Heinlein Readers Discussion Group For Thursday 03-24-2005 Topic: Least Favorite Heinlein

Heinlein Readers Discussion Group
For Thursday 03-24-2005
Topic: Least Favorite Heinlein

Go To Beginning of Discussion

Here Begin The Postings

Newsgroups: alt.fan.heinlein
Subject: Heinlein Reading Group meeting announcement: March 24 and 26, 2005
From: LNC

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

Topic: What’s your least favorite Heinlein?

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

Place: “Heinlein Readers Group chat” on AIM

Reading Recommended: Funny you should ask that…

Chat Room Moderator: “reilloc,” i.e., me.

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

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

Here’s a list of all the names of the “least fav’s” mentioned so far:

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

Is that it or are there more? Are some there that, clearly, shouldn’t be? Are there some you just can’t help liking?

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

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

L.N.C.
Editor’s Note: This section of posts were made prior to the announcement above From: Dee
Subject: “Least Favorite” Heinlein work
Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2005 20:46:56 -0600

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

My very least favorite is Orphans in the Sky, and my second is Beyond is Horizon. And it has been so long since I read tehm, I don”t even remember why. I do remember thatI had to force myself to stick with Orphans, and that BYT fell copletely flat with me, so much so that I have never had any desire to re-read it. Of course, maybe I should re-read them both, or try to, if only to see if my tastes have changed with time.

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

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

–Dee
From: “LNC”
Subject: Re: “Least Favorite” Heinlein work
Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2005 03:00:05 GMT “Dee” wrote in message news:…

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

Both “The Cat Who Walks Through Walls” and “I Will Fear No Evil” are the Heinleins I haven’t read more than once. I tried “Cat,” again, about a year ago and got taken out of the story by what seemed to me to be trite sexual banter and really tenuous plot. IWFNE, I won’t read again because it bears no relationship in my mind to any other Heinlein works and comes off as undully self-indulgent.

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

L.N.C.
From: lal_truckee
Subject: Re: “Least Favorite” Heinlein work
Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2005 19:19:43 -0800 Dee wrote:

Ah. I particularly liked Beyond This Horizon, I suppose because I sympathize with Felix; his angst parallels mine over the meaning of it all because he doesn’t try to drag deities into the conversation. I also like Heinlein’s dabbling with a centrally controlled economy; shades of the politburo. Fits so well with the libertarian minded folks trying to define Heinlein in their own narrow spectrum. Heinlein is bigger than any number of political/economic theories. From: Howard Berkowitz
Subject: Re: “Least Favorite” Heinlein work
Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2005 18:18:59 -0500 My least favorite is Job. TNotB carried off world-as-myth, while Job didn’t.

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

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

From: Fred J. McCall
Subject: Re: “Least Favorite” Heinlein work
Date: Sat, 05 Feb 2005 00:23:28 GMT Howard Berkowitz wrote:

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

I know how Job felt.

Unfortunately, what we seem to have around here are merely folks who THINK they’re God…. From: “Dr. Rufo”
Subject: Re: “Least Favorite” Heinlein work
Date: Sat, 05 Feb 2005 01:01:31 GMT Fred J. McCall wrote:

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

Sir,

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

From: Fred J. McCall
Subject: Re: “Least Favorite” Heinlein work
Date: Sat, 05 Feb 2005 04:32:02 GMT “Dr. Rufo” wrote: :Fred J. McCall wrote: :

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

So your intent is to offer an example of what I said?

—
“Some people get lost in thought because it’s such unfamiliar
territory.”
–G. Behn

From: Howard Berkowitz
Subject: Re: “Least Favorite” Heinlein work
Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2005 22:57:16 -0500 In article, wrote:

It is said that the difference between God and a neurosurgeon is that God doesn’t think he’s a neurosurgeon. From: Fred J. McCall
Subject: Re: “Least Favorite” Heinlein work
Date: Sat, 05 Feb 2005 04:34:16 GMT Howard Berkowitz wrote:

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

We used to say the same thing about Admiral Rickover.

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

—
“It’s always different. It’s always complex. But at some point,
somebody has to draw the line. And that somebody is always me….
I am the law.”
— Buffy, The Vampire Slayer

From: charles krin
Subject: Re: “Least Favorite” Heinlein work
Date: Sat, 05 Feb 2005 06:33:27 -0600 On Sat, 05 Feb 2005 00:23:28 GMT, Fred J. McCall wrote:

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

What’s the difference between God and A Surgeon? [Spoiler space deleted]

God hasn’t played being a surgeon since he removed Adam’s ribs…

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

From: (Nancy Lebovitz)
Subject: Re: “Least Favorite” Heinlein work
Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 23:18:11 GMT In article, lal_truckee wrote:

As a kid, I didn’t like Beyond This Horizon–it seemed vague and unfocused. When I reread it relatively recently, I liked it much better–Heinlein did a brilliant job of getting things to happen in a relatively utopian society, and I’m fond of the bit about a person is no more their gene map than a map is the territory.

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

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

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

—
Nancy Lebovitz http://www.nancybuttons.com
“We’ve tamed the lightning and taught sand to give error messages.”
http://livejournal.com/users/nancylebov

From: pixelmeow
Subject: Re: “Least Favorite” Heinlein work
Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2005 23:27:15 -0500 On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 20:46:56 -0600, in alt.fan.heinlein, Dee scribbled:

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

My least favorite is IWFNE. Period, stop, end. That’s it. I just don’t like it. I don’t like the banter, I don’t like the old guy just automatically turning into the young sexpot woman. Hell, I just don’t like any of it. Bleh.

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

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

—
~teresa~
AFH Barwench

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

From: “Kay Archer”
Subject: Re: “Least Favorite” Heinlein work
Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2005 23:24:25 -0600

Least favorite: Farnham’s Freehold

Scariest: Puppet Masters

Favorite: Farmer in the Sky
From: “Peter D. Tillman”
Subject: Scariest? Re: “Least Favorite” Heinlein work
Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2005 10:37:13 -0700 In article, “Kay Archer” wrote:

>
> Scariest: Puppet Masters

Second to that. How does the (fairly recent) ‘uncut’ edition compare to the ‘standard used pb’ one?

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

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

Cheers — Pete Tillman

From: Chris Zakes
Subject: Re: Scariest? Re: “Least Favorite” Heinlein work
Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2005 21:04:27 GMT On Fri, 04 Feb 2005 10:37:13 -0700, an orbital mind-control laser caused “Peter D. Tillman” to write:

>In article ,
> “Kay Archer” wrote:
>
>>
>> Scariest: Puppet Masters
>
>Second to that. How does the (fairly recent) ‘uncut’ edition compare to
>the ‘standard used pb’ one?

It’s even scarier. A lot of what Heinlein cut out of the original publication was stuff that was considered “too strong” for his 1951 audience.

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

-Chris Zakes
Texas

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

-H.P. Lovecraft, “The Shadow Over Innsmouth”

From: Mac
Subject: Re: Scariest? Re: “Least Favorite” Heinlein work
Date: Sat, 05 Feb 2005 03:09:50 GMT On Fri, 04 Feb 2005 10:37:13 -0700, “Peter D. Tillman” wrote:

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

Well, if you are really curious, perhaps you might wish to obtain copies of both editions and do your own research??

—Mac

From: “R Oxley”
Subject: Re: Scariest? Re: “Least Favorite” Heinlein work
Date: Sat, 5 Feb 2005 02:34:11 -0800 “Mac” wrote in message news:…

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

I am happy to say that I have copies of all FOUR editions, the 3 installment serial in Galaxy magazine, the original hard cover, the original PB, and the “uncut” PB. By far, the best version is the “uncut” paperback. The story plot is the same, the charactors are the same, the various events and situations are the same, but the “small stuff” that got edited out of the serialized version by the Galaxy editor, then by RAH for the original HC and PB versions, makes a very large and unsuspected difference to the feel of the story. IMHO, the uncut version is a MUCH darker story, and richer. I am very glad that Ginny authorized the publication of the various “uncut” versions of the Master’s works, for the books that this was possible to do. In the portion of the Galaxy serial I have read, the differences really make no sense to me, except that there has yet to be any kind of editor that does not have an unshakeable belief that there is no story that is so good, that he/she the editor cannot make it better. It seems that this particular editor had a bad reputation for making lots of unnecessary alterations (adulterations?) to every story published by Galaxy while he worked there.

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

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

Bob
From: “David M. Silver”
Subject: Re: Scariest? Re: “Least Favorite” Heinlein work
Date: Sat, 05 Feb 2005 05:26:08 -0800 In article, “R Oxley” wrote:

> “Mac” wrote in message
> news:…
> > On Fri, 04 Feb 2005 10:37:13 -0700, “Peter D. Tillman”
> > wrote:
> >
> >>In article ,
> >> “Kay Archer” wrote:
> > **************************
> >> Scariest: Puppet Masters
> >>
> >>Second to that. How does the (fairly recent) ‘uncut’ edition compare to
> >>the ‘standard used pb’ one?
> >>
> >>Interesting offshoot: the “Gary-brains” in Rudy Rucker’s very amusing
> >>_Master of Space & Time_, which are slug shoulder-riders explicitly
> >>modelled on the RAH classic.
> > *******************************
> > Well, if you are really curious, perhaps you might wish to
> > obtain copies of both editions and do your own research??
> > —Mac
>
> I am happy to say that I have copies of all FOUR editions, the 3 installment
> serial in Galaxy magazine, the original hard cover, the original PB, and the
> “uncut” PB. By far, the best version is the “uncut” paperback. The story
> plot is the same, the charactors are the same, the various events and
> situations are the same, but the “small stuff” that got edited out of the
> serialized version by the Galaxy editor, then by RAH for the original HC and
> PB versions, makes a very large and unsuspected difference to the feel of
> the story. IMHO, the uncut version is a MUCH darker story, and richer. I am
> very glad that Ginny authorized the publication of the various “uncut”
> versions of the Master’s works, for the books that this was possible to do.
> In the portion of the Galaxy serial I have read, the differences really make
> no sense to me, except that there has yet to be any kind of editor that does
> not have an unshakeable belief that there is no story that is so good, that
> he/she the editor cannot make it better. It seems that this particular
> editor had a bad reputation for making lots of unnecessary alterations
> (adulterations?) to every story published by Galaxy while he worked there.
>
> I mentioned my acquisition here in this NG when I purchased the Galaxy
> serial installments, and my intention to do a parallel reading/study of the
> three versions of the story, and my plan to post a short report of my
> findings. I actually started doing so, but after a few chapters, I had some
> major claims on my free time that caused me to put these books aside, and I
> have not yet returned to it. I did, however, discover that this sort of
> reading method is rather slow, and sometimes exasperating! Plus, with the
> old hardcover and old Galaxy copies, it is necessary to be very careful in
> handling them.
>
> I’ll get back to this project one of these days. Perhaps I’m just awaiting
> the arrival of a round tuit.
>
> Bob

It’s a very worthwhile project, Bob; and might be just the thing for a Journal article. I think Gold was the editor. Despite RAH’s concern over what he did with the Galaxy serial version, I’ve heard RAH nevertheless got along with him in later years, personally.

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

—
David M. Silver

“The Lieutenant expects your names to shine!”
Robert Anson Heinlein, USNA ’29
Lt.(jg), USN, R’td

From: “R Oxley”
Subject: Re: Scariest? Re: “Least Favorite” Heinlein work
Date: Sat, 5 Feb 2005 19:22:39 -0800 “David M. Silver” wrote in message news:…

> In article ,
> “R Oxley” wrote:
>

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

You might have provided me the the needed “round tuit”, David.

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

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

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

Bob
From: “David M. Silver”
Subject: Re: Scariest? Re: “Least Favorite” Heinlein work
Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2005 09:20:26 -0800

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

It’s the short four paragraph passage at the beginning of Chapter IV, at pp. 34-5, in my paperback Del Rey, fifth printing, May 1990, beginning with “I _woke_ up at dusk. The room I was in had a real window. … ” and continuing onto the next page to the vine and figtree indirect quote, ending ” … as it says.”

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

—
David M. Silver

“The Lieutenant expects your names to shine!”
Robert Anson Heinlein, USNA ’29
Lt.(jg), USN, R’td

From: “R Oxley”
Subject: Re: Scariest? Re: “Least Favorite” Heinlein work
Date: Sun, 6 Feb 2005 22:23:29 -0800 “David M. Silver” wrote in message news:…

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

Hi David,

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

Galaxy serialization, Sep51, page 22:

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

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

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

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

So, not a lot of changes, but if you totally remove an entire sentence in every other paragraph, pretty soon you are talking about an enormous amount of cutting! And it started on the first page of the first chapter, deleting whole paragraphs, from the serial, half of which was restored for the first HC.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bob
From: “David M. Silver”
Subject: Re: Scariest? Re: “Least Favorite” Heinlein work
Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2005 07:08:29 -0800 In article, “R Oxley” wrote:

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

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

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

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

—
David M. Silver

“The Lieutenant expects your names to shine!”
Robert Anson Heinlein, USNA ’29
Lt.(jg), USN, R’td

From: “R Oxley”
Subject: Re: Scariest? Re: “Least Favorite” Heinlein work
Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2005 12:56:34 -0800 “David M. Silver” wrote in message news:…

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

Thanks David,

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

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

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

Bob
From: “David M. Silver”
Subject: Re: Scariest? Re: “Least Favorite” Heinlein work
Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2005 13:29:09 -0800 In article, “R Oxley” wrote:

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

Mike Sheffield works really hard on blood drives for us. He’ll appreciate seeing you.

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

Thanks for letting me know. Durn! Unless they’ve changed something, ConDor XII is set for Easter weekend, March 25 – 27, 2005, and I’m already inked in then for three or so panels at Norwescon in Seattle. where I’ve been three of the last four years. Maybe at this somewhat late date Alec Iorio, aka Rufo, our programming coordinator, can get a Heinlein panel or two set on schedule down there? I’ll see what we can do. Wanna help?

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

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

—
David M. Silver

“The Lieutenant expects your names to shine!”
Robert Anson Heinlein, USNA ’29
Lt.(jg), USN, R’td

From: “David M. Silver”
Subject: Re: Scariest? Re: “Least Favorite” Heinlein work
Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2005 15:23:22 -0800 In article, “R Oxley” wrote:

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

By the way, Alec tells me the Guest of Honor is John Varley, whose recent _Red Thunder_ is better, I think, that most of the other Heinlein tributes he’s written, such as Steel Beach.

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

—
David M. Silver

“The Lieutenant expects your names to shine!”
Robert Anson Heinlein, USNA ’29
Lt.(jg), USN, R’td

From: (jeanette)
Subject: Re: Scariest? Re: “Least Favorite” Heinlein work
Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2005 21:11:06 -0800

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

Jeanette–giving it her strongest if you like RAH you should read…… recommendation.
From: Chris Zakes
Subject: Re: Scariest? Re: “Least Favorite” Heinlein work
Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2005 18:48:33 GMT On Sat, 5 Feb 2005 19:22:39 -0800, an orbital mind-control laser caused “R Oxley” to write:

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

Going from memory, it’s either just before or just after Sam runs into Mary at the Library of Congress. Probably before. So fairly early in the book, maybe chapter 2 or 3.

-Chris Zakes
Texas

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

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

From: Chris Zakes
Subject: Re: Scariest? Re: “Least Favorite” Heinlein work
Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2005 18:53:27 GMT On Sat, 5 Feb 2005 02:34:11 -0800, an orbital mind-control laser caused “R Oxley” to write:

>
>”Mac” wrote in message
>news:…
>> On Fri, 04 Feb 2005 10:37:13 -0700, “Peter D. Tillman”
>> wrote:
>>
>>>In article ,
>>> “Kay Archer” wrote:
>> **************************
>>> Scariest: Puppet Masters
>>>
>>>Second to that. How does the (fairly recent) ‘uncut’ edition compare to
>>>the ‘standard used pb’ one?
>>>
>>>Interesting offshoot: the “Gary-brains” in Rudy Rucker’s very amusing
>>>_Master of Space & Time_, which are slug shoulder-riders explicitly
>>>modelled on the RAH classic.
>> *******************************
>> Well, if you are really curious, perhaps you might wish to
>> obtain copies of both editions and do your own research??
>> —Mac
>
>I am happy to say that I have copies of all FOUR editions, the 3 installment
>serial in Galaxy magazine, the original hard cover, the original PB, and the
>”uncut” PB. By far, the best version is the “uncut” paperback. The story
>plot is the same, the charactors are the same, the various events and
>situations are the same, but the “small stuff” that got edited out of the
>serialized version by the Galaxy editor, then by RAH for the original HC and
>PB versions, makes a very large and unsuspected difference to the feel of
>the story. IMHO, the uncut version is a MUCH darker story, and richer. I am
>very glad that Ginny authorized the publication of the various “uncut”
>versions of the Master’s works, for the books that this was possible to do.
>In the portion of the Galaxy serial I have read, the differences really make
>no sense to me, except that there has yet to be any kind of editor that does
>not have an unshakeable belief that there is no story that is so good, that
>he/she the editor cannot make it better. It seems that this particular
>editor had a bad reputation for making lots of unnecessary alterations
>(adulterations?) to every story published by Galaxy while he worked there.

Have you read the comments about Mr. Gold in “Grumbles From the Grave”? Heinlein was *not* pleased with his editing because, in his opinion, Gold watered down his prose too much. The classic example was:

Heinlein: “Eat it or I’ll rub it in your hair”

Gold: “Eat it or you’ll get it through a tube.”

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

-Chris Zakes
Texas

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

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

From: lal_truckee
Subject: Re: “Least Favorite” Heinlein work
Date: Sat, 05 Feb 2005 15:02:15 -0800 Kay Archer wrote:

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

I find the short “He Built a Crooked House” quite scary. There’s something frightening about accidentally being trapped in 4-space with no way back. No Boogey Men, no monsters, no deliberate scary elements, just a situation.

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

>
> Favorite: Farmer in the Sky
>
>

From: Fred J. McCall
Subject: Re: “Least Favorite” Heinlein work
Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2005 05:35:27 GMT Dee wrote:

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

Well, you got that one right in my case, Dee. Or at least half right. I didn’t mind I will Fear No Evil, but Number of the Beast was, to my mind, a book better left unread.

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

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

From: (Oliver Gampe)
Subject: Re: “Least Favorite” Heinlein work
Date: 04 Feb 2005 07:10:00 +0100 Dee wrote… (in) > So, anybody else want to go for some casual conversation and personal > opinion, as oposed to erudite literary review? Nicely put 🙂 (Though isn’t a review just a personal opinion, too? What else could it be?)

At the moment, I don’t like

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

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

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

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

There are far more Heinleins that I really like, of course. But that’s a different issue 😉

—
Regards
Oliver

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

From: Dee
Subject: Re: “Least Favorite” Heinlein work
Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2005 01:58:57 -0600 Oliver Gampe wrote:

> Dee wrote…
> (in )
>
>
>>So, anybody else want to go for some casual conversation and personal
>>opinion, as oposed to erudite literary review?
>
>
> Nicely put 🙂
> (Though isn’t a review just a personal opinion, too? What else could
> it be?)

I cannot explain the ifference nearly as well as David and Bill P. and others can, but lit. crit. is something moch more than just a subjective statement of what I liked or disliked. I enjoy reading what they have to say, but I don’t have anything to contribute to htat kind of discussion. But just some easy-going conversation, that’s fun. too.

> At the moment, I don’t like

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

Well, Friday is pretty damned smart in some senses, and stupid in others. She is not very people-smart, a0dn she is blinded by her own insecurity about her AP status. It is at the same time, aggravating and endearing. But without that flaw, she woudl have been boringly superhuman — pretty, smart, strong, fast, sexually uninhibited. I like FRIDAY, and I think I would probaby like Friday if I ever got to meet her. But I can see how she could be very irritating with that “stupidity” you mention. Make you either want to comfort her, or give her a good hard shake!

–Dee

From: Fred J. McCall
Subject: Re: “Least Favorite” Heinlein work
Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2005 16:50:08 GMT Dee wrote:

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

Literary criticism is supposed to be based on some sort of professional assessment of the author and the writing.

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

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

From: “LNC”
Subject: Re: “Least Favorite” Heinlein work
Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2005 17:06:51 GMT “Fred J. McCall” wrote in message news:…

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

For the people who missed that because they’ve got him sequestered behind software, Fred said, “it’s like the difference between telling her hello and suggesting that she’d ever have any interest in a loud-mouthed, overly-opinionated, off-color, generally-clueless masher like you.” Like him, that is. You know, the guy down at Trader Vic’s drinking the pina colada? Perfect hair?

L.N.C.
From: Fred J. McCall
Subject: Re: “Least Favorite” Heinlein work
Date: Sat, 05 Feb 2005 00:11:35 GMT “LNC” wrote:

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

Ah, still a liar, I see.

No surprise here.

—
“False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the
soul with evil.”

— Socrates From: (Oliver Gampe)
Subject: Re: “Least Favorite” Heinlein work
Date: 04 Feb 2005 18:56:00 +0100 Dee wrote… (in)

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

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

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

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

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

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

I had a problem with merging those two views of her, I think. It probably is why I felt the book inconsistent, too. There were those two persons in one, but the strong part made her weak part look even more stupid. I guess I felt she was too clever to be so dumb. Something like that.

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

In trying the latter I would be afraid to lose both arms and maybe some other… vital organs a little lower. 😉

—
Regards
Oliver

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

From: Dee
Subject: Re: “Least Favorite” Heinlein work
Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2005 16:37:33 -0600 Oliver Gampe wrote:

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

I think you are right about a difference, but I think I would drw the line a little higher than you do below.

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

I think I woulod use the term review to describe what you are considering a critique–something that does not merely express what I like, but describes what the reader may like or not like, and why.

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

That would be closer to literary criticism, I think.

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

As for the fairly unadorned expression of personal opionio you described first, I would just call that personal opinion. At least that is how I would separate out the differences in my mind. I’ll take a look at Webster’s for something more definitive that _my_ personal opinion. 🙂

The pertinent definitions from online dictionary:

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

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

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

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

The way I saw Friay, she was not stupid, she was damaged. Damaged by her creche upbringing, which he father regretted so much. Imagine what Friday would have been if she had been raised in a family setting! An extraordinary person, for sure, but not nearly asinteresting to us ordinary mortals, maybe. Seeing her blosssom and outgrow the limitations she imposed on herself is quite gratifying to me.

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

Well, there is that. 🙂

–Dee

From: Howard Berkowitz
Subject: Re: “Least Favorite” Heinlein work
Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2005 22:28:33 -0500

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

My least favorite is Job. Oh, there are interesting scenes, but of all RAH’s works, it feels like it was written by a committee, or by throwing device. I recognize entropy will eventually win, but there he gave it a running start.
From: (LV Poker Player)
Date: 04 Feb 2005 06:35:01 GMT
Subject: Re: “Least Favorite” Heinlein work

>From: Dee

>My very least favorite is Orphans in the Sky,

I like it, although I would not rate it as a favorite.

> and my second is Beyond is
>Horizon.

Below Orphans, for me, although once again I would not rate it as a least favorite.

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

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

Me too.

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

From: marc
Subject: Re: “Least Favorite” Heinlein work
Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2005 09:53:25 +0000 (UTC) On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 20:46:56 -0600, Dee wrote:

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

Farnhams Freehold.

It was so dark and depressing, with all of the edgy racist underpinnings, urgh!
From: “Sean”
Subject: Re: “Least Favorite” Heinlein work
Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2005 20:15:35 +1000 “Dee”

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

Least favourite: Anything after 1970. I will re-read, no problem, just don’t get as much thrill-factor out of them.

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

From: “Big_Fella”
Subject: Re: “Least Favorite” Heinlein work
Date: Sat, 5 Feb 2005 01:39:30 +1000 “Sean” wrote in message news:… “Dee”

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

Sean, I mean no disrespect, but can you clarify ” Thrill Factor” for me? :-[ ) From: “Sean”
Subject: Re: “Least Favorite” Heinlein work
Date: Sat, 5 Feb 2005 14:03:50 +1000 “Big_Fella”

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

Sure. The thrill factor for me is related to the time I began reading Heinlein. I was a young boy during the Apollo missions, and my 8th birthday was just nine days before Armstrong set foot on the moon. Not so long after that I found Heinlein’s juveniles in my school library. I was one of those kids who collected cards in serial boxes, and sent away for the poster to stick them on. The cards were of the Apollo missions and to me they were the most fantastic pictures I had ever seen. For me, at that particular time, and at that particular age, I had discovered an author who was talking directly to me about something I loved dearly. Through Heinlein I not only went to the moon with the Apollo astronauts, but beyond, to other planets and stars. He showed me how it was done, through the nuts and bolts of “hard SF”, and it was so real. The thrill factor was huge.

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

From: Pete LaGrange Subject: Re: “Least Favorite” Heinlein work
Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2005 23:23:19 -0500 On Sat, 05 Feb 2005 14:03:50 +1000, Sean wrote:

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

Good health, my friend,

—
Pete LaGrange

From: pixelmeow
Subject: Re: “Least Favorite” Heinlein work
Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2005 23:50:30 -0500 On Fri, 04 Feb 2005 23:23:19 -0500, in alt.fan.heinlein, Pete LaGrange scribbled:

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

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

—
~teresa~
AFH Barwench

From: Pete LaGrange Subject: Re: “Least Favorite” Heinlein work
Date: Sat, 05 Feb 2005 10:26:31 -0500 On Fri, 04 Feb 2005 23:50:30 -0500, pixelmeow wrote:

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

Thank you kindly, dear miss.

—
Pete LaGrange

From: (Michael Black)
Subject: Re: “Least Favorite” Heinlein work
Date: 5 Feb 2005 06:18:38 GMT Pete LaGrange () writes:

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

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

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

Michael
From: Pete LaGrange Subject: Re: “Least Favorite” Heinlein work
Date: Sat, 05 Feb 2005 10:18:02 -0500 On Sat, 05 Feb 2005 06:18:38 +0000, Michael Black wrote:

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

I didn’t. My folks were of the opinion that “all that money” could have been spent better elsewhere, hence no souvenirs.

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

I did have a bunch of newspaper clippings at one point, but they’re all gone, now.

—
Pete LaGrange

From: Fred J. McCall
Subject: Re: “Least Favorite” Heinlein work
Date: Sat, 05 Feb 2005 16:08:47 GMT Pete LaGrange wrote:

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

Mine felt that way, too, but it didn’t stop them from supporting my interest when I was little.

—
You are
What you do
When it counts.

From: Pete LaGrange Subject: Re: “Least Favorite” Heinlein work
Date: Sat, 05 Feb 2005 11:21:27 -0500 On Sat, 05 Feb 2005 16:08:47 +0000, Fred J. McCall wrote:

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

Well. I’d count myself lucky, were I you.

—
Pete LaGrange

From: Fred J. McCall
Subject: Re: “Least Favorite” Heinlein work
Date: Sat, 05 Feb 2005 21:18:47 GMT Pete LaGrange wrote:

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

I really do. When I look back, my parents did a pretty damned good job, especially given the small amount of money they had to work with.

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

From: “Sean”
Subject: Re: “Least Favorite” Heinlein work
Date: Sat, 5 Feb 2005 19:17:57 +1000 “Pete LaGrange”

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

Thanks Pete, and to your’s as well. As you might expect, for us “that night” was in fact our daytime, and all us schoolkids were allowed to go home and watch the historic event on TV. Growing up as a kid in the sixties was certainly interesting, for me at least.

From: Pete LaGrange Subject: Re: “Least Favorite” Heinlein work
Date: Sat, 05 Feb 2005 10:24:53 -0500 On Sat, 05 Feb 2005 19:17:57 +1000, Sean wrote:

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

Aye, interesting. Summer of ’68, shopping with Mom, SoCal, Got a little ahead of her and entered a storefront with soaped up windows. Wall-to-wall naked bodies, writhing like snakes. Stood there a few seconds ’til Mom grabbed my ear and dragged me away. Took me years to understand what I had seen, she still swears it never happened. Interesting.

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

—
Pete LaGrange

From: “Big_Fella”
Subject: Re: “Least Favorite” Heinlein work
Date: Sat, 5 Feb 2005 14:28:01 +1000 “Sean” wrote in message news:…

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

That’s pretty clear, thanks Sean. I wish I had encountered Heinlein in my youth. I do remember being utterly entranced by the moon landing. And I remember the cards in the Weet- bix boxes (or was it Weeties) (no, Weeties had the coin balance rolling toys iirc). I remember I had a big moon poster and several scrap books full of anything to do with the moon landing. I envy everyone’s childhood experiences of RAH. I, also would have liked to have had to read the serialised versions in the pulps. The breathless anticipation, waiting for the next instalment, wondering what would have to our hero/s and/or heroine/s. There is no better feeling than to have the unknown suddenly become known, as a child.

:-[ )
From: (Michael Black)
Subject: Re: “Least Favorite” Heinlein work
Date: 5 Feb 2005 06:15:03 GMT “Sean” () writes:

I had a scrap book, still have it, of articles about the space program. But there are also some articles in there about 2001: A Space Oddysey. At that particular point, and that particular age (I was 8 when the film came out), there wasn’t a lot of distinction between the two. I knew some was real and some imagined, but the imagined seemed to be the future. Think of all those “artists conceptions” in National Geographic and elsewhere, about the future of the space program. That wasn’t intended to be fiction, it was intended to show where we might be going.

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

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

Michael

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

From: (Nancy Lebovitz)
Subject: Re: “Least Favorite” Heinlein work
Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 23:29:10 GMT In article, Sean wrote:

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

Hmm–I wonder if there’s something kind of claustrophobic about late Heinlein. Even when he gets the story off earth, you don’t find anything out there but what’s in the usual human imagination. —

—
Nancy Lebovitz http://www.nancybuttons.com
“We’ve tamed the lightning and taught sand to give error messages.”
http://livejournal.com/users/nancylebov

From: Jamie Hart Subject: Re: “Least Favorite” Heinlein work
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 14:26:06 +0000

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

I think his emphasis moved from the how to the why.

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

We know more about how the City of Chillicothe worked than we do about how Dora worked, but we knew much more about why Dora was named that, and how she felt about it.
From: “David M. Silver”
Subject: Re: “Least Favorite” Heinlein work
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 10:07:42 -0800 In article, Jamie Hart

wrote:

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

And what produced the character that named Dora that, and how he felt about it. Nice put, Jamie; even what the author felt we should feel about his characters, plots and settings might be said to be among what we know in his later stories.

—
David M. Silver

“The Lieutenant expects your names to shine!”
Robert Anson Heinlein, USNA ’29
Lt.(jg), USN, R’td

From: Denny Wheeler
Subject: Re: “Least Favorite” Heinlein work
Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2005 04:19:41 -0800 On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 20:46:56 -0600, Dee wrote:

I’ve read ‘Orphans’ once, and it’s been a long time. I don’t, as a general rule, re-read the juvies much. Exception: _The Star Beast_. (I don’t count _Citizen of the Galaxy_ as one of the juvies–if it’s so considered, register my disagreement)

I rather like ‘Horizon’–not so much as many others, but more than several.

Likewise for me–I think overall my favorite is ‘Number’; I can’t read it without large smiles and laughter.

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

Least favorite–I think that’s ‘Jonathan Hoag’; I like the twist in the tale, but there’s far too much labor involved getting there.

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

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

From: “TreetopAngel” Subject: Re: “Least Favorite” Heinlein work
Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2005 07:49:45 -0700 “Dee” writes:

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

FUTL and Job. Dunno, just don’t care for them.

E!
From: (Peter Scott)
Subject: Re: “Least Favorite” Heinlein work
Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2005 15:24:17 GMT

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

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

—
Peter Scott

From: Jackie
Subject: Re: “Least Favorite” Heinlein work
Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2005 15:10:19 -0500 Dee wrote:

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

I’m not to sure. I’m inclined to say that Orphans in the Sky ranks somewhere down there, but I only read it once, and that was a while ago, so I don’t recall what I did or didn’t like about it. I also don’t really like “Successful Operation (from Expanded Universe). I’ve reread that book lots of times, but I often skip that one story.

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

~*~Jackie~*~

From: Jackie
Subject: Re: “Least Favorite” Heinlein work
Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2005 15:26:21 -0500 Jackie wrote:

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

Oops, I left out an o. It’s been a long week, and I think my fingers are protesting and telling me to get off the computer and go get some sleep.

~*~Jackie~*~

From: (Michael Black)
Subject: Re: “Least Favorite” Heinlein work
Date: 4 Feb 2005 21:18:11 GMT Jackie () writes:

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

“Orphan in the Sky” may be less successful because it has a different venue than many of the rest of the books.

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

Michael

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

From: Ogden Johnson III
Subject: Re: “Least Favorite” Heinlein work
Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2005 18:15:33 -0500 (Michael Black) wrote:

>>> My very least favorite is Orphans in the Sky, and my second is Beyond is
>>> Horizon. And it has been so long since I read tehm, I don”t even
>>> remember why. I do remember thatI had to force myself to stick with
>>> Orphans, and that BYT fell copletely flat with me, so much so that I
>>> have never had any desire to re-read it. Of course, maybe I should
>>> re-read them both, or try to, if only to see if my tastes have changed
>>> with time.

>> I’m not to sure. I’m inclined to say that Orphans in the Sky ranks
>> somewhere down there, but I only read it once, and that was a while ago,
>> so I don’t recall what I did or didn’t like about it. I also don’t
>> really like “Successful Operation (from Expanded Universe). I’ve reread
>> that book lots of times, but I often skip that one story.

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

Several years ago, early for a DC-area meet at that Dim Sum joint at Seven Corners I wandered into a B&N which was well-stocked with Heinlein PBs. Several books heavier, and $$s lighter, I left for lunch having remedied some holes in the RAH “juvenile” section of my library. I have read all of them since, several of them twice, save one. Orphan in the Sky. Started it, laid it aside … resumed, laid it aside … resumed, laid it aside … about a half-dozen times over the years. I am at p 126 of 209 pp total, having picked it up for the first time in at least a year, more likely 18 months solely to get that number.

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

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

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

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

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

From: Norman Bullen
Subject: Re: “Least Favorite” Heinlein work
Date: Sat, 05 Feb 2005 19:16:42 GMT Ogden Johnson III wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

From: (LV Poker Player)
Subject: Re: “Least Favorite” Heinlein work
Date: 05 Feb 2005 23:31:18 GMT

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

I am unable to find it in Google, but I once posted this and someone pointed out an earlier example, but I cannot remember the title or author. Can someone else come up with this?

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

From: Alan Dicey
Subject: Re: “Least Favorite” Heinlein work
Date: Sat, 05 Feb 2005 23:54:43 +0000 LV Poker Player wrote:

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

This site

http://www.bewilderingstories.com/issue94/generation_ships.html mentions “Don Wilcox’s “The Voyage that Lasted 600 Years” (Amazing, October 1940)” as the first, but also acknowledges that “The template for all such plots is Robert A. Heinlein’s classic “Universe” (Astounding, May 1941).” Universe + Common Sense = Orphans in the Sky. Generation ships used to be know as “Universe” ships in the fan community.
From: Norman Bullen
Subject: Re: “Least Favorite” Heinlein work
Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2005 03:12:52 GMT Alan Dicey wrote:

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

Thanks!

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

From: Chris Zakes
Subject: Re: “Least Favorite” Heinlein work
Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2005 18:34:17 GMT On 05 Feb 2005 23:31:18 GMT, an orbital mind-control laser caused (LV Poker Player) to write:

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

FWIW, “Methuseleh’s Children” is, technically, the first Heinlein generation ship story (July/Aug/Sept of 1941 vs October of ’41, both in “Astounding Science Fiction”.)

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

-Chris Zakes
Texas

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

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

From: Ogden Johnson III
Subject: Re: “Least Favorite” Heinlein work
Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2005 13:30:18 -0500 Norman Bullen wrote:

>Ogden Johnson III wrote:

> < snipped >

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

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

As noted elsewhere in this thread, RAH wrote/published OitS 3-4 years before I was born. By the time I “discovered” SF, all of those generation ship stories that followed his lead had long since been written and anthologized for years. Ergo, whatever OitS’s primacy of place in 1940, by the time I stumbled across it, I had, as noted, read enough of the follower-in-footsteps examples that the theme left me cold. C’est la vie. My loss. But I did try again, give me credit for that, however similar the result was in the end.

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

From: (jeanette)
Subject: Re: “Least Favorite” Heinlein work
Date: Sun, 6 Feb 2005 19:49:16 -0800 OJIII–For a newer “generation ship” story, read “Paradises Lost” in THE BIRTHDAY OF THE WORLD by Ursula LeGuin. It came out a couple years ago. I think it is the best story in the book. It may not be your cuppa–but I really, really liked it.

My least favorite Heinlein varies–JOB and NUMBER would be on the list–but I will re-read them. FUTL shouldn’t count as it is more of an artifact. My favorites vary and I have a whole lot more on that list.

Scariest is JONATHAN HOGG. I haven’t made time early enough on a summer day to reread that one for a few years. Need a lot of time to let it settle before I can go to sleep.

Jeanette
From: (LV Poker Player)
Subject: Re: “Least Favorite” Heinlein work
Date: 05 Feb 2005 23:25:57 GMT

Not only relative simpletons, but not Heinlein heroes either. In a typical Heinlein, a villain might punch a woman to get her to shut up, but certainly not the main character. Treating women as property was part of their culture, but in a typical Heinlein there would have been SOME effort on the part of the main characters to rise above this. These people simply were not very likable.

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

From: “David Wright Sr.”
Subject: Re: “Least Favorite” Heinlein work
Date: 4 Feb 2005 20:38:22 GMT Dee wrote in news::

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

I don’t have a ‘least’ favorite nor a ‘favorite’, the latter being whatever I happen to be reading at the time. ;-)>

_Job – A Comedy of Manners_ would probably be considered a ‘lesser’ favorite, but I can’t particularly say why.

When I first read _The Number Of The Beast_, I had considerable trouble following the shifting POV without constantly looking at the bottom of the page to see who was talking. However, I thoroughly enjoyed the book as a whole and re-read it about as often as I do any other. I particularly enjoyed the fact that RAH showed ‘competence’ over ‘brain(Jake)’, ‘brawn(Zeb) and beauty(Deety) in having Hilda become the permanent Captain.

When I first read it, I thought that was intended to be his last book because of all of the bringing together of people and themes from most of his earlier work. Fortunately, it didn’t turn out that way.

I have been reading Heinlein for 51 years at least. I am an uncritical reader. I simply read a story rather than trying to think about it. I think that this makes it easier for me to get something new out of a Heinlein work nearly every time I read one.

Although I said I am not critical, I am re-reading everything now specifically looking for language and linguistics references for the paper I want to write.

—
David Wright
If you haven’t joined the Society, Why Not?
https://www.heinleinsociety.org/join.html

Keep Up with the Latest
https://www.heinleinsociety.org/updates.html

Benefit The Heinlein Society by ordering books thru
http://home.alltel.net/dwrighsr/heinlein-amazon.htm

From: Denny Wheeler
Subject: Re: “Least Favorite” Heinlein work
Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2005 13:43:15 -0800 On 4 Feb 2005 20:38:22 GMT, “David Wright Sr.” wrote:

>_Job – A Comedy of Manners_ would probably be considered a ‘lesser’
>favorite, but I can’t particularly say why.

Isn’t that “A Comedy of Justice”?

From: “David Wright Sr.”
Subject: Re: “Least Favorite” Heinlein work
Date: 5 Feb 2005 04:18:29 GMT Denny Wheeler wrote in news::

> On 4 Feb 2005 20:38:22 GMT, “David Wright Sr.”
> wrote:
>
>>_Job – A Comedy of Manners_ would probably be considered a ‘lesser’
>>favorite, but I can’t particularly say why.
>
> Isn’t that “A Comedy of Justice”?
> -denny-
> —

You are absolutely correct. I must correct my SpeedType program. Where in the world I did get ‘manners’.

Thanks.

—
David Wright
If you haven’t joined the Society, Why Not?
https://www.heinleinsociety.org/join.html

Keep Up with the Latest
https://www.heinleinsociety.org/updates.html

Benefit The Heinlein Society by ordering books thru
http://home.alltel.net/dwrighsr/heinlein-amazon.htm

From: Denny Wheeler
Subject: Re: “Least Favorite” Heinlein work
Date: Sat, 05 Feb 2005 01:08:35 -0800 On 5 Feb 2005 04:18:29 GMT, “David Wright Sr.” wrote:

>Denny Wheeler wrote in
>news::
>
>> On 4 Feb 2005 20:38:22 GMT, “David Wright Sr.”
>> wrote:
>>
>>>_Job – A Comedy of Manners_ would probably be considered a ‘lesser’
>>>favorite, but I can’t particularly say why.
>>
>> Isn’t that “A Comedy of Justice”?
>> -denny-
>> —
>
>You are absolutely correct. I must correct my SpeedType program. Where in
>the world did get ‘manners’.

It’s fond of Congreve, Sheridan, and Goldsmith? (as playwrights, that is)

>Thanks.

You’re welcome. For a moment there, I was doubting my memory. (it’s leaky enough…)

From: “Paul L. Alban”
Subject: Re: “Least Favorite” Heinlein work
Date: Sun, 6 Feb 2005 11:15:05 -0500 “David Wright Sr.” wrote in message news:Xns95F3ED1A56C0Fnokvamli@130.133.1.4…

> Denny Wheeler wrote in
> news::
>
>> On 4 Feb 2005 20:38:22 GMT, “David Wright Sr.”
>> wrote:
>>
>>>_Job – A Comedy of Manners_ would probably be considered a ‘lesser’
>>>favorite, but I can’t particularly say why.
>>
>> Isn’t that “A Comedy of Justice”?
>> -denny-
>> —
>
> You are absolutely correct. I must correct my SpeedType program. Where in
> the world did get ‘manners’.

You got ‘manners’ from The Cat Who Walks Through Walls.

Paul
From: “David Wright Sr.”
Subject: Re: “Least Favorite” Heinlein work
Date: 6 Feb 2005 18:36:33 GMT “Paul L. Alban” wrote in news::

>
> “David Wright Sr.” wrote in message
> news:Xns95F3ED1A56C0Fnokvamli@130.133.1.4…
>> Denny Wheeler wrote in

(snip)

>>>
>>> Isn’t that “A Comedy of Justice”?
>>> -denny-
>>> —
>>
>> You are absolutely correct. I must correct my SpeedType program.
>> Where in the world did get ‘manners’.
>
> You got ‘manners’ from The Cat Who Walks Through Walls.
>

You are right. I knew that I was sure that I had gotten it from one of RAH’s books, but couldn’t remember where.

—
David Wright
If you haven’t joined The Heinlein Society, Why Not?
The Heinlein Estate is again matching new member
registrations and fund raising up to $15,000
Make your new membership count twice!

From: “Nolan”
Subject: Re: “Least Favorite” Heinlein work
Date: 6 Feb 2005 08:17:10 -0800 I know! I know!

– TCwWTW is subtitled “A Comedy of Manners”… although I never could understand why. Just too uncultured, I guess.

Nolan
From: “David M. Silver”
Subject: Re: “Least Favorite” Heinlein work
Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2005 10:16:55 -0800 In article, “Nolan” wrote:

> I know! I know!
>
> – TCwWTW is subtitled “A Comedy of Manners”… although I never could
> understand why. Just too uncultured, I guess.
>
> Nolan

He’s imitating or paying a homage to what James Branch Cabell did in titling several of Cabell’s novels, i.e., of Cabell’s work, from the ones listed as part of the 12 or 13-volume super-novel, “Biography of the Life of Manuel” (Cabell’s Lazarus Long, sorta), are the following, alphabetically:

_Domnei: A Comedy of Woman-Worship_ (1920)

_Figures of Earth: A Comedy of Appearances_ (1921)

_The High Place: A Comedy of Disenchantment_ (1923)

_Jurgen: A Comedy of Justice_ (1919, 1927) [cf., Heinlein’s _Job: A Comedy of Justice_, which has a somewhat similar plot line].

_The Silver Stallion: A Comedy of Redemption_ (1926)

_Something About Eve: A Comedy of Fig-Leaves_ (1927)

Not all the titles in the 12 or 13 are titled as “Comedy.” Some are called “Dizain” which is ten-line stanza in poetry.

There were, as I understand it, earlier “comedies of manners” written “post restoration” (after the ban on the theatre imposed by the Puritans under James I was lifted under Charles II) and on into the Eighteenth Century, by William Wycherly, John Dryden, George Etherege, William Congreve, Oliver Goldsmith, Richard Sheridan, and others.

See, http://people.stu.ca/~gtnpy/quest1.htm for a short discussion.

Or see, http://www.bartleby.com/218/0607.html from the Cambridge History of English and American Literature (18 volumes) (1907-21), Volume VIII. The Age of Dryden. VI. The Restoration Drama. § 7. Congreve and the Comedy of Manners. [And you could read the sections that continue after it, Nolan.]

From it, a quick overview:

Wit, satire, the poking of fun, sophisticated word-plays and plots, gaiety are characteristics of the form. Congreve is probably the most important of these authors, in this form. “The Way of the World” is his most typical play, or best-known one. Critics attacked this form as “immodest, profane” and its writers as “encouragers of immorality.”

A short sweet retort to them was this bit of verse, written by one of the lesser known playwrights, who, together with Congreve was prosecuted in Middlesex:

But let State Revolvers
And Treason Absolvers
Excuse [me] if I sing:
The Scoundrel that chooses
To cry down the Muses,
Would cry down the King.

— D¹Urfe

Some literary criticism was then, as now, political. Thomas D’Urfe was a light cavalryman in real life, a French Huguenot by descent, who drifted to Grub Street for a profession between wars, a close, amiable friend of Charles II, and lives on undeservedly in this distich by Buckingham (one of the critics):

And sing-song DUrfey, placed beneath abuses,
Lives by his impudence, and not the Muses.

He was a better poet than that, although of slender skills. He wrote popular running entertainments for nearly fifty years. His best comedy are bawdry farces. Cut, slash, and run!

—
David M. Silver

“The Lieutenant expects your names to shine!”
Robert Anson Heinlein, USNA ’29
Lt.(jg), USN, R’td

From: Chris Zakes
Subject: Re: “Least Favorite” Heinlein work
Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2005 18:40:09 GMT On 5 Feb 2005 04:18:29 GMT, an orbital mind-control laser caused “David Wright Sr.” to write:

That’s from the title page of “The Cat Who Walks Through Walls.”

-Chris Zakes
Texas

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

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

From: Pete LaGrange Subject: Re: “Least Favorite” Heinlein work
Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2005 17:28:41 -0500 On Fri, 04 Feb 2005 20:38:22 +0000, David Wright Sr. wrote:

> I have been reading Heinlein for 51 years at least. I am an uncritical
> reader. I simply read a story rather than trying to think about it.

I feel the same way. I’m looking at about 35 years and in the nine (Gad, has it really been that long?[1]) since I’ve found this group (thanks to Mr. Gifford’s pointer) and especially recently, I’ve really been tasked with expanding my viewpoint, often being forced into looking at a story in an entirely different light after reading one poster or another’s musings. I really don’t have a lot to add re H, but I’ll be sucking it up as long as I’m able and I just wanted to say thanks in advance.

As to least favorite, I’d have to say IWFNE. Something swarmy about that story, or maybe I’m just not evolved enough. Still, it beats the hell out of almost everything else I read so go figure.

Take good care,

—
Pete LaGrange

[1] Still running that same p166 and quite comfortably, BTW, thanks to knoppix

From: Norman Bullen
Subject: Re: “Least Favorite” Heinlein work
Date: Sat, 05 Feb 2005 19:23:39 GMT Pete LaGrange wrote:

> On Fri, 04 Feb 2005 20:38:22 +0000, David Wright Sr. wrote:
>
>
>>I have been reading Heinlein for 51 years at least. I am an uncritical
>>reader. I simply read a story rather than trying to think about it.
>
>
> I feel the same way. I’m looking at about 35 years and in the nine (Gad,
> has it really been that long?[1]) since I’ve found this group (thanks to
> Mr. Gifford’s pointer) and especially recently, I’ve really been tasked
> with expanding my viewpoint, often being forced into looking at a story in
> an entirely different light after reading one poster or another’s musings.
> I really don’t have a lot to add re H, but I’ll be sucking it up as long
> as I’m able and I just wanted to say thanks in advance.
>
> As to least favorite, I’d have to say IWFNE. Something swarmy about that
> story, or maybe I’m just not evolved enough. Still, it beats the hell out
> of almost everything else I read so go figure.
>
> Take good care,
>

I’m curious how you and Mr. Wright date your first reading of Heinlein.

I simply cannot remember how old I was when I first encountered RAH nor, even, which story it might have been.

I think my first SF novel was _Rocket Jockey_ but whether that was during third, fourth, or fifth grade, I can’t say.

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

From: “David Wright Sr.”
Subject: Re: “Least Favorite” Heinlein work
Date: 5 Feb 2005 20:42:33 GMT Norman Bullen wrote in news:%29Nd.1108$:

> I’m curious how you and Mr. Wright date your first reading of
> Heinlein.
>
> I simply cannot remember how old I was when I first encountered RAH
> nor, even, which story it might have been.
>
> I think my first SF novel was _Rocket Jockey_ but whether that was
> during third, fourth, or fifth grade, I can’t say.
>

I know exactly when and where I read my first one. It was the fall of 1953 when I entered the 8th grade and found it in the school library. What I can’t remember is which one was the first. I believe that it was either _Starman Jones_ or _Between Planets_. If I recall correctly those were the only two in the library at that time. I quickly ran to the public libraries and started locating others. I later worked in the public libraries where I was the first person to get any new one that came out.

I had watched ‘Tom Corbett – Space Cadet’ before that but didn’t realize that there was any connection to Heinlein until I came across the book later on.

I think, but am not sure that I may have heard one of the radio stories earlier than that, but didn’t connect them. I do recall for sure hearing the Ray Bradbury story where the astronauts found their ‘families’ waiting for them on Mars. “Mars Is Heaven”????

I read _Rocket Jockey_ and several others in that series. I vividly recall the end pages with all of the sf themes, robots, space ships etc.

—
David Wright
If you haven’t joined the Society, Why Not?
https://www.heinleinsociety.org/join.html

Keep Up with the Latest
https://www.heinleinsociety.org/updates.html

Benefit The Heinlein Society by ordering books thru
http://home.alltel.net/dwrighsr/heinlein-amazon.htm

From: “”
Subject: Re: “Least Favorite” Heinlein work
Date: 5 Feb 2005 14:03:36 -0800 David Wright Sr. wrote:

> Norman Bullen wrote in
> news:%29Nd.1108$:
>
> > I’m curious how you and Mr. Wright date your first reading of
> > Heinlein.
> >
> > I simply cannot remember how old I was when I first encountered RAH
> > nor, even, which story it might have been.
> >
> > I think my first SF novel was _Rocket Jockey_ but whether that was
> > during third, fourth, or fifth grade, I can’t say.
> >
>
> I know exactly when and where I read my first one. It was the fall of
> 1953 when I entered the 8th grade and found it in the school library.
> What I can’t remember is which one was the first. I believe that it was
> either _Starman Jones_ or _Between Planets_. If I recall correctly those
> were the only two in the library at that time. I quickly ran to the
> public libraries and started locating others. I later worked in the
> public libraries where I was the first person to get any new one that
> came out.
>
> I had watched ‘Tom Corbett – Space Cadet’ before that but didn’t realize
> that there was any connection to Heinlein until I came across the book
> later on.
>
> I think, but am not sure that I may have heard one of the radio stories
> earlier than that, but didn’t connect them. I do recall for sure hearing
> the Ray Bradbury story where the astronauts found their ‘families’
> waiting for them on Mars. “Mars Is Heaven”????
>
> I read _Rocket Jockey_ and several others in that series. I vividly
> recall the end pages with all of the sf themes, robots, space ships etc.
>
> —
> David Wright
> If you haven’t joined the Society, Why Not?
> https://www.heinleinsociety.org/join.html
>
> Keep Up with the Latest

> https://www.heinleinsociety.org/updates.html
>
> Benefit The Heinlein Society by ordering books thru
> http://home.alltel.net/dwrighsr/heinlein-amazon.htm

For me it was eighth grade and the book was BETWEEN PLANETS. Ever since.

Will in New Haven

—

“I will accept any rules that you feel necessary to your freedom. I am
free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I
tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free
because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I
do.” –Professor Bernardo de la Paz in Robert A. Heinlein’s The Moon
is a Harsh Mistress

From: “R Oxley”
Subject: Re: “Least Favorite” Heinlein work
Date: Sat, 5 Feb 2005 19:29:56 -0800 “David Wright Sr.” wrote in message news:Xns95F49FCCFF658nokvamli@130.133.1.4…

>
> I think, but am not sure that I may have heard one of the radio stories
> earlier than that, but didn’t connect them. I do recall for sure hearing
> the Ray Bradbury story where the astronauts found their ‘families’
> waiting for them on Mars. “Mars Is Heaven”????
>
>
> —
> David Wright

My favorite part of the Marian Chronicles is the Fall of the House of Usher. A nice story of revenge, right up there with Monte Cristo.

Bob
From: Pete LaGrange Subject: Re: “Least Favorite” Heinlein work
Date: Sat, 05 Feb 2005 16:09:05 -0500 On Sat, 05 Feb 2005 19:23:39 +0000, Norman Bullen wrote:

> Pete LaGrange wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 04 Feb 2005 20:38:22 +0000, David Wright Sr. wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I have been reading Heinlein for 51 years at least. I am an uncritical
>>>reader. I simply read a story rather than trying to think about it.
>>
>>
>> I feel the same way. I’m looking at about 35 years and in the nine (Gad,
>> has it really been that long?[1]) since I’ve found this group (thanks to
>> Mr. Gifford’s pointer) and especially recently, I’ve really been tasked
>> with expanding my viewpoint, often being forced into looking at a story
>> in an entirely different light after reading one poster or another’s
>> musings. I really don’t have a lot to add re H, but I’ll be sucking it
>> up as long as I’m able and I just wanted to say thanks in advance.
>>
>> As to least favorite, I’d have to say IWFNE. Something swarmy about that
>> story, or maybe I’m just not evolved enough. Still, it beats the hell
>> out of almost everything else I read so go figure.
>>
>> Take good care,
>>
> I’m curious how you and Mr. Wright date your first reading of Heinlein.

While I can’t speak for Mr Wright, I’ll tell you my story. I moved around a lot when I was young. Up until 1972 I rarely attended the same school for two years running. Sometimes I attended three schools in the same grade. I can pretty well date certain things in my childhood according to what house I was living in or what school I was attending. I remember the school library where I picked up “Have Spacesuit, Will Travel” (yellow hardcover, some line art on the cover) and that puts it in the ’69-’70 school year.

> I simply cannot remember how old I was when I first encountered RAH nor,
> even, which story it might have been.
>
> I think my first SF novel was _Rocket Jockey_ but whether that was
> during third, fourth, or fifth grade, I can’t say.
>

In a lot of ways I count myself lucky to have had such experiences but I’d be lying if I told you that no part of me longed for a “home” from birth.

—
Pete LaGrange

From: charles krin
Subject: Re: “Least Favorite” Heinlein work
Date: Sat, 05 Feb 2005 21:16:36 -0600 On Sat, 05 Feb 2005 16:09:05 -0500, Pete LaGrange wrote:

>
>While I can’t speak for Mr Wright, I’ll tell you my story. I moved around
>a lot when I was young. Up until 1972 I rarely attended the same school
>for two years running. Sometimes I attended three schools in the same
>grade. I can pretty well date certain things in my childhood according to
>what house I was living in or what school I was attending. I remember the
>school library where I picked up “Have Spacesuit, Will Travel” (yellow
>hardcover, some line art on the cover) and that puts it in the ’69-’70
>school year.

Pete, that sounds like you might be a military brat….

if so, and for others who haven’t heard of it, there is a newsgroup devoted to military brats and other folks who attended the US DoD schools overseas…

hie thyself over to alt.culture.military-brats and see if you can find any of your old buddies over there…

or see if you can contribute anything to Operation Footlocker…

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

From: Pete LaGrange Subject: Re: “Least Favorite” Heinlein work
Date: Sat, 05 Feb 2005 22:59:33 -0500 On Sat, 05 Feb 2005 21:16:36 -0600, charles krin wrote:

> On Sat, 05 Feb 2005 16:09:05 -0500, Pete LaGrange > wrote:
>
>
>>While I can’t speak for Mr Wright, I’ll tell you my story. I moved around
>>a lot when I was young. Up until 1972 I rarely attended the same school
>>for two years running. Sometimes I attended three schools in the same
>>grade. I can pretty well date certain things in my childhood according to
>>what house I was living in or what school I was attending. I remember the
>>school library where I picked up “Have Spacesuit, Will Travel” (yellow
>>hardcover, some line art on the cover) and that puts it in the ’69-’70
>>school year.
>
> Pete, that sounds like you might be a military brat….

I wish that were so but like Miranda Myers in “Renaissance Man”, my Mom just liked to drive.

—
Pete LaGrange

From: Denny Wheeler
Subject: Re: “Least Favorite” Heinlein work
Date: Sat, 05 Feb 2005 15:14:25 -0800 On Sat, 05 Feb 2005 19:23:39 GMT, Norman Bullen wrote:

>I’m curious how you and Mr. Wright date your first reading of Heinlein.

I’m neither of them, but I’ll toss my memory in.

>I simply cannot remember how old I was when I first encountered RAH nor,
>even, which story it might have been.

I was at my brother’s place, and picked up a copy of a magazine that was on a table. ‘Twas the March 1959 issue of F&SF, which had “All You Zombies” in it. So, I was 12 at the time.

From: (Nancy Lebovitz)
Subject: Re: “Least Favorite” Heinlein work
Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 23:43:44 GMT In article, David Wright Sr. wrote:

>
>_Job – A Comedy of Manners_ would probably be considered a ‘lesser’
>favorite, but I can’t particularly say why.

A hypothesis: _Job_ has a much less developed background than most Heinlein novels–none of the worlds Alex is in are individually important, and they have less detail and less of a distinctive feel than most Heinlein backgrounds.

—
—
Nancy Lebovitz http://www.nancybuttons.com
“We’ve tamed the lightning and taught sand to give error messages.”
http://livejournal.com/users/nancylebov

From: “Dr. Rufo”
Subject: Re: “Least Favorite” Heinlein work
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 01:28:42 GMT Nancy Lebovitz wrote:

> In article ,
> David Wright Sr. wrote:
>
>>_Job – A Comedy of Manners_ would probably be considered a ‘lesser’
>>favorite, but I can’t particularly say why.
>
>
> A hypothesis: _Job_ has a much less developed background than
> most Heinlein novels–none of the worlds Alex is in are individually
> important, and they have less detail and less of a distinctive feel
> than most Heinlein backgrounds.

I suggest that the distinctions which are presented between the various worlds/universes are those that seem important to Alex H our not-very-omniscient narrator. The price of dinner or the scandalous plunge of the de colletage is what’s on his mind and that’s what gets reported. Those are his filters combined with his arrogant self-importance — he’s so sure that he’s one of the Elect and (therefore ?) absolved from most displays of manners and civilities — unless he wants something from you — dinner, a show, a piece of
. . . well, you get the drift?
An exception I can recall is the time they wind up in a locale that uses traffic lights. Alex is amazed that the people living there pay attention to the lights as if they were a real police officer! Gad! Who would have thought they could be so disciplined in their behavior!

Pax,

Rufe
From: (Michael Black)
Subject: Re: “Least Favorite” Heinlein work
Date: 23 Feb 2005 04:19:49 GMT Nancy Lebovitz () writes:

> In article ,
> David Wright Sr. wrote:
>>
>>_Job – A Comedy of Manners_ would probably be considered a ‘lesser’
>>favorite, but I can’t particularly say why.
>
> A hypothesis: _Job_ has a much less developed background than
> most Heinlein novels–none of the worlds Alex is in are individually
> important, and they have less detail and less of a distinctive feel
> than most Heinlein backgrounds.

Although I don’t have a strong recollection of it, I’ve only read it once, I don’t have a bad memory of it. I was actually quite surprised by it. I don’t particularly like the late books, and there was something about the blurb on the cover that turned me off. So I only bought it years after it had come out (unlike the other Heinleins that came out after I was aware of him, and bought as they came to softcover), I got it at a used booksale, and it sat around for a few years after that. It was the last one to read. It wasn’t at all what I had expected, and I thought it was okay. If only I could remember what it was about.

I did buy “For Us…” as soon as it hit in paperback, but I’ve put off reading. IN that case, it is saving it for a special time, the special time yet to be determined.

Michael
From: charles krin
Subject: Re: “Least Favorite” Heinlein work
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 14:17:47 -0600 On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 23:43:44 GMT, (Nancy Lebovitz) wrote:

>In article ,
>David Wright Sr. wrote:
>>
>>_Job – A Comedy of Manners_ would probably be considered a ‘lesser’
>>favorite, but I can’t particularly say why.
>
>A hypothesis: _Job_ has a much less developed background than
>most Heinlein novels–none of the worlds Alex is in are individually
>important, and they have less detail and less of a distinctive feel
>than most Heinlein backgrounds.
>–

I’m suspecting that I’m going to have to take JOB, rip the cover and the front page off and give it to Ma Cherie to get her to try Heinlein…

While she has enjoyed SciFi in the past, and still enjoys Tom Clancy (which is how she and I ended up meeting),she just ‘doesn’t get’ RAH…and refuses to try.

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

From: Ogden Johnson III
Subject: Re: “Least Favorite” Heinlein work
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 17:08:53 -0500 charles krin wrote:

>(Nancy Lebovitz) wrote:

>>David Wright Sr.wrote:

>>>_Job – A Comedy of Manners_ would probably be considered a ‘lesser’
>>>favorite, but I can’t particularly say why.

>>A hypothesis: _Job_ has a much less developed background than
>>most Heinlein novels–none of the worlds Alex is in are individually
>>important, and they have less detail and less of a distinctive feel
>>than most Heinlein backgrounds.

>I’m suspecting that I’m going to have to take JOB, rip the cover and
>the front page off and give it to Ma Cherie to get her to try
>Heinlein…
>
>While she has enjoyed SciFi in the past, and still enjoys Tom Clancy
>(which is how she and I ended up meeting),she just ‘doesn’t get’
>RAH…and refuses to try.

Fortunately, as Howard and I – among others – can attest, she has innumerable redeeming features that can make one willing to overlook such blasphemies.

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

From: pixelmeow
Subject: Re: “Least Favorite” Heinlein work
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 19:09:12 -0500 You won’t *believe* what Ogden Johnson III said on Mon, 28 Feb 2005 17:08:53 -0500, in alt.fan.heinlein!!!

>charles krin wrote:
>
>>I’m suspecting that I’m going to have to take JOB, rip the cover and
>>the front page off and give it to Ma Cherie to get her to try
>>Heinlein…
>>
>>While she has enjoyed SciFi in the past, and still enjoys Tom Clancy
>>(which is how she and I ended up meeting),she just ‘doesn’t get’
>>RAH…and refuses to try.
>
>Fortunately, as Howard and I – among others – can attest, she has
>innumerable redeeming features that can make one willing to
>overlook such blasphemies.

Agreed. I can deal with her not liking RAH. 🙂

—
~teresa~
AFH Barwench

=^..^= “Never try to outstubborn a cat.” =^..^=
http://www.storesonline.com/site/rowanmystic
email my first name at pixelmeow dot com

http://pixelmeow.com/

Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
———————————————————-
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
———————————————————-

From: Chris Zakes
Subject: Re: “Least Favorite” Heinlein work
Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2005 20:49:45 GMT On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 20:46:56 -0600, an orbital mind-control laser caused Dee to write:

(snip)

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

For me, the least-favorite books are “Podkayne of Mars” and I Will Fear no Evil”. I just have real trouble believing the female characters in either if them (I think Heinlein did a much better job with “Friday”.)

There’s easily half a dozen (or more) that could be called “favorites”, but “Glory Road” is probably #1. First, because it’s a ripping good story, second, because it (along with Zelazney) got me interested in fencing, which, in turn, got me interested in the SCA, which led to meeting the nice lady to whom I’ve been married for the last 22 years.

-Chris Zakes
Texas

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

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

From: “atwork”
Subject: Re: “Least Favorite” Heinlein work
Date: Sat, 5 Feb 2005 06:58:13 -0600 “Dee” wrote in message news:…

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

Least: FUTL

Favorite: changes from ST, SiaSL, and Moon, pretty much at random AFAICT.

—
Oscagne

From: “Nolan”
Subject: Re: “Least Favorite” Heinlein work
Date: 6 Feb 2005 09:27:59 -0800 I guess my best measure of most/least favorite would be how often I re-read a given book.

Least favorite: Beyond This Horizion – finally managed to read it all the way through, but it’s just not one I re-read. Can’t even say why.

FUTL isn’t much of a book, but I don’t think you can really judge it on its merits. It’s more of an historical artifact for RAH-ophiles.

Most favorite… whew.

Sentimental favorite would have to be HSWT – it was my first and hooked me firmly for life.

‘Job”, strangely, is one of my favorites, but I seldom re-read the first two-thirds; the interesting part for me is after Alex gets to heaven.

. . . . . . . . . . .

Well, I’ve been sitting here for about 15 minutes trying to settle on a favorite, and I just can’t pull one out of the pile. I really like ’em all, more or less. If I had to get rid of them all except one, I guess it’d come down to either TEFL or TNOTB. Or maybe Starship Troopers.

Nolan
From: “STEPHANIE VICKERS”
Subject: Re: “Least Favorite” Heinlein work
Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2005 08:46:42 -0500 “Dee” wrote in message news:…

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

My honest opinion of least favorite RAH that I have read to date….

Gee, Dee, you ask toughies.

I just finished reading _Between Planets_, and I found myself not caring for Don. But the book itself was okay. I have disliked _Friday_, _Job_, and IWFNE, in the past, but they grew on me. So, I suppose, I will have to list Waldo as my least favorite. It just stuck in my craw for some reason, and I can’t remember why.

—
Stephanie Vickers

From: “”
Subject: Re: “Least Favorite” Heinlein work
Date: 8 Feb 2005 05:10:43 -0800

A newby steps gingerly in with a small wave to Denny. I think I would have to say that Job was my least fave. The only one I’ve never reread. I didn’t much care for Hoag either.I liked Friday, but it always made me sad. My favorites have always been TEFL, NoTB and TCWWTW. I like Fear No Evil and Glory Road too, for totally different reasons.
From: Denny Wheeler
Subject: Re: “Least Favorite” Heinlein work
Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2005 00:07:47 -0800 On 8 Feb 2005 05:10:43 -0800, “” wrote:

>A newby steps gingerly in with a small wave to Denny.

And Denny waves back.

From: “Bookman” Subject: Re: “Least Favorite” Heinlein work
Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2005 05:59:45 GMT wrote in message news:…

>A newby steps gingerly in with a small wave to Denny. I think I would
> have to say that Job was my least fave. The only one I’ve never reread.
> I didn’t much care for Hoag either.I liked Friday, but it always made
> me sad. My favorites have always been TEFL, NoTB and TCWWTW. I like
> Fear No Evil and Glory Road too, for totally different reasons.

Welcome to AFH! Gird up your loins for battle 😉 and join the fray!

When it all gets too much, mosey on over to the bar and slake your thirst, or lounge on the Lanai, sipping cool drinks in the shade.

Regards,

—
Rusty the bookman
Yes, makin’ mock o’ uniforms that guard you when you sleep
Is cheaper than them uniforms, and they’re starvation cheap
– Kipling

From: Mac
Subject: Re: “Least Favorite” Heinlein work
Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2005 11:28:13 GMT

The “Least Favorite” is the one I just finished… I’ll have to wait a while before reading it once more. —Mac
From: Christopher Bohn
Subject: Re: “Least Favorite” Heinlein work
Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2005 21:44:33 -0500

Good evening,

Dee wrote:

These two (IIRC) were the worst offenders (of those I’ve read) of jarring-shift-of-POV. Once or twice BTH shifted POV during a scene so we could witness events out of earshot of the primary characters. OOTS was particularly bad for shifting POVs during scenes — at least once it shifted back & forth during a conversation! Take care, cb From: Alan Dicey
Subject: Re: “Least Favorite” Heinlein work
Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2005 15:47:11 +0000

Of those I have read, “Glory Road” comes in the category of ‘actively unreadable’ – a book that leaps from your hands of its own accord and flys into the secondhand bookstore stack (where it joins anything by Stephen Donaldson). “I Will Fear No Evil” is in danger of joining it, but at present merely sends me to sleep.

By contrast, “The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress” makes me feel patriotic (and confused : I’m British), “Starship Troopers” and “The Green Hills of Earth” make me cry and “Job” makes me laugh.

Heinlein has the trappings of a hard SF author, the spaceships, waldos and electronic brains, but that is window dressing (and de rigeur for the age). I think his success is due to the fact that he gets under the readers skin and makes an emotional connection – not in an overt way. Tnat may be why my reaction to Glory Road is so severe: the connection is made, but I don’t like what he’s delivering.
From: “Sunlion”
Subject: Re: “Least Favorite” Heinlein work
Date: 13 Feb 2005 16:57:53 -0800 Dee wrote:

> opinion, as oposed to erudite literary review?
>
> –Dee

Dee,

This is my first post, so please forgive me the length, and any juvenile errors.

I am as unqualified as anyone to review Robert Heinlein. However, as he has been my favorite author since I first read, and enjoyed, “Orphans Of The Sky”, at the age of fourteen, early in 1971, I would relate that one of my least favorite stories of his, which I read shortly after, is “Beyond This Horizon”. I think his stories read better when he moves his characters around multiple locations, and has his characters inter-acting with the other characters. “Beyond This Horizon” has always been a dull read for me, as far as the lack of an ‘escapist’ nature, in not being able to step outside my own ‘reader’ nature into the character. There is far to much that doesn’t move me about the story.

“Beyond This Horizon” is one of his stories that suffers from a tendency for him to over-pontificate or over-think too much (as his character in the story). Examples of course abound from in “For Us The Living”, “I Will Fear No Evil”, and all his works from “The Number Of The Beast” through “To Sail Beyond The Sunset”. There are times, increasingly toward the latter part of his writing, and especially as the character of Lazarus Long, but there at the very beginning as well, when he stops everything in it’s place, and meanders through a “stream of consciousness” valley.

I believe that anyone who has read more than a few pages of Robert Heinlein can only be an admirer of his story-telling capability. Akin to Robert Louis Stevenson, he could “spin a great yarn”. However, after the first several instances of hearing that particularily “Heinlein” voice, where the author, over the course of several stories, can be discerned as forwarding similar themes in a similar style, I would skip past these familiar postings due to the “preaching to the choir” aspect.

I never minded that they were there though, and never will.

I believe they are as close to who Robert Heinlein was as future generations will ever be able to get. If he had written more essays for publishing, in some sort of regular commentary, such as those now collected in “Grumbles From The Grave”, and “Requiem”, I feel there is little of Robert Heinlein that I would skip through.

Another aspect which I sometimes found difficult in reading his stories are some of his female characters. There seems to me to be about four levels to these characters, the first three with similarites.

On the first level, where the character really hits right on target, are women such as Hazel Stone, Wyoming Knott, Podkayne, Dora, and Friday. Characters who are uniquely themselves. They enhance the story they are involved in, and novels such as “The Rolling Stones”, “The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress”, and “Time Enough For Love” would be the poorer without them.

Then there is a secondary level with a bit of a ‘heard this character before’ aspect. Women like Hilda Corners, Barbara Wells, Frederica Heinicke, Star, Mary Sperling, Margrethe, Minerva Weatheral, Gwen Novak, Deety Carter, Molly Kenyon, Diana, and such. Similar to the characters of the first level, but with different names. Some of them appear in his earliest stories, some in the later. They add to the story for being there, and provide a refreshing change to many of his juvenile stories where women are rarely seen or heard of except in passing. As fully unique and individual characters they are just a bit paler than his brightest stars.

On a third level of similarity are the fainter stock characters such as Astrid, Hamadryad, Tamara, Athene, Ishtar, mama Schultz, and mama Davis. Nice enough people as characters go, but variations on an extended theme, either showing flashes of other, more well-developed, female characters or showing the juvenile or elder aspects of those other characters. Like cookie cut-outs, they all seem to be molded from a similar cloth.

There is a fourth level, those female characters who seem to merge into the Robert Heinlein storyteller / Lazarus Long character aspect. To put it as clearly as I see it, a male Heinlein character, endowed with cleavage.
The twins Lapis Lazuli and Lorelei Lee quickly fade into that obscurity, Libby/Elizabeth Long, mama Maureen, Johann-Joan/Eunice Smith, and Mike/Michelle, where the female aspect is presented almost as a facade for a male character. They can be interesting, and attention-getting. They can also be rather hum-drum and dull. On a few occasions the only difference between them and Robert Heinlein’s male characters seems to be their name.

“Time Enough For Love”, “The Door Into Summer”, “Friday”, “The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress”, and “The Cat Who Walks Through Walls” are among my favorite Heinlein stories because they have a variety of male and female characters in them.
His juvenile novels, while interesting to the young teen-age boy I was when I first read them, and opening me up to the larger universe around me, are much less interesting to re-read as an adult.

“I Will Fear No Evil” seems to be his first major attempt to synthesize both male and female characters, and wears better for the originality of it, although if fails for me as a story. He seems rather tentative at times on where to go with the character(s).
“To Sail Beyond The Sunset”, while a bit more tedious in moving toward tying up the ‘future history’ aspect of Heinlein’s later writings, and coming as it does at the end of his life, is a story I liked much better than “I Will Fear No Evil” as there is more of a story-line to follow.

I would have preferred to have gotten a better connection from him as to what it was about his wife Virginia, especially, that made women and the feminine become such an important part of his story-telling after his “juvenile” story days had passed.

“Beyond This Horizon” and “I Will Fear No Evil” are my least favorite Heinlein stories. “Glory Road”, while having interesting settings, seems, like “The Number Of The Beast”, to have no real purpose, other critiques aside, but are still part of the pantheon. I still like, and have re-read, all four countless times. Yet, like several of Heinlein’s juvenile stories, with the exception of “The Rolling Stones”, “Orphans Of The Sky”, and “Citizen Of The Galaxy”, they are on the low end of my favorites.

Robert Heinlein could tell a great story, and had a perception of life that we can only be the wiser for the hearing. I too love to return to the places he wrote of, and visit again those characters to whom I owe so much in my own personal growth.
Editor’s Note: These postings were made after the announcement was made. From: “Stephanie Vickers”
Subject: Re: Heinlein Reading Group meeting announcement: March 24 and 26, 2005
Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2005 01:23:16 -0500

Let me go ahead and stand over in the minority section by stating I have not enjoyed the juvies half as much as I enjoyed the ‘adults’. But, several of them are decent…I can reread them on par with going back and rereading the latter half of the Pern series.

My least favorite book, on painful consideration, has to be Waldo. I detested it, and have only read it twice.

Least favorite character came close to being whatshisface…Don Harvey…in Between Planets. I think Mark Hamil studied him before portraying Luke in the first SW movie. And Maybe Hayden did too before SW:AotC. I found him to be the whiniest of all the Heinlein Protagonists yet. (I say yet as I still have RAHs to read for the first time.)

—
STEPHANIE VICKERS

From: Denny Wheeler
Subject: Re: Heinlein Reading Group meeting announcement: March 24 and 26, 2005
Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2005 00:33:10 -0800

On Fri, 4 Mar 2005 01:23:16 -0500, “Stephanie Vickers”wrote:

>. (I say yet as I still have RAHs to read for the first time.)

Lucky you. I have *one* RAH to read (FUTL) and most here haven’t had any RAH to first-read since shortly after FUTL was published.

From: “David M. Silver”
Subject: Re: Heinlein Reading Group meeting announcement: March 24 and 26, 2005
Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2005 16:39:18 -0800

In article, “Stephanie Vickers”wrote:

> Let me go ahead and stand over in the minority section by stating I have not
> enjoyed the juvies half as much as I enjoyed the ‘adults’. But, several of
> them are decent…I can reread them on par with going back and rereading the
> latter half of the Pern series.
>
> My least favorite book, on painful consideration, has to be Waldo. I
> detested it, and have only read it twice.
>
> Least favorite character came close to being whatshisface…Don Harvey…in
> Between Planets. I think Mark Hamil studied him before portraying Luke in
> the first SW movie. And Maybe Hayden did too before SW:AotC. I found him
> to be the whiniest of all the Heinlein Protagonists yet. (I say yet as I
> still have RAHs to read for the first time.)

Of the juvenile protagonists, you’re probably right. Donald is the less sympathetic (save only Pat, the con-artist, from Time For the Stars, who tricks his brother into making the long trip by the fake injury). He probably had to be. Isolated away from his parents at boarding school for most of his teenage years. A loner. Effectively an orphan. I’m trying to remember exactly which of the Kipling stories he reminds me of most. Kipling, you probably know, was returned to England by his parents at age six and left in a foster home for five years, then went to boarding school thereafter. I can’t remember if “Baa Baa, Black Sheep” in _The Light That Failed_ was the Kipling story about children in foster homes, or boarding schools I liked the least, but the impression I get of Donald is close to that, whichever story it was. A lot of tearful self-pity in _The Light That Failed_ is my recollection.

I spent some time in boarding school when my father’s cancer got pretty bad. I think I understand the feeling. I think I reread or read for the first time a lot of Kipling during that time.

Donald doesn’t care much about anyone, except that horse, Lazy, onto which he’s transferred his love, because he’s conditioned not to. It causes his difficulty in dealing with the banker’s daughter, and puts him a little against the grain with others, including the SBI agent, which is probably good, because it made him seem more juvenile to the cop, and not really a threat. It also probably saved his life a second time, because otherwise he’d have listened to McMasters, joined the High Guard immediately, and wound up incinerated the day the Federation popped up and took Venus back over. Charlie must have been a pretty wonderful guy to even waste time on him. Charlie, also isolated from his land and family, likely felt something akin. It makes Don Harvey psychologically the perfect fit for the dead-man’s switch. I’d have liked to have seen the two-year hiatus, how Donald managed to adapt to survive guerilla combat — it probably wasn’t as easy for him as most to join a “team,” that watched his back while he watched theirs.

I think the characterization Heinlein drew, however, was pretty good. Heinlein, at that age, I understand, was pretty much a loner as well. He was unpopular, had command problems with his “ROTC unit,” both in high school and while he attended that one year of college before Annapolis, and was ragged unmercifully at Annapolis as the “boy general.” He wasn’t by a long shot the most popular middie. A writer writes what he knows. The late adolescent Don Harvey was, I think, pretty close to mark of what certain aspects of Heinlein, the late adolescent, was.

—
David M. Silver

“The Lieutenant expects your names to shine!”
Robert Anson Heinlein, USNA ’29
Lt.(jg), USN, R’td

From: “Stephanie Vickers”
Subject: Re: Heinlein Reading Group meeting announcement: March 24 and 26, 2005
Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2005 13:15:43 -0500

“David M. Silver” wrote in message
news:…
> In article ,
> “Stephanie Vickers” wrote:
>
>> Let me go ahead and stand over in the minority section by stating I have
>> not
>> enjoyed the juvies half as much as I enjoyed the ‘adults’. But, several
>> of
>> them are decent…I can reread them on par with going back and rereading
>> the
>> latter half of the Pern series.
>>
>> My least favorite book, on painful consideration, has to be Waldo. I
>> detested it, and have only read it twice.
>>
>> Least favorite character came close to being whatshisface…Don
>> Harvey…in
>> Between Planets. I think Mark Hamil studied him before portraying Luke
>> in
>> the first SW movie. And Maybe Hayden did too before SW:AotC. I found
>> him
>> to be the whiniest of all the Heinlein Protagonists yet. (I say yet as I
>> still have RAHs to read for the first time.)
>
> Of the juvenile protagonists, you’re probably right. Donald is the less
> sympathetic (save only Pat, the con-artist, from Time For the Stars, who
> tricks his brother into making the long trip by the fake injury). He
> probably had to be. Isolated away from his parents at boarding school
> for most of his teenage years. A loner. Effectively an orphan. I’m
> trying to remember exactly which of the Kipling stories he reminds me of
> most. Kipling, you probably know, was returned to England by his parents
> at age six and left in a foster home for five years, then went to
> boarding school thereafter. I can’t remember if “Baa Baa, Black Sheep”
> in _The Light That Failed_ was the Kipling story about children in
> foster homes, or boarding schools I liked the least, but the impression
> I get of Donald is close to that, whichever story it was. A lot of
> tearful self-pity in _The Light That Failed_ is my recollection.
>
> I spent some time in boarding school when my father’s cancer got pretty
> bad. I think I understand the feeling. I think I reread or read for the
> first time a lot of Kipling during that time.
>
> Donald doesn’t care much about anyone, except that horse, Lazy, onto
> which he’s transferred his love, because he’s conditioned not to. It
> causes his difficulty in dealing with the banker’s daughter, and puts
> him a little against the grain with others, including the SBI agent,
> which is probably good, because it made him seem more juvenile to the
> cop, and not really a threat. It also probably saved his life a second
> time, because otherwise he’d have listened to McMasters, joined the High
> Guard immediately, and wound up incinerated the day the Federation
> popped up and took Venus back over. Charlie must have been a pretty
> wonderful guy to even waste time on him. Charlie, also isolated from his
> land and family, likely felt something akin. It makes Don Harvey
> psychologically the perfect fit for the dead-man’s switch. I’d have
> liked to have seen the two-year hiatus, how Donald managed to adapt to
> survive guerilla combat — it probably wasn’t as easy for him as most to
> join a “team,” that watched his back while he watched theirs.
>
> I think the characterization Heinlein drew, however, was pretty good.
> Heinlein, at that age, I understand, was pretty much a loner as well. He
> was unpopular, had command problems with his “ROTC unit,” both in high
> school and while he attended that one year of college before Annapolis,
> and was ragged unmercifully at Annapolis as the “boy general.” He wasn’t
> by a long shot the most popular middie. A writer writes what he knows.
> The late adolescent Don Harvey was, I think, pretty close to mark of
> what certain aspects of Heinlein, the late adolescent, was.
>
> —
> David M. Silver
> https://www.heinleinsociety.org
> “The Lieutenant expects your names to shine!”
> Robert Anson Heinlein, USNA ’29
> Lt.(jg), USN, R’td

David,

Somehow your anecdotes go a lot further to making the books ‘fit’ for me than some other discussions I had seen. I did not catch the Kipling…I must not have read that story, and I did not know that was Kipling’s history either.

—
STEPHANIE VICKERS

From: Denny Wheeler
Subject: Re: Heinlein Reading Group meeting announcement: March 24 and 26, 2005
Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2005 01:16:56 -0800

On Fri, 04 Mar 2005 00:59:19 GMT, LNCwrote:

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

Ooh. Good expansion of the basic theme, LNC. Now I hafta think about this. There are some obvious candidates–characters whom the reader is pretty much invited to dislike (His Charity in FF, frex). But ‘least favorite’ could be ‘most cardboardlike’ or some such, as compared to ‘I really dislike this jerk.’

Lessee. Protagonist I least like? That’s easy. Alex Hergesheimer (_Job_) Sanctimonious prig. Hm. If he weren’t the way he is, the story wouldn’t work–so I don’t know what might be changed to make me like him.

I think maybe the other character I really don’t like is Hugh Farnham’s son. Duke? Well, and of course dear Grace–but the way she’s portrayed, she has just about no redeeming qualities anyway.

From: “Stephanie Vickers”
Subject: Re: Heinlein Reading Group meeting announcement: March 24 and 26, 2005
Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2005 13:16:29 -0500

“Denny Wheeler” wrote in message
news:…
> On Fri, 04 Mar 2005 00:59:19 GMT, LNC wrote:
>
>>Finally, who’s your least favorite Heinlein character? You could like a
>>book but not like a character. What don’t you like about this character?
>>What would you change that would make you like her/him?
>
> Ooh. Good expansion of the basic theme, LNC. Now I hafta think about
> this. There are some obvious candidates–characters whom the reader
> is pretty much invited to dislike (His Charity in FF, frex). But
> ‘least favorite’ could be ‘most cardboardlike’ or some such, as
> compared to ‘I really dislike this jerk.’
>
> Lessee. Protagonist I least like? That’s easy. Alex Hergesheimer
> (_Job_) Sanctimonious prig. Hm. If he weren’t the way he is, the
> story wouldn’t work–so I don’t know what might be changed to make me
> like him.
>
> I think maybe the other character I really don’t like is Hugh
> Farnham’s son. Duke? Well, and of course dear Grace–but the way
> she’s portrayed, she has just about no redeeming qualities anyway.
>
> -denny-
> —
> “…our dignity, our free institutions and the peace and
> welfare of this and coming generations of Americans will be
> secure only as we cling to the watchword of true patriotism:
> ‘Our country–when right to be kept right; when wrong to be put
> right.'” – Carl Schurz, in 1899

Hear Hear! On the Duke and Grace.

—
STEPHANIE VICKERS

From: “David Wright Sr.”
Subject: Re: Heinlein Reading Group meeting announcement: March 24 and 26, 2005
Date: 5 Mar 2005 14:18:15 GMT

LNCwrote in news::

(snip)

> Here’s a list of all the names of the “least fav’s” mentioned so far:
>
> –Orphans of the Sky
> –Beyond This Horizon
> –I Will Fear No Evil
> –The Cat Who Walked Through Walls
> –Job
> –Time For the Stars
> –Farnham’s Freehold
> –Number of the Beast
> –Rocketship Galileo
> –For Us, The Living
> –Friday
> –Glory Road
> –The Unpleasant Profession of Jonathan Hoag
> –Successful Operation
> –Podkayne of Mars
> –Waldo
>

(snip)

I entered High School in the fall of 1953 and found my first Heinlein novel. I was never sure whether it was _Starman Jones_ or _Between Planets_, but on looking through Gifford’s ARC, it must have been _Between Planets_, because the publication date of _Starman Jones_ was 1953 and I would presume that it came out in time for Christmas 1953, so I couldn’t have read it first.

For the next couple of years, I read everything that I could get my hands on. Everything that I read was in book form, so what I found in that first year or two were _Between Planets_,_Rocket Ship Galileo_,_Space Cadet__Red Planet__Starman Jones_, the first three volumes of the Future History series, and _Waldo & Magic, Inc._. If there were more, then I can’t remember them offhand.

My point is that I liked them all. I didn’t really see much difference between them in terms of ‘juvenile’ vs. ‘adult’. What I saw in the ‘juveniles’ were young people trying to understand who they were and how they fit into the ‘adult’ world. What I saw in the others were ‘adults (presumably), trying to understand who they were and they fit in the ‘world’. Of course, a big part of it were worlds which included possibilities that didn’t exist yet, but might in the future, i.e. space travel, time travel, and so on. These were the hooks that got me interested in the first place, but by no means, what kept me reading Heinlein.

It was always a great day when I found a new Heinlein and one of the saddest when he died and I knew that there would be no more. I have read and re-read most of them so many times, that I cannot say for any certainty whether I have a ‘least’ favorite or a ‘most’ favorite. Even those which are of a ‘lesser’ favor, I re-read on a regular basis.

David

—
The logs for the Heinlein Readers Group discussions which took place on
01/06/2005 and 01/08/2005 are now available on The Heinlein Society website at:
https://www.heinleinsociety.org/readersgroup/AIM_01-06-2005.html
https://www.heinleinsociety.org/readersgroup/AIM_01-08-2005.html
The topic for the two discussions was:
“Glory Road and the Most Mammoth Hoax in History”

From: “David M. Silver”
Subject: Re: Heinlein Reading Group meeting announcement: March 24 and 26, 2005
Date: Sun, 06 Mar 2005 10:46:11 -0800

In article ,
“David Wright Sr.” wrote:

> My point is that I liked them all. I didn’t really see much difference
> between them in terms of ‘juvenile’ vs. ‘adult’. What I saw in the
> ‘juveniles’ were young people trying to understand who they were and how
> they fit into the ‘adult’ world. What I saw in the others were ‘adults
> (presumably), trying to understand who they were and they fit in the
> ‘world’. Of course, a big part of it were worlds which included
> possibilities that didn’t exist yet, but might in the future, i.e. space
> travel, time travel, and so on. These were the hooks that got me interested
> in the first place, but by no means, what kept me reading Heinlein.

Maybe a way to approach the question is to look at what makes one unique, if such a thing can be said. It could be uniquely successful, or unsuccessful — or, simply, unique but neither one or the other (neither outstandingly successful or unsuccessful).

Just considering the juveniles right now, a thing that distinguishes two of them right out of the box, _The Rolling Stones_ and _Time For The Stars_, is that they involve twins in the protagonists’ position. Both possess a certain telepathic ability — indeed the ability between Pat and Tom Bartlett drives the plot. The internal dialogue between Castor and Pollux makes for a good vehicle for reflection, criticism, and display of character development by them, showing a change in degree of responsibility by those two. The seemingly less periodic dialogue between Pat and Tom shows how Tom individually is changing from a somewhat dominated and subordinate clone. But, techniques for displaying character development, stresses, and challenges faced by these two sets aside, I think I felt less affinity as a juvenile when I read them with both sets of the twins than I did with some other Heinlein juvenile protagonists. I think Tom, who assumes the dominant POV character’s role, had more affinity than either Castor or Pollux; and therefore maybe was a tiny bit more appealing to me when first read. Castor and Pollux, frankly speaking, had too much competition within their own family to really succeed as dominant characters in their story: Roger Stone, Hazel, Edith all overshadowed them; and even Meade and Buster stole a few scenes.

Looking at the other juveniles from that perspective, it gets a bit clearer and easier to make a distinction about success one way: considering which is a more dominant and therefore impressive character-developing character.

In _Rocket Ship Galileo_ none of the three “boys” (young men, all high school graduates in their last summer before college, really) truly stands out. Abrams is cast in a leadership role to an extent, and therefore a model for lessons; but he doesn’t rise so high that he needs to be hammered down so much that he becomes _the_ rather than _a_ POV character.

_Space Cadet_, with Matt, Tex, and Oscar, as a trio, and _Red Planet_ with Jim Marlowe and Frank Sutton, as a dual, are essentially “buddy stories,” but Matt and Jim are always plainly the POV character, the one whose development we focus upon — Oscar and Frank are pretty stable going in; and I’m not betting on Tex ever making it — he’s got to be the prototype for the guy who never grows up, until too late if you want to write a tragedy.

These above all worked for me; but maybe less so than what followed.

Each of the foregoing, perhaps excepting Tom Bartlett, on inspection, possess, considering their age and the fact the Unheavenly Twins are a bit younger than the others (and, accordingly, require a thicker barrel and more and closer monitoring through the bunghole), minor, easily correctable character defects. One other sticks out a bit: Jim Marlowe’s a little impulsive still, for his age, but Frank Sutton is there and, even, Smitty, that one time; but you really cannot see Art, Morrie, Ross, Matt, Jim (or even Castor or Pollus, because Roger is going to sit on them) turning out failures.

Beginning, however, with Bill Leamer and Don Harvey, we run into something a bit different. I’ll leave it for someone else to pick up here — why don’t we put Rufo in a Bottle, now, and let him take a shot at it? [No points for getting the one everyone else missed, in very deed!]

Rufo? Bean’s on your side of the bottleneck, now. How’s it feel in there?

—
David M. Silver

“The Lieutenant expects your names to shine!”
Robert Anson Heinlein, USNA ’29
Lt.(jg), USN, R’td

From: “Dr. Rufo”
Subject: Re: Heinlein Reading Group meeting announcement: March 24 and 26, 2005
Date: Sun, 06 Mar 2005 22:26:44 GMT

David M. Silver wrote:

> In article ,
> “David Wright Sr.” wrote:
>
>
>>My point is that I liked them all. I didn’t really see much difference
>>between them in terms of ‘juvenile’ vs. ‘adult’. What I saw in the
>>’juveniles’ were young people trying to understand who they were and how
>>they fit into the ‘adult’ world. What I saw in the others were ‘adults
>>(presumably), trying to understand who they were and they fit in the
>>’world’. Of course, a big part of it were worlds which included
>>possibilities that didn’t exist yet, but might in the future, i.e. space
>>travel, time travel, and so on. These were the hooks that got me interested
>>in the first place, but by no means, what kept me reading Heinlein.
>
>
> Maybe a way to approach the question is to look at what makes one
> unique, if such a thing can be said. It could be uniquely successful, or
> unsuccessful — or, simply, unique but neither one or the other (neither
> outstandingly successful or unsuccessful).
>
> Just considering the juveniles right now, a thing that distinguishes two
> of them right out of the box, _The Rolling Stones_ and _Time For The
> Stars_, is that they involve twins in the protagonists’ position. Both
> possess a certain telepathic ability — indeed the ability between Pat
> and Tom Bartlett drives the plot. The internal dialogue between Castor
> and Pollux makes for a good vehicle for reflection, criticism, and
> display of character development by them, showing a change in degree of
> responsibility by those two. The seemingly less periodic dialogue
> between Pat and Tom shows how Tom individually is changing from a
> somewhat dominated and subordinate clone. But, techniques for displaying
> character development, stresses, and challenges faced by these two sets
> aside, I think I felt less affinity as a juvenile when I read them with
> both sets of the twins than I did with some other Heinlein juvenile
> protagonists.

Howsabout I start here: I did not feel that discontinuity with the two twins books. You see, I was the oldest of five and I never had an “equal” relationship in my family. They were all either “ascending” or “descending.” Cas/Pol and Tom/Pat presented “impossible situations” compared to my life and attracted me because of this.

>I think Tom, who assumes the dominant POV character’s
> role, had more affinity than either Castor or Pollux; and therefore
> maybe was a tiny bit more appealing to me when first read. Castor and
> Pollux, frankly speaking, had too much competition within their own
> family to really succeed as dominant characters in their story: Roger
> Stone, Hazel, Edith all overshadowed them; and even Meade and Buster
> stole a few scenes.

Now here, I’m not certain but that we agree: I believe a case could be made for each of the Stones being in a position to maneuver the plot at a given point. Each one of the family has a determining pivotal position at one of the crux points in the story. F’rinstanz, the Twins purchase of the sand bikes shapes a large portion of the story. As does the acquisition of the flat cat later.

>
> Looking at the other juveniles from that perspective, it gets a bit
> clearer and easier to make a distinction about success one way:
> considering which is a more dominant and therefore impressive
> character-developing character.
>
> In _Rocket Ship Galileo_ none of the three “boys” (young men, all high
> school graduates in their last summer before college, really) truly
> stands out. Abrams is cast in a leadership role to an extent, and
> therefore a model for lessons; but he doesn’t rise so high that he needs
> to be hammered down so much that he becomes _the_ rather than _a_ POV
> character.
>
> _Space Cadet_, with Matt, Tex, and Oscar, as a trio, and _Red Planet_
> with Jim Marlowe and Frank Sutton, as a dual, are essentially “buddy
> stories,” but Matt and Jim are always plainly the POV character, the one
> whose development we focus upon — Oscar and Frank are pretty stable
> going in; and I’m not betting on Tex ever making it — he’s got to be
> the prototype for the guy who never grows up, until too late if you want
> to write a tragedy.

Au contra ire, mon vieux! Have you mis-remembered the Oldster Cadet who’s the Mayor of Hog Alley — Arensa? There’s your *exemplum inlaudatum”. He quits. Tex ain’t gonna do that. It may take him longer than others — I give you that — but, I’m sure he will stay the course. I don’t think there’s any other interpretation to the description of the interviews Matt and Tex had with the Commandant — “members of the same lodge.”

>
> These above all worked for me; but maybe less so than what followed.
>
> Each of the foregoing, perhaps excepting Tom Bartlett, on inspection,
> possess, considering their age and the fact the Unheavenly Twins are a
> bit younger than the others (and, accordingly, require a thicker barrel
> and more and closer monitoring through the bunghole), minor, easily
> correctable character defects. One other sticks out a bit: Jim Marlowe’s
> a little impulsive still, for his age, but Frank Sutton is there and,
> even, Smitty, that one time; but you really cannot see Art, Morrie,
> Ross, Matt, Jim (or even Castor or Pollus, because Roger is going to sit
> on them) turning out failures.
>
> Beginning, however, with Bill Leamer and Don Harvey, we run into
> something a bit different. I’ll leave it for someone else to pick up
> here — why don’t we put Rufo in a Bottle, now, and let him take a shot
> at it? [No points for getting the one everyone else missed, in very
> deed!]
>
> Rufo? Bean’s on your side of the bottleneck, now. How’s it feel in
> there?
>

I’ll rise to this bait a bit later — duty calls.

Pax,

Rufe
From: “David M. Silver”
Subject: Re: Heinlein Reading Group meeting announcement: March 24 and 26, 2005
Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2005 16:13:37 -0800

In article ,
“Dr. Rufo” wrote:

>
> > _Space Cadet_, with Matt, Tex, and Oscar, as a trio, and _Red Planet_
> > with Jim Marlowe and Frank Sutton, as a [duo], are essentially “buddy
> > stories,” but Matt and Jim are always plainly the POV character, the one
> > whose development we focus upon — Oscar and Frank are pretty stable
> > going in; and I’m not betting on Tex ever making it — he’s got to be
> > the prototype for the guy who never grows up, until too late if you want
> > to write a tragedy.
> Au contra ire, mon vieux! Have you mis-remembered the Oldster Cadet
> who’s the Mayor of Hog Alley — Arensa? There’s your *exemplum
> inlaudatum”. He quits. Tex ain’t gonna do that. It may take him
> longer than others — I give you that — but, I’m sure he will stay
> the course. I don’t think there’s any other interpretation to the
> description of the interviews Matt and Tex had with the Commandant
> — “members of the same lodge.”

Perhaps, although Arensa’s role is more aimed, I think, to point out the seriousness of the duty undertaken –not to be taken lightly– the cadets might some day be required to do a Rivera on their home towns, to keep the peace. Heinlein’s decision not to end it that way, which he considered, probably kept the series of juveniles going. Rivera was enough of a lesson for most juveniles, I think.

> >
> > These above all worked for me; but maybe less so than what followed.
> >
> > Each of the foregoing, perhaps excepting Tom Bartlett, on inspection,
> > possess, considering their age and the fact the Unheavenly Twins are a
> > bit younger than the others (and, accordingly, require a thicker barrel
> > and more and closer monitoring through the bunghole), minor, easily
> > correctable character defects. One other sticks out a bit: Jim Marlowe’s
> > a little impulsive still, for his age, but Frank Sutton is there and,
> > even, Smitty, that one time; but you really cannot see Art, Morrie,
> > Ross, Matt, Jim (or even Castor or Pollus, because Roger is going to sit
> > on them) turning out failures.
> >
> > Beginning, however, with Bill Leamer and Don Harvey, we run into
> > something a bit different. I’ll leave it for someone else to pick up
> > here — why don’t we put Rufo in a Bottle, now, and let him take a shot
> > at it? [No points for getting the one everyone else missed, in very
> > deed!]
> >
> > Rufo? Bean’s on your side of the bottleneck, now. How’s it feel in
> > there?
> >
>
> I’ll rise to this bait a bit later — duty calls.
>
> Pax,
> Rufe

While you’re rising to the bait, consider that I believe Don Harvey, Bill Leamer, Rod Walker, Tom Bartlett, and John Thomas Stuart all possess more than easily correctable faults. One thing they all have in common is that they are all orphaned, or partially orphaned, actually or in effect. Thorby begins an orphan, but he and Clifford do not possess either the degree or quantity of serious faults. Heinlein did something different with them than he did with the earlier five. You may see it differently.

—
David M. Silver

“The Lieutenant expects your names to shine!”
Robert Anson Heinlein, USNA ’29
Lt.(jg), USN, R’td

From: Mac
Subject: Re: Heinlein Reading Group meeting announcement: March 24 and 26, 2005
Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2005 10:34:27 GMT

On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 16:13:37 -0800, “David M. Silver”
wrote:

>In article ,
> “Dr. Rufo” wrote:
>
>>
>> > _Space Cadet_, with Matt, Tex, and Oscar, as a trio, and _Red Planet_
>> > with Jim Marlowe and Frank Sutton, as a [duo], are essentially “buddy
>> > stories,” but Matt and Jim are always plainly the POV character, the one
>> > whose development we focus upon — Oscar and Frank are pretty stable
>> > going in; and I’m not betting on Tex ever making it — he’s got to be
>> > the prototype for the guy who never grows up, until too late if you want
>> > to write a tragedy.
*************************
David Silver:
>> Au contra ire, mon vieux! Have you mis-remembered the Oldster Cadet
>> who’s the Mayor of Hog Alley — Arensa? There’s your *exemplum
>> inlaudatum”. He quits. Tex ain’t gonna do that. It may take him
>> longer than others — I give you that — but, I’m sure he will stay
>> the course. I don’t think there’s any other interpretation to the
>> description of the interviews Matt and Tex had with the Commandant
>> — “members of the same lodge.”
*******************************

Mac:

I do not agree with Dr. Rufo here regarding Tex. He may be a bit of a Texan, but he does pass the tests. When Matt was in spacesuit exercises and wanted to brag, Tex later comes in and mentions how he was complimented. On patrol, looking for the missing ship, Matt is downchecked for the quarter, not doing well in math, in contrast to Oscar AND also Tex who are pulling ahead. After Venus, as David points out, the cadets are called into the Commander’s office… they are not chewed out, they are not handed their papers, or their heads. As for Tex and his antics with the mint juleps (I believe at the Station), well, in the military, I’ve known a few of my compadres who, being away from home and family and restrictions for the first time, over-indulged… ********************

>Perhaps, although Arensa’s role is more aimed, I think, to point out the
>seriousness of the duty undertaken –not to be taken lightly– the
>cadets might some day be required to do a Rivera on their home towns, to
>keep the peace. Heinlein’s decision not to end it that way, which he
>considered, probably kept the series of juveniles going. Rivera was
>enough of a lesson for most juveniles, I think.
******************

Mac:

As for Arensa, that was quite the wake-up call. In contrast to “Stinky” leaving to work with his Daddy, Arensa was just minding the store… and finally had enough and quit.

I do not really see Matt or Oscar or Tex quitting. And, along those lines, it was Matt who was thinking of leaving the Patrol and transferring over to the Marines, but Tex was stable and steady and unwavering… *****************************

>> > These above all worked for me; but maybe less so than what followed.
>> >
>> > Each of the foregoing, perhaps excepting Tom Bartlett, on inspection,
>> > possess, considering their age and the fact the Unheavenly Twins are a
>> > bit younger than the others (and, accordingly, require a thicker barrel
>> > and more and closer monitoring through the bunghole), minor, easily
>> > correctable character defects. One other sticks out a bit: Jim Marlowe’s
>> > a little impulsive still, for his age, but Frank Sutton is there and,
>> > even, Smitty, that one time; but you really cannot see Art, Morrie,
>> > Ross, Matt, Jim (or even Castor or Pollus, because Roger is going to sit
>> > on them) turning out failures.
>> >
>> > Beginning, however, with Bill Leamer and Don Harvey, we run into
>> > something a bit different. I’ll leave it for someone else to pick up
>> > here — why don’t we put Rufo in a Bottle, now, and let him take a shot
>> > at it? [No points for getting the one everyone else missed, in very
>> > deed!]
>> >
>> > Rufo? Bean’s on your side of the bottleneck, now. How’s it feel in
>> > there?
>> >
>>
>> I’ll rise to this bait a bit later — duty calls.
>>
>> Pax,
>> Rufe
>
>While you’re rising to the bait, consider that I believe Don Harvey,
>Bill Leamer, Rod Walker, Tom Bartlett, and John Thomas Stuart all
>possess more than easily correctable faults. One thing they all have in
>common is that they are all orphaned, or partially orphaned, actually or
>in effect. Thorby begins an orphan, but he and Clifford do not possess
>either the degree or quantity of serious faults. Heinlein did something
>different with them than he did with the earlier five. You may see it
>differently.

From: “David Wright Sr.”
Subject: Re: Heinlein Reading Group meeting announcement: March 24 and 26, 2005
Date: 10 Mar 2005 04:45:19 GMT

LNCwrote in news::

> The next meeting of the Robert A. Heinlein Reading Group will be held on
> the following topic, at the following dates, times, and in the following
> place.
>
> Topic: What’s your least favorite Heinlein?
>
> Dates and Times: Thursday, March 24, 2005, from 9 PM to midnight, ET,
> and Saturday, March 26, 2005, from 5 to 8 PM, ET
>
> Place: “Heinlein Readers Group chat” on AIM
>
>

Hopefully, to help out on the topic somewhat, I have gathered all of the posts in the ‘Least Favorite Heinlein’ thread and posted them at

http://home.alltel.net/dwrighsr/Heinlein/AIM_03-24-2005.html

—
David Wright Sr.
If you haven’t joined The Heinlein Society, Why Not?
The Heinlein Estate is again matching new member
registrations and fund raising up to $15,000
Make your new membership count twice!

From: LNC
Subject: Re: Heinlein Reading Group meeting announcement: March 24 and 26, 2005
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 05:04:35 GMT

David Wright Sr. wrote:

> Hopefully, to help out on the topic somewhat, I have gathered all of the
> posts in the ‘Least Favorite Heinlein’ thread and posted them at
>
> http://home.alltel.net/dwrighsr/Heinlein/AIM_03-24-2005.html

Dear David,

Permit me to say: you rule, exclamation mark. Thanks.

L.N.C.
From: “David M. Silver”
Subject: Re: Heinlein Reading Group meeting announcement: March 24 and 26, 2005
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 04:27:58 -0800

In article ,
LNC wrote:

> The next meeting of the Robert A. Heinlein Reading Group will be held on
> the following topic, at the following dates, times, and in the following
> place.
>
> Topic: What’s your least favorite Heinlein?
>
[…]
> Here’s a list of all the names of the “least fav’s” mentioned so far:
>
> –Orphans of the Sky
> –Beyond This Horizon
> –I Will Fear No Evil
> –The Cat Who Walked Through Walls
> –Job
> –Time For the Stars
> –Farnham’s Freehold
> –Number of the Beast
> –Rocketship Galileo
> –For Us, The Living
> –Friday
> –Glory Road
> –The Unpleasant Profession of Jonathan Hoag
> –Successful Operation
> –Podkayne of Mars
> –Waldo
>
> Is that it or are there more?

My least favorite is probably “Heil!” mainly because it’s too much of a mere sketch.

> Are some there that, clearly, shouldn’t
> be? Are there some you just can’t help liking?
>

“The Man Who Traveled in Elephants,” is one I cannot help liking, although I’m not sure I could stand a steady diet of the schmaltz it contains. But nothing makes chopped liver taste better. I also like the little windy story, “Our Fair City,” for a change of pace.

> Finally, who’s your least favorite Heinlein character?

For protaganists, or POV characters, I’d pick Podkayne. I pity her, and part way through I began to loose sympathy for her, especially after she began to “give up” her dreams. For non-protaganists, Uncle Tom, from the same story. I think he’s despicable. A close second is Professor Bernardo de la Paz, followed by a close third of Hartley Baldwin. They’re both manipulators and hypocrites, and I don’t trust either.

> You could like a
> book but not like a character. What don’t you like about this character?
> What would you change that would make you like her/him?
>

I don’t think you could change any of them and retain the story points. Poddy is taken advantage of some many times that it turns my face red to read the ways. De la Paz and Baldwin are necessary to energize the plot as well. Surface plausibility is all they have going for them. They’re both far more Puppet Masters than the Old Man in the novel of the same title.

—
David M. Silver

“The Lieutenant expects your names to shine!”
Robert Anson Heinlein, USNA ’29
Lt.(jg), USN, R’td

From: LNC
Subject: Re: Heinlein Reading Group meeting announcement: March 24 and 26, 2005
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 19:29:53 GMT

LNC wrote:

[Who cares what LNC wrote? Why is he responding to himself?]

Come on. Somebody come out and admit it. Your least favorite character is Lazarus Long. Woody. Aaron Sheffield. Maureen Smith. Laz and Lor. Any or all of the Woodrow Wilson Smith sock puppets. I mean, how can you trust the guy?

When he was young, say, under 200, he was a know-it-all. Who wants to be around somebody who thinks he knows better than you do, who constantly second-guesses your decisions and, while he probably won’t come out and give you a “toldyaso,” you know he’s got one ready and articulable and that will apply his favorite out-of-context facts to what he claims to be the controlling rules. Let me live with my mistakes and die by my mistakes and do it in a normal lifespan. I don’t need one life, 2,000 years long, to be able to demonstrate how foolish I can be or how clever I am sometimes. If I can find time enough for love, let me believe that love’s proper measure in quality, not quantity. He found that out, didn’t he?

Between 200 and 2,000, what did he do? Wander…

Sure, he went some interesting places and had some fun times and, sure, some one or two (what was it, actually? Three?) made for a couple of good sermons. When I imagine him, up on that mound, again, getting ready to preach, though, I wonder if he learned anything in 2K years.

“Blessed are the invasion-planning, wall-building, diaper-changing, gallant dead for theirs is the kingdom of immortality in a phrase.”

Just makes you feel guilty and inadequate if, for example, you never wanted to invade anybody, rent and don’t own any real property, can’t reproduce and, god forbid, have to contemplate the imponderable question, “whether your death was deemed subsequently to have been sufficiently gallant?”

So, Woody: what’s to like? Don’t get me started on Mike Smith.

L.N.C.
From:
Subject: Re: Heinlein Reading Group meeting announcement: March 24 and 26, 2005
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 15:33:06 -0500

On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 19:29:53 GMT, LNCwrote:

I’m afraid that I don’t understand how you can have a “favorite” or “least favorite” character, since you claim that they are all the same character? From: pixelmeow
Subject: Re: Heinlein Reading Group meeting announcement: March 24 and 26, 2005
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 21:05:40 -0500

You won’t *believe* what LNC said on Thu, 10
Mar 2005 19:29:53 GMT, in alt.fan.heinlein!!!

>LNC wrote:
>
>[Who cares what LNC wrote? Why is he responding to himself?]
>
>Come on. Somebody come out and admit it. Your least favorite character
>is Lazarus Long. Woody. Aaron Sheffield. Maureen Smith. Laz and Lor. Any
>or all of the Woodrow Wilson Smith sock puppets. I mean, how can you
>trust the guy?
>
>When he was young, say, under 200, he was a know-it-all. Who wants to be
>around somebody who thinks he knows better than you do, who constantly
>second-guesses your decisions and, while he probably won’t come out and
>give you a “toldyaso,” you know he’s got one ready and articulable and
>that will apply his favorite out-of-context facts to what he claims to
>be the controlling rules. Let me live with my mistakes and die by my
>mistakes and do it in a normal lifespan. I don’t need one life, 2,000
>years long, to be able to demonstrate how foolish I can be or how clever
>I am sometimes. If I can find time enough for love, let me believe that
>love’s proper measure in quality, not quantity. He found that out,
>didn’t he?

He did, a time or two. Many of us don’t need that many years to find it out. 🙂

>Between 200 and 2,000, what did he do? Wander…
>
>Sure, he went some interesting places and had some fun times and, sure,
>some one or two (what was it, actually? Three?) made for a couple of
>good sermons. When I imagine him, up on that mound, again, getting ready
> to preach, though, I wonder if he learned anything in 2K years.
>
>”Blessed are the invasion-planning, wall-building, diaper-changing,
>gallant dead for theirs is the kingdom of immortality in a phrase.”

ROFL!!!

>Just makes you feel guilty and inadequate if, for example, you never
>wanted to invade anybody, rent and don’t own any real property, can’t
>reproduce and, god forbid, have to contemplate the imponderable
>question, “whether your death was deemed subsequently to have been
>sufficiently gallant?”

Yes, it did make me feel guilty, a little. But you have to get that attitude out of your head, the one where you place yourself in the protagonist’s place in the story. It just doesn’t work well with Woody, he could do everything. So it seems. Or at least bluff you out about it.

>So, Woody: what’s to like? Don’t get me started on Mike Smith.

Ah, Mike. Good ole Mike. You know what I didn’t like about Mike? I didn’t like how he went from that sweet innocent person at the beginning, to the smarmy evangelical at the end. I really did like Mike for a while. Then he started his own church, and he just got sickening.

I don’t like Poddy. I don’t like Joan-Eunice. I think George Strong is the same as what’s his name with Joan-Eunice. I don’t like the twins, either sets of them. I could go on, but it’s bedtime… ‘night!

—
~teresa~
AFH Barwench

=^..^= “Never try to outstubborn a cat.” =^..^=
http://www.storesonline.com/site/rowanmystic
email my first name at pixelmeow dot com

http://pixelmeow.com/

From: “David M. Silver”
Subject: Re: Heinlein Reading Group meeting announcement: March 24 and 26, 2005
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 10:13:11 -0800

In article ,
pixelmeow wrote:

> I think George Strong
> is the same as what’s his name with Joan-Eunice.

Which what’s his name? Jake Soloman, Joe Branca, or Johann Sebastian Bach Smith?

—
David M. Silver

“The Lieutenant expects your names to shine!”
Robert Anson Heinlein, USNA ’29
Lt.(jg), USN, R’td

From: pixelmeow
Subject: Re: Heinlein Reading Group meeting announcement: March 24 and 26, 2005
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 14:06:34 -0500

You won’t *believe* what “David M. Silver”
said on Fri, 11 Mar 2005 10:13:11 -0800, in alt.fan.heinlein!!!

>In article ,
> pixelmeow wrote:
>
>> I think George Strong
>> is the same as what’s his name with Joan-Eunice.
>
>Which what’s his name? Jake Soloman, Joe Branca, or Johann Sebastian
>Bach Smith?

Jake, that’s him. Sorry, David.

—
~teresa~
AFH Barwench

=^..^= “Never try to outstubborn a cat.” =^..^=
http://www.storesonline.com/site/rowanmystic
email my first name at pixelmeow dot com

http://pixelmeow.com/

From: “David M. Silver”
Subject: Re: Heinlein Reading Group meeting announcement: March 24 and 26, 2005
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 03:16:54 -0800

In article ,
LNC wrote:

> LNC wrote:
>
> [Who cares what LNC wrote? Why is he responding to himself?]
>

Perhaps to draw out something. Perhaps something like this. Perhaps not, for with me when you pay your penny, you never quite know what you’re going to get.

At the beginning of _The Unpleasant Profession of Jonathan Hoag_ written in 1941, while he waited to hear whether he’d be called back to active duty to fight in the most significant war of recent history, the artist cited an earlier artist, Algernon Charles Swinburne:

From too much love of living,
From hope and fear set free,
We thank with brief thanksgiving
Whatever gods may be
That no life lives forever;
That dead men rise up never;
That even the weariest river
Winds somewhere safe to sea.

It is, of course, the introduction to the poet’s “Hymn to Prozepine,” which I shall not characterize but suggest merits reading. See, http://members.tripod.com/poetry_pearls/eEPoets/Swinburne.htm#from

But, from _Hoag_ we know that the Sons of the Bird believe “In the beginning there was the Bird,” and “The Bird is cruel.”

And we find in a field in Illinois that the only solution for the heresy that the Sons of the Bird preach to each other is an art critic. One who decides what is good and what is bad art, and, presently, the art critics get together and remove the bad art — the Sons of the Bird and all their works — from the World. Human art has to be experienced as human to fully appreciate it; and, however excruciatingly long that takes, the art critic has to live that excruciatingly long before he can do what he is called in the end to do, use his educated judgment to discriminate against bad art, pronounce it a failure, and remove it from our temples.

> Come on. Somebody come out and admit it. Your least favorite character
> is Lazarus Long. Woody. Aaron Sheffield. Maureen Smith. Laz and Lor. Any
> or all of the Woodrow Wilson Smith sock puppets. I mean, how can you
> trust the guy?
>

Good old Woody started out as usual — the way we all do, as a nasty little four or five year old kid, at his age of reason, when we first encounter him, belatedly, in “Da Capo,” a return to the beginning, in _Time Enough for Love_. Lazarus Long earned our trust, despite his pronouncements about ‘fading into the woodwork’ in _Methuselah’s Children_ when he puts women and children first and saves his family. But, thereafter, beginning with TEFL, Heinlein started to turn Woody into an art critic. Like Hoag. And Woody winds up with the unspeakable ichor of the Sons of the Bird under his nails. You get ichor under your fingernails by rending skin, flesh, and bones into nothingness, non-existence, in the most basic way: by clawing it into red jelly. Once Heinlein got Woody back to the beginning, but then told him “Beloved. You cannot die.” he had to find a job for Woody.

So he turned him into an art critic; and everyone knows how “know-it-all,” and “nasty,” and how “toldyaso” those second-guessers can be. That was what was happening in the World As Myth … .

I thought you knew no one can trust a critic, LN. Heinlein even locked them all into a room to rend each other to pieces unless they found out how to read the instructions to get out.

> When he was young, say, under 200, he was a know-it-all. Who wants to be
> around somebody who thinks he knows better than you do, who constantly
> second-guesses your decisions and, while he probably won’t come out and
> give you a “toldyaso,” you know he’s got one ready and articulable and
> that will apply his favorite out-of-context facts to what he claims to
> be the controlling rules. Let me live with my mistakes and die by my
> mistakes and do it in a normal lifespan. I don’t need one life, 2,000
> years long, to be able to demonstrate how foolish I can be or how clever
> I am sometimes. If I can find time enough for love, let me believe that
> love’s proper measure in quality, not quantity. He found that out,
> didn’t he?
>
> Between 200 and 2,000, what did he do? Wander…
>
> Sure, he went some interesting places and had some fun times and, sure,
> some one or two (what was it, actually? Three?) made for a couple of
> good sermons. When I imagine him, up on that mound, again, getting ready
> to preach, though, I wonder if he learned anything in 2K years.
>
> “Blessed are the invasion-planning, wall-building, diaper-changing,
> gallant dead for theirs is the kingdom of immortality in a phrase.”
>
> Just makes you feel guilty and inadequate if, for example, you never
> wanted to invade anybody, rent and don’t own any real property, can’t
> reproduce and, god forbid, have to contemplate the imponderable
> question, “whether your death was deemed subsequently to have been
> sufficiently gallant?”
>
> So, Woody: what’s to like? Don’t get me started on Mike Smith.
>

Don’t get me started on Mike Smith, the heretic.

> L.N.C.

Regards,

—
David M. Silver

“The Lieutenant expects your names to shine!”
Robert Anson Heinlein, USNA ’29
Lt.(jg), USN, R’td

From: LNC
Subject: Re: Heinlein Reading Group meeting announcement: March 24 and 26, 2005
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 19:49:28 GMT

David M. Silver wrote:

> I thought you knew no one can trust a critic, LN. Heinlein even locked
> them all into a room to rend each other to pieces unless they found out
> how to read the instructions to get out.

Some people are so sensitive and some people think they know so much…

A writer’s a writer’s a writer. Whether she’s a fiction writer or a textbook writer or a writer of literary criticism, she’s a writer. It is, in fact, misplaced criticism to criticize the critic for the existence of her profession since the sword could just as quickly be turned on you, particularly if you’re a critic, too.

In the case of Robert A. Heinlein, the theme underlying all his work is social commentary and criticism. Some science fiction exists merely (pejorative disclaimed) to entertain. The knock on Bob’s always been that his existed to instruct. In fact, the Heinlein writing formula requires the asserting of no fewer than four indisputable truisms per assertion page, the most important of which are instantly subjected to breezy exposition and often sold with wry, 1940’s Nick Charles sexual banter. Each truism consists of a kernel of semi-outrageous counter-cultural mini-blasphemy which, on examination during the process of reading the exposition, appears to hold enough water to avoid the half-full/half-empty test. But I digress…

The stealth critic sublime was Mr. Heinlein and the evidence resides in the fact that this place exists and the person reading these words readily allows that her life has been personally changed by those writings. For Mr. Heinlein to protest about being criticized makes him the classic camel-swallowing, gnat-gagging lady who doth…too much. At the foundation of the problem is this: who’s the shaman you want to believe?

If only…

Consider the analogy of music. Bob would have liked this since he thought he knew a thing or two about it and, of course, had all the answers anyway. If I wrote a song, a little work of art with words, a melody and harmonized it to sound like I wanted it, and another guy came along and played my song but, after the first chorus, took the melody line and embellished on it, reharmonized some or all of it, is he criticizing me? I think I’ll call my song, “Time Enough for Love.” When a performer comes along and says to the audience, “Now, I’ll play for you that old standard, ‘Time Enough for Love,'” and he, like, you know, commences to change the tempo and add/leave out some of my melody notes, and he actually picks simultaneously-played intervals nothing like mine against what’s left, is he trying to tell people he’s better than I am or smarter than I am or a better composer than I am?

How should I react? Suggest that he and all the other jazz improvisors be locked up in a room and only allowed egress if they can perform “Twinkle, Twinkle, Little Star,” without varying from the original melody? Just how is it I know how they hear anyway? Just how is it I know that what I’m hearing them play is what they’re hearing themselves play? Where do I get off confining them when I was the one who started this whole business by committing to a tune to the exclusion of other possibly pleasing sequences?

Huh? Yeah, you’re right. It’s because it was my tune. I think you’ve overlooked though where I got it. See, anybody can arrange, orchestrate, harmonize and do the musical math but, it’s said, melody comes from god. If it all boils down to belief anyway, why’s yours better than mine or mine better than yours?

So, pick your critic and hang your hat on her but don’t think you’re fooling anybody but yourself.

L.N.C.
From: “David M. Silver”
Subject: Re: Heinlein Reading Group meeting announcement: March 24 and 26, 2005
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 18:06:04 -0800

In article ,
LNC wrote:

> David M. Silver wrote:
>

Reinserting for continuity the part about “So he turned [Lazarus Long] into an art critic” a “know-it-all” and a second guessing “toldyaso.”

> > I thought you knew no one can trust a critic, LN. Heinlein even locked
> > them all into a room to rend each other to pieces unless they found out
> > how to read the instructions to get out.
>
> Some people are so sensitive and some people think they know so much…
>
> A writer’s a writer’s a writer. Whether she’s a fiction writer or a
> textbook writer or a writer of literary criticism, she’s a writer. It
> is, in fact, misplaced criticism to criticize the critic for the
> existence of her profession since the sword could just as quickly be
> turned on you, particularly if you’re a critic, too.
>

The champion of the theory that the work of “dead, white men” writers of literature perpetually influences those writers who follow for the past thirty years, Harold Bloom, in _The Anxiety of Influence_ (2d ed., 1973, 1997, Oxford) calls what writers (or critics, if you will) do not the “misplaced criticism” you term it but “poetic misprision” — a complex act of strong misreading of a creative influence by another writer, an anxiety the writers of subsequent works are compelled to manifest when they, in turn, write their own works, in which they sweep aside the earlier writer’s works to rewrite their own imitations of what they have been influenced by. The readings misprisioned (or misplacedly criticized) can be quite idiosyncratically imitated or ambivalently perceived.

By his theory, for example, Milton cannot sweep aside Genesis to create Paradise Lost (and Paradise Regained), unless or until he has a strong misreading of the story of the fall in Genesis (and a few other stories and legends from the classics of Greece and Rome as well). Heinlein could not sweep aside Paradise Lost to create Job: A Comedy of Justice, until and unless he had a strong misreading of the stories of the fall in both Paradise Lost and Genesis (and a few other stories as well), and so on. Milton’s POV character (one of them) in Paradise Lost, Lucifer, exemplifies to me, the “strong” misprision or misreading, whether it be to explain the ways of God to men, or make a Heaven out of a Hell. Heinlein’s POV character (one of them) in Job: ACOJ (one of them) has not only the duty to misread or misplacedly criticize both God’s and Lucifer’s ways to men, but he has to make his own Heaven “where Margrethe is.”

And Heinlein, as you say, can “just as quickly” have the “sword turned” on him, particularly, as you say, since he and Woody, to bring it full circle, are “critic[s], too.”

You cannot have the “strong” misreading unless you’re “so sensitive” and think you know “so much… ,” either. There’s little or insufficient “anxiety” to produce a strong misprision or strong misplaced criticism if there is a lack of sensitivity or lack of knowing.

> In the case of Robert A. Heinlein, the theme underlying all his work is
> social commentary and criticism. Some science fiction exists merely
> (pejorative disclaimed) to entertain. The knock on Bob’s always been
> that his existed to instruct. In fact, the Heinlein writing formula
> requires the asserting of no fewer than four indisputable truisms per
> assertion page, the most important of which are instantly subjected to
> breezy exposition and often sold with wry, 1940’s Nick Charles sexual
> banter. Each truism consists of a kernel of semi-outrageous
> counter-cultural mini-blasphemy which, on examination during the process
> of reading the exposition, appears to hold enough water to avoid the
> half-full/half-empty test. But I digress…
>

That’s not truly a digression. It’s a sine qua non. whether couched as irony or not, for a sufficiency of anxiety or influence upon the reader turned writer, or critic, to produce what Bloom, and others, including Jonathan Hoag, would describe as good human art.

Would you have one of these gourmets’ specialties, LN? “… preserved cumquats, guava jelly, little potted meats, tea … delicate wafers with a famous name on the package”? I’m partial to a slice of tart apple, a slice of New York Cheddar, and a slice of Italian dry salami on a bland, crisp cracker, with a little anchovy on top, myself; but, as my mother always told me, my taste is all in my mouth. Perhaps a little pickled herring on dark pumpernickel, instead? We’ll both need our strength for the finale when everything turns grey. Or where we find whether truly “Heaven is where Margrethe is”?

> The stealth critic sublime was Mr. Heinlein and the evidence resides in
> the fact that this place exists and the person reading these words
> readily allows that her life has been personally changed by those
> writings. For Mr. Heinlein to protest about being criticized makes him
> the classic camel-swallowing, gnat-gagging lady who doth…too much.

I think his only insistence was that the critic *read* *the* *work* before engaging the mouth or the pen. That let them out of the Dopey Joe pit and preserved them from being clawed into ichor under other critics’ fingernails. Or his own.

> At
> the foundation of the problem is this: who’s the shaman you want to believe?
>

“Oy! Every prophecy I fulfilled! And now He tells me consistent I am not! This is justice?”

“No. It is Art. …”

LN. Look at Me. (As Elmore Leonard’s most famous character might say.)

> If only…
>
> Consider the analogy of music. Bob would have liked this since he
> thought he knew a thing or two about it and, of course, had all the
> answers anyway. If I wrote a song, a little work of art with words, a
> melody and harmonized it to sound like I wanted it, and another guy came
> along and played my song but, after the first chorus, took the melody
> line and embellished on it, reharmonized some or all of it, is he
> criticizing me? I think I’ll call my song, “Time Enough for Love.” When
> a performer comes along and says to the audience, “Now, I’ll play for
> you that old standard, ‘Time Enough for Love,'” and he, like, you know,
> commences to change the tempo and add/leave out some of my melody notes,
> and he actually picks simultaneously-played intervals nothing like mine
> against what’s left, is he trying to tell people he’s better than I am
> or smarter than I am or a better composer than I am?
>

No, not according to Bloom, if what he’s written is any good at all. Bloom would say he’s created a strong poetic misprision and good art.

I don’t think Heinlein would disagree, so long as the fellow who came along had the requisite strong sensitivity and know-it-all-ness. Joe Haldeman’s Forever War. I rest my case.

> How should I react? Suggest that he and all the other jazz improvisors
> be locked up in a room and only allowed egress if they can perform
> “Twinkle, Twinkle, Little Star,” without varying from the original
> melody? Just how is it I know how they hear anyway? Just how is it I
> know that what I’m hearing them play is what they’re hearing themselves
> play? Where do I get off confining them when I was the one who started
> this whole business by committing to a tune to the exclusion of other
> possibly pleasing sequences?

No, that’s not what Heinlein said. All he wanted in a critic was your ability to read music sufficiently well, or hear it sufficiently well, to be able if pressed to reproduce it, assuming you can play music — “You know how to whistle, don’t you, Steve? You just put your lips together and… blow. …” After that, the variations and divertimentos are all urine, er, your own.

>
> Huh? Yeah, you’re right. It’s because it was my tune. I think you’ve
> overlooked though where I got it. See, anybody can arrange, orchestrate,
> harmonize and do the musical math but, it’s said, melody comes from god.
> If it all boils down to belief anyway, why’s yours better than mine or
> mine better than yours?
>

Only if it’s a strong misprision, only if your poetic anxiety, whether you acknowledge it or not, creates a work as a _consequence_ of his work (you are the cause).

> So, pick your critic and hang your hat on her but don’t think you’re
> fooling anybody but yourself.
>
> L.N.C.

Not trying to fool anyone. But I think Bloom is right when he says the strong misprision of past Art influences or creates a poetic anxiety of writers or writer-critics to create Art, not the mere “social energies” of our current times as proposed by what he calls our current Schools of Resentment, the so-called Neo-Marxists, New Feminists, New Historicists, French-influenced theorists of all flavors.

William Shakespeare uniquely wrote Shakespeare, not the social energy of the Elizabethan Age. Heinlein’s writings may embody 20th Century America, but Heinlein wrote Heinlein, not the social energy of an unique age.

—
David M. Silver

“The Lieutenant expects your names to shine!”
Robert Anson Heinlein, USNA ’29
Lt.(jg), USN, R’td

From: “Dr. Rufo”
Subject: Re: Heinlein Reading Group meeting announcement: March 24 and 26, 2005
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 20:10:46 GMT

LNC wrote:
> David M. Silver wrote:
>
>> I thought you knew no one can trust a critic, LN. Heinlein even locked
>> them all into a room to rend each other to pieces unless they found
>> out how to read the instructions to get out.
>
>
> Some people are so sensitive and some people think they know so much…
>
> A writer’s a writer’s a writer. Whether she’s a fiction writer or a
> textbook writer or a writer of literary criticism, she’s a writer. It
> is, in fact, misplaced criticism to criticize the critic for the
> existence of her profession since the sword could just as quickly be
> turned on you, particularly if you’re a critic, too.
>
> In the case of Robert A. Heinlein, the theme underlying all his work is
> social commentary and criticism.

Absolutely no argument from me on this one, L.N.
> Some science fiction exists merely
> (pejorative disclaimed) to entertain. The knock on Bob’s always been
> that his existed to instruct.

Ditto, ditto, mon vieux.
> In fact, the Heinlein writing formula
> requires the asserting of no fewer than four indisputable truisms per
> assertion page, the most important of which are instantly subjected to
> breezy exposition and often sold with wry, 1940’s Nick Charles sexual
> banter.

Sorry, but here I suggest that “1930’s sexual banter” is more accurate than your “1940’s sexual banter.” The earlier decade was much more “relaxed” since the boy’s weren’t away from home then and the ladies were on a “longer leash” if you will.

> Each truism consists of a kernel of semi-outrageous
> counter-cultural mini-blasphemy which, on examination during the process
> of reading the exposition, appears to hold enough water to avoid the
> half-full/half-empty test. But I digress…
>
> The stealth critic sublime was Mr. Heinlein and the evidence resides in
> the fact that this place exists and the person reading these words
> readily allows that her life has been personally changed by those
> writings. For Mr. Heinlein to protest about being criticized makes him
> the classic camel-swallowing, gnat-gagging lady who doth…too much. At
> the foundation of the problem is this: who’s the shaman you want to
> believe?
>
> If only…
>
> Consider the analogy of music.

L.N. — Here we must part ways. I cannot accept your conflation of the “performing artists” (musicians) with “critics.” Music is written for performance. While some persons are able to “experience the totality of music” by reading over a score, most of us mere mortals gotta hear it played to “get it.”

A grouping of musicians can determine to play “Eine Kleine Nachtmusik” as Wolfie wrote it but they can, I believe, just as well determine to play it in the “cosmic cowboy” style of Willie Nelson. The measure against which their success or failure should be judged is how well they’ve accomplished their intention.

A similar situation exists with the “drama.” It’s written but meant for performance as “theatre/theater.” The performers of the drama are interpretive artists, as are musicians, and it’s through their understanding, perceptions and abilities that the written form is made REAL in performance. They can determine to perform “Hamlet” in the style of production current when Uncle Bill wrote it (on a simulacrum of the Globe Theatre stage with young men playing Gertrude and Ophelia); but they can just as easily choose to perform it on 1930’s style “Jessnertreppen” or in “modern dress” or even in “rehearsal clothes” (as was the 1963 New York production directed by John Gielgud and starring Richard Burton).

This ain’t the case with the “critic” of the short story, novel or essay. These forms are intended to be READ by their audience. Some individual examples of these writings can also benefit from a performance of some sort but this doesn’t change their original intent: to be read.

The “gripe” I observe in RAH’s attitude toward critics is that he seems to think that the reading audience don’t need no stinkin’ critics to tell us what’s what in RAH’s works. It appears to me that he thinks these are mere “hangers-on” to the real Art created.

What’s important to RAH — I believe — is that the reader “gets it.” If the reader needs an interpreter then the author has failed in his/her task. YMMV, of course.

Rufe

> Bob would have liked this since he
> thought he knew a thing or two about it and, of course, had all the
> answers anyway. If I wrote a song, a little work of art with words, a
> melody and harmonized it to sound like I wanted it, and another guy came
> along and played my song but, after the first chorus, took the melody
> line and embellished on it, reharmonized some or all of it, is he
> criticizing me? I think I’ll call my song, “Time Enough for Love.” When
> a performer comes along and says to the audience, “Now, I’ll play for
> you that old standard, ‘Time Enough for Love,'” and he, like, you know,
> commences to change the tempo and add/leave out some of my melody notes,
> and he actually picks simultaneously-played intervals nothing like mine
> against what’s left, is he trying to tell people he’s better than I am
> or smarter than I am or a better composer than I am?
>
> How should I react? Suggest that he and all the other jazz improvisors
> be locked up in a room and only allowed egress if they can perform
> “Twinkle, Twinkle, Little Star,” without varying from the original
> melody? Just how is it I know how they hear anyway? Just how is it I
> know that what I’m hearing them play is what they’re hearing themselves
> play? Where do I get off confining them when I was the one who started
> this whole business by committing to a tune to the exclusion of other
> possibly pleasing sequences?
>
> Huh? Yeah, you’re right. It’s because it was my tune. I think you’ve
> overlooked though where I got it. See, anybody can arrange, orchestrate,
> harmonize and do the musical math but, it’s said, melody comes from god.
> If it all boils down to belief anyway, why’s yours better than mine or
> mine better than yours?
>
> So, pick your critic and hang your hat on her but don’t think you’re
> fooling anybody but yourself.
>
> L.N.C.

From: “David M. Silver”
Subject: Re: Heinlein Reading Group meeting announcement: March 24 and 26, 2005
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 14:47:22 -0800

In article ,
“Dr. Rufo” wrote, replying to LNC:

> > The stealth critic sublime was Mr. Heinlein and the evidence resides in
> > the fact that this place exists and the person reading these words
> > readily allows that her life has been personally changed by those
> > writings. For Mr. Heinlein to protest about being criticized makes him
> > the classic camel-swallowing, gnat-gagging lady who doth…too much. At
> > the foundation of the problem is this: who’s the shaman you want to
> > believe?
> >
> > If only…
> >
> > Consider the analogy of music.
>
> L.N. — Here we must part ways. I cannot accept your conflation of
> the “performing artists” (musicians) with “critics.” Music is
> written for performance. While some persons are able to
> “experience the totality of music” by reading over a score, most of
> us mere mortals gotta hear it played to “get it.”

I’ll buy part of his thesis, Rufo. Some critics do “perform.” Some merely smash instruments up on stage (or hold them without using them, like the fill-ins in a marching band), which I suppose is a performance of a sort, too; but afterwards there’s nothing left to play on — something like burning a book. Or banning it, if they had the power. Or playing different notes to destroy the music the band plays.

And writers influenced by earlier written works perform a critical function when they elaborate or contest themes, etc., from earlier works. Heinlein is functioning as both writer and critic of Milton when he creates a heaven where Margarethe is, Joe Haldeman of Heinlein when he creates a forever war for Mandala, whose full name is an acronym of Joe’s own.

It’s like what Heifetz, or Perlman, or Stern might do with Beethoven’s Violin Concerto, Op. 61. There’s a part in there in which any performer is free to extemporize; and they do, the three I’ve named quite successfully — and sometimes when the mood struck them, differently from other times. Others I’ve heard ought to be taken out behind a tree by their Comrades and have a bullet put in their ears; or we could line up by the numbers and do it by firing squad.

It’s only when the critic or critic writer discards the work and performs an odd function in the main unrelated to the work because he didn’t pay any attention (read) the work that ‘criticism,’ if you call it that, is utterly worthless. If the critic decides arbitrarily to take out some of the notes, because there’s “too many notes,” or deliberately remove those that create the harmony or dissonance that the writer intends to portray, then his “playing” is utterly worthless. He’s not playing the work, but doing something else, perhaps just expressing his angst.

> A grouping of musicians can determine to play “Eine Kleine
> Nachtmusik” as Wolfie wrote it but they can, I believe, just as well
> determine to play it in the “cosmic cowboy” style of Willie Nelson.
> The measure against which their success or failure should be judged
> is how well they’ve accomplished their intention.
> A similar situation exists with the “drama.” It’s written
> but meant for performance as “theatre/theater.” The
> performers of the drama are interpretive artists, as are musicians,
> and it’s through their understanding, perceptions and abilities that
> the written form is made REAL in performance. They can determine to
> perform “Hamlet” in the style of production current when Uncle Bill
> wrote it (on a simulacrum of the Globe Theatre stage with young men
> playing Gertrude and Ophelia); but they can just as easily choose to
> perform it on 1930’s style “Jessnertreppen” or in “modern dress” or
> even in “rehearsal clothes” (as was the 1963 New York production
> directed by John Gielgud and starring Richard Burton).
> This ain’t the case with the “critic” of the short story, novel or
> essay. These forms are intended to be READ by their audience. Some
> individual examples of these writings can also benefit from a
> performance of some sort but this doesn’t change their original
> intent: to be read.
> The “gripe” I observe in RAH’s attitude toward critics is that he
> seems to think that the reading audience don’t need no stinkin’
> critics to tell us what’s what in RAH’s works. It appears to me that
> he thinks these are mere “hangers-on” to the real Art created.
> What’s important to RAH — I believe — is that the reader “gets
> it.” If the reader needs an interpreter then the author has failed
> in his/her task. YMMV, of course.
>
> Rufe

I disagree. If the critic gets it right, or close to right, or partially right, like Perlman, who I first heard after I’d listened a thousand times to Heifetz, I might learn something. Perhaps even something useful.

—
David M. Silver

“The Lieutenant expects your names to shine!”
Robert Anson Heinlein, USNA ’29
Lt.(jg), USN, R’td

From: “Dr. Rufo”
Subject: Re: Heinlein Reading Group meeting announcement: March 24 and 26, 2005
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 02:05:54 GMT

David M. Silver wrote:
> In article ,
> “Dr. Rufo” wrote, replying to LNC:

< snip >
>>>
>>>Consider the analogy of music.
>>
>> L.N. — Here we must part ways. I cannot accept your conflation of
>>the “performing artists” (musicians) with “critics.” Music is
>>written for performance. While some persons are able to
>>”experience the totality of music” by reading over a score, most of
>>us mere mortals gotta hear it played to “get it.”
>
>
> I’ll buy part of his thesis, Rufo. Some critics do “perform.” Some
> merely smash instruments up on stage (or hold them without using them,
> like the fill-ins in a marching band), which I suppose is a performance
> of a sort, too; but afterwards there’s nothing left to play on —
> something like burning a book. Or banning it, if they had the power. Or
> playing different notes to destroy the music the band plays.

NONONONONONONONONONONONONO.

Sorry. Please, Dave, could we separate the notions of “performer” and “critic” at least for the moment?

If a “performer” is REAL-izing a work — be it misic or drama — that person has an obligation to the Artist who conceived and executed the Creation. That obligation is to perform the piece created. To modify the piece in any way can be judged as NOT fulfilling that obligation (strict construction). Those who hold this position classify any modification/shortening/extension of the original as unacceptable. Their argument is that if you choose to perform the piece you must perform the entire piece.

There are sometimes mitigating circumstances which can somewhat ameliorate such choices: E.g. A “full-length” performance of Hamlet takes almost four hours. Not every situation can bear that length of a production. Sometimes, cutting down the running time can be justified but that’s the edge of the slpippery slope that everyone mentions.

A less-strict constuction can allow for many sorts of alterations to the original piece — so long as the “artistic integrity” of the piece is not compromised. But there must be strict limits self-imposed when using such doctrine. E.g. In Franco Zeffirelli’s 1968 “Romeo and Juliet” the “death speeches” of the two kids were cut. I realize that the two kids couldn’t handle the poetry but that ain’t a good enough reason fpr me. If they don’t have the chops they shouldn’t sit in.

>
> And writers influenced by earlier written works perform a critical
> function when they elaborate or contest themes, etc., from earlier
> works. Heinlein is functioning as both writer and critic of Milton when
> he creates a heaven where Margarethe is, Joe Haldeman of Heinlein when
> he creates a forever war for Mandala, whose full name is an acronym of
> Joe’s own.

I wanna come back to this but I want to address the stuff that follows too.

>
> It’s like what Heifetz, or Perlman, or Stern might do with Beethoven’s
> Violin Concerto, Op. 61. There’s a part in there in which any performer
> is free to extemporize; and they do, the three I’ve named quite
> successfully — and sometimes when the mood struck them, differently
> from other times.

You talk of the vagaries between performances of the same piece by Heifitz and Perlman as an example of “critics” at work. I demur. I do not know the piece by catalog number but if, as you say, there is a portion marked in the score for “extemporizing” by the performer this is NOT part of the created effort of Beethoven and cannot be so judged honestly.

Now I’m going back to what you said about RAH & Joe Haldeman as writers-and-critics. Yeah, well d’oh!

RAH and Haldeman have each allowed influences of another’s previous work to color what they have created. But they have each created what are arguably classified as works of art by their efforts. This is not in the same league as a “critic” writing an essay for the Sunday LA Times Book Review.

You may wish to elevate the title of “critic” to include Harold Bloom but, shit-howdy, Dave, that don’t make it right. Bloom is a critical thinker and it turns out that he can express his thoughts well and truly enough that others consider his efforts to be a form of art as well — but that is an exceptional case.

The person in the Sunday Times may have the pretensions to Bloom’s title but the results ain’t nearly the same.

The person in the Times is exemplum gratis the sort/species of “critic” RAH was referring to for the population of the Critic’s Lounge.

NOT Harold Bloom or Joe Haldeman or John Milton.

< big ole snip >

> I disagree. If the critic gets it right, or close to right, or partially
> right, like Perlman, who I first heard after I’d listened a thousand
> times to Heifetz, I might learn something. Perhaps even something
> useful.
>

Once again, in the situations in which you place them, I must consider Jascha and Itzhak to be performing artists rather than critics.

Pax,

Rufe
From: “David M. Silver”
Subject: Re: Heinlein Reading Group meeting announcement: March 24 and 26, 2005
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 18:17:06 -0800

In article ,
“Dr. Rufo” wrote:

> This
> is not in the same league as a “critic” writing an essay for the
> Sunday LA Times Book Review.

I’d call them, if I’m in a good mood about their “performance,” a “reviewer.” You really don’t want to know what I call some of them … .

—
David M. Silver

“The Lieutenant expects your names to shine!”
Robert Anson Heinlein, USNA ’29
Lt.(jg), USN, R’td

From: LNC
Subject: Re: Heinlein Reading Group meeting announcement: March 24 and 26, 2005
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 16:55:31 GMT

Dr. Rufo wrote:
>
>
>> LNC wrote:

>>
>> Consider the analogy of music.
>
>
> L.N. — Here we must part ways. I cannot accept your conflation of
> the “performing artists” (musicians) with “critics.” Music is written
> for performance. While some persons are able to “experience the
> totality of music” by reading over a score, most of us mere mortals
> gotta hear it played to “get it.”

I agree; however, my “performance” might be butchery of your composition, in your opinion. Hypothetical Listener A might think I’ve improved on your composition. Listener B might wonder why I can’t leave well enough alone. Listener C might be thinking, “it sounds pretty much like the original but when he does that rubato thing in the 10th measure and lends some of the time of the half notes to the succeeding quarter notes and plays triplets, is he interpreting, commenting, criticizing, improving, usurping or is he just sloppy?” All the way down to Little Cat Z who has vrooom under her hat and cleans up the whole, pink mess and leaves the landscape just the way it was.

Ummhmm…and the literary critic, masquerading as the writer being a social critic, can reharmonize Paradise Lost and then turn around and whine when his critics point out what he’s done, not done, or miss the point entirely.

> A similar situation exists with the “drama.” It’s written but
> meant for performance as “theatre/theater.” The performers of the
> drama are interpretive artists, as are musicians, and it’s through their
> understanding, perceptions and abilities that the written form is made
> REAL in performance. They can determine to perform “Hamlet” in the style
> of production current when Uncle Bill wrote it (on a simulacrum of the
> Globe Theatre stage with young men playing Gertrude and Ophelia); but
> they can just as easily choose to perform it on 1930’s style
> “Jessnertreppen” or in “modern dress” or even in “rehearsal clothes” (as
> was the 1963 New York production directed by John Gielgud and starring
> Richard Burton).

“Goodbye Girl.” I’ve never really liked Simon but he had a cute idea when he rewrote Richard III inside the screenplay by keeping the dialogue but more than subtlety changing the character’s, uhhh…character. What was that? Fair comment? Interpretation? Literary license? Improvisation on a theme? Unfair criticism? A transvestite of justice?

> This ain’t the case with the “critic” of the short story, novel or
> essay. These forms are intended to be READ by their audience. Some
> individual examples of these writings can also benefit from a
> performance of some sort but this doesn’t change their original intent:
> to be read.

Way too neatly dismissed for me. When I read, I visualize, and who doesn’t? How it’s written either assists my visualization or it flops and I don’t read it. (Incidentally, or more than so, if “it” flops it could be me “not getting it,” of course.) I suggest that the extreme extension of what you’re proposing is the prohibition of all scholarly, not-so-scholarly and any reports of impressions and opinions regarding any written work. A universe of printed materials without a glossary of shared experiences. Why, you’d do away with AFH, if we’d let you, you insurrectionist, you.

> The “gripe” I observe in RAH’s attitude toward critics is that he
> seems to think that the reading audience don’t need no stinkin’ critics
> to tell us what’s what in RAH’s works. It appears to me that he thinks
> these are mere “hangers-on” to the real Art created.
> What’s important to RAH — I believe — is that the reader “gets
> it.” If the reader needs an interpreter then the author has failed in
> his/her task. YMMV, of course.

That’s so coy of Bob and so self-centered. Einstein could say, “if you don’t get e=mc^2, no infinite elongation in the direction of velocity for you.” Being an artist isn’t setting yourself up to take only the good and having the cachet to characterize the bad as out of order because it wasn’t what you meant. Being an artist is setting yourself up to be a stationary target, vis a vis the work under scrutiny, for any yahoo who wants to come along and dis your brush strokes. If you can’t take the heat, teach; but, again, don’t be surprised when they tell you the way you teach could be better.

L.N.C.
From: “Nuclear Waste”
Subject: Re: Heinlein Reading Group meeting announcement: March 24 and 26, 2005
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 18:04:24 GMT

“LNC”
> That’s so coy of Bob and so self-centered. Einstein could say, “if you
> don’t get e=mc^2, no infinite elongation in the direction of velocity
> for you.” Being an artist isn’t setting yourself up to take only the
> good and having the cachet to characterize the bad as out of order
> because it wasn’t what you meant. Being an artist is setting yourself up
> to be a stationary target, vis a vis the work under scrutiny, for any
> yahoo who wants to come along and dis your brush strokes. If you can’t
> take the heat, teach; but, again, don’t be surprised when they tell you
> the way you teach could be better.

If you class the critic with the artist, then your characterization of what the artist is doing applies equally to the work of the critic. If we take that as true then Bob was merely practicing his aim at the self appointed stationary target. Other than your characterization of Heinlein, I see where you are coming from.

NW
From: “Dr. Rufo”
Subject: Re: Heinlein Reading Group meeting announcement: March 24 and 26, 2005
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 19:01:44 GMT

LNC wrote:
> Dr. Rufo wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>> LNC wrote:
>
>
>>>
>>> Consider the analogy of music.
>>
>>
>>
>> L.N. — Here we must part ways. I cannot accept your conflation of
>> the “performing artists” (musicians) with “critics.” Music is
>> written for performance. While some persons are able to
>> “experience the totality of music” by reading over a score, most of us
>> mere mortals gotta hear it played to “get it.”
>
>
> I agree; however, my “performance” might be butchery of your
> composition, in your opinion. Hypothetical Listener A might think I’ve
> improved on your composition. Listener B might wonder why I can’t leave
> well enough alone. Listener C might be thinking, “it sounds pretty much
> like the original but when he does that rubato thing in the 10th measure
> and lends some of the time of the half notes to the succeeding quarter
> notes and plays triplets, is he interpreting, commenting, criticizing,
> improving, usurping or is he just sloppy?” All the way down to Little
> Cat Z who has vrooom under her hat and cleans up the whole, pink mess
> and leaves the landscape just the way it was.

The easy answer is that if the Listener is uncertain about why the performer is performing in a particular way — the rubato etc. you mention, then that/those action(s) are not “effective” nor “affective.” In other words, if the audience is focused on the manner in which the performer has chosen to express the original, then THAT has supplanted the “original text.” This is NOT, or SHOULD NOT be the intent — *I* believe. But then, I don’t like seeing performances that are billed as “Gordon Jump’s Hamlet.”

This prejudice on my part notwithstanding, there have been numerous instances in theater history for such. As soon as some bozo attains a certain level of notoriety, s/he decides that s/he is now qualified to re-do some “classic” in his/her own fashion. Sir William D’Avenant, who claimed to be the illegitimate son of Shakespeare, re-wrote and “improved” a number of Uncle Bill’s shows when Sir Bill had gotten a Royal License to run his own playhouse (Lincoln’s Inn Fields). Some folks suggest that since Sir William was the Poet Laureate of England and he was assisted by that other poetry fellow, John Dryden, the re-writes were justified if not substantive improvements. De gustibus. . . . The same sort of tactics have continued to the present day. Only the names of the perpetrators have changed — and the amount of the box office receipts.

>
>> A grouping of musicians can determine to play “Eine Kleine
>> Nachtmusik” as Wolfie wrote it but they can, I believe, just as well
>> determine to play it in the “cosmic cowboy” style of Willie Nelson.
>> The measure against which their success or failure should be judged is
>> how well they’ve accomplished their intention.
>
>
> Ummhmm…and the literary critic, masquerading as the writer being a
> social critic, can reharmonize Paradise Lost and then turn around and
> whine when his critics point out what he’s done, not done, or miss the
> point entirely.

Shoot, iffen the “writer being a social critic” produced another “piece of art” why can’t he bitch if some folks don’t see it for what it is? He may at some point concede that he coulda done better — or even do something else that DOES turn out better.

>
>> A similar situation exists with the “drama.” It’s written
>> but meant for performance as “theatre/theater.” The performers
>> of the drama are interpretive artists, as are musicians, and it’s
>> through their understanding, perceptions and abilities that the
>> written form is made REAL in performance. They can determine to
>> perform “Hamlet” in the style of production current when Uncle Bill
>> wrote it (on a simulacrum of the Globe Theatre stage with young men
>> playing Gertrude and Ophelia); but they can just as easily choose to
>> perform it on 1930’s style “Jessnertreppen” or in “modern dress” or
>> even in “rehearsal clothes” (as was the 1963 New York production
>> directed by John Gielgud and starring Richard Burton).
>
>
> “Goodbye Girl.” I’ve never really liked Simon but he had a cute idea
> when he rewrote Richard III inside the screenplay by keeping the
> dialogue but more than subtlety changing the character’s,
> uhhh…character. What was that? Fair comment? Interpretation? Literary
> license? Improvisation on a theme? Unfair criticism? A transvestite of
> justice?

Damfine example, L.N. They took the original words and intentions and superimposed a set of behaviors onto them. The technique is sound. Their choice of behaviors was valid. The juxtaposition of the two DID NOT FURTHER THE ENDS OF THE ORIGINAL as written by Uncle Bill. The results were not what they intended and the audience of the play-within-the-play was appalled. We, the audience of the movie, found those same results to be hysterically funny.

The irony that Simon was offering, as I understand it, is that even with the best of intentions and with skillful performers you can botch up the works very easily. “That’s show biz.” AND: It’s even easier to mess up when you make bad choices.

>> This ain’t the case with the “critic” of the short story, novel or
>> essay. These forms are intended to be READ by their audience. Some
>> individual examples of these writings can also benefit from a
>> performance of some sort but this doesn’t change their original
>> intent: to be read.
>
>
> Way too neatly dismissed for me.

Counselor, dismissing an elegant statement dismissing a position merely because it is elegant displays faulty reasoning — it seems to me.

> When I read, I visualize, and who
> doesn’t? How it’s written either assists my visualization or it flops
> and I don’t read it.

That’s what I was saying — You don’t need no stinkin’ critics to tell you whether you liked an author’s work(s) or not. Another’s opinion is not necessary. That’s what I think RAH was saying, too.

> (Incidentally, or more than so, if “it” flops it
> could be me “not getting it,” of course.)

Of course, the failure to “get it” can be the result of the author’s efforts or the audience’s receptivity or grasp of the work. No argument from me on that at all.

> I suggest that the extreme
> extension of what you’re proposing is the prohibition of all scholarly,
> not-so-scholarly and any reports of impressions and opinions regarding
> any written work. A universe of printed materials without a glossary of
> shared experiences. Why, you’d do away with AFH, if we’d let you, you
> insurrectionist, you.

NO, no. No “prohibitions” from *me*. Anyone can read, write, publish whatever they want or can. I do not, however, believe that the derogatory drivel concocted by some fatuous Fifth-Grade Science-and-Shop Teacher who’s reading his opus to the Assembled Fen at the First Annual Western South Missipacqua County Science-Fiction, Fantasy and Comic Book Convention and Square Dance Masquerade Ball and claims it as the “definitive statement” of the conservative social, economic and political principles embodied in the canon of Robert A. Heinlein” is worth the same or more than the actual canon of RAH.

>
>> The “gripe” I observe in RAH’s attitude toward critics is that he
>> seems to think that the reading audience don’t need no stinkin’
>> critics to tell us what’s what in RAH’s works. It appears to me that
>> he thinks these are mere “hangers-on” to the real Art created.
>> What’s important to RAH — I believe — is that the reader “gets
>> it.” If the reader needs an interpreter then the author has failed in
>> his/her task. YMMV, of course.
>
>
> That’s so coy of Bob and so self-centered. Einstein could say, “if you
> don’t get e=mc^2, no infinite elongation in the direction of velocity
> for you.”

Setting up the former postal clerk as a “relativity nazi” — now who’s being “coy”?

> Being an artist isn’t setting yourself up to take only the
> good and having the cachet to characterize the bad as out of order
> because it wasn’t what you meant. Being an artist is setting yourself up
> to be a stationary target, vis a vis the work under scrutiny, for any
> yahoo who wants to come along and dis your brush strokes.

The artist creates. The audience either “gets it” or doesn’t. The pronouncements of pundits and soi-disant ‘critics’ are not needed validation or explanation for this process.

You go further and insist that the appearance of those opinions should be expected. So what? You go hunting for honey you’re gonna get stung, no. (My sincere apologies to anyone who might be offended by my mention of bee vomit in the foregoing.)

> If you can’t
> take the heat, teach; but, again, don’t be surprised when they tell you
> the way you teach could be better.
>
> L.N.C.

The equal validity of each person’s opinion — no matter how well-informed? Isn’t that concept mentioned and disparaged in the RAH canon? It oughta be.

Pax,

Rufe
From: “Dr. Rufo”
Subject: Re: Heinlein Reading Group meeting announcement: March 24 and 26, 2005
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 18:09:59 GMT

LNC wrote:
> Dr. Rufo wrote:
>
>> The easy answer is that if the Listener is uncertain about why the
>> performer is performing in a particular way — the rubato etc. you
>> mention, then that/those action(s) are not “effective” nor
>> “affective.” In other words, if the audience is focused on the
>> manner in which the performer has chosen to express the original,
>> then THAT has supplanted the “original text.” This is NOT, or SHOULD
>> NOT be the intent — *I* believe. But then, I don’t like seeing
>> performances that are billed as “Gordon Jump’s Hamlet.”
>
>
> Like, dude. Nobody but you, me and Gary Sandy (whose WKRP character was
> from Joplin) remembers Gordon Jump and he’s one of those guys I’ll
> wonder about now because, although he played large, bald, silly men, I
> don’t know whether that was Gordon Jump or just the default type for
> him.

I first met Mr. Jump about 25 years ago — through an introduction by a mutual friend. He was large, bald and very smart. I assure you the “silly” was a characterization he assumed in his work. He was a shrewd businessman, saved his money and invested it wisely. Damn-fine example, in that area, for almost anyone.

>For all I know, but will never know, since he’s not the former Mad
> Maxx, his Prince of Denmark could be brilliant. If I had the money I’d
> produce it and make you watch because it’s my bet he’s enough of a
> professional he’d play his goddam heart out until actual flights of
> angels sang him to his rest.
>

He was a true gentleman — he has gone to his Eternal Reward and is unavailable for local productions now. I recall he once said that “when he was younger” he thought very highly of himself and “mostly was an ass.” That could have been true but I doubt it.

Speaking of “Former Joplinites,” do you remember another one named Bob Cummings? Mid-fifties TV show. He played a photographer whose energies were mainly centered on women. His “Sancho Panza” was played by Anne B. Davis who later played on “The Brady Bunch.” I think she very likely created the role of the ur-spinster-who-is-in-love-with-her-Boss-who-will-never-notice-her in The Bob Cummings Show.

>
>>>> This ain’t the case with the “critic” of the short story, novel
>>>> or essay. These forms are intended to be READ by their audience.
>>>> Some individual examples of these writings can also benefit from a
>>>> performance of some sort but this doesn’t change their original
>>>> intent: to be read.
>>>
>>>
>>> Way too neatly dismissed for me.
>>
>>
>> Counselor, dismissing an elegant statement dismissing a position
>> merely because it is elegant displays faulty reasoning — it seems to me.
>
>
> Allow me to ejaculate, “Aha, exclamation mark,” since you’ve displayed
> the classic conceit in your characterization of your own
> characterization. Now, if it’s intent you want to talk, here in Kansas
> where statutory interpretation takes a dyslexic twist and boils down to
> “intent of the farmers,” who wrote the laws,

Do you mean to say “intent of the FRAMERS”? I’m ready to believe that it’s likely that in Kansas it would have been “intent of the FARMERS” just as you typed.

>it’s the definition of art
> that it evokes an emotional response but whether the one evoked is the
> one and only one the artist intended is sold separately.

Just so.

>As for faulty
> reasoning, okay. I do that.

Wanna start a “He-Man Faulty Reasoners Club”? Is Harry still around?

>
>> NO, no. No “prohibitions” from *me*. Anyone can read, write,
>> publish whatever they want or can. I do not, however, believe that the
>> derogatory drivel concocted by some fatuous Fifth-Grade
>> Science-and-Shop Teacher who’s reading his opus to the Assembled Fen
>> at the First Annual Western South Missipacqua County Science-Fiction,
>> Fantasy and Comic Book Convention and Square Dance Masquerade Ball and
>> claims it as the “definitive statement” of the conservative social,
>> economic and political principles embodied in the canon of Robert A.
>> Heinlein” is worth the same or more than the actual canon of RAH.
>
>
> Your “bright line” test needs batteries. And I gave up teaching the shop
> class because of an stupid circular saw incident. Still, standing around
> the belt sander, they’d doe-see-doe up near where I was whittling and
> sit at my knee to hear my comparatively mature impressions. And they
> took away something–even if it was I shouldn’t be permitted near sharp
> things. One wrote the other day and told me he finally “got” what I was
> saying about the Thorne Smithe-Robert Heinlein connection and understood
> that I couldn’t go into detail about the parent-child relationships in
> Smithe when he was too young to be told them.
>

I regret to inform you that the only Thorne Smith works I’m familiar with are “Topper” and “The Passionate Witch.” Neither includes a parent-child relationship to my recollection. I will, however, concede that the “style” of badinage exhibited in those two works of the 1920s does suggest they might have been another influence on RAH’s works. As well as P.C. Wren, who I mentioned elsethread.

>>
>
>> Setting up the former postal clerk as a “relativity nazi” — now
>> who’s being “coy”?
>
>
> You’re mistaking “coy” for the “cloying” I am when I do this cheap shit.
>
> > The artist creates. The audience either “gets it” or doesn’t. The
>
>> pronouncements of pundits and soi-disant ‘critics’ are not needed
>> validation or explanation for this process.
>
>
> Nor are the dust jacket blurbs or flaks’ hype or the toadies’ praise or
> the smitten fans’ lamentations about willful misrepresentations.

Nolo contendere.

>
>
>> The equal validity of each person’s opinion — no matter how
>> well-informed? Isn’t that concept mentioned and disparaged in the RAH
>> canon? It oughta be.
>
>
>
> It’s in all of them, implicitly.

I was being lazy when I typed my previous comment. I think the essay to which I refer is “Who are the Heirs of Patrick Henry.” (q.v.) RAH opines that the “intent of the framers” was to limit the franchise to “responsible types.” “Cause “all-us ain’t created equal” or somesuch.

>Petronius the Arbiter was the cattiest
> critic and was required to reside in a satchel, let out only long enough
> to search for the door into the long, hot summer.

I ignore your cloying, anti-cat dismissal of one of the finest characters drawn by RAH. Shame on you, you, “dog-lover!” I spit in your general direction. < wEg >

Pax,

Rufe
From: LNC
Subject: Re: Heinlein Readers Group Upcoming Discussion
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 15:52:02 GMT

David Wright Sr. wrote:
> The next meetings of the Heinlein Readers Group
> will be Thursday 3/24/2005 @ 9:00 P.M. EST
> and Saturday 3/26/05 @ 5:00 P.M. EST
> The topic for these discussions will be:
> “Your Least Favorite Heinlein work”
> See: https://www.heinleinsociety.org/readersgroup/index.html
>
> The logs for the Heinlein Readers Group discussions which took place on
> 01/06/2005 and 01/08/2005 are now available temporarily at:
> http://home.alltel.net/dwrighsr/Heinlein/AIM_02-24-2005.html
> http://home.alltel.net/dwrighsr/Heinlein/AIM_02-26-2005.html
> The topic for the two discussions was:
> “Word Mastery (and More on Love) by the Grandmaster ”

Hey, did I tell you that there’s going to be a door prize? Yeah. One lucky person who attends tonight and one who attends on Saturday will receive a genuine copy of the death certificate of Robert A. Heinlein, notarized in the present as a genuine copy.

Okay, so it’s a kind of a morbid prize. I’ll violate postal regulations and throw in a fistful of forsythia flowers now blooming outside my window, how’s that?

The winning entrant will be that person attending who makes, in the sole opinion of the moderator, the best argument in opposition to the resolution as follows: Resolved, Woodrow Wilson Smith should have been smothered at birth.

Good luck, have fun, I’ll see you tonight and dress casually.

L.N.C.
From: “Dr. Rufo”
Subject: Re: Heinlein Readers Group Upcoming Discussion
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 21:09:52 GMT

LNC wrote:

< snip >

>I’ll violate postal regulations
> and throw in a fistful of forsythia flowers now blooming outside my
> window, how’s that?

If you don’t mind a suggestion: Since you have the room for forsythia, what do you think of planting some lilacs? I believe there are cultivars of the lilac that are later-blooming than most forsythia and can produce beautiful blooms even into the late summer. And the fragrance of lilacs is so much more pronounced. Just a thought.

Rufe
From: LNC
Subject: Re: Heinlein Readers Group Upcoming Discussion
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 21:15:54 GMT

Dr. Rufo wrote:
>
>
> LNC wrote:
>
> < snip >
>
>> I’ll violate postal regulations
>> and throw in a fistful of forsythia flowers now blooming outside my
>> window, how’s that?
>
>
> If you don’t mind a suggestion: Since you have the room for
> forsythia, what do you think of planting some lilacs? I believe there
> are cultivars of the lilac that are later-blooming than most forsythia
> and can produce beautiful blooms even into the late summer. And the
> fragrance of lilacs is so much more pronounced. Just a thought.
>
> Rufe

Lilacs have the best scent of all the flowers I know. Big clumps of purple lilacs outside the door would be nice. Almost enough to make me go out the door more often. What I am planting this year are some ornamental gourds and vines, though, and probably some onions, cucumbers and tomatoes. It’s all way out of character but I don’t have much character out of which to be way. I take it this means you’ll be dropping by to take a shot at winning the grand prize?

L.N.C.
From: “Dr. Rufo”
Subject: Re: Heinlein Readers Group Upcoming Discussion
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 21:43:15 GMT

LNC wrote:
> Dr. Rufo wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> LNC wrote:
>>
>> < snip >
>>
>>> I’ll violate postal regulations
>>> and throw in a fistful of forsythia flowers now blooming outside my
>>> window, how’s that?
>>
>>
>>
>> If you don’t mind a suggestion: Since you have the room for
>> forsythia, what do you think of planting some lilacs? I believe there
>> are cultivars of the lilac that are later-blooming than most forsythia
>> and can produce beautiful blooms even into the late summer. And the
>> fragrance of lilacs is so much more pronounced. Just a thought.
>>
>> Rufe
>
>
> Lilacs have the best scent of all the flowers I know. Big clumps of
> purple lilacs outside the door would be nice. Almost enough to make me
> go out the door more often.

When I was in grad school in Denver, the antique building in which I had my “teaching assistant’s office” was surrounded by huge lilacs bushes. I’ve loved them ever since. The scent of lilac (sometimes just the memory of that scent) takes me back to those relatively care-free days. (F***ing nostalgia!)

>What I am planting this year are some
> ornamental gourds

They’re pretty but they ain’t worth spit. In the same area for the same effort you could put in pumpkins or squash that’ll brighten your summer garden and provide for edibles in the fall.

>and vines, though, and probably some onions,
Onions are always a good choice but I prefer shallots.

> cucumbers and tomatoes. It’s all way out of character but I don’t have much
> character out of which to be way.

Yeah, well we each have our cross to bear, n’est-il pas?

>I take it this means you’ll be
> dropping by to take a shot at winning the grand prize?

Dude, except for being a central character in a number of books I still find to be intriguing; I’m with you. I find him to be an unregenerate, self-serving, arrogant prig with a complete lack of respect for anyone else who doesn’t kowtow to the deity and desires of the Great Woodie. If I were to encounter him, I wouldn’t wait to verify his congenital lack of prepuce to change my location — fast — with my hand on my wallet.

Bonne chance!

Rufe
From: Dee
Subject: Re: Heinlein Readers Group Upcoming Discussion
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 17:31:30 -0600

LNC wrote:

> Lilacs have the best scent of all the flowers I know. Big clumps of
> purple lilacs outside the door would be nice. Almost enough to make me
> go out the door more often. What I am planting this year are some
> ornamental gourds and vines, though, and probably some onions, cucumbers
> and tomatoes. It’s all way out of character but I don’t have much
> character out of which to be way. I take it this means you’ll be
> dropping by to take a shot at winning the grand prize?

Plant some marigolds around the tomatoes—they look so nice, and teh nematodes don’t like them.

Is the forsythia blooming where you are, yet? If not, cut a few branches and bring them ndoors to “force” them, if you need a little early spring.

Spring has already sprung here, for certain. The azaleas are a huge burst of colors. Mommies and daddies will get some beautiful Easter pictures this year.

–Dee
From: “”
Subject: Re: Heinlein Readers Group Upcoming Discussion
Date: 25 Mar 2005 06:27:58 -0800

Dee wrote:
> LNC wrote:
>
> > Lilacs have the best scent of all the flowers I know. Big clumps of

> > purple lilacs outside the door would be nice. Almost enough to make me
> > go out the door more often. What I am planting this year are some
> > ornamental gourds and vines, though, and probably some onions, cucumbers
> > and tomatoes. It’s all way out of character but I don’t have much
> > character out of which to be way. I take it this means you’ll be
> > dropping by to take a shot at winning the grand prize?
>
>
> Plant some marigolds around the tomatoes—they look so nice, and teh

> nematodes don’t like them.
>
> Is the forsythia blooming where you are, yet? If not, cut a few
> branches and bring them ndoors to “force” them, if you need a little
> early spring.
>
> Spring has already sprung here, for certain. The azaleas are a huge
> burst of colors. Mommies and daddies will get some beautiful Easter
> pictures this year.
>
> –Dee

The snow is melting now. We may have spring here eventually. Maybe. Sometime. Eventually. Jasper McLeevy, when he was mayor of Bridgeport used to say that his snow removal service was “June.” That was funny. then.

I never liked LL very much, either folks. Or admired him all that much. He might be useful in some situations but I could do without him myself.

Will

—

“Stealth is desirable when hunting mice but the fish are usually best
taken by the direct approach.” Feather in _Poker for Cats_

End of Postings
Go Beginning of Posts
Here Begins the Discussion

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

Reilloc: Evening, David.

DavidWrightSr: Hi guys

Reilloc: Stephanie went to bed down the baby.

DavidWrightSr: OK.

Reilloc: By the way, thanks for all your good publicity.

DavidWrightSr: You are welcome. I try to keep plugging away at it.

Reilloc: If this goes on, the roads won’t roll here.

DavidWrightSr: I even plugged it over in alt.usage.english, but I don’t know that it will do much good.

Reilloc: Or at most it’ll be intimate and brief.

DavidWrightSr: Well, we are early. Hopefully, people will start drifting in towards 9:00

Reilloc: That’s right, I am probably an hour early, aren’t I?

DavidWrightSr: Yup. I always try to get here at least a half hour or so to make sure that I get a full log.

Reilloc: This linguistic stuff you’re working on is interesting.

Reilloc: Any tie-ins with the ethology of Konrad Lorenz or any of those guys?

DavidWrightSr: So right. It’s been a long time since I did anything with my linguistics education, but it is coming back and RAH’s work is full of Korzybski reference. Lorenz? Not familiar with him.

DavidWrightSr: Primarily Korzybski, Ogden & Richards with Basic English and just a mention of some Bloomfieldian structuralism in _Double Star_.

DavidWrightSr: I’m in the process of reading the entire canon looking for references. It’s going to take a while.

Reilloc: Way back in my college days, when I was an arch-behaviorist looking for the connection between behavior and genetics…

Oceanfilly30: I am back, but just scanning fo rnow

Reilloc: I found Lorenz and was intrigued by some of his and his colleagues conclusions regarding behaviors which seemed to occur without being taught.

DavidWrightSr: Korzybski had a lot of philosophical and psychological background to work with. Can’t recall the names off hand, but he spent a lot of time working with patients in mental hospitals and with several well-known philosophers. I’ll …

Reilloc: His book, I believe it was called, “King Solomon’s Rings,” was significant to me then.

DavidWrightSr: you some of the URLs that I have found.

Reilloc: Unfortunately, leaving school and needing to earn money intruded.

DavidWrightSr: I’ll be back shortly. Got to let my wife read her e-mail and get some treats for my dog.

Reilloc: I might get something to eat since we’re quite early.

Oceanfilly30: motion seconded!

Reilloc: Pizza?

Oceanfilly30: Think they’ll deliver to both of us on one call?

Reilloc: Give it a shot.

LV Poker Player has entered the room.

LV Poker Player: Looks like some people decided to show up early

Reilloc: Some decided to show up early and some, like me, can’t tell time or calculate time zones worth a damn.

Oceanfilly30: me, I just did not wish to forget…again

Oceanfilly30: hi LV

LV Poker Player: It helps to be in the same one that the announcement uses

DavidWrightSr: And I keep the log, so I have to get here early.

LV Poker Player: Oceanfilly30? Is that Merfilly, by any chance?

Oceanfilly30: ‘T’is…I chose a new sobriquet for a new account

LV Poker Player: I’m trying to figure out why Reilloc has a lightning bolt icon next to his name.

Oceanfilly30: he was first in room

LV Poker Player: I need a new screen name too. This AOL account was supposed to be closed a couple of weeks ago, but they have not gotten around to it yet.

Reilloc: AOL says I “own” this room.

LV Poker Player: Typical AOHell efficiency.

Oceanfilly30: Kevin and I both play online RPG now…needed two accounts when I added a second line to the house

Reilloc: AOL’s got it’s own set of real property laws.

Oceanfilly30: obviously

LV Poker Player: Which RPG? I have Star Wars, but never got around to opening an account.

Reilloc: I should relog on the Zeus account.

has entered the room.

Oceanfilly30: I play City of Heores

Oceanfilly30: grr, Heroes

Oceanfilly30: being a comic book geek, it suits me

Oceanfilly30: hello bleyddyn

LV Poker Player: I’ve seen that one. It looked too much like hand/eye coordination was needed. I avoid those.

Oceanfilly30: not really

LV Poker Player: I’m not exactly a comic book geek, but I do like The Incredibles, which I have on DVD.

Oceanfilly30: it is one of the easiest navigation games I have seen

Oceanfilly30: I love that movie

Reilloc: I’d like to see that movie.

Oceanfilly30: I wound up getting cereal instead of pizza, LNC

LV Poker Player: It’s probably available for rental, as well as for sale.

Reilloc: I’m considering ordering Pizza Hut online.

Oceanfilly30: we have Fat Albert on now…kids are spellbound

LV Poker Player: bleyddyn, are you someone we know from afh?

LV Poker Player: I’m trying to think of ways to stir things up on afh, preferably with something on topic but that is not a requirement.

Oceanfilly30: stirring the pot is sometimes easier than intended

Oceanfilly30: but letely, barring th ecrosspost stuff, it has been less than active in there

Reilloc: Phone…back shortly…

LV Poker Player: I know. That is why I want to stir things up.

Oceanfilly30: But how to do so is a good question

LV Poker Player: I’m open to any suggestions (unless you would rather post something yourself).

Oceanfilly30: hah…I have about three brain cells left these days

Oceanfilly30: I will try to respond to you though

LV Poker Player: One thing I have been doing is skimming through Glory Road. I am pretty sure that I remember Oscar stating that they had abolished the foreign legion.

Oceanfilly30: yes…I read it recently

Oceanfilly30: and he does say that early on in the novel

LV Poker Player: The thing is, according to http://www.info-france-usa.org/atoz/legion/index.asp it is still around.

Oceanfilly30: yes, but perhaps RAH surmised that such a unit would not last

Oceanfilly30: it would not be the first time a prediction did not come to pass

LV Poker Player: I’m pretty sure that it was supposed to be current.

Oceanfilly30: I do not know then

LV Poker Player: Anyway, I want to find the actual quote before I post about it.

Oceanfilly30: okay

LV Poker Player: Don’t suppose you remember anything more specific than “early”?

Oceanfilly30: checking now for you to see if it jumps out to me

Oceanfilly30: page 69 in my baen edition pb

Oceanfilly30: just a bit into chapter 6

Oceanfilly30: just before he fights igli, while Rufo is still riling him up

LV Poker Player: Ok, found it.

LV Poker Player: Thanks.

Oceanfilly30: welcome

Oceanfilly30: I can, at times, scan at a decent pace, especially if it is some thing recently read

Oceanfilly30: Just about 9 pm

LV Poker Player: Ok, I just put “Odd remark in Glory Road” on afh

Oceanfilly30: alright

Reilloc: By my computer clock’s reckoning, it’s now the time.

LV Poker Player: Now what else can I post about, preferably something that will generate some discussion?

Reilloc: So, if I may have the attention of those present…

Reilloc: Welcome to the monthly online discussion of the works of Robert A. Heinlein…

Oceanfilly30: thank you for convening us here

Reilloc: I’m your moderator, L.N. Collier, and I don’t expect to do much moderating since this is a free-form, informal discussion group.

Reilloc: If there’s anybody new to the discussion, and I see we have a face I don’t recognize, Mr. David Wright is graciously acting in his capacity of elder but not elderly statesman…

Oceanfilly30: very stately

Reilloc: And he’s always available for questions, comments and information about membership in The Heinlein Society.

leetheflirt has entered the room. moultonfcx has entered the room.

Reilloc: Please aim your AIM at him and he’ll be glad to help you.

Oceanfilly30: and the room begins to fill

leetheflirt: Hi all

Reilloc: Hi, lee

Markjmills has entered the room.

Markjmills: Good evening, all!

Reilloc: So, tonight’s topic is “What’s your least favorite Heinlein,”

Oceanfilly30: Waldo!

leetheflirt: ISee No Evil

Reilloc: And, as a side treat, “who’s your least favorite Heinlein character?”

Oceanfilly30: and I could not get thru an attempt to read it as prepratory material

Reilloc: All that having been said, let’s begin anywhere and with anybody who wants to speak.

LV Poker Player: I’ve never cared for The Unpleasant Profession of Jonathon Hoag. It makes little if any sense to me.

Reilloc: Oh, by the way, thanks for coming and if you can’t stay the entire time, there’ll be another session on Saturday at 5:00 EST.

Oceanfilly30: I have yet to read it, though I had begun it once

leetheflirt: Ok, I think the cancer was showing on See No Evil – for one thing, the characters weren’t believable

Oceanfilly30: I could not get past the first few pages

Reilloc: You know, LV, I read your post about that, I think, and I just don’t remember Hoag for some reason.

Reilloc: Lee, have you ever read David Silver’s commentary on “Fear No Evil?”

leetheflirt: No I haven’t

Oceanfilly30: IWFNE was one of the ones that took several attempts for me to read.

leetheflirt: I take it he didn’t like it either

Reilloc: I’ll find you a url and send it to you, but he’s tied a lot of it together that was just incomprehensible to me, before.

Oceanfilly30: I neither dislike nor get enthused about it

Toxdoc1947 has entered the room.

Toxdoc1947: what chat?

Toxdoc1947: ahhh

leetheflirt: ok, I’d appreciate that

Reilloc: I think, among the premeeting posts, the book that got the most thumbs down, was Orphans of the Sky.

Oceanfilly30: Why?

Oceanfilly30: as I have not yet read it, why is it so unloved?

leetheflirt: because it sucked

Reilloc: Seemed to be the writing style coupled with the character relationships that turned people off.

Toxdoc1947: my least favorite heinlein work? I’d probably go with orphans too

: Anyone have a quick synopsis of that one? I didn’t like Fear No Evil, but not many others spring to mind.

leetheflirt: It’s terrible – unfocused, with very unlovable characters

Reilloc: Yeah, but why do characters have to be loveable?

LV Poker Player: Orphans is not my favorite, but I would hardly rate it as least favorite either.

: By the way, what’s ‘afh’?

Oceanfilly30: hmmm, was it recently collected in an omnibus?

Oceanfilly30: Alt.Fan.Heinlein

Reilloc: AFH is the usenet newsgroup, just like Oceanfilly just said.

leetheflirt: and also, the characters cared not one whit about each other

Oceanfilly30: that is odd for his stuff

leetheflirt: very

leetheflirt: and the story really had no focus

Reilloc: Sure, they might not have cared about each other much but how much would Lazarus Long care about any of us?

leetheflirt: usually, RAH had a reason behind the story

leetheflirt: if he knew you LL would at least have a passing interest

Toxdoc1947: well, in that one, he got the new blood idea expressed

leetheflirt: people were his hobby

Reilloc: In Orphans, Tox?

leetheflirt: in Orphans?

Oceanfilly30: IWFNE was definately about the rare bloods, but that gets lost in the rest of the mish mash

Toxdoc1947: I think so, right at the end when they finally return to earth, the people they left behind had come up with some long-life treatments of their own. IIRC, blood was one of those

Reilloc: Now, it’s “Beyond this Horizon,” by my count, that somes in next as not so well liked.

Oceanfilly30: another I have not read recently enough to comment on

DavidWrightSr: That was _Methusaleh’s Children_ Tox.

leetheflirt: wait, they don’t return to earth in orphans

LV Poker Player: I think we are mixing up Orphans with Methusalah’s Children?

leetheflirt: yea I think so

Toxdoc1947: oh yeah… well, it’s been a while for some of those

: Well, I can’t remember it, and don’t have a book by that name on my shelf.

Toxdoc1947: like maybe 1962-3 or so

leetheflirt: in Orphans, they land on a new planet

Reilloc: Orphans had the mutants, as I recall, and I can’t think of another Heinlein that did have a gimmick like that.

Oceanfilly30: the ‘culls’ in Methuselah, I believe

leetheflirt: well, I think the long lifers could be seen as a gimmick

: And the telepaths in Time for the Stars.

starfall2 has entered the room.

Reilloc: I always think of the Howard family device as a recurring thing instead of a gimmick but I can’t disagree with you.

Oceanfilly30: Jackie!

leetheflirt: I think it was a way of dealing with RAH’s fear of death

LadyS122 has entered the room.

Oceanfilly30: and Helen

LadyS122: hello

Oceanfilly30: fear of death or longing for more time?

Reilloc: Hi, recent arrivals.

leetheflirt: either, really

starfall2: hi!

leetheflirt: hi

LV Poker Player: You had the Living Artifacts in Friday, which were not designed to resemble humans. Artificial Persons such as Friday did resemble natural humans.

Reilloc: Jump in, we’re talking about Robert Heinlein’s works and, particularly, the ones we like the least.

starfall2: sounds good

leetheflirt: They WERE real humans,

starfall2: i might be a bit distracted; tons of work tonight

Reilloc: APs were real humans, lee?

leetheflirt: the idea that any human not grown in a womb is no human is ludicrous

LadyS122: yeah, just genetically modified to be stronger/smarter/more everything..

LV Poker Player: That is why I used the term

LV Poker Player: “natural” rather than “real”

leetheflirt: well there will always be prejudice

Oceanfilly30: the prejudice was evident in RAH’s own stuff

Reilloc: Did the characterization of APs as not human make “Friday” a book that’s on your least-liked list?

leetheflirt: I thinl APs wuld be – will be – human, yes

LV Poker Player: Me too, just not natural humans.

Oceanfilly30: the way he referred to Minerva for instance never let us forget she began as a computer putinto a composite body created of 23 people

leetheflirt: Hell no, I loved Friday, vintage Heinlien at his best

Reilloc: That brings up the “do clones have souls” question that shouldn’t be brought up.

LV Poker Player: And I don’t see any reason to consider natural humans as “better” in any way.

leetheflirt: what is a soul?

Oceanfilly30: no, ’cause then we go on tangents

Reilloc: Tangents?

Reilloc: Here?

Reilloc: Inconceivable.

LadyS122: nah

Oceanfilly30: 🙂

leetheflirt: tangents r fun

Toxdoc1947: perish the thought!

Reilloc: Number of the Beast.

leetheflirt: 😉

Reilloc: One of my favorites, on everybody else’s list as disliked.

Reilloc: I can’t see why.

starfall2: i liked it too

Oceanfilly30: I love it…save the end section

leetheflirt: dunno, upon consideration, Orphans was worst

: Well, I just looked through all of my books and can’t find Orphans of the Sky or the two short stories that it is made of (according to Amazon). And here I thought I had all of Heinlein’s work. 🙁

Oceanfilly30: and even it has its saving graces

starfall2: orphans is my least favorite so far

Reilloc: You guys didn’t like Jim-Joe?

LV Poker Player: I seem to be part of a rather small minority who actually likes Orphans.

Reilloc: What’s not to like about a two-headed guy?

leetheflirt: Jim Joe sucked

Reilloc: If he sucked, he sucked twice.

Oceanfilly30: Give me Zaphod if he must have two heads

leetheflirt: well, I think JJ was supposed to be comic relief, but it didn’t quit work

Toxdoc1947: ocean, are you sure you don’t have a mac?

leetheflirt: lol I’m with Oceanfilly

Oceanfilly30: I wish

Oceanfilly30: No, I have an emachine running windoze

leetheflirt: hmm, not to distract, but how’s HHG2G look to people?

Reilloc: We mentioned IWFNE, that’s got to be my least favorite. That and Cat Who Walks Through Walls.

Oceanfilly30: I despised Cat

Reilloc: Cat would even crash a Mac.

Oceanfilly30: and that was before I read the Stones

leetheflirt: I’ve tried to finish Cat a number of times

starfall2: Cat was the first one i read (weird order, i know), and is still one of my favorites

Oceanfilly30: I loved our brief glimpse of Hazel in TMiaHM

: Cat? I loved that one.

LV Poker Player: I liked Cat too.

Oceanfilly30: the creature impersonating her in Cat fell short

: Minerva is still my favorite character, but Hazel comes in a very close second.

Reilloc: YOu leave out Cat and you miss a number of subsequent references but I can’t take the disorganized story line and strained characters.

Toxdoc1947: cat fizzled at the end

leetheflirt: very disorgainized, I couldn’t follow it

Oceanfilly30: I think I despise Colin the most of later characters

: I always assumed it was meant to be a little confusing, since that how most of it must have seemed from Colin’s point of view.

Oceanfilly30: I got that feeling too, but it did not make for an enjoyable read

leetheflirt: one of the great thing about Heinlien was his strong story lines

Reilloc: He caught on early to the requirement that if you’re going to tell a story, you need a story to tell.

Reilloc: Some people listed Waldo as a disliked.

leetheflirt: why?

Reilloc: I thought it told a new story in an interesting way.

Reilloc: It’s interesting to note the ones nobody listed.

Reilloc: Time Enough for Love.

Oceanfilly30: It comes down to the fact I dislike stories with such a dislikable protagonist

Reilloc: Starship Troopers

Reilloc: Stranger in a Strange Land

leetheflirt: Time needed a better editor

Oceanfilly30: TEFL has many pieces sewn together, and several I skip…but overall I like it

leetheflirt: TEFL ditto

Oceanfilly30: ST only got one read from me…not my kind of story but nothing to dislike

Oceanfilly30: SiaSL took more time to ponder, and the uncut version before it grew on me

Toxdoc1947: i really liked ST

Reilloc: Then, you really hated the movie.

leetheflirt: I first read ST just after going through basic and laughed my butt off

Oceanfilly30: I don’t mind the movie…but I do not think of it is adapted from the book either

Toxdoc1947: how did you know? lol

LadyS122: I don’t know.. I really liked the book and the movie was ok… but like she says.. gotta separate the two.

Toxdoc1947: i read it when I was a kid (early high school)

leetheflirt: well the movie…I don’t think RAH does well in movies, he thinks too much

Toxdoc1947: it struck a chord in me

Oceanfilly30: I don’t know…Puppet Masters was well done

Reilloc: Anything you didn’t like about ST, Tox?

DavidWrightSr: One reason that Heinlein doesn’t do well on the screen is that he relies heavily on the reader’s own imagination which is destroyed on the screen.

Oceanfilly30: which is why he needs a very imaginative director

Reilloc: I think that’s true to an extent, both comments.

leetheflirt: And he relies on ideas, which are hard to portray

DavidWrightSr: Agreed.

Oceanfilly30: he wanted his readers to ‘think’, apparently

Reilloc: Now, Job got a number of votes as one people wouldn’t read more than once.

LadyS122: We need a Heinlein fan version of Sam Raimi out there… someone who loves the source enough to make sure it’s done right, and who knows *how* to do it. (since usually, it’s one or the other.)

leetheflirt: nothing wrong with that….

Toxdoc1947: am going to have to go everyone. This is my first rah chat and I’m really looking forward to future ones

LadyS122: I had to read Job more than once… Shoot, I’ve read it three or four times and there are still things I find on rereads that I missed before.

Reilloc: Both Job and Alex Hergensheimer got some negative comments.

starfall2: bye!

leetheflirt: hey Tox nice meeting you

Reilloc: Bye, Jackie

Reilloc: Tox, thanks for coming.

: Well, I have a knife throwing target to work on, so everyone have a good evening.

Oceanfilly30: Bye Tox

starfall2: no…. i was saying bye to toxdoc

has left the room.

Oceanfilly30: bye Bley

starfall2: i’m not leaving quite yet

Reilloc: Oh,

Reilloc: People sometimes come and go so quickly around here.

Reilloc: Hey, Lady?

Oceanfilly30: Job is good for me to reread around the time I go to reread Incarnations of Immortality by Anthony

Reilloc: You understand Job?

Oceanfilly30: Job hit my sense of religious questioning perfectly

LadyS122: the problem with main characters like in Job and Glory Road, is they are so darn Provincial. Although both finally managed to think outside their original box. The road to getting them there was… occasionally annoying.

Toxdoc1947 has left the room.

leetheflirt: Job was a run on all church upbringing

starfall2: i guess i pretty much understand it. i’m sure there’s a lot i’ve missed, but it doesn’t leave me confused

LadyS122: I understand most of it, I think…

Oceanfilly30: SiaSL is the one that had me thinking hardest

Reilloc: Coming from the Bible Belt, I should have Job internalized but I don’t.

Oceanfilly30: Job doesn’t leave me confused or anything

Markjmills: Don’t you think everyone’s provincial, depending on what core beliefs/values/customs are challenged?

LadyS122: Not quite sure why she converted at the end… but hey… whatever floated her boat.

leetheflirt: Being A UU I found it funny

Reilloc: I don’t know, Mark.

starfall2: i started really liking Job when i got to college, and for the first time found myself suddenly surrounded almost entirely by VERY christian people, after growing up in a town that was about 1/3 jewish

Oceanfilly30: Lady, check out soldiergrrrl’s livejournal sometime

LadyS122: I think some people don’t have as much of a problem with accepting new social mores, when they are in a different environment… “When in Rome” kind of thing.

Oceanfilly30: she basically did the same thing

DavidWrightSr: LadyS122 Said: … Shoot, I’ve read it three or four times and there are still things I find on rereads that I missed before. Hey, I’ve read everything a dozen time or more and I still find new things.

Reilloc: Are the acknowledged sophisticates eligible to be called provincial when their beliefs are chanllenged?

Oceanfilly30: I do not think so LNC

Oceanfilly30: I think they are provincila regardless

Oceanfilly30: provincial even

Reilloc: Depends on who’s doing the calling, no?

Oceanfilly30: perhaps

leetheflirt: anyone who thinks their beliefs are carved in stone are provincial

Oceanfilly30: but from all I have seen, the more sophisticate the expert is the worse he is on being narrowminded

leetheflirt: see my definition

Oceanfilly30: agrred, Lee

Oceanfilly30: (darn typos)

leetheflirt: TY

LadyS122: Not Heinlein, but Crichton on Farscape epiotomized Proviciality… surrounded by aliens, but constantly expecting his idea of normal behavior, and such…

LadyS122: those typos are obviously contagious.

Oceanfilly30: Helen, you just don’t like Crichton

Oceanfilly30: lol

leetheflirt: and the more sophisticated, I’m afraid, the more provincial

LadyS122: 🙂

Oceanfilly30: provincial in his speaking, but darn adaptable in his acceptance and use of the tech

Reilloc: Aren’t we talking now about the quote in front of Glory Road?

LadyS122: 🙂

Oceanfilly30: refresh me, LNC

Reilloc: There was significant opinion against Glory Road in the posts.

Reilloc: Helen accurately paraphrased it.

leetheflirt: I thought Glory Road fun

Oceanfilly30: Star annoyed me at times

Oceanfilly30: Rufo annoyed me a lot

Oceanfilly30: Oscar was just…there

leetheflirt: well, the insistance on women having perfect bods is annoying too

Oceanfilly30: A fine read for light fluff

LadyS122: I paraphrased? ok…

starfall2: glory road was fun, but i didn’t like star

Reilloc: Now, what’s not to like about Star?

leetheflirt: I mean, no one insists on guys looking perfect

Oceanfilly30: one reason I like Minerva…she is not described as typical female leads are

LadyS122: condescending?

leetheflirt: lol

Markjmills: All women have perfect bodies — just some *more* perfect than others! 🙂

Oceanfilly30: Star was so darn manipulative that she reeked of it even before I learned the twist

LadyS122: perfection, like everything else, is relative. ):

LadyS122: 🙂

Oceanfilly30: and thank you Mark

starfall2: i’m not sure exactly what i don’t like about star – i just don’t

starfall2: oh, and a hug for mark ^_^

Reilloc: All my relatives are far from perfect.

leetheflirt: yea Mark!

Oceanfilly30: let’s not start on relatives

Oceanfilly30: present company excluded

LadyS122: well.. It’s hard to see someone in a romantic role, when you get the impression she’s about to pat you on the head and send you off to play.

Reilloc: Really?

LadyS122: tis alright… I know I’m not perfect.

Reilloc: Not all men are leaders.

leetheflirt: No one is

Oceanfilly30: you’re tame compared to certain kinfolk we both know

LadyS122: true.

Reilloc: Some need a lot more than a pat on the head.

Oceanfilly30: and he got it {snicker}

leetheflirt: pats elsewhere….;-)

Reilloc: A little pat or a swift quick doesn’t seem completely to turn off biology.

Oceanfilly30 has left the room.

Oceanfilly30 has entered the room.

Dehede011 has entered the room.

Dehede011: Wow, this is a distinguished looking group.

Reilloc: Hi, Ron

starfall2: hi

Dehede011: Hi

leetheflirt: us?

Oceanfilly30: hi there

Dehede011: Absolutely, you

Reilloc: We’re extinguishing tonight instead of being distinguished.

Reilloc: Either that or distinguishing among the Heinlein: likes and dislikes.

LadyS122: hey there… I think I’ve got a distinguishing gray or two.. somewhere…

leetheflirt: don’t look too close

Dehede011: Either way as fine a group of future Nobel Laurettes as I’ve ever seen

Reilloc: I’m way past, “hate that grey, wash it away.”

Dehede011: Laurettes (spelling??_

LadyS122: I was excited last year when I found my first gray hair… Finally.. something to lord over the kids… 🙂

Reilloc: Laurates

starfall2: laureates, i think

Reilloc: lowrates

Oceanfilly30: good jackie

Reilloc: Okay, Ron.

leetheflirt: laureates looks right

Dehede011: Anyway you are, Hey there is Starfallen

starfall2: took you that long to notice? 😛

Dehede011: I read slow

Reilloc: What’s your least favorite Heinlein work and least favorite character and you can go back to flirting

Oceanfilly30: Way to moderate, LNC

leetheflirt: hey flirting’s fun!

Oceanfilly30: I’m not fishing these waters

Reilloc: themefromjeopardy

Dehede011: The flirting is constant but my least favorite is Farnhams Freehold

Reilloc: Good choice.

Reilloc: You’re in good company.

Oceanfilly30: And see, I fall into the 2 fans who like it

leetheflirt: I think Orphans won on non popularity

LadyS122: least favorite character… hrmmm… the idiot wife on Farnham’s Freehold.. can’t remember the name.

Oceanfilly30: Grace

Reilloc: Grace
Editor’s Note: The Discussion room closed inexplicably for a few moments. You have just entered room “heinlein readers group chat.”

LadyS122: I should apologize to my computer.

Oceanfilly30: lol

Markjmills: LOL!

LadyS122: I thought bad things about it.

Oceanfilly30: yes, or it will crash

Reilloc: I think I know what happened.

Dehede011: Anyway I told a little white lie and the whole room shutdown for everyone.

DavidWrightSr: Ok. Who did it?O:-)

Reilloc: I think I did it.

LV Poker Player has entered the room.

Dehede011: It was my little white lie

LV Poker Player: Ok, am I getting anything now?

LadyS122: I saved the log so far before I closed it

LV Poker Player: That’s better.

LadyS122: ended with people saying Grace. 🙂

Oceanfilly30: LOL

LadyS122: but I came in 20 minutes late

Reilloc: AOL stopped displaying room text for me, I left the room and because AOL thinks I “own” the place, everybody got dumped.

Oceanfilly30: it had stopped for us too

LV Poker Player: Ah, that is what happened.

Dehede011: I also think the worse scene Heinlein ever wrote was the fight between Duke and his father.

Oceanfilly30: usually it just defaults ownership to the next member to log in

Reilloc: It should do that.

Reilloc: But this is AOL and it sucks.

Oceanfilly30: of course

LadyS122: it spits…

LadyS122: sucking is.. well.. nevermind.

Reilloc: One problem is, probably, that I’m on AOL not on an AIM chatroom

Oceanfilly30: what can you expect from the descendent of Qwest?

LadyS122: about Farnham’s Freehold..

Oceanfilly30: what about it?

Reilloc: The fight scene.

starfall2 has entered the room.

Oceanfilly30: that bit sawdust

Dehede011: That is my candidate

Reilloc: I don’t remember it that well.

Dehede011: Has anyone got another one.

Oceanfilly30: and I was not overly fond of the way Hugh and doxie hook up

Reilloc: Why was it so bad?

LadyS122: I know he probably wrote Duke and Grace both to be disliked strongly (couldn’t even manage pity for them.) but wow… there’s such a thing as being too efficient.

starfall2: did i miss something? suddenly, everybody’s listed twice, and there’s a 7 minute gap in the conversation

Dehede011: Yes, the dislike shouldn’t extend all the way to the writer

Oceanfilly30: the room froze up, so we had to reboot

starfall2: ahh

Reilloc: There was a little problem, Jackie.

Reilloc: Me.

LadyS122: well.. I liked the story otherwise..

starfall2: bad reilloc! 😛

Reilloc: My fault for still paying good money to AOL.

LadyS122: yep

starfall2: *shudder*

Oceanfilly30: I belive that S.M.Stirling read it before he worked up one of the civilizations in his fifth millenium series

DavidWrightSr: You should use the AIM program itself.

Reilloc: I could leave and do that now but you wouldn’t like it.

DavidWrightSr: No. Not now. Next time please

Oceanfilly30: lol

Reilloc: Okay, as immoderator, I declare that right not’w the one hour break time.

Oceanfilly30: thank you

LadyS122: ok..

DavidWrightSr: I was just about to suggest that.

Oceanfilly30: now, for any fans of the old fat albert cartoon…go rent the movie

Dehede011: Is anyone interested in knowing I am teaching the neighborhood dogs to all speak Cherokee

Reilloc: That means that for about five minutes, nobody can do anything they don’t want to do.

LV Poker Player has left the room.

Oceanfilly30: it is worth it, a good clean family film

Dehede011: Have we stalled again??

LV Poker Player has entered the room.

Reilloc: We’ll reconvene when the big hand is on the five minutes from now and the little hand’s on the same place it is now.

Dehede011: Nope, we are still connected

Reilloc: Roughly.

LV Poker Player: AOHell locked up on me that time.

Oceanfilly30: be right back

Reilloc: You on AOL proper, if that’s a real term, or AIM, LV?

LV Poker Player: Still on AOL proper. They said they were going to cancel my account a couple of weeks ago, but they have not done so.

Oceanfilly30: I have returned

LV Poker Player: I need to come up with an AIM screen name.

Oceanfilly30: GR8T Poker Player?

starfall2: you can’t use the aol name on aim?

LadyS122: LV Poker Winner?

Reilloc: I’d pick Armadillo Slime.

Reilloc: But I don’t play poker.

LV Poker Player: It tells me the name is already in use. I don’t live in LV any more anyway.

Oceanfilly30: yeah, I remembered you moved

LadyS122: John Jacob Jingle Heimer Schmidt?

Oceanfilly30: lol

Reilloc: His name is my name, too.

LadyS122: 🙂

Oceanfilly30: HJenry the 8th I am

LadyS122: good grief… 50 invites.. I’ll send one to you, and one each to the other Henrys. 🙂

LadyS122: gmail

Oceanfilly30: 😛

Oceanfilly30: please don’t

LadyS122: I won’t

Oceanfilly30: four emails is enough for me to keep up with

Reilloc: I’m thinking of reconvening.

LadyS122: that’s all? wow.. I have… more than that.

Reilloc: Anybody not ready?

starfall2: you sure you dont’ want another 50 gmails on top of those 50? 😛

Dehede011: Okay, who has the deal?

LadyS122: me… I’m still repairing my makeup.. can’t chat without good mascara

Reilloc: I think I’m reconvening.

Oceanfilly30: one for school, one for real, one for internet sign ups, one for internet business

Oceanfilly30: Very well…{sits up straight to listen}

Reilloc: I think we’ll wait one minute for Mabelline.

LadyS122: :p

LadyS122: I was kidding.

Reilloc: Time’s up.

LadyS122: 🙂

Reilloc: Here’s the question.

Reilloc: Resolved, Woodrow Wilson Smith should have been smothered at birth.

Oceanfilly30: ahh!

LadyS122: the world would have been a much more boring place without him though.

Oceanfilly30: how dare you?!

Dehede011: He is my favorite character.

LadyS122: he was the kick in the pants for too many people.

Oceanfilly30: then we could not have the adventures of breaking all taboos

Dehede011: Him and Kettle Belly

Oceanfilly30: I can’t stand him from after TEFL, to be honest

Reilloc: Okay, we got all the cons’ voices.

Reilloc: Where are the pros?

Reilloc: Where is the prose?

Dehede011: Me, he is my favorite.

Reilloc: Con is against the resolution.

Dehede011: I like to be on both sides

Reilloc: Resolved, Woodrow Wilson Smith should have been smothered at birth but brought back to life in a sequel, then.

Dehede011: Resolved, Woodrow Wilson Smith should have been twins

Reilloc: He was.

LadyS122: girl twins no less

Dehede011: Nope triplets

Reilloc: More than that.

Dehede011: Twin boys from the start

LadyS122: I think Maureen would’ve killed them..

Reilloc: She wound up feeling otherwise.

Dehede011: Seriously, him and Kettle Belly were great characters.

LadyS122: cantankerous old goats with soft mushy insides. what’s not to like? 🙂

Reilloc: Weren’t they the same guy, before and after SlimFast?

Dehede011: BTW, does every one know that “Kettle Belly’s” was the name of a restaurant in downtown Colorado Springs?

Reilloc: What was Lazarus Long’s favorite color?

Reilloc: Song?

Oceanfilly30: I had heard that Ron

Reilloc: Season?

Reilloc: Movie?

Oceanfilly30: he’s two dimensional?

Reilloc: What was his favorite anything?

Dehede011: Pretty Girl Pink??

LadyS122: Dora was his favorite everything.

Oceanfilly30: To me LL is the author’s narrator who we actually see interact on occassion

Reilloc: What do we know about Lazarus Long except what he didn’t like and the very few things he did.

Reilloc: Sex, money and preaching.

Dehede011: Your point is well made. Still he got all the good lines.

Oceanfilly30: okay, flip it back…name a non two dimensional character to come out of the Howard books

Oceanfilly30: to me they all seem a touch flat

Reilloc: I concede.

LadyS122: gotta run

Oceanfilly30: ciao

Reilloc: There weren’t characters, just lessons.

starfall2: bye!

LadyS122 has left the room.

Oceanfilly30: and sex

Dehede011: That surprises me. LL seems 3 dimensional to.

Dehede011: me

Reilloc: He favored kilts but only because they hid weapons well.

Reilloc: He probably liked “The Green Hills of Earth” as a song.

Dehede011: My son says that it is clear to him that R had gotten old just from the language

DavidWrightSr: No. He also was comfortable in them.

Reilloc: I’ve never worn one and have to take his writer’s word.

Dehede011: Is that an affectation or did R know something about kilts??

Reilloc: I do have a lovely frock, though.

Oceanfilly30: I can’t see how they would be comfortable, but then I prefer pants

Dehede011: I always thought the kilt was something that R put in for color.

Oceanfilly30: an idiosyncracy perhaps

Dehede011: But that he personally didn’t know much about them

Reilloc: I always took it to be a mock macho thing.

Oceanfilly30: like the padded tights in Moon?

Reilloc: I might wear a skirt but I can kill you where you stand.

Oceanfilly30: ehh, I can see that

Oceanfilly30: it was the stilyagi witht hte tights too

Reilloc: So, it’s indisputable that there can’t not be a W.W. Smith.

Reilloc: He’s where all this was headed, right?

Oceanfilly30: what could redeem you least favorite character, I believe was a point brought up in pre-meeting discussion

Oceanfilly30: isn’t LL supposed to be the penultimate character, male, in RAH’s universes?

Reilloc: Smother him at birth and there’s no fully developed Heinlein left.

Dehede011: Yes, frankly I always thought LL was probably R’s picture of himself to an extent

Reilloc: Except for, when you add mammaries.

Reilloc: And take away the Y and switch reproductive equipment.

Oceanfilly30: I think he should have stopped at Sharpie for his strongest femme

Dehede011: I could believe in her — I once knew a Sharpie

Dehede011: Except without the money

Oceanfilly30: I want to meet a Sharpie who goes my way…with or without the money

Oceanfilly30: she’s an ideal I could aspire to

Reilloc: What’s she got other women haven’t?

Dehede011: The one I knew worked in the office of a factory I engineered in. Bright and absolutely on the bounce

Oceanfilly30: she’s the most confident, sharp witted woman I have ever read in any genre

Oceanfilly30: and she does not let her biology dictate when her brains work

Reilloc: Is she believable, then?

Dehede011: To me she is totally so.

DavidWrightSr: Agreed.

Bookman99R has entered the room.

Oceanfilly30: It may sound conceited, but I feel she is because she reminds me of when I was military

Reilloc: Hi, Rusty.

Oceanfilly30: Rusty, I hope all is well on the homefront

DavidWrightSr: I think of her as a non-red headed smaller Ginny.

Bookman99R: Howdy, y’all

Dehede011: Leslyn??

Dehede011: Howdy

Reilloc: Hilda Burroughs under discussion now, Rusty.

starfall2: hi!

Bookman99R: He passed this morning.

Bookman99R: OK

Oceanfilly30: when I was stillin, nothing was in my way, and no one caught me napping…I felt Sharp at most times

Oceanfilly30: Oh, I’m sorry hon

Bookman99R: I like Hilda

Oceanfilly30: Who is your disliked character/what is your least favorite work?

Reilloc: She’s written to be liked but is she believable?

Oceanfilly30: I truly feel she is

Dehede011: Believe it or not the guys used to tell me of a gal that went to work for an engineering dept in her late teens and retired to live on her investments b4 30

Dehede011: I agree Steph

Bookman99R: I think so, maybe she’s a little exaggerated

Oceanfilly30: All printed characters are…or you’re reading a biopic

Oceanfilly30: 🙂

Dehede011: Rusty, not exaggerated — but definitely the exception

Bookman99R: I can live with “extreme case”

Dehede011: Agreed, she was and more’s the pity

Bookman99R: Of course, naturally, the reader assumes the charachter would like them

starfall2: i’ll be back later, most likely

Reilloc: Nice point.

starfall2: bye!

Bookman99R: I think I would give her wide berth if she hated me

Oceanfilly30: bye jackie

Reilloc: Bye, Jackie.

Bookman99R: bye!

Dehede011: Bye Jackie

starfall2: yes, avoiding sharpie if she doesn’t like you seems like a VERY smart idea

Reilloc: Avoiding Sharpie if you had something she wanted seems prudent.

Bookman99R: And thanks for your kind word, Filly (Steph?)

Oceanfilly30: Indeed, Sir

Dehede011: You know, I can imagine her carrying a gun in her purse.

Reilloc: Were her morals a matter of convenience?

Dehede011: I see a very moral but unorthodox person

Bookman99R: her “stated morals”, or her “actual morals”?

Reilloc: Somebody whose morals are unique to her?

Dehede011: Actual by all means

Dehede011: Reasoned out and then stuck to.

Oceanfilly30: I can agree wtih that

Reilloc: I think that’s the downfall, though.

Dehede011: How so??

Oceanfilly30: most people don’t have a thought out moral scheme?

Bookman99R: I think she had a very few “morals”, but she stuck by them pretty firmly

Reilloc: Reasoning includes feeling and not doped out in a vacuum of sentiment.

Oceanfilly30: she seemed to live by the “do no harm tot hose you care for” rule

Oceanfilly30: beyond that, all was green by her

Reilloc: So, probably, Sharpie makes nobody’s least liked list, agreed?

Dehede011: Really? I can’t see her harming honest people that had not tried to take advantage of her

Bookman99R: not even “no harm”, if her machinations were for the ultimate benefit of the “subject”

Oceanfilly30: I don’t recall hearing much against her

Dehede011: Did I read that into her character??

Oceanfilly30: she would do no intentional harm for no reason, no

Oceanfilly30: at least the way I read her

Bookman99R: “for no reason”, I agree with

Reilloc: I can see her manipulating honest people to obtain an end she believed to be higher than their self interest.

Oceanfilly30: but her family comes ahead of Joe Schmoes

Bookman99R: very much so, Filly

Oceanfilly30: related….views on Jacob Burroughs?

Bookman99R: Sure, LN

Dehede011: She shocked by being absolutely willing to outdo those that triffled with her and hers. She also had some color that did no harm

Reilloc: Jake?

Reilloc: What was Jake?

Dehede011: Isaac Asimov

Bookman99R: Jake was a dreamer

Reilloc: More perfect than all of them and fatally flawed.

Oceanfilly30: Jake is a close runner up for my least favorite

Oceanfilly30: adn I can see the parallel to the good Doctor

Bookman99R: a Mystic, if you will

Reilloc: A mystic…?

Reilloc: Interesting.

Reilloc: I think you’re probably right.

Bookman99R: Jake very much lived in a mental world

Bookman99R: IIRC, he didn’t even invent stuff for “gettting rich”, he just did it

Dehede011: Favorite Characters, the grandfather in TEFL

Oceanfilly30: does anyone else see the parallels between Zebbie and Oscar?

Bookman99R: Dindn’t he build “Snug Harbor mostly to please his wife? Jane, wasn’t it?

Oceanfilly30: he’s actually the reason I still like the first half of TSBTS

Dehede011: Given the difference in physiques — yes

Reilloc: They’re the same guy, updated.

Reilloc: Zeb’s a somewhat less naive Oscar.

Dehede011: Zebbie is brighter

Oceanfilly30: with a bump for danger rather than direction

Reilloc: Who’s Deety?

Bookman99R: I can’t see that Gramp is Jake

Oceanfilly30: Deety is a fantasy woman

Bookman99R: Ira’s a pragmatist, a philosopher

Dehede011: That “bump” that R keeps playing with. Is that real or memorex?

Oceanfilly30: both built and brainy but still a damsel in distress

Reilloc: Sharpie’s what Deety will be?

Reilloc: Ever?

Reilloc: Never?

Oceanfilly30: never

Oceanfilly30: she has the one real talent

Bookman99R: never

Dehede011: Patterson was just telling me about the American Pragmatists.

Dehede011: And you are right about Ira

Bookman99R: ?

Dehede011: Ira was a pragmatist

Bookman99R: But Jake lived in the mentaql world, Ira lived in the “real” world

Dehede011: And fictionally Ira came along right with some of the American Pragmatists.

Reilloc: If I were pragmatic, I’d have an IRA

Oceanfilly30: Ira was as much a nod at Clemens as I think Jake was to Asimov

Bookman99R: I dunno if that Army is big enough to help you, LLN

Dehede011: Yes, and that was the mark of the AP. Like Ira and R they were intellectual but enjoyed the real world

Reilloc: I’ll stop feigning sin, then.

LV Poker Player has left the room.

Bookman99R: who’s R?

Dehede011: Sorry, more better, their intellectualism expressed itself in the real world as an end result

Dehede011: Robert H.

Bookman99R: ok, tx

Reilloc: What’s “intellectualism expressing itself in the real world as an end result” mean?

Dehede011: R was an intellectual but did masonry projects between books

LV Poker Player has entered the room.

Bookman99R: I’d put it differently

Reilloc: Let me say it for you, Don.

Dehede011: He was very bright but his thoughts came to fruition in action.

Reilloc: Goddam AOL>

Bookman99R: Ira used intellect to accomplish things

Reilloc: I’m still not getting it.

Dehede011: Damn, you said it so well and in so few words. I stand abashed.

LV Poker Player: Right the first time.

Reilloc: Who doesn’t do that?

Bookman99R: Jake used his intellect for itself

Oceanfilly30: he got lost in his intellect

Dehede011: Yes,

Bookman99R: zactly

Oceanfilly30: like a writer, his need to create was merely to express what plagued his mind

Bookman99R: he “lived in his thoughts”, if you will

Dehede011: But witness Safe Harbor, he could be pragmatic.

Reilloc: Well, Ira wasn’t the genius Jake was, either.

Oceanfilly30: why build substandard when you are capable of genius?

Bookman99R: true, he could operate in the mechanical world, just like Ira could operate in the Mental world

Dehede011: Steph, that reminds me of somethng Heinlein said about one of his construction projects.

Dehede011: But I can’t quote it verbatim

Bookman99R: so paraphrase

Dehede011: When he wired on of his houses he thought the local code was totally inadequate and built up to his specs.

Dehede011: Do I have that right?

Bookman99R: possibly

Oceanfilly30: I can see that

Reilloc: You probably have it right but code is always a minimum standard anyway.

Bookman99R: jibes with what I recall from GftG

Dehede011: That sounds right

Bookman99R: I recall him bitching about the wiring in one house they looked at

Bookman99R: How does Hilda stack up against Ira?

Reilloc: Interesting there are so many controversial characters in a book identified by a significant number of people in the posts as one of the least liked.

Dehede011: Co-conspirators??

Reilloc: It’s not one of my least liked.

Reilloc: It’s probably right after TEFL as my favorite.

Bookman99R: similarities – they could be siblings, seems to me

Reilloc: Again, as immoderator, I note that it’s the top of the hour.

Dehede011: IMHO, along about NOTB he went on a string of novels — each better than the one before.

Bookman99R: so, why was NotB so low on the list?

Reilloc: I call a five-minute break for those who are not perfect Heinlein characters to discharge their bodily obligations.

Oceanfilly30: because we have a high percentage of folks who are Juvie lovers, and less loving of the later novels

Oceanfilly30: thank you LNC

Reilloc: Naturally, everybody’s at liberty to disregard the break since the log marches on…

Dehede011: I never thought of that Steph

Dehede011: brb

DavidWrightSr: Well, I am a juvie lover and a lover of all the rest as well. 😎

Oceanfilly30: sorry I was absent a minute…got reminded to contact the red cross about their bloodmobile for a charity function

Oceanfilly30: If any of you have the least interest in comics, please support your local shops on May 7th….it’s free comicbook day

Bookman99R: Interesting concept, Steph. Is NotB iconic for, hmmm… call it “the worst of the later novels”, esp. for those who prefer the earier ones?

Reilloc: Why are comicbooks being held against their will?

Oceanfilly30: LOL

Oceanfilly30: quite possibly, Rusty…it is a sharp break in style, and even a goodbye of sorts, to his earlier styles

Oceanfilly30: and FCBD is a gimmick to get people in the stores, but effective for promoting some literacy among the younger crowds too

Bookman99R: he certainly pontificates in NotB, through his charachters

Oceanfilly30: the shifting viewpoints in it reflect the pahses of writing to some

Oceanfilly30: but I can’t remember who is which phase right now

Dehede011: It is interesting to me that he starts talking so much later when his style was to work any information into the story earlier on.

Oceanfilly30: brb…noted drink is empty

Bookman99R: hadn’t heard that theory

Dehede011: Ginny explained to me some of his processing technique when she was encouraging me to write.

Dehede011: Last weekend I found a system that is advocated for screen plays.

Oceanfilly30: back again

Bookman99R: wb

Dehede011: It is now used with computers but would have also been easy to use with index cards like Ginny talked about him using

Reilloc: Okay.

Reilloc: We’re moving into the home stretch, now.

Reilloc: Last hour of the Thursday online chat.

starfall2: back!

Dehede011: I was playing with the technique and of course on screen you don’t use narration too well.

Oceanfilly30: hi jackie

Bookman99R: wb, Star

Dehede011: I’m wondering if that was the mental process he was using in the beginning

Reilloc: To set the theme for the start of the last hour, since nobody wanted to suffocate Woody the last 60 minutes…

Bookman99R: I dunno Ron – I can’t follow what you are saying, ’cause I think you are assuming I know things in there

Oceanfilly30: lol

Reilloc: In reading the premeeting posts, what books and what characters’ being listed as least favorite surprised you the most?

Dehede011: I was probably hurrying the explanation, Sorry

Bookman99R: no prob

Reilloc: I was surprised by Podkayne’s being listed.

Bookman99R: Poddy was a brat

Oceanfilly30: I’m not

Reilloc: I’m no longer surprised when I’m surprised.

Oceanfilly30: I enjoy Poddy…but I like the revised edition that came out more recently

Oceanfilly30: Poddy herslef annoyd me

Reilloc: I always liked the kid and disliked her brother.

Bookman99R: Actually, the more I think about them, the more charachters I would probably not wish to associate with IRL

Bookman99R: Alex Hergenshiemer, f’rex

Oceanfilly30: what characters would you like to know?

Reilloc: That’s based on what, Rusty, except Hergenshiemer who’s already too Kansas conservative to stomach.

Bookman99R: you need more than that?

Reilloc: Well, we both have to live with more than that.

Reilloc: That’s why I excepted him.

Reilloc: What you said earlier about presuming the characters like you, how’s that figure in?

Bookman99R: Alex was a rationalizer, and an activist

DavidWrightSr: From his short stories, the most despicable character, I think, was Bob Wilson from “By His Bootstraps”.

Markjmills: Why despicable?

Reilloc: How do you figure, David?

Bookman99R: good point

Bookman99R: the main charachter from “all you zombies”, too

Reilloc: Now, I can’t agree.

Reilloc: These two guys were not normal once they got caught up in the discontinuity.

Bookman99R: not normal, or exposed for what they were?

DavidWrightSr: Bob wilson was a thief, took advantage of his friends, stabbed himself in the back and on and on.

Reilloc: They couldn’t get out and were forced into doing things to try but that could never work.

Bookman99R: both even treated their “other selves” pretty shabbily

Reilloc: Agreed.

Reilloc: Trying to break an unbreakable cycle.

DavidWrightSr: The cycle is only unbreakable from an outside viewpoint, not from theirs. They only went through the cycle once.

Reilloc: Once in, never out.

Bookman99R: but that’s the point – all they could think of to break the cycle was mistreaing their O.Ss

Reilloc: So, you’re saying guys with different, “better” personalities wouldn’t have acted the way they did?

DavidWrightSr: No. they both came out in the end.

Bookman99R: pretty much

Bookman99R: unless you want to discount free will

Reilloc: And the resulting stories would or wouldn’t have been as entertaining?

Bookman99R: probably would not

Reilloc: I like this.

Bookman99R: but we aren’t talking about the entertainment value of the storie

Reilloc: You may be looking at next month’s topic.

Bookman99R: nice, likeable people don’t make good main charachters, I expect

Oceanfilly30: no?

Oceanfilly30: Mannie is likable

Oceanfilly30: so is Mike

Oceanfilly30: and Prof

Bookman99R: are they?

Oceanfilly30: well, to me

Reilloc: Who’s the young girl in Menace from Earth?

Oceanfilly30: the least grating of all RAH’s for my reading

Oceanfilly30: I liked her

DavidWrightSr: Holly

Bookman99R: Prof might have blown you up to make a political point, and not lost a moment’s sleep for you children’s tears

Reilloc: Prof was more than reprehensible.

Bookman99R: Mannie, perhaps

Oceanfilly30: hmm, good point

Bookman99R: Wyoh was Prof lite

Oceanfilly30: the urge without the will?

Reilloc: Great taste, less filling.

Bookman99R: less natural talent

Reilloc: There’s one story that made the list of least liked and I don’t know it by name.

Reilloc: Operation Successful.

Oceanfilly30: what is that?

DavidWrightSr: Sometimes, I think you people are way too cynical O:-)

Reilloc: Successful Operation.

starfall2: oh, that one! i always forget about it. i still haven’t figured it out

Reilloc: I might know it by storyline but not by name.

Reilloc: Who knows the story?

Bookman99R: You’re just trying to manipulate us by sayi ng that, David

Oceanfilly30: cynical? us?

Bookman99R:

Reilloc: And, again, that Waldo’s on the list surprises me.

LV Poker Player: I do. As near as I can tell, the Leader is a surrogate for Hitler and/or Mussolini. The doctor switches brains instead of gall bladders. Everybody ends up thinking the two are still the same people they were before the operation.

DavidWrightSr: Not you. Certain Others 😀

Reilloc: I read Waldo in a volume that included Magic, Inc. and, maybe, Puppet Masters and liked them all.

Reilloc: I never read that one, LV.

Oceanfilly30: See, I have it with Magic, INC…enjoyed magic, but just could not like Waldo

Bookman99R: Slightly (well, a lot) OT: Ever heard of “Ever After”

Reilloc: Ever After…

Reilloc: What’s it?

starfall2: the movie?

LV Poker Player: This ends up inconvenient for the Leader, under the system he had set up for persecuting Jews, which he now was as far as everyone knew.

starfall2: if that’s what you’re talking about, I like that movie

Bookman99R: collection about what happened after the Quest succeded

LV Poker Player: It’s in Expanded Universe, I’m not sure if it was ever published anywhere else.

Bookman99R: Dave Drake had a story in it

DavidWrightSr: S.O. was published in “Futuria Fantasia #4” in 1940

Bookman99R: yeah, the Leader became the persecuted one, right?

DavidWrightSr: written under the Lyle Monroe pseudonym

Reilloc: Not collected elsewhere?

LV Poker Player: Right Rusty

DavidWrightSr: Only in E.U. as mentioned

Reilloc: Finally, at the bottom of the last hour, in regard to “For Us, the Living”

Oceanfilly30: I’m glad it was never published, that it was mined for later works

Reilloc: Is it fair to consider it with the rest of the body of the work in ranking it?

Oceanfilly30: during his life, that is

Oceanfilly30: no…it is too obviously a prototype

Reilloc: Undeniably, he wrote it and just as indisputably he never sought to have it published later.

DavidWrightSr: I just finished reading it looking for Korzybski references. I enjoyed it, but prefer to think of it as standing aside from his other works.

Reilloc: It got votes but I think it was disregarded as an anomaly.

Oceanfilly30: it is an academic novelty…a look at the writer early on

Bookman99R: I think you are likely right, Steph

Oceanfilly30: one that disproves a lot of the whole “he swtiched thinkings” too

Reilloc: So, characters therein may be set to one side, too.

DavidWrightSr: But it should knock down any notion the he only started getting “preachy” later in life.

Bookman99R: how so, LN?

Oceanfilly30: because it bears closer relation to later work than early, as for as its mores

Reilloc: If you disregard the book in overall opinions about the whole of the work, how can you extract characters and include them?

Oceanfilly30: point

DavidWrightSr: Who says we have to be consistent? O:-)

Oceanfilly30: and rebound

Bookman99R: Not disregard, “treat differently”

Reilloc: We don’t and, in fact, as the only people attending this decision-making meeting, what we say, goes.

Oceanfilly30: lol

Dehede011: Gotta go, folks

Oceanfilly30: bye ron

Reilloc: Later, Ron.

Dehede011: A pretty lady is calling

Oceanfilly30: whoo hoo

DavidWrightSr: The characters are very lightly drawn, IMHO, however.

Dehede011: Bye

Dehede011 has left the room.

Reilloc: So, by my informal but nevertheless binding tally, here’s what the consensus has been tonight.

DavidWrightSr: Incidentally, the entire section dealing with Perry’s re-orientation after he hit the old boyfriend is pure Korzybkian. One of the best that I have come across so far.

Reilloc: Orphans of the Sky, least liked book.

Oceanfilly30: I surmised as much

Reilloc: Least liked character:

Reilloc: inconclusive.

Bookman99R: LLC was inconclusive because the different values of “bad” weren’t defined, I bet

Oceanfilly30: true

Oceanfilly30: poorly written….least likable…etc

Bookman99R: zactlyu

Bookman99R: go on, LN

Reilloc: When I originally discussed the topic with Dr. Rufo, I was going to include things going to writing choices…

Reilloc: He suggested that the inclusion would cause the discussion to stray to areas either requiring an expertise or there would be fundamental disagreement from a lay perspective…

Reilloc: as to what constituted “good writing.”

Oceanfilly30: true there

Reilloc: We decided to keep it loose and go for more of a feel supported by any empirical opinions as opposed to something quasi-substantive.

Bookman99R: not a bad choice

Oceanfilly30: not at all

Reilloc: Overall, the comments were informative but somewhat confusing.

Oceanfilly30: I delight in confusing

Bookman99R: much the same way “pure” research can be more profitable than “directed” reserch

Oceanfilly30: it sows chaos thru the cosmos

Reilloc: For example, between fans, it emerged that you either like the two works Cat/Walls and NOTB or you don’t.

Reilloc: Same way, with IWFNE.

Bookman99R: what about IWFNE?

Bookman99R: lol!

DavidWrightSr: When it comes right down to it, everybody has different tastes. de gustibus non disputandum est. “Nothing like a gusty dispute” Hmm, that seems wrong somehow 😉

Oceanfilly30: lol

Bookman99R: gusto

Bookman99R: disputed with gusto

Reilloc: More than incidentally, at this time, I’d like to thank you all for your support and participation in this month’s posting and discussion.

DavidWrightSr: after drinking a beer.

Bookman99R: am I too serius today?

Reilloc: In fact, I’d more than like to, I do thank you.

Bookman99R: after? While!

Oceanfilly30: you have call to be

Bookman99R: thanks, Steph

Bookman99R: we do carry on, though

Oceanfilly30: If we are coming to a close, Imust go and attempt to write another bit of a story for my creative purposes

Oceanfilly30: we do at taht

Bookman99R: wish I could hit the chat more

Bookman99R: the times are bad for me, though

Oceanfilly30: tell motherthing we think of her too

Reilloc: So, do I hear any opposition to my suggestion we adjourn until Saturday?

Bookman99R: I shall

Oceanfilly30: nay, LNC

Reilloc: Professor Wright, will you show the log formally closed, please?

DavidWrightSr: Log officially closed at 11:47 P.M. EST

Oceanfilly30: HUZZAH!

Oceanfilly30: evening my friends

Reilloc: Thanks, guys.

DavidWrightSr: Of course, that doesn’t keep me from recording any loose comments you might make afterwards 🙂

Reilloc: Saturday, if you can make it.

Bookman99R: been fun

Oceanfilly30: you done good, to use my poorest american

Reilloc: Hey, I lived.

Bookman99R: nah, “ya done did good”!

Oceanfilly30: I moderated…or attempted to…once

Reilloc: Cool…

DavidWrightSr: Y’all need a good dose of alt.usage.english. They’ll straighten you over there.

Reilloc: I know who I can call in an emergency.

Bookman99R: don’t look at me – I just do “dumb ideas”

Oceanfilly30: lol…yeah, David Sr

Reilloc: Who’s interested in an experiment?

Oceanfilly30: what would that be?

Bookman99R: go on…

Oceanfilly30: curiosity gets this cat ever and always

Reilloc: Seeing whether, if I close this room, time, as we’ve known it, will stop.

Oceanfilly30: lol

starfall2: heh.

starfall2: why not?

DavidWrightSr: Fire when ready Gridley.

Oceanfilly30: I’ll stay to see if AOL is funny

Reilloc: Night, my friends.

Reilloc has left the room.

Oceanfilly30: night

starfall2: goodnight!

Bookman99R: good night all

DavidWrightSr: Do svidanije

Markjmills: Only the Glaroon can declare Time Stop!

starfall2: actually, i should stop procrastinating, and finish the project that was due monday

starfall2: bye!

Oceanfilly30: bye Jackie

starfall2 has left the room.

DavidWrightSr: Well, it didn’t kill us that time.

Bookman99R: last one out turns off the lights?

DavidWrightSr: I’m gone.
End of Discussion

Click Here to Return to Index

by The Heinlein Society
on February 16, 2013

Heinlein Readers Discussion Group For Thursday 03-24-2005 Topic: Least Favorite Heinlein

Heinlein Readers Discussion Group
For Thursday 03-24-2005
Topic: Least Favorite Heinlein

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Meta

Member Login

Staff Login

The Heinlein Society