified (but probably less safe because of public opinion) to just collect the payment yourself. Conversely, if I have not done anything to justify you forcing a payment from me, then lobbying for a tax is just as wrong as robbing me yourself.

This view does not necessarily deny the concept in “Starship Troopers” that each of us owes something to his society. But it does mean that that obligation is “between you and God” and not enforceable, since government and society are both abstract entities, and only individuals exist for the purpose of moral law.

In a pure libertarian universe, I expect that most people would live in privately-owned communities with explicit social contracts, such as “Golden Rule”, “Ad Astra” [in Schulman’s “The Rainbow Cadenza”], or the US as it appears in “Coventry”. But there would also be substantial ungoverned places, hopefully much more similar to Vinge’s “The Ungoverned” or pre-Revolution Luna than to Coventry.
———- Mac wrote:

[snip]

>Knott doesn’t particularly care whom she injures in her thirst
>for revenge either. Humans, except those few who have entered
>into the conspiracy with her, really aren’t human to her — as
>she’s worried about is whether Manuel’s ‘friend,’ the sentient
>computer, can feel pain. Assured he cannot, she’s content to blow
>the central complex containing Michael Holmes to smithereens. To
>hell with how many ‘finks’ for authority she kills, disrupting
>Authority is what counts. Give this woman a bomb to strap to her
>chest, and she’d walk into a wedding if it would cause sufficient
>damage to Authority. She’s a classic terrorist, safe as
>fulminate of mercury to be around, driven by her permanent
>bloodlust for revenge. Propose any damage against Authority and
>her answer to you would be the pun on her name, “Why not.”

I fail to see how this is an unlikable feature of Wyo’s personality.

I see where we will use the word “terrorist” to condemn without bothering to examine from now on. Terrorism is not what some think it is. A Tomahawk missile is terrorism in its most pristine form. So is an F-22. So is a 155mm Howitzer. Given just a few circumstances, you could be a terrorist too.

In the story of her tragic pregnancy, Heinlein has merely expressed his view of authority. People are patently inadequate at deciding issues for other human beings. The pilot, as authority, is disinterested in anything much beyond procedure. Procedure is how the PRC remains in power. Procedure is how the the US Government collects over $2 Trillion a year from families forced to raise their children by proxy in order to pay it. Procedure is the bane of mankind–but it is the root of authority–even the most benign authority. Heinlein had his nose rubbed in it enough to hate it.

It is abysmally shallow, if understandable, to condemn terrorism qua terrorism. There is no basis for equating Wyo to someone who would willingly blow up grandmas and children at a Passover feast. This is a viewpoint of someone raised in an extremely maternal and protective society–which tends to make all acts of violence equally reprehensible–despite mitigation and motivation. This makes Israeli’s equal to the Hammas. An opinion all too common these days.

Perhaps we want to live among sheep. Perhaps we only find sheep likeable. Wyo, being violent, makes her “not a sheep” and so, sadly, she is equal to a member of Hezbollah in sheep’s eyes.

Bah. Her ability to shoot a soldier in the back raises her quite high in my estimation. If I saw her cut the throat of an unsuspecting guard, the blood over her clothes would make her more admirably human to me than a chest full of Nobel Peace Prizes. My Dad blew the living guts out of two German soldiers who didn’t realize he had survived the hundred yard dash to their position. He was a terrorist and I am proud of him because of it.

Violence can be differentiated. Killing unarmed pilots on an airbus and crashing that plane full of Soccer Mom’s and Accountants into a Tower filled with Secretaries and Accountants is cowardly and insane. The people killed were a threat to no one, and not part of any authority repressing anyone. Taking suicide as insurance against defeat is also cowardly and insane. Only people who have always had a wealth of choices in their lives would think of a suicide bomber as anything but a yellow bellied, lily livered coward.

Cowardice and insanity are what make “terrorism” unacceptable.

I cannot imagine Wyo allowing babies or grandmas to be killed, even in her most savage blood lust. She would, instead, lay herself over a grenade about to blow up a pre-school.

The importance of this distinction is the difference that would make a conviction or an acquittal at Nuremberg.

>*********** **********
>Bernardo de la Paz, plainly isn’t simply a romantic figure.
>Forget the happy sparkle in his eyes, the dimples, the exquisite
>manners, He’s not romantic at all, but simply an old murderer.
>Look what admittedly was among the cause of his exile: “in my
>younger or bomb-throwing days my experience was limited to
>something on the order of the one-kilogram chemical explosive of
>which you spoke, Manuel. But I assume you two know what you’re
>talking about.”
>In a disarmed society, who is the one person in that meeting who
>pulls out his own laser weapon, smuggled onto Luna at enormous
>cost? Who knows the “Istanbul twist”? Who first defines the
>revolution they will conduct as based on the historical principle
>of “terrorism?”
>REPLY:
>Yes, I am having some trouble with this.
>Some.
>There is no indication that the Professor was an indiscriminate
>terrorist bombing women and children.
>Is he a murderer?
>Yes; here in Luna. And certainly against Authority.
>Before that?
>I don’t know.

Savagery qua savagery doesn’t give me pause. Assassination is a valid act–even a Christian act; it can save countless lives. Those among us with dirty hands may deserve general condemnation, but they might also deserve our praise. Dirty hands by themselves do not condemn.

De la Paz is the ultimate romantic figure. The fact that we don’t trust he always threw bombs at those deserving it, shows more about our own faults than his.

Art
“dont be fuelish”

>Thank you. All I knew about was the 1607 part. Although what “high
>mountains and limited fertility” have to do with Virginia is beyond
>me. When I think of Virginia, I think of roads that have been used for
>a thousand years to trade tobacco that are now superhighways.

A thousand years of tobacco trade? I may start smoking again just to celebrate. Which tribes traded which brands?

NW
“dont be fuelish”

>TreetopAngel wrote:
>
>>
>>”dont be fuelish”>Tian Harter
>>>–
>>>http://members.aol.com/RAHfan147
>>>Sometime this week, a visitor to the above site will
>>>clock the number of the beast on the hit counter.
>>
>>It was me…I hit the counter! :)
>>
>>The Number Of The Beast!
>>
>>Elizabeth/TreetopAngel
>>(the things I will do for entertainment)
>
>I have updated my sig for your entertainment.
>
>Tian Harter
>–
>http://members.aol.com/RAHfan147
>TreetopAngel, AKA Elizabeth, is TheBeast.

Thanks, I think! :)

Actually I just got lucky, happened to read your post and hit the link at the right time. I wonder how 665 and 667 feel right now…

Elizabeth, The Beast

(hubby likes that sig and agrees wholeheartedly)
TreetopAngel wrote:

>
>”Simon Jester” says:
>
>>TreetopAngel wrote:
>>…
>>>My ‘knee-jerk’ response a couple of days ago was to report on my
>>>own ancestors, (a horse thief, maternal great-uncle, and a hobo, paternal
>>>grandfather) and how I don’t feel that just because they were unsavory
>>>types, the horse thief was hung in a public square in Kansas by
>>vigilantes,
>>>that it makes me and mine “bad people.”
>>…
>>
>>Mannie wasn’t necessarily a bad person for having unsavoury grandparents,
>>but thinking well of them for *being* criminals does not reflect well on
>>him, IMO. Also, grandparents seem to be a little recent to romanticise.
>>
>>Simon
>>
>But, I only know about my nefarious Grandparents and their generation.

Did you think well of the horse-thief *because* he was a horse-thief? Or despite it?

Simon
“Simon Jester”:

>TreetopAngel wrote:
>>
>>”Simon Jester” says:
>>
>>>TreetopAngel wrote:
>>>…
>>>>My ‘knee-jerk’ response a couple of days ago was to report on my
>>>>own ancestors, (a horse thief, maternal great-uncle, and a hobo, paternal
>>>>grandfather) and how I don’t feel that just because they were unsavory
>>>>types, the horse thief was hung in a public square in Kansas by vigilantes,
>>>>that it makes me and mine “bad people.”
>>>…
>>>
>>>Mannie wasn’t necessarily a bad person for having unsavoury grandparents,
>>>but thinking well of them for *being* criminals does not reflect well on
>>>him, IMO. Also, grandparents seem to be a little recent to romanticise.
>>>
>>>Simon
>>>
>>But, I only know about my nefarious Grandparents and their generation.
>…
>
>Did you think well of the horse-thief *because* he was a horse-thief? Or
>despite it?
>
>Simon
>
>

I never said I thought well of the horse thief, he deserved what he got, which was a long walk with a short rope. My concern is that, just because my ancestors were criminal or otherwise outcasts from society, does not mean that I am. I am NOT my ancestors, heck I am not even my parents. What they (all my ancestors) have done with their lives has no bearing on how I live my life.

Although, I do know the punishment for stealing horses and the rationale behind it at the time. Hence, I don’t steal horses, I don’t like the consequences if caught. I don’t break the law, not because I am so obviously moral and upright, but I don’t feel like dealing with the consequences. “If you can’t do the time, don’t do the crime.” Good Advice.

I see the same thing with Mannie, just because his ancestors were criminals, it does not make him a criminal too. Mannie is not a criminal in my eyes as he does nothing against the rules. Yes, he cheats Authority, but Authority has made it easy for him and Mannie is only doing what is normal in his society. Everybody thinks of ways to cheat Authority. In Luna there are no rules, only courtesies. Discourteous people don’t last long and Lunar society never misses them.

If Mannie tried the same things on Earth, yes, he would be punished if caught. Difference is…there are rules and laws on Earth. But Mannie is a very courteous person, only finds ways to buck authority figures, same as every other human on this planet. He doesn’t kill, at least not until the revolution starts and Authority pushes. I skipped classes while a juvenile, does that put me in the same class of criminal as maternal great uncle? I was breaking truancy laws. I lived with current spouse without benefit of marriage, does this equal social outcast, same as paternal grandfather?

Small rebellions against Authority, Mannie never hurt anybody, until they began hurting him and his family and his fellow Loonies. It is the same with me, roll up parking ticket and throw it away, but don’t hurt my family or it will be regretted.

Elizabeth
TreetopAngel wrote:

>
>”Simon Jester”:

>>Did you think well of the horse-thief *because* he was a horse-thief? Or
>>despite it?
>>
>>Simon
>>
>>
>I never said I thought well of the horse thief, he deserved what he got,
>which was a long walk with a short rope. My concern is that, just because
>my ancestors were criminal or otherwise outcasts from society, does not
>mean that I am. I am NOT my ancestors, heck I am not even my parents. What
>they (all my ancestors) have done with their lives has no bearing on how I
>live my life.
>

I agree wholeheartedly; some of my (more distant) ancestors almost certainly did things that would merit capital punishment in any civilised society.

My criticism of Mannie was not that he was descended from criminals (he could hardly help that), but that he was *proud* of their criminality.

Simon
Nuclear Waste wrote:

>
>”Simon Jester” wrote in message
>news:

>>Mannie wasn’t necessarily a bad person for having unsavoury
grandparents,
>>but thinking well of them for *being* criminals does not reflect well on
>>him, IMO. Also, grandparents seem to be a little recent to romanticise.
>
>Sort of like Americans being proud of criminal ancestors who revolted
>against their rightful English government for insufficient reasons?
>

Absolutely! Mannie would fit in quite well among that bunch of foaming-mouthed radicals, class-traitor aristocrats, ex-convicts, turncoat soldiers &c.

😉

Simon
John David Galt wrote:

>”Simon Jester” wrote:
>
>>As you observe in your essay, Prof describes his philosophy by saying:
>>”My point is that one person is responsible. Always. If H-bombs exist-and
>>they do-some man controls them. In terms of morals there is no such thing as
>>a ‘state.’ Just men. Individuals. Each responsible for his own acts.”
>>
>>There is another Heinlein character who makes a similar statement:
>>”Anything that it is right for a group to do is right for one person to do.”
>>
>>Clark Fries says this in _Podkayne of Mars_, in the context of using a small
>>(1/2 kilotonne) nuclear device.
>>
>>Clark is normally regarded as a clever but totally amoral individual.
>>Elsewhere on this thread, David Silver has observed that Prof is “simply an
>>old murderer”. Does this mean that we are simply to regard Rational
>>Anarchism as a piece of sophistry, to excuse any act of violence? Or is this
>>a statement of a universal truth, no matter how dubious the source(s)?
>>
>
>I don’t regard Prof (or LeFevre) as a dubious source at all. And I see
>Prof’s statement as a universal truth, one of the cardinal axioms of
>libertarianism.
>

But is “libertarianism” any different from the Jeffersonian democracy as Jefferson propounded it. And can it exist in anything other than the idealized agrarian dream, er, society Jefferson hoped would be created? Can it be tolerated to exist in the more heavily-populated urban societies we have today?

And if not, what’s the ‘solution,’ if any exists? Or is “libertarianism” anything different in quality of thought from the ivory tower non-starting dreams of any sterile overly-intellectualized academe?

>And from there, one quickly realizes that governments are not sources of
>legitimacy at all:

Only if you reject the notion of a quasi-tacit adoption of the compact that exists as you find it or as is created and daily renewed around you. You even get to bitch about it — free speech is part of the compact you’ve found [until Ashcroft figures out a way to get around it], limited to no incitement of sedition coupled with the old clear and present imminent danger test; but if you fail to act, fail to start that revolution every generation that Jefferson thought would occur, then the “quasi” part of quasi-tacit takes over, today.

>they are merely organizations whose members use force,
>and claim a monopoly on force, and which the well-connected and the
>politically skillful can use as a means of bullying other people.

Nuthin’ there new. Ask the Stone Gang that Mannie’s forebears and Slim belong to, and Hilda later marries into. They didn’t consider themselves a “gubmint,” did they, do you suppose? Let’s go look someplace for the sort of “ungoverned places” you below say are postulated by various writers. How ’bout the Oakwood community in Venice, California, next door to where I now live, after dark, when the LAPD’s Pacific Division is busy ‘crushing crime’ elsewhere? Do the Shoreline Crips and ‘V-13’ (or whomever their successors are — I’m a little out of touch with current intelligence by CRASH — most of my police officer buddies are retired) who emerge whenever the Black & Whites or OD Tac units aren’t around to contest for control of the streets and alleys consider themselves governments? Do you consider them governments?

Why not? They’re no different than the Stone Gang postulated in TMiaHM, but just as the Stong Gang they “claim a monopoly on force,” you’d be amazed at how “politically well-connected” they are, and they certainly do bully other people (especially those who presume to try to stop their selling drugs). They assassinated one community ‘activist’ who tried just last year. Cops still ain’t put away who killed him.

I suppose the only difference between them and the black-and-white-gang that patrols in radio cars is their leaders aren’t elected by potentially all the enfranchised community every two years as is Ruth Galanter, the lame-duck (thank God, at last!) councilwoman for that Los Angeles City Council District.

What’s the difference between Authority in the postulated libertarian paradise of TMiaHM and the Los Angeles City Council (weak Major system, here), Mr. “Galt”?

I’ll tell you: the Authority exercised no legislative powers on behalf of its unfranchised constituency — the “non-citizen” populace of Luna. “Non-citizen” advisedly, because, it appears as to those no longer convicts (assuming what is reasonable, that the franchise could be restored once a term was served), most had derived citizenship from one or another F.N. member state.

Under the quasi-tacit acceptance of the compact here in Los Angeles County, unless you plan to lead a successful revolution — maybe a succession from Los Angeles, they’re popular lately, if you care to avoid the kind and occasionally violent attentions of the “force” — your City Council occasionally tries to pass laws to keep the cockroaches belonging to the Crips and V-13 off the streets, so long as Galanter lets the LAPD enforce those laws in her district.

>And in
>any given set of circumstances, using the government to compel someone is
>morally exactly the same as doing the same bullying yourself (it is just a
>means of doing so).

So say you (or LeFevre). If you don’t mind, I’ll let the LAPD confront the Crips and V-13. They’re, all three of them, a lot better armed and much younger than I am, today. Of course, when I did live in Venice, once upon a time nearly a generation ago, there was that time I held some folk under a shotgun until the LAPD did arrive … and they were pretty damned quick once the dispatcher understood what my wife on the phone was saying. [“Shots fired. See the man with the shotgun on the roof of the garage overlooking the alley north of Navy Street between Speedway and Pacific . . . ” First came the helicopter, then lots of Black & Whites, even some Blue & Whites from Santa Monica.]. I’d rather have sanctioned and trained bullies around wearing dark navy blue uniforms than fight set duels if you don’t mind, the contrary situation really scares the hell out of my wife and daughter — to say nothing of me. Do you really think law enforcement is “bullying” in all cases? Or really in any case?

>If I have injured you and you are entitled to use the
>courts to collect damages, you would be equally justified (but probably
>less safe because of public opinion) to just collect the payment yourself.

Really? Just walk up to you and say: “lemme have my damages,” huh? We ain’t got any legally-sanctioned bullies to protect me from you around, now, do we? Just like a Shoreline Crip, unless you feels in a Santy Claus mood, you whips out your piece [probably the cheaply made one that L. Neil has whatizname, the kid, in the Prometheus Award novel, invent] and blows me away, right? So what’s my wiser course of action: do I lay in wait and shoot you in the back first, then collect from your bank? “Lady, I’m here to make a withdrawal on Mr. Galt’s account for my damages. Just fill the bag I’m giving you until I tell you to stop, and nobody will get hurt. I blew his ass away yesterday, so no one will complain, except maybe his wife and children and homeboys; and I’ll blow their ass away too, if I have to. Oh, and don’t touch that button under the counter, please. Thanks.”

Forgive me, or not, as you please, but I resist having to go to this trouble to collect my reasonble damages. Somehow I also think it might be more than merely “less safe because of public opinion.” Bankers usually get nasty about trying to make withdrawals on other folks’ accounts.

Even the barbarian Anglo-Saxon and Germanic tribes (including medieval Iceland, for that matter) had a “government,” usually tribal or clan elders and leaders, that imposed the order you (or Mr. LeFevre) think would flow necessarily in this idealized ‘libertarian’ society.

>Conversely, if I have not done anything to justify you forcing a payment
>from me, then lobbying for a tax is just as wrong as robbing me yourself.
>

Who decides what is “justify”? You? Or the rest of us? Custom? Or would you rather it be done by force ad hoc? “Wahl, we got us a situation heah . . . them canals is overflowing with sewage that’s runnin’ inta the crik ’cause none of you libertarians livin’ by ’em have put in plumbing or sewage tanks like we axed ya ta, clams is a-dying, peeple is a-gettin’ sick, and fish don’t swim up or down in Ballona Crik no more — they jest floats on the top, and it’s pizenin’ tha fishin’ in tha bay. We gotta hire the barge and sum mules from Santy Monica to dredge the crap out. Everyone pony up $1,000 for the kitty, or I, ‘Black David,’ will send my Crip minions over to yo’ houses, one at a time, and hit you on the head, steal ‘n burn all yo’ stuff, and pleasure yo’ wif and daughters until you do pony it up.”

[Well, if you don’t pay taxes to me for these ad hoc cops, don’t you think I’ll pay them by giving them the opportunity for loot and rapine just like in the ‘good ol’ days’?]

The notion that people can get by peacefully without an established government to regulate matters of health and safety, anywhere but on a widely-scattered and unpopulated frontier seems a little far-fetched to me.

>This view does not necessarily deny the concept in “Starship Troopers”
>that each of us owes something to his society. But it does mean that that
>obligation is “between you and God” and not enforceable, since government
>and society are both abstract entities, and only individuals exist for the
>purpose of moral law.
>

What does “God” have to do with it? His Kingdom isn’t of this world. What the hell does he care about it? Or is this simply a handy excuse to deny any responsibility whatever? Sound specious to me, John David. Do you have any bridges to sell me, too?

>In a pure libertarian universe, I expect that most people would live in
>privately-owned communities with explicit social contracts, such as
>”Golden Rule”, “Ad Astra” [in Schulman’s “The Rainbow Cadenza”], or the
>US as it appears in “Coventry”. But there would also be substantial
>ungoverned places, hopefully much more similar to Vinge’s “The
>Ungoverned” or pre-Revolution Luna than to Coventry.
>

All ‘nice’ thought experiments fit for folk in ivory towers smoking the same skinny cigarettes they smoke in the Pentagon when they come up with the *real* REMF lunacies. Why do you suppose, in pre-Revolution Luna, Mimi learned all those tricks Mannie doesn’t know about, and probably doesn’t even want to think about? Didn’t the “Golden Rule” habitat wind up with “cheese” in its ventilation system? ‘Tisn’t a mistake Heinlein called the experimental population of the society in TMiaHM one of ‘loonies’ and ‘lunatics.’ The problem with the academic mind is it frequently fails to recognize ironic humor and below-the-radar satire.

But if you’d like to make your case a little more realistically, I’ll read it. :-)


David M. Silver
http://www.heinleinsociety.org
http://www.readinggroupsonline.com/groups/heinlein.htm
“The Lieutenant expects your names to shine!”
Robert Anson Heinlein, USNA ’29
Lt (jg)., USN R’td (1907-1988)

“Simon Jester” >TreetopAngel wrote:

>>
>>”Simon Jester”:
>…
>>>Did you think well of the horse-thief *because* he was a horse-thief? Or
>>>despite it?
>>>
>>>Simon
>>>
>>>
>>I never said I thought well of the horse thief, he deserved what he got,
>>which was a long walk with a short rope. My concern is that, just because
>>my ancestors were criminal or otherwise outcasts from society, does not
>>mean that I am. I am NOT my ancestors, heck I am not even my parents. What
>>they (all my ancestors) have done with their lives has no bearing on how I
>>live my life.
>>
>…
>
>I agree wholeheartedly; some of my (more distant) ancestors almost certainly
>did things that would merit capital punishment in any civilised society.
>
>My criticism of Mannie was not that he was descended from criminals (he
>could hardly help that), but that he was *proud* of their criminality.
>
>Simon
>

But, what else does Mannie have to be *proud* of, it would be boring to hear over and over about his accomplishments. Even in a society of convicts and their heirs, there tends to be a hierarchy of cons. Not many murderers are sentenced to Penal colonies. Debtors, petty thieves and dissidents, people the government doesn’t want to deal with, because of overcrowding in prisons. I guess I would even try to dredge up a *Salem Witch* as an ancestor rather than a pickpocket or somebody who couldn’t pay their bills. I may even try to throw a murderer or two in there to try to give the impression that I come from tough stock. It’s not to a person’s benefit to appear weak in a society of lawbreakers.

Elizabeth
“Simon Jester”

>Did you think well of the horse-thief *because* he was a horse-thief? Or
>despite it?

This ignores the social matrix in which Mannie grew up. It was a prison. Have you read _Sixth Column_? If not, I recommend it. If so, I direct your attention to their opening of the temple in Denver, and a short discussion about a young boy. Odd social circumstances lead to odd social conventions. Also note that Mannie is proud of his multi great ancesstress who was killed for being a witch. All of this while NOT BEING CERTAIN WHO HIS FATHER WAS. See also the quote in notebooks about lizards and dinosaurs, and apply it to prisoners.

NW
On Tue, 09 Apr 2002 10:19:15 GMT, Pete LaGrangewrote:

>On Tue, 09 Apr 2002 00:36:26 -0700, in message
>Mac wrote:
>
>>Why was the damaged child born? A pilot landed her emigrant’s
>>vessel shortly before a solar flare storm. The pilot was a
>>cyborg, so she only blames him incidentally. He beat the storm,
>>but evidently forgot or it didn’t matter to sterilized him that a
>>quarantine period was required on the ground

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

PETE:

>How could he have avoided it? A solar flare is hardly less damaging in
>space. The only defense against it would be to hide in the shadow of
>Luna and I doubt that he had the reaction mass or the time. The ship
>should have been better shielded. Ship constructed by Authority. Blame
>lies with them.

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

MAC:

The above paragraph you attributed to me may well have been uttered by that well-known provocateur, David Silver, in his original message seeking input and comments.

My contention was that “Authority”, if there was enough immigration of convicts, that there should have been a far more appropriate “quaranteen”, rather than sitting on the surface for any length of time.

Apparently travel time from low Terran orbit while the ship was loaded with it’s “cargo” would have been a couple of days. Now, what would the warning time for a solar flare have been? How long would it take for a solar flare to arrive? One day? Two days? Five days???

If on the order of several days then “Authority” might well have taken other steps…

—Mac
Mac wrote:

>Knott is a severely damaged piece of goods, mentally and
>emotionally. She’s obsessed with a personal desire for
>revenge against the Lunar Authority whom she blames
>for a radiation-damaged child born her.

Everybody that makes real change in this world is a square
peg trying to fit into a round hole. That seems to be the
way the world we live in works. All the normal people are
busy raising their normal children and suffering through
all the same conflicts as each other.

It wasn’t until I saw Brin’s Postman movie
(( the book is better!! ))
that I realized that it isn’t just these leaders, it is the way
people work with them that makes a difference. If the guy hadn’t
had an idea they wanted implamented, he would have starved in the
woods. They wanted mail delivery, so they encouraged him
to make it happen.

In a similar way, she wanted revolution, and bit by bit the
people that could make it happen as a win-win crawled out
of the woodwork. They shared her desire for change, and
that was it.

REPLY:

However, she had nothing but the concept of “revolution” and nothing in a practical manner of doing more than being a pain, nothing more than engaging in the occassional murder. Only when Mannie trusts her enough to let her in on a secret does she begin to consider other possibilities, especially when confronted with the dire promises of the future.

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

Tian Harter
Mac wrote:

>Mac wrote:
((Did I miss something? I thought it was Dont be fuelish…)

>It wasn’t until I saw Brin’s Postman movie
>(( the book is better!! ))
>that I realized that it isn’t just these leaders, it is the way
>people work with them that makes a difference. If the guy hadn’t
>had an idea they wanted implamented, he would have starved
>in the woods. They wanted mail delivery, so they encouraged
>him to make it happen.
>
>In a similar way, she wanted revolution, and bit by bit the
>people that could make it happen as a win-win crawled out
>of the woodwork. They shared her desire for change, and
>that was it.
>REPLY:
>However, she had nothing but the concept of “revolution” and
>nothing in a practical manner of doing more than being a pain,
>nothing more than engaging in the occassional murder. Only when
>Mannie trusts her enough to let her in on a secret does she begin
>to consider other possibilities, especially when confronted with
>the dire promises of the future.

Yeah, but she had the frontal radar housings, and that was enough to get him interested in making her happy. What more do we need?

Tian Harter


http://tian.greens.org/
Last night at the Santa Clara County Green Party
meeting, www.WarnerBloomberg.org and www.votejo.org
both showed up, as well as Michael Borenstein from the
El Dorado County Green Party. More dignitaries than usual.

dont be fuelish wrote:

>David Silver wrote:
>
[snip]
>>The notion that people can get by peacefully without an
>>established government to regulate matters of health and
>>safety, anywhere but on a widely-scattered and
>>unpopulated frontier seems a little far-fetched to me.
>>
>
>Yeah, but how do you regulate a govenment you can’t buy
>a seat in? I’ve never managed to get any face time with my
>assembly member, and it isn’t because I never participated
>in my community. She is not an isolated case. I once lived
>in a Congressional District almost four years without ever
>meeting the Congressman. I even ran against him without
>meeting him.
>

You infiltrate the establishment, Tian. You form a “non-political” organization, meaning non-partisan, with lots of votes on a single issue. I once had fifteen minutes face time with Cranston. He’d decided to go anti-Vietnam War, but had decided he’d be damned if he’d be labeled anti-veteran. It took some doing, first we organized Vet fraternity chapters at 17 southern California colleges, and somebody knew the right assistant working for him, but he fixed the local VA for us, really.


David M. Silver
http://www.heinleinsociety.org
http://www.readinggroupsonline.com/groups/heinlein.htm
“The Lieutenant expects your names to shine!”
Robert Anson Heinlein, USNA ’29
Lt (jg)., USN R’td (1907-1988)

David Silver wrote:

>dont be fuelish wrote:
>
>>David Silver wrote:
>>
>[snip]
>>>The notion that people can get by peacefully without an
>>>established government to regulate matters of health and
>>>safety, anywhere but on a widely-scattered and
>>>unpopulated frontier seems a little far-fetched to me.
>>>
>>
>>Yeah, but how do you regulate a govenment you can’t buy
>>a seat in? I’ve never managed to get any face time with my
>>assembly member, and it isn’t because I never participated
>>in my community. She is not an isolated case. I once lived
>>in a Congressional District almost four years without ever
>>meeting the Congressman. I even ran against him without
>>meeting him.
>>
>
>You infiltrate the establishment, Tian. You form a “non-political”
>organization, meaning non-partisan, with lots of votes on a single
>issue. I once had fifteen minutes face time with Cranston. He’d
>decided to go anti-Vietnam War, but had decided he’d be damned
>if he’d be labeled anti-veteran. It took some doing, first we organized
>Vet fraternity chapters at 17 southern California colleges, and
>somebody knew the right assistant working for him, but he fixed the
>local VA for us, really.

Maybe it would help if I explain how deeply political I think our problems are, and how deeply political the solutions need to be. First I take a greenback that somebody has given me for one of my stickers, for example the one that John Anderson (the guy that ran as a 3rd Party Presidential Candidate before I started paying much attention to these things) used to pay for one (pulls bill off side of filing cabinet) and point to the GOD on it. Then I say “see that god in green ink on the greenback? Green Party Member.”

One time I pulled that routine on a woman that didn’t get it, so I explained “If someone agrees with me, that’s a ‘political position’.” “If someone disagrees with me, that’s a ‘political position’.”

I gave that explination to a guy one time down at Shoreline Park, and he said to me “And if they have no opinion, that’s also a political position.”

Usually I don’t get into that kind of thing. I just trade a dollar bill for the MEND YOUR FUELISH WAYS sticker, that being what passes for “non-political organizing” in my world. If you see one of them on a machine, you can be assured that it was put there by somebody that paid cash on the barrelhead for it. That is my way of infiltrating the system. I consider the population of people who have noticed them in passing to be a “non-political” organization, although the truth is probably closer to them being a political non-organization.

Tian Harter


http://tian.greens.org/
Last night at the Santa Clara County Green Party
meeting, www.WarnerBloomberg.org and www.votejo.org
both showed up, as well as Michael Borenstein from the
El Dorado County Green Party. More dignitaries than usual.

Mac wrote:

>Mac wrote:
((Did I miss something? I thought it was Dont be fuelish…)

>It wasn’t until I saw Brin’s Postman movie
>(( the book is better!! ))
>that I realized that it isn’t just these leaders, it is the way
>people work with them that makes a difference. If the guy hadn’t
>had an idea they wanted implamented, he would have starved
>in the woods. They wanted mail delivery, so they encouraged
>him to make it happen.
>
>In a similar way, she wanted revolution, and bit by bit the
>people that could make it happen as a win-win crawled out
>of the woodwork. They shared her desire for change, and
>that was it.
>REPLY:
>However, she had nothing but the concept of “revolution” and
>nothing in a practical manner of doing more than being a pain,
>nothing more than engaging in the occassional murder. Only when
>Mannie trusts her enough to let her in on a secret does she begin
>to consider other possibilities, especially when confronted with
>the dire promises of the future.

Yeah, but she had the frontal radar housings, and that was enough to get him interested in making her happy. What more do we need?

Tian Harter


http://tian.greens.org/
Last night at the Santa Clara County Green Party
meeting, www.WarnerBloomberg.org and www.votejo.org
both showed up, as well as Michael Borenstein from the
El Dorado County Green Party. More dignitaries than usual.

“Mac”wrote in message news:

>On Tue, 09 Apr 2002 10:19:15 GMT, Pete LaGrange
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 09 Apr 2002 00:36:26 -0700, in message
>>Mac wrote:
>>
>>>Why was the damaged child born? A pilot landed her emigrant’s
>>>vessel shortly before a solar flare storm. The pilot was a
>>>cyborg, so she only blames him incidentally. He beat the storm,
>>>but evidently forgot or it didn’t matter to sterilized him that a
>>>quarantine period was required on the ground
>*****************************
>PETE:
>>How could he have avoided it? A solar flare is hardly less damaging in
>>space. The only defense against it would be to hide in the shadow of
>>Luna and I doubt that he had the reaction mass or the time. The ship
>>should have been better shielded. Ship constructed by Authority. Blame
>>lies with them.
>******************************
>MAC:
>The above paragraph you attributed to me may well have been
>uttered by that well-known provocateur, David Silver, in his
>original message seeking input and comments.
>My contention was that “Authority”, if there was enough
>immigration of convicts, that there should have been a far more
>appropriate “quaranteen”, rather than sitting on the surface for
>any length of time.
>Apparently travel time from low Terran orbit while the ship was
>loaded with it’s “cargo” would have been a couple of days.
>Now, what would the warning time for a solar flare have been?
>How long would it take for a solar flare to arrive?
>One day? Two days? Five days???
>If on the order of several days then “Authority” might well have
>taken other steps…
>—Mac

93,000,000miles/186,300 mps yields roughly 8.32 minutes for the first effects to reach earth’s orbit. Detection may or may not have been the entire problem. A flare can last for many hours.

NW
On Wed, 10 Apr 2002 22:01:02 -0500, “Nuclear Waste”wrote:

>
>”Mac” wrote in message
>news:
>>On Tue, 09 Apr 2002 10:19:15 GMT, Pete LaGrange
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 09 Apr 2002 00:36:26 -0700, in message
>>>Mac wrote:
>>>
>>>>Why was the damaged child born? A pilot landed her emigrant’s
>>>>vessel shortly before a solar flare storm. The pilot was a
>>>>cyborg, so she only blames him incidentally. He beat the storm,
>>>>but evidently forgot or it didn’t matter to sterilized him that a
>>>>quarantine period was required on the ground
>>*****************************
>>PETE:
>>>How could he have avoided it? A solar flare is hardly less damaging in
>>>space. The only defense against it would be to hide in the shadow of
>>>Luna and I doubt that he had the reaction mass or the time. The ship
>>>should have been better shielded. Ship constructed by Authority. Blame
>>>lies with them.
>>******************************
>>MAC:
>>The above paragraph you attributed to me may well have been
>>uttered by that well-known provocateur, David Silver, in his
>>original message seeking input and comments.
>>My contention was that “Authority”, if there was enough
>>immigration of convicts, that there should have been a far more
>>appropriate “quaranteen”, rather than sitting on the surface for
>>any length of time.
>>Apparently travel time from low Terran orbit while the ship was
>>loaded with it’s “cargo” would have been a couple of days.
>>Now, what would the warning time for a solar flare have been?
>>How long would it take for a solar flare to arrive?
>>One day? Two days? Five days???
>>If on the order of several days then “Authority” might well have
>>taken other steps…
>>—Mac
>
>93,000,000miles/186,300 mps yields roughly 8.32 minutes for the first
>effects to reach earth’s orbit. Detection may or may not have been the
>entire problem. A flare can last for many hours.
>NW

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

Often the solar wind, with a whole host of those excited little critters making up the solar flare, might be traveling at about 500 mps. So, I was thinking it would take a while longer to reach our vicinity. Would a flare be traveling at the speed of light? Or some fraction thereof?

—Mac
“Simon Jester”wrote in message news:

>Nuclear Waste wrote:
>>
>>”Simon Jester” wrote in message
>>news:
>…
>>>Mannie wasn’t necessarily a bad person for having unsavoury
>grandparents,
>>>but thinking well of them for *being* criminals does not reflect well on
>>>him, IMO. Also, grandparents seem to be a little recent to romanticise.
>>
>>Sort of like Americans being proud of criminal ancestors who revolted
>>against their rightful English government for insufficient reasons?
>>
>
>Absolutely! Mannie would fit in quite well among that bunch of
>foaming-mouthed radicals, class-traitor aristocrats, ex-convicts, turncoat
>soldiers &c.
>;-)

You forgot religious nuts and monopolists.

NW
John David Galtwrote in news::

>
>Sorry, that was in Colorado.
>

oops.

[djinn]
John David Galt wrote:

>
>>Perhaps it is a Tuckerism. However, another significant date in TMiaHM
>>turns out to be October 12 [2076], the date the F.N. forces attempt to
>>land an invasion force, which is defeated and annilated. October 12,
>>1492, of course, is the date of Columbus’ landfall in the West Indies,
>>still a National Holiday in the United States, and one of those dates we
>>memorized as children in Grammar School.
>
>Considering that he personally started the slave trade, this ought to be
>a day of mourning.

“The slave trade”? I’m confused.

He did bring Indians back from the Western Hemisphere (as slaves, IIRC). That is not what people have in mind when they refer to the slave trade, in connection with the New World. Usually they mean transporting African slaves (normally purchased from Africans, BTW) from Africa to the Americas or the Caribbean.

I don’t recall him bringing any African slaves to the New World. Perhaps I missed that, or learned that and forgot it. I certainly don’t know everything there is to know about Columbus. -Eric S.


E-mail privacy: http://www.curleywolfe.net/cw/E_Privacy.shtml (Perhaps a bit
over-cautious, she is. Perhaps.)

dont be fuelish wrote:

[snips]

>Anecdotally speaking, I have lots of evedence that tobacco was an imporntant
>trade good in this country long before GIs used cigarettes for money. For
>example, I went to a 4th of July Celebration on Capitol Mall in DC one time,
>and there was an old Native American woman who told some stories and
>played a drum for us. At one point she explained that it was traditional to
>give
>the drummer tobacco to show respect and appreciation for their work.
>
>Come to think of it, I remember lots of smoking in TMIAHM, but no growing
>of tobacco. Does that make sense?

Caught you! Trying to get this back on topic, eh?

Well, you little plan won’t work. It won’t work, I tell you!

Smoking in a nitrogen-oxygen atmosphere is OK (aside from the health risks, including things like setting your mattress on fire if you drowse); in a low-pressure oxygen-only atmosphere it’s probably a Bad Thing.

Was there nitrogen in the mix in Luna? -Eric


E-mail privacy: http://www.curleywolfe.net/cw/E_Privacy.shtml (Perhaps a bit
over-cautious, she is. Perhaps.)

Simon Jester wrote:
>
>David Wright wrote:
>…
>>I have always been surprised at the reaction against Prof’s ‘rational
>>anarchist’ philosophy. I wrote an essay on this subject at
>>http://dwrighsr.tripod.com/heinlein/RatAnarch/
>…
>
>As you observe in your essay, Prof describes his philosophy by saying:
>”My point is that one person is responsible. Always. If H-bombs exist-and
>they do-some man controls them. In terms of morals there is no such thing as
>a ‘state.’ Just men. Individuals. Each responsible for his own acts.”

There’s a similar notion expressed in Damon Knight’s “Rule Golden”. The dialog went something like this: “Who will build the space ships when there are no governments?” “Men build spaceships. Men will still build spaceships.”

And some narration, along the lines of: “It no longer made sense to say that ‘England announces this’ or ‘Japan responds with that’. It made you wonder if it ever did.”

Although it took me a long time to make the connection [1] it is a very clear illustration of the notion that government is impossible without the ability to use violence against non-aggressive persons. (Well, people who at that moment are not aggressing. You know what I mean.)

When violence becomes impossible, government becomes impossible. (And unnecessary.)

Of course, this WAS science fiction. -Eric S.

[1] I read it before I worked out the inconsistencies in my political views and discovered I had become a libertarian. I may be wrong, but by gum, I’m consistent!


[The United States] was at war with [bin Laden]. [The United States] had always
been at war with [bin Laden]. — “1984” (With slight edits to make it fit the
present situation. The Cold War made strange bedfellows.)

[The United States] was at war with [the Taliban]. [The United States] had
always been at war with [the Taliban]. — “1984” (With slight edits to make it
fit the present situation. Drug wars make strange bedfellows.)

E-mail privacy: http://www.curleywolfe.net/cw/E_Privacy.shtml (Perhaps a bit
over-cautious, she is. Perhaps.)

dont be fuelish wrote:

>
>David Silver wrote:

[snips]

>I have read that in Japan, if an airplane somebody owns
>falls out of the sky with your beloved on it, the CEO of that
>airline will personally track you down and give you lots of
>money. The reason that system works is because the guy
>really doesn’t want to write that kind of check. He doesn’t
>want to write those checks so much that he is willing to
>pay professional people to keep him from doing it.
>
>Here you have to sue for damages. I like their response to
>that situation a lot better. I notice they are trying to try it
>with the WTC famalies. I hope it works.

It’s a bad precedent, and I notice it’s not the approach they took with the Ruby Ridge and Branch Davidian families. The Weavers sued (and settled out of court). I don’t know the status of the Davidians’ suit, if any. Apparently the unofficial policy that April day was “let it burn, then prosecute the survivors”.

>>The notion that people can get by peacefully without an
>>established government to regulate matters of health and
>>safety, anywhere but on a widely-scattered and
>>unpopulated frontier seems a little far-fetched to me.

Likewise. But just because anarchism seems unworkable doesn’t mean that totalitarianism is the ideal. Or the two varieties of totalitarianism-Lite ™ hawked by the Ds and Rs. (I can’t tell Pepsi from Coke, either.)

>Yeah, but how do you regulate a govenment you can’t buy
>a seat in? I’ve never managed to get any face time with my
>assembly member, and it isn’t because I never participated
>in my community. She is not an isolated case. I once lived
>in a Congressional District almost four years without ever
>meeting the Congressman. I even ran against him without
>meeting him.

It’s tough for us “third-party” types. But getting better lately.

Still, I’m considering switching to (or supplementing partisan activity with) a market-based approach: bet the rank and file that their favorite party won’t follow through. It’ll either open their eyes or empty their pockets. (Or both.) Either way, a win for the White Hats.

If I can find 1000 Republicans who are too proud or too stupid to admit the obvious, I’ll never have to work again. Worst case scenario: I have to come up with a million dollars in a hurry, because the Republicans actually DID reduce government. I’d endure the shame of personal bankruptcy to see that happen. (Figure the odds.) -Eric


E-mail privacy: http://www.curleywolfe.net/cw/E_Privacy.shtml (Perhaps a bit
over-cautious, she is. Perhaps.)

Simon Jester wrote:

>The Loonie warnings for the Thames shot stated that the impact would be
>”north of Dover Straits opposite London Estuary”. Looking at the map of
>England in my atlas, this makes an impact at roughly 1.5 degrees East by
>51.5 degrees North seem most probable.
>
>The depth of the water at this point is indicated no more precisely than
>between 0 and 50m. It is a long way from any deeper water, so probably not
>much more than 20m.
>
>The closest town to the impact would be Margate, on the Kent coast, which
>would be roughly 15km away. (Central London would be roughly 110km away, as
>the pig flies.) The height of the waves at Margate would therefore be circa
>7cm high (approx 3 inches), given a 2 kt impact.
>
>OTOH, the Loonies warn that the impact “would cause disturbances far up
>Thames”.

From “Moon”: “A maximum of instructive shrecklichkeit with minimum loss of life. None, if possible”–was how Prof summed up doctrine for Operation Hard Rock and was way Mike and I carried it out. Idea was to hit earthworms so hard would convince them–while hitting so gently as not to hurt.

If the Loonies exaggerated the damage in the warning, no huhu. Diminishes credibility only slightly. Big rocks falling from sky scary even if water only gets ankle-high on shore. This time. -Eric
“Mac”

>Often the solar wind, with a whole host of those excited little
>critters making up the solar flare, might be traveling at about
>500 mps. So, I was thinking it would take a while longer to
>reach our vicinity.
>Would a flare be traveling at the speed of light?
>Or some fraction thereof?
>—Mac

Since the flare itself is a product of a magnetic affect it does not travel at anywhere near C, but then again, the flare (hopefully) does not reach us. There are, as you noted, particles that run behind the front of the wave. Since a flare radiates clear acccross the EM spectrum, I would guess there are as many answers to your question as there are types of radiation and particles emitted. Why do you always ask simple question that require a doctoral thesis to answer?

NW
“Eric S. Harris”

>If I can find 1000 Republicans who are too proud or too stupid to admit the
>obvious, I’ll never have to work again. Worst case scenario: I have to come up
>with a million dollars in a hurry, because the Republicans actually DID reduce
>government. I’d endure the shame of personal bankruptcy to see that happen.
>(Figure the odds.) -Eric

Why look for 1000 Republicans when 1000 Democrats would be much easier to find, and quite a bit easier to seperate from their money?

NW
Nuclear Waste wrote:

>”Mac”
>>Often the solar wind, with a whole host of those excited little
>>critters making up the solar flare, might be traveling at about
>>500 mps. So, I was thinking it would take a while longer to
>>reach our vicinity.
>>Would a flare be traveling at the speed of light?
>>Or some fraction thereof?
>>—Mac
>
>Since the flare itself is a product of a magnetic affect it does not travel
>at anywhere near C, but then again, the flare (hopefully) does not reach
>us. There are, as you noted, particles that run behind the front of the wave.
>Since a flare radiates clear acccross the EM spectrum, I would guess there
>are as many answers to your question as there are types of radiation and
>particles emitted. Why do you always ask simple question that require a
>doctoral thesis to answer?

Seems to me that all of the stuff that is part of the EM spectrum goes at near the speed of light. I think the slower stuff is much less likely to escape the sun’s gravitational pull.

Tian Harter


http://tian.greens.org/
Last night I saw Y Tu Mama Tambien, a Mexican movie
with subtitles that explained the title was “And your
mother to”. I have rarely seen a randier movie that
talked about Seattle and the election of Vicente Fox.

On Thu, 11 Apr 2002 02:40:53 -0700, Macwrote:

>On Wed, 10 Apr 2002 22:01:02 -0500, “Nuclear Waste”
>wrote:
>
>>
>>”Mac” wrote in message
>>news:
>>>On Tue, 09 Apr 2002 10:19:15 GMT, Pete LaGrange
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 09 Apr 2002 00:36:26 -0700, in message
>>>>Mac wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Why was the damaged child born? A pilot landed her emigrant’s
>>>>>vessel shortly before a solar flare storm. The pilot was a
>>>>>cyborg, so she only blames him incidentally. He beat the storm,
>>>>>but evidently forgot or it didn’t matter to sterilized him that a
>>>>>quarantine period was required on the ground
>>>*****************************
>>>PETE:
>>>>How could he have avoided it? A solar flare is hardly less damaging in
>>>>space. The only defense against it would be to hide in the shadow of
>>>>Luna and I doubt that he had the reaction mass or the time. The ship
>>>>should have been better shielded. Ship constructed by Authority. Blame
>>>>lies with them.
>>>******************************
>>>MAC:
>>>The above paragraph you attributed to me may well have been
>>>uttered by that well-known provocateur, David Silver, in his
>>>original message seeking input and comments.
>>>My contention was that “Authority”, if there was enough
>>>immigration of convicts, that there should have been a far more
>>>appropriate “quaranteen”, rather than sitting on the surface for
>>>any length of time.
>>>Apparently travel time from low Terran orbit while the ship was
>>>loaded with it’s “cargo” would have been a couple of days.
>>>Now, what would the warning time for a solar flare have been?
>>>How long would it take for a solar flare to arrive?
>>>One day? Two days? Five days???
>>>If on the order of several days then “Authority” might well have
>>>taken other steps…
>>>—Mac
>>
>>93,000,000miles/186,300 mps yields roughly 8.32 minutes for the first
>>effects to reach earth’s orbit. Detection may or may not have been the
>>entire problem. A flare can last for many hours.
>>NW
>***************************
>Often the solar wind, with a whole host of those excited little
>critters making up the solar flare, might be traveling at about
>500 mps. So, I was thinking it would take a while longer to
>reach our vicinity.
>Would a flare be traveling at the speed of light?
>Or some fraction thereof?
>—Mac
>

“Solar flare: The Sun frequently spews plumes of energy that are more energetic than the constant solar wind. These solar flares contain gamma rays and X-rays, plus energized particles (protons and electrons). Energy can be equal to a billion megatons of TNT is released in a matter of minutes. Flare activity picks up as sunspots increase.

The magnetic explosion during a solar flare accelerates electrons and atomic nuclei to significant fractions of the speed of light. Unlike much slower atomic particles in the solar wind, which travel straight out from the Sun, the energetic particles from a flare follow curved lines of the Sun’s interplanetary magnetic field. The particles slant in toward Earth from the west at about 45 degrees to the direction of the Sun.”

(ref. http://www.space.com/spacewatch/space_weather_glossary.html )

Steve


http://afhpics.mnsdesigns.com/
http://www.mnsdesigns.com/

On Thu, 11 Apr 2002 09:08:31 -0500, “Nuclear Waste”wrote:

>
>”Mac”
>>Often the solar wind, with a whole host of those excited little
>>critters making up the solar flare, might be traveling at about
>>500 mps. So, I was thinking it would take a while longer to
>>reach our vicinity.
>>Would a flare be traveling at the speed of light?
>>Or some fraction thereof?
>>—Mac
********************
>Since the flare itself is a product of a magnetic affect it does not travel
>at anywhere near C, but then again, the flare (hopefully) does not reach us.
>There are, as you noted, particles that run behind the front of the wave.
>Since a flare radiates clear acccross the EM spectrum, I would guess there
>are as many answers to your question as there are types of radiation and
>particles emitted. Why do you always ask simple question that require a
>doctoral thesis to answer?
>NW
*******************

What can I say?

It’s a “gift” !!

—Mac
“dont be fuelish”wrote in message news:

>Nuclear Waste wrote:
>
>>”Mac”
>>>Often the solar wind, with a whole host of those excited little
>>>critters making up the solar flare, might be traveling at about
>>>500 mps. So, I was thinking it would take a while longer to
>>>reach our vicinity.
>>>Would a flare be traveling at the speed of light?
>>>Or some fraction thereof?
>>>—Mac
>>
>>Since the flare itself is a product of a magnetic affect it does not travel
>>at anywhere near C, but then again, the flare (hopefully) does not reach
>>us. There are, as you noted, particles that run behind the front of the wave.
>>Since a flare radiates clear acccross the EM spectrum, I would guess there
>>are as many answers to your question as there are types of radiation and
>>particles emitted. Why do you always ask simple question that require a
>>doctoral thesis to answer?
>
>Seems to me that all of the stuff that is part of the EM spectrum goes
>at near the speed of light. I think the slower stuff is much less likely
>to escape the sun’s gravitational pull.

I don’t remember what the escape velocity for Sol is, but she is NOT that close to her event horizon.

NW
In article, Nuclear Wastewrote:

>
>”James Nicoll” wrote in message
>news:a94rnt$6cf$
>>In article , Nuclear Waste wrote:
>>>
>>>>Seems to me that all of the stuff that is part of the EM spectrum goes
>>>>at near the speed of light. I think the slower stuff is much less likely
>>>>to escape the sun’s gravitational pull.
>>
>>If it is EM radiation, then by definition it will travel at the
>>speed of light in the medium in question. The slower stuff is not
>>massless particles and it travels far slower than light.
>
>This part is from Tian, not me.

Sorry, I trimmed too much.

>>>I don’t remember what the escape velocity for Sol is, but she is NOT that
>>>close to her event horizon.
>>
>>618 km/s, roughly, or about 0.002 C. However, stuff like protons
>>don’t move at anything like the speed of light, at least not in the solar
>>wind. Charged particles in the solar wind can pass by Earth at anything
>>between 300-800 km/s. So we see the flare at the sun and then up to a week
>>later the charged particle components of the flare which were moving fast
>>enough to escape the Sun (and then some!) cross Earth’s orbit.
>
>Thanks for the numbers. You saved me looking them up (You should note that
>I never said they moved at or even near C.)
>

Yes, you strongly implied that some components did -not- travel at C, because obviously the sun’s gravity won’t redshift light all that much.


“I think you mean ‘Could libertarian slave-owning Confederates, led by
SHWIers, have pulled off a transatlantic invasion of Britain, in revenge
for the War of 1812, if they had nukes acquired from the Sea of Time?'”
Alison Brooks (1959-2002)

Greetings,
Rather than snip and cut and pause to cite references in the original
post, I will deal directly with the subject at hand, to wit, an analysis of
the motivation and character of Manuel’s co-conspirators in TMIAHM.
I have to admit that this is my favorite Heinlein book. I first read it
at the age of 15, my second Heinlein book (first was Starship Troopers).
Thus I am quite fond of the characters, having known them for over twenty
years! This does not mean I cannot see their flaws, however. This makes them
all the more dear to me. I believe one of Heinlein’s goals with this book
was to show that revolutions and great historical paradigms were
accomplished, not by storybook heroes, cutting down cherry trees and then
‘fessing up, but by real people, ones who erred and blundered up that
tortured and twisted path that leads to understanding and, ultimately,
responsibility.
That’s why, just after Wyoming Knott is introduced, she gives her
firebrand speech, exhorting and exciting the crowd. It’s also why Heinlein
immediately has Manny (the simple man) quietly and concisely pick her
position to pieces. As is often the case in anti-authoritarian movements,
people arrive at the same position (throw the bums out!) by quite different
routes, not all of them necessarily valid. This can work fine in disposing
of power, but it can cause real issues in consolidating it afterwards.
That’s why so many revolutions are followed by purges. The American
Revolution seems to be an exception to this rule, but it was exceptional in
many ways.
To Wyoh’s credit, she listens calmly when Manny speaks honestly to her.
She eventually realizes the truth in what he says (backed up by Mike) and
joins in the rational revolution. The inception of her aversion to authority
is not important, its terminus is. People don’t always starts out in the
right position, they arrive at it. Wyoh does not stay wedded to an untenable
position, but adapts her views to conform to reality. That is as good a
definition of wisdom as I’ve ever heard.
Wyoh is important for another reason. She represents the emotional
revolutionary, the one who screams out “Death to all Tyrants!” and charges
the castle and is the first to die. Unfortunately, the ones who survive are
usually the ones who instigate the post revolutionary bloodbaths but they
are essential to successful revolution. Revolutionaries are always the
underdog and they need a Joan of Arc or William Wallace to keep their hearts
in the fight.
As for Professor Bernado de La Paz, he is the intellectual revolutionary,
a student of history and philosophy. He loves the give and take of debate
and is quite settled into his beliefs, having argued it through the years in
classroom and taproom alike.
Students are usually a significant portion of a revolutionary movement;
they are at the point in their lives where they’ve realized that the world
is filled with injustice and they want to change it…now! This gives
educators a great deal of power in these circumstances, a considerable
weapon. This is demonstrated by the Professor’s influence upon Manny, who
would certainly not have gotten mixed up in such silliness if it weren’t for
the involvement of his respected teacher (Wyoh’s figure notwithstanding!)
As for his “younger bomb-throwing days”, such actions can’t be judged
since they are cited completely without context. To automatically condemn
bomb-throwing as a terrorist act is simplistic. All war is bomb-throwing and
nobody has been able to beat America at it. Nonetheless, I don’t think of
America as a terrorist state. Most of our bomb-throwing has been justified.
In the case of the Professor (I’m sorry, I just flashed on “Gilligan’s
Island” and got myself all confused!) we have to judge him on the
information available. Fortunately, we have the opportunity to see him in
his older bomb-throwing days, throwing rocks at the earth.
Throwing these much larger and potentially deadlier rocks, we see him take
pains to avoid having to throw them at all. He