Heinlein Readers Discussion Group Thursday 01/06/2005 9:00 P.M. EST Glory Road and the Most Mammoth Hoax in History

Heinlein Readers Discussion Group
Thursday 01/06/2005 9:00 P.M. EST
Glory Road and the Most Mammoth Hoax in History

Here Begin The Postings
From: “David M. Silver”
Subject: RAHRGC: Glory Road and the Most Mammoth Hoax in History (Thursday, January 6, 9 PM to midnight, ET; and Saturday, January 8, 5 to 8 PM, ET)
Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2004 12:27:27 -0800

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: Glory Road and the Most Mammoth Hoax in History
Dates
and Times: Thursday, January 6, 2005, from 9 PM to midnight, ET
and Saturday, January 8, 2005, from 5 to 8 PM, ET
Place: TBA [look for a subsequent post in this thread for
directions, etc.]

Reading Recommended: Glory Road (mandatory). There’s a new hard
cover edition issued by TOR in October, if you wish to give
yourself a present, but any copy works just fine, including my old
green and yellow covered paperback from Avon, printed in 1966.

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

In Chapter Eight of _Glory Road_ Oscar Gordon, Hero First Class, commits an enormous cultural faux paux when he declines the after dinner attentions of the Three Graces. Oscar, Her Wisdom, and Rufo, Oscar’s “groom,” are on the way to capture the Egg; and they’ve stopped, after vanquishing Igli at the Doral Jocko’s stronghold for refreshment, rest, and to replenish lost supplies. Everything went swimmingly well, as Jocko, who is an old friend of Star, Her Wisdom, offers the Hero what they need, asking only that “he will honor my house by accepting hospitality of roof … and table … and bed” which Hero Oscar accepts. A sumptuous feast of welcome follows. At its end, hours later, the Doral’s wife, Letva, flanked by two of her daughters, leads Oscar to his sleeping chamber and put Oscar, several wine cups to the wind, to bed, and withdraw.

They then return, nude, and pose at his bedside, with Letva explaining that as he is their honored guest, now honoring their lord’s bed, and inquiring what is “a Hero’s pleasure? One? Or two? Or all three?”

The Hero graciously declines. A gentleman doesn’t sleep with his host’s wife, or daughters, even if he has reason to believe his host is long past the point of several cups to the wind, does he?

The Hero is awakened by Rufo and Star the next morning to literally “cold shoulder,” and informed that something has occurred which requires they depart immediately and flee the lands of the Doral, lest they forfeit their lives to him.

That finally leads to an examination of American sexual mores, and discovery by Oscar of what he calls the “most mammoth hoax in history.”

Writer Heinlein made several points in the discussion that followed Oscar, Star, and Rufo’s hurried departure from the Doral’s stronghold and lands.

What do you believe they were, and what do you think of them?

Where there other stories by Heinlein in which he followed on with this theme?

What, if anything, overall did he have to say that affects or elaborates this theme of sexuality in mid-20th century western civilization?

Do you think any noticeable change has occurred in the forty or so years since?

We’ve found that the more discussion we generate by posts and replies before the actual chat meeting, the better the chats can be. Please don’t hesitate to comment, reply, and raise other issues on the discussion of the theme of sexuality, and related themes of marriage, divorce, etc., raised by the story _Glory Road_ and other Heinlein writings. The more comments, the better.

I’m looking forward to seeing you on January 6th.

[David Wright, please contact me as soon as convenient, about links to the chatroom on our website. AIM appears to have made some programming changes, and they do not appear to work at present for either IBM type or Macintosh machines.]

—
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: RAHRGC: Glory Road and the Most Mammoth Hoax in History (Thursday, January 6, 9 PM to midnight, ET; and Saturday, January 8, 5 to 8 PM, ET)
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2004 02:53:30 -0800

In article ,
“David M. Silver” wrote:

> [David Wright, please contact me as soon as convenient, about links to
> the chatroom on our website. AIM appears to have made some programming
> changes, and they do not appear to work at present for either IBM type
> or Macintosh machines.]

I noted I’d give instructions concerning the location of the chatroom later. It requires you to download a copy of freeware at

http://www.aim.com/index.adp

It comes in Windows, Macintosh, Linux, and “other” versions, whatever they are. Use the “For Your Computer” button to pick the right platform and OS version you use.

Results of investigation why some old links we have do not work correctly thus far: some changes have been made, whether software or not, or affected by new versions of website software or not. For users of Windows 98, the links do *not* presently work with Internet Explorer. I don’t know why, but I suspect if you use Opera or some other browser with Windows 98, that might work. Any version of Windows after 98 works just fine with Internet Explorer with the links on our Heinlein Society which are at:

https://www.heinleinsociety.org/readersgroup/index.html

under the link “AIM Chat Room” underscored on the right hand top of the page,

and

https://www.heinleinsociety.org/links.html

in the left column under “Links” about thirteen links down (you’ll have to scroll a little bit).

Look for the red button “Get It Now,” on both pages. It’s the link “AIM Chat Room” underscored, just above the red button.

I cannot comment on what version of the AOL browser if you’re using Windows will do. It probably depends on what version of AOL you’re running, whether it was when AOL used a version of IE, or whether it used its taken-over version of Netscrape.

I don’t know what will happen with the latest versions of Mozilla or Netscape, on any platform, because I don’t have them on my machine.

For users of Macintosh running OS X, you *have* to use Internet Explorer, and you cannot use Safari.

Confusing, huh?

Other methods not involving the use of a browser will get you in the room. The short-cut available to Windows users of AIM, if you’ve made one to that room on a previous occasion, and the Cmd-T method available to Macintosh users to invite themselves will both work. See, David Wright’s instructions on

https://www.heinleinsociety.org/readersgroup/index.html#Info

For a Mac, sign on AIM (or iChat if you’re using it, but AIM works better), and just hit Cmd-T while AIM is the open program, and an invitation will pop up. Erase whatever’s in the buffer for room name and type the name of the chatroom where indicated, and invite yourself by typing your buddy name where indicated. Then click send.

If that’s too confusing, David Wright will be at the chat. I will be at the chat. Look for us on your buddy list (put our ‘names’ in your buddy list first). Send an IM to use when you see us, and we’ll or anyone else in the chat room will send you an invitation when you show up. Then, if you’re on a Windows machine, you can make and save a “short-cut” if you wish to invite yourself back in the next time. There’s a list of buddy names of folk who usually attend these chats (and the ones held in “The Lanai”) around somewhere. Someone will hopefully put the URL up. I think it’s on Chris Bohr’s site. I’m “agplusone” usually. David is “DavidWrightSr” with or without the capital letters. Others are listed, and if you sign on at the correct time and don’t find David or me on your buddy list, assuming you’ve entered our names, use one of theirs.

The name of the chatroom on AIM is “Heinlein Readers Group chat” typed exactly that way, without the quotes.

Hope we see you there, and welcome. Meanwhile when our webmistress gets back from wherever they are, I’ll ask her to look into a code that will work, if possible, with all platforms and browsers.

—
David M. Silver

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

From: “David Wright Sr.”
Subject: Re: RAHRGC: Glory Road and the Most Mammoth Hoax in History (Thursday, January 6, 9 PM to midnight, ET; and Saturday, January 8, 5 to 8 PM, ET)
Date: 20 Dec 2004 11:24:13 GMT

“David M. Silver” wrote in news:ag.plusone-
:

As an addendum to David Silver’s post.

The links on the Heinlein Society WebSite has the following:

aim:gochat?roomname=Heinlein%2BReaders%2BGroup%2BChat

The ‘%2B’ is hex for ‘+’ which apparently is not being correctly passed on to AIM by the operating system. if you will copy the following

aim:gochat?roomname=Heinlein+Readers+Group+Chat

and do Right-Click–>New—>shortcut and paste the above into the box where it says ‘Type the location of the item’, then click Next. Give it a name and click ‘Finish’.

This works for Windows.

—
David Wright
If you haven’t joined the Society, Why Not?
The Heinlein Estate is matching new member
registrations before 12/30/2004.
*Only 10 days left*
Make your new membership count twice

From: “Puppet_Sock” Subject: Re: RAHRGC: Glory Road and the Most Mammoth Hoax in History (Thursday, January 6, 9 PM to midnight, ET; and Saturday, January 8, 5 to 8 PM, ET)
Date: 20 Dec 2004 07:48:04 -0800

David M. Silver wrote:
[snips]
> Topic: Glory Road and the Most Mammoth Hoax in History
> Dates

Ok, maybe I’m particularly thick today. It is Monday. And I’m perfectly prepared to take my turn with the conical hat.

But, what hoax? Anybody got a “for dummies” explanation of what’s going on here?

Socks
From: “David M. Silver”
Subject: Re: RAHRGC: Glory Road and the Most Mammoth Hoax in History (Thursday, January 6, 9 PM to midnight, ET; and Saturday, January 8, 5 to 8 PM, ET)
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2004 18:36:07 -0800

In article ,
“Puppet_Sock” wrote:

> David M. Silver wrote:
> [snips]
> > Topic: Glory Road and the Most Mammoth Hoax in History
> > Dates
>
> Ok, maybe I’m particularly thick today. It is Monday. And I’m
> perfectly prepared to take my turn with the conical hat.
>
> But, what hoax? Anybody got a “for dummies” explanation of
> what’s going on here?
> Socks

This is going to be long, because I’m working my own way through the questions I’ve asked while answering you, Socks, so please bear with me.

There’s a two or three page passage at the beginning of Chapter X in _Glory Road_ after the three adventurers had returned to Doral’s stronghold, once Star found out exactly how Oscar had grievously offended the Doral and rode back to make amends if possible. After their return Oscar has heroically satisfied the requirement of “accepting hospitality of … bed,” and welcomed all three of the Graces (Doral’s wife and two daughters) into that bed.

Now, three days later, they are leaving after a sumptuous breakfast, with musicians lining their route and even with the Doral’s personal escort and his guard present saluting them with their swords, and Oscar exercises his weakest muscle — his brain, by thinking about what has occurred the past three days.

At the farewell breakfast the Doral himself had sang about Oscar’s “prowess” in accepting the hospitality of his bed, using a thousand intricate lines of poetry and music to laud that example of ‘heroism.’ Oscar returns his compliment with a recitation of poetry himself (but in English, which no one understands, but which Star “translates” to them “for” him). Her translation, a rather free interpretation, says that Oscar had “praised the ladies of Doral, the ideas being ones associated with Madame Pompadour, Nell Gwyn, Theodora, Ninon de l’Enclos, and Rangy Lil. She didn’t name these famous ladies; instead she was specific, in Nevian eulogy that would have startled Francois Villon.”

Oscar can listen and follow Star’s free translation, and while doing so, he thinks to himself that had he been capable of extemporizing in Nervian language such poetry he actually would have tried to say what Star is saying he just said to them.

Jeanne-Antoinette Poisson (the Marchioness of Pompadour) became mistress to Louis XIV of France, and was known universally as “the last uncrowned Queen of France”; Nell Gwynne (a common, but popular, famous and successful actress at a time when “actress” was also synonymous with the epithet “whore”) became mistress to Charles II of England; Theodora (a famous hyppodrome actress — also at a time when the epithet whore applied — noted for her wild parties off stage) became, after a religious conversation, the mistress of Justinian I, heir to the emperor of Constantinople (and later his empress); Ninon d’Enclos was a courtesan in the court of Louis XIV of France and for a time his mistress; and I’m going to have to bail out on “Rangy Lil.” [see below for “Note 1.”]

The salient feature in common all of these (the unrediscovered Rangy Lil of ballad fame excepted) possess was their compassion for people, especially the commoners who were ruled by the men who choose these courtesans as favorites (or wives), and their interest in elevating and refining their society, especially including the sensibilities and often vile tempers of the autocratic men whom they served as courtesan, around them.

Of the lesser known Ninon d’Enclos (including her among others less well known), Jose Marchena, a Spaniard then a soldier who had a penchant for perverse cleverness amounting to genius, as well as an appreciation of bawdy ballads, in one of his forgeries on Satyricon committed to excuse or deflect a reprimand from a general who issued it when that general heard him singing a bawdy ballad, commenting grandly on the Satyricon of Petronius Arbiter (something Robert Heinlein knew well, otherwise he wouldn’t have named his most famous cat after the Roman author), wrote:

A courtesan worthy of the name is a beautiful woman, gracious and
amiable, at whose home gather men of letters and men of the world;
the first magistrates, the greatest captains: and who keeps men of
all professions in a happy state of mind because she is pleasing to
them, she inspires in them a desire for reciprocal pleasure: such an
one was Aspasia who, after having charmed the cultured people of
Athens was for a long time the good companion of Pericles, and
contributed much, perhaps, towards making his century what it was,
the age of taste in arts and letters. Such an one also was Phryne,
Lais, Glycera, and their names will always be celebrated; such,
also, was Ninon d’Enclos, one of the ornaments of the century of
Louis XIV, and Clairon, the first who realized all the grandeur of
her art; such an one art thou, C—–, French Thalia, who commands
attentions, I do not say this by way of apology but to share the
opinion of Alceste.

A courtesan such as I have in mind may have all the public and
private virtues. One knows the severe probity of Ninon, her
generosity, her taste for the arts, her attachment to her friends.
* * * * *

Regardless of brilliant forgeries and naughty ballads, the point of Heinlein’s having Star giving a citation as exemplary models to these women labeled by history’s epithets as whores is to show something about “the Most Mammoth Hoax in History.” They all have in common something more than merely the ability to lay back and swivel their hips while enduring the panting beast above while thinking about the duty they owe to ‘God, their family and country,’ as Victorian mothers used to counsel their daughters to do, or about the money they are making or security they achieve by prostituting themselves.

Francois Villon was a fifteenth century poet whose scathing attacks on many well-known people and institutions, using the vocabulary of criminals with whom he was imprisoned to express himself, were notorious. His masterpiece was _The Testament_, similar in style to earlier poems but more bitter and less humorous. He wound up awaiting the noose himself. At the last minute an appeal was granted him, and he disappeared, never to be hear from again.

Now further on in Glory Road: The Doral rides back to his stronghold, and while riding on, Oscar begins to think about a conversation he had with Star while resting in a steam bath from his heroic labors on the second day back at the stronghold. Oscar had told Star in a wink, wink, nudge, nudge fashion that he had been astonished how much he had enjoyed his labors with the Doral’s wife and daughters, implying their proficiency in lovemaking had delighted him.

She tells him she’s surprised he’s surprised, or rather would be had Rufo not told her about Americans, that Americans have the only semicivilized culture known in which the physical manifestation of “love is not recognized as the highest art and given the serious study it deserves.”

She goes on to tell him that if they live through their adventures she’ll arrange that he travels among her Universes where he will see how much more well studied such a high art truly is among civilized cultures.

Oscar then ponders with his hero’s mind what she’s said:

The “highest art” — and back home we didn’t even study it, much less
make any attempt to teach it. Ballet takes years and years. Nor do
they hire you to sing at the Met just because you have a loud voice.

Why should “love” be classed as an “instinct”?

Certainly the appetite for sex is an instinct — but did another
appetite make every glutton a gourmet, every fry cook a Cordon Bleu?
Hell, you had to _learn_ even to be a fry cook.

I walked out of the steam room whistling “The Best Things in Life Are
Free” — then chopped off in sudden sorrow for all my poor, unhappy
compatriots cheated of their birthright by the most mammoth hoax in
history.

— page 123, SFBC hard cover edition
Putnam, 1963

What is the most mammoth hoax in history? Is it that our appetites for sex should _not_ be educated and exercised, but rather repressed and labeled sinful? Or is it that “love” requires more than merely occasional exercise a despised animal act of passion for species procreation?

I don’t know. What’s Heinlein getting at? Where does he go, Puppet Sock, with this line in Glory Road? What else of this theme in this and other of Heinlein’s novels should we explore to talk about in our chat in January?

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Note 1: About bailing out on “Rangy Lil”: Beside noting that Lazarus teaches the song to Dora in TEFL, the best we’ve ever been able to come up with on her is in this thread back in June 2000 on alt.fan.heinlein.

“Zap Ophelia” started a thread here: http://tinyurl.com/6xn8s

We went around and around on it, and came to inconclusive results. We even asked Ginny. She said Robert, who couldn’t carry a tune in a bucket, used to sing the ballad about Rangy Lil in her hearing, the words of which she couldn’t recall and she couldn’t recognize a tune as any she’d ever heard played. Ginny and Robert liked ballads of that bawdy sort, and even had a collection of vinyl of some of them, from Oscar Brand, and others.

Our conclusion was it most likely was a sort of Alaska Gold Rush ballad, as “Four Whores Came Down from Canada” (which we on alt.fan.heinlein have found) is, the lyrics being kind of poetry Robert Service might have published, only much more bawdy.

I have no idea where she found them, but the closest two poems in that “genre” Zap Ophelia could come up with were two songs about a “Lil” or a “Lillian” to which if you add the word “Rangy” before Lil (and do something better than I have about fixing the scansion), render thus:

POOR RANGY LIL (1)

Her name was Rangy Lil and she was a beauty,
She came from a house of ill reputy,
But she drank too deep of the demon rum,
She smoked hashish and opium.

She was young and she was fair,
She had lovely golden hair,
Gentlemen came from miles to see
Rangy Lil in her deshabille.

Day by day her form grew thinner,
>From insufficient protein in her,
She grew two hollows on her chest,
Why, she had to go around completely dressed.

Now clothes may make a gal go far,
But they have no place on a fille de joie,
Rangy Lil’s troubles started when
She concealed her abdomen.

She went to the house physician,
To prescribe for her condition,
“You have got,” the doc did say,
“Pernicious anem-i-a.”

She took to treatments in the sun,
She drank of Scott’s Emul-si-on,
Three times daily she took yeast,
But still her clientele decreased.

For you must know her cliente-le,
Rested chiefly on her belly,
She rilled this thing like the deep Pacific,
It was something calorific.

As Rangy Lil lay in her dishonor,
She felt the hand of the Lord upon her,
She said, “Me sins I now repents,
But Lord, that’ll cost you fifty cents.”

This is the story of Rangy Lil,
She was one girl in a million,
And the moral to her story is,
Whatever your line of business is, fitness wins!

POOR RANGY LIL (2)

She was the best our camp produced
And them that ain’t been screwed by Rangy Lil
Ain’t had no goose and never will,
For Rangy Lil’s been took away.

TTwas a standing bet around our town,
That no one could screw her and clamp her down
For when she screwed, she screwed for keeps,
And piled her victims up in heaps.

But down from the north came Yukon Pete,
With sixteen pounds of rolling meat.
When he laid his cock out on the bar,
The damn thing reached from here to thar.

We all knew Rangy Lil had met her fate
But we couldn’t back down that thar late,
So it was arranged down by the mil,
Back of the schoolhouse on the hill.

When all the boys could get a seat
And watch that half-breed bury his meat,
Rangy Lil started out like the Autumn breeze
Whistling through the hemlock trees.

She tried the twist and the double bunt
And all the tricks wha’s known to cunt,
But Pete was with her every lick
And just kept reeling out more prick.

At last poor Rangy Lil just had to stop,
For Pete had nailed her to the spot.
Here clothes were torn and ripped to shreds,
And scatters all over the cactus beds.

The sod was ripped for miles around
Where poor Rangy Lil’s ass had hit the ground
But she died game I’m here to tell,
Died with her boots on where she fell
So what the hell boys, what the hell!

I think the second fits my theory about just a bit better than the first.

—
David M. Silver

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

From: lal_truckee
Subject: Re: RAHRGC: Glory Road and the Most Mammoth Hoax in History (Thursday, January 6, 9 PM to midnight, ET; and Saturday, January 8, 5 to 8 PM, ET)
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2004 11:53:57 -0800

David M. Silver wrote:

>
> Oscar had “praised the ladies of Doral, the ideas being ones associated
> with Madame Pompadour, Nell Gwyn, Theodora, Ninon de l’Enclos, and Rangy
> Lil.”

Most interestingly, in the context of the discussion, these four paradigms of enthusiasm are arguably exactly what is being presented as the great hoax – prostitutes…

Makes for a very convoluted discussion.
From: “David M. Silver”
Subject: Re: RAHRGC: Glory Road and the Most Mammoth Hoax in History (Thursday, January 6, 9 PM to midnight, ET; and Saturday, January 8, 5 to 8 PM, ET)
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2004 12:31:32 -0800

In article ,
lal_truckee wrote:

> David M. Silver wrote:
>
> >
> > Oscar had “praised the ladies of Doral, the ideas being ones associated
> > with Madame Pompadour, Nell Gwyn, Theodora, Ninon de l’Enclos, and Rangy
> > Lil.”
>
> Most interestingly, in the context of the discussion, these four
> paradigms of enthusiasm are arguably exactly what is being presented as
> the great hoax – prostitutes…
>
> Makes for a very convoluted discussion.

As I was bopping along as we used to say, reading my brand new copy of _Glory Road_ I noticed the same thing, Lal, — went back and read the chapter again, and said to myself, “Self, why haven’t we ever discussed this ‘Hoax’ before? Whatever in the world is Heinlein doing?”

thanx, Lal … heh.

Did you ever happen to notice that Cyrano calls Karth-Hokesh “Hoax”?

And when Oscar calls him on it, he says, “Hoax, Hokesh — a matter of geography and accent; this chateau was once in the Carpathians, so ‘Hokesh’ it is, if ’twill make your death merrier. Come now, let us sing.”

What’s going on — and whose castle are we in — in the Carpathians? Vlad the Impaler?

And what does “Hoax” have to do with the most mammoth hoax in history?

Any ideas?

Saddle up, and let’s rustle some cattle, Lal.

—
David M. Silver

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

From: “Peter”
Subject: Re: RAHRGC: Glory Road and the Most Mammoth Hoax in History (Thursday, January 6, 9 PM to midnight, ET; and Saturday, January 8, 5 to 8 PM, ET)
Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2004 11:22:21 +1100

“David M. Silver” wrote in message
news:…
> In article ,
> lal_truckee wrote:
>
> > David M. Silver wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Oscar had “praised the ladies of Doral, the ideas being ones associated
> > > with Madame Pompadour, Nell Gwyn, Theodora, Ninon de l’Enclos, and Rangy
> > > Lil.”
> >
> > Most interestingly, in the context of the discussion, these four
> > paradigms of enthusiasm are arguably exactly what is being presented as
> > the great hoax – prostitutes…
> >
> > Makes for a very convoluted discussion.
>
> As I was bopping along as we used to say, reading my brand new copy of
> _Glory Road_ I noticed the same thing, Lal, — went back and read the
> chapter again, and said to myself, “Self, why haven’t we ever discussed
> this ‘Hoax’ before? Whatever in the world is Heinlein doing?”
>
> thanx, Lal … heh.
>
> Did you ever happen to notice that Cyrano calls Karth-Hokesh “Hoax”?
>
> And when Oscar calls him on it, he says, “Hoax, Hokesh — a matter of
> geography and accent; this chateau was once in the Carpathians, so
> ‘Hokesh’ it is, if ’twill make your death merrier. Come now, let us
> sing.”
>
> What’s going on — and whose castle are we in — in the Carpathians?
> Vlad the Impaler?
>
> And what does “Hoax” have to do with the most mammoth hoax in history?
>
> Any ideas?
>
> Saddle up, and let’s rustle some cattle, Lal.
>
> —

Came into this thread part way through so apologies if I don’t know what’s going on.

The first thing I thought of when I saw chateau and Carpathians was Jules Verne – he wrote a novel called The Castle in the Carpathians (or approximately that in French). If I recall correctly, there is a female ghost that turns out to be a fake but memory may be playing tricks on me.

Regards, Peter.
From: “David M. Silver”
Subject: Re: RAHRGC: Glory Road and the Most Mammoth Hoax in History (Thursday, January 6, 9 PM to midnight, ET; and Saturday, January 8, 5 to 8 PM, ET)
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2004 16:52:38 -0800

In article ,
“Peter” wrote:

> Came into this thread part way through so apologies if I don’t know what’s
> going on.
>
> The first thing I thought of when I saw chateau and Carpathians was Jules
> Verne – he wrote a novel called The Castle in the Carpathians (or
> approximately that in French). If I recall correctly, there is a female
> ghost that turns out to be a fake but memory may be playing tricks on me.
>
> Regards,
> Peter.

Hi, Peter,

I always knew there were Vernes I ought to find and read. Off to Gutenberg …

Basically we periodically have live chats under chatroom software.

Here’s my lead-off post on Sat, Dec 18, 2004, that started this can of worms:

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: Glory Road and the Most Mammoth Hoax in History
Dates
and Times: Thursday, January 6, 2005, from 9 PM to midnight, ET
and Saturday, January 8, 2005, from 5 to 8 PM, ET
Place: [AIM chatroom “Heinlein Readers Group chat”]
See,

https://www.heinleinsociety.org/readersgroup/index.html#Info

for basic access of the chatroom.

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

In Chapter Eight of _Glory Road_ Oscar Gordon, Hero First Class, commits
an enormous cultural faux paux when he declines the after dinner
attentions of the Three Graces. Oscar, Her Wisdom, and Rufo, Oscar’s
“groom,” are on the way to capture the Egg; and they’ve stopped, after
vanquishing Igli at the Doral Jocko’s stronghold for refreshment, rest,
and to replenish lost supplies. Everything went swimmingly well, as
Jocko, who is an old friend of Star, Her Wisdom, offers the Hero what
they need, asking only that “he will honor my house by accepting
hospitality of roof … and table … and bed” which Hero Oscar accepts.
A sumptuous feast of welcome follows. At its end, hours later, the
Doral’s wife, Letva, flanked by two of her daughters, leads Oscar to his
sleeping chamber and put Oscar, several wine cups to the wind, to bed,
and withdraw.

They then return, nude, and pose at his bedside, with Letva explaining
that as he is their honored guest, now honoring their lord’s bed, and
inquiring what is “a Hero’s pleasure? One? Or two? Or all three?”

The Hero graciously declines. A gentleman doesn’t sleep with his host’s
wife, or daughters, even if he has reason to believe his host is long
past the point of several cups to the wind, does he?

The Hero is awakened by Rufo and Star the next morning to literally
“cold shoulder,” and informed that something has occurred which requires
they depart immediately and flee the lands of the Doral, lest they
forfeit their lives to him.

That finally leads to an examination of American sexual mores, and
discovery by Oscar of what he calls the “most mammoth hoax in history.”

Writer Heinlein made several points in the discussion that followed
Oscar, Star, and Rufo’s hurried departure from the Doral’s stronghold
and lands.

What do you believe they were, and what do you think of them?

Where there other stories by Heinlein in which he followed on with this
theme?

What, if anything, overall did he have to say that affects or elaborates
this theme of sexuality in mid-20th century western civilization?

Do you think any noticeable change has occurred in the forty or so years
since?

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= end repeated post =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

You might be able to pick up the rest of the thread. There’s only about fifteen so far.

Hope we see you, and whether we do or not, please do not refrain from any comments in the thread that you wish to make.

Have fun!

—
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: RAHRGC: Glory Road and the Most Mammoth Hoax in History (Thursday, January 6, 9 PM to midnight, ET; and Saturday, January 8, 5 to 8 PM, ET)
Date: Sat, 25 Dec 2004 01:04:31 -0800

On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 16:52:38 -0800, “David M. Silver”
wrote:

>> The first thing I thought of when I saw chateau and Carpathians was Jules
>> Verne – he wrote a novel called The Castle in the Carpathians (or
>> approximately that in French). If I recall correctly, there is a female
>> ghost that turns out to be a fake but memory may be playing tricks on me.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Peter.
>
>Hi, Peter,
>
>I always knew there were Vernes I ought to find and read. Off to
>Gutenberg …

Oh, bother. PG has it only in French. This for me is a bit of a problem, as I don’t read that language. (nor any, save English)

—
-denny-

Some people are offence kleptomaniacs — whenever they see
an offence that isn’t nailed down, they take it 😉
–David C. Pugh, in alt.callahans

From: “David M. Silver”
Subject: Re: RAHRGC: Glory Road and the Most Mammoth Hoax in History (Thursday, January 6, 9 PM to midnight, ET; and Saturday, January 8, 5 to 8 PM, ET)
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2004 16:57:32 -0800

In article ,
“Peter” wrote:

> Jules
> Verne – he wrote a novel called The Castle in the Carpathians (or
> approximately that in French)

Le Chateau des Carpathes, on Gutenberg, but in French! Arrgh! I’ll look for others.

—
David M. Silver

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

On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 12:31:32 -0800, “David M. Silver”
wrote:

>Did you ever happen to notice that Cyrano calls Karth-Hokesh “Hoax”?
>
>And when Oscar calls him on it, he says, “Hoax, Hokesh — a matter of
>geography and accent; this chateau was once in the Carpathians, so
>’Hokesh’ it is, if ’twill make your death merrier. Come now, let us
>sing.”
>
>What’s going on — and whose castle are we in — in the Carpathians?
>Vlad the Impaler?
>
>And what does “Hoax” have to do with the most mammoth hoax in history?

I always read “Hoax” in that scene as “Hoe-axe” not “hokes.”

Lots of castles/chateaux in the Carpathians, I suspect–but why shouldn’t that one have once belonged to Vlad Tepes?

—
-denny-

Some people are offence kleptomaniacs — whenever they see
an offence that isn’t nailed down, they take it 😉
–David C. Pugh, in alt.callahans

From: “Big_Fella”
Subject: Re: RAHRGC: Glory Road and the Most Mammoth Hoax in History (Thursday, January 6, 9 PM to midnight, ET; and Saturday, January 8, 5 to 8 PM, ET)
Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2004 10:02:55 +1000

“David M. Silver” wrote in message news:ag.plusone-
> Note 1: About bailing out on “Rangy Lil”: Beside noting that Lazarus
> teaches the song to Dora in TEFL, the best we’ve ever been able to come
> up with on her is in this thread back in June 2000 on alt.fan.heinlein.
>
> “Zap Ophelia” started a thread here: http://tinyurl.com/6xn8s
>
> We went around and around on it, and came to inconclusive results. We
> even asked Ginny. She said Robert, who couldn’t carry a tune in a
> bucket, used to sing the ballad about Rangy Lil in her hearing, the
> words of which she couldn’t recall and she couldn’t recognize a tune as
> any she’d ever heard played. Ginny and Robert liked ballads of that
> bawdy sort, and even had a collection of vinyl of some of them, from
> Oscar Brand, and others.
>
> Our conclusion was it most likely was a sort of Alaska Gold Rush ballad,
> as “Four Whores Came Down from Canada” (which we on alt.fan.heinlein
> have found) is, the lyrics being kind of poetry Robert Service might
> have published, only much more bawdy.
>
> I have no idea where she found them, but the closest two poems in that
> “genre” Zap Ophelia could come up with were two songs about a “Lil” or a
> “Lillian” to which if you add the word “Rangy” before Lil (and do
> something better than I have about fixing the scansion), render thus:
>
>
> POOR RANGY LIL (1)
>
> Her name was Rangy Lil and she was a beauty,
> She came from a house of ill reputy,
> But she drank too deep of the demon rum,
> She smoked hashish and opium.
>
> She was young and she was fair,
> She had lovely golden hair,
> Gentlemen came from miles to see
> Rangy Lil in her deshabille.
>
> Day by day her form grew thinner,
> From insufficient protein in her,
> She grew two hollows on her chest,
> Why, she had to go around completely dressed.
>
> Now clothes may make a gal go far,
> But they have no place on a fille de joie,
> Rangy Lil’s troubles started when
> She concealed her abdomen.
>
> She went to the house physician,
> To prescribe for her condition,
> “You have got,” the doc did say,
> “Pernicious anem-i-a.”
>
> She took to treatments in the sun,
> She drank of Scott’s Emul-si-on,
> Three times daily she took yeast,
> But still her clientele decreased.
>
> For you must know her cliente-le,
> Rested chiefly on her belly,
> She rilled this thing like the deep Pacific,
> It was something calorific.
>
> As Rangy Lil lay in her dishonor,
> She felt the hand of the Lord upon her,
> She said, “Me sins I now repents,
> But Lord, that’ll cost you fifty cents.”
>
> This is the story of Rangy Lil,
> She was one girl in a million,
> And the moral to her story is,
> Whatever your line of business is, fitness wins!
>
>
> POOR RANGY LIL (2)
>
> She was the best our camp produced
> And them that ain’t been screwed by Rangy Lil
> Ain’t had no goose and never will,
> For Rangy Lil’s been took away.
>
> TTwas a standing bet around our town,
> That no one could screw her and clamp her down
> For when she screwed, she screwed for keeps,
> And piled her victims up in heaps.
>
> But down from the north came Yukon Pete,
> With sixteen pounds of rolling meat.
> When he laid his cock out on the bar,
> The damn thing reached from here to thar.
>
> We all knew Rangy Lil had met her fate
> But we couldn’t back down that thar late,
> So it was arranged down by the mil,
> Back of the schoolhouse on the hill.
>
> When all the boys could get a seat
> And watch that half-breed bury his meat,
> Rangy Lil started out like the Autumn breeze
> Whistling through the hemlock trees.
>
> She tried the twist and the double bunt
> And all the tricks wha’s known to cunt,
> But Pete was with her every lick
> And just kept reeling out more prick.
>
> At last poor Rangy Lil just had to stop,
> For Pete had nailed her to the spot.
> Here clothes were torn and ripped to shreds,
> And scatters all over the cactus beds.
>
> The sod was ripped for miles around
> Where poor Rangy Lil’s ass had hit the ground
> But she died game I’m here to tell,
> Died with her boots on where she fell
> So what the hell boys, what the hell!
>
>
> I think the second fits my theory about just a bit better than the
> first.
>
> —
> 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, this idea came to me as we know RAH’s penchant for the fighting man.

http://iies.www.ecn.purdue.edu/IIES/PLAIC/380/HISTORY/PARTVI/RangyLil.htm

—

Hope I die before I get old.
(Pete Townshend)
Ta.
:-[ )

>
> David, this idea came to me as we know RAH’s penchant for the fighting man.
>
http://iies.www.ecn.purdue.edu/IIES/PLAIC/380/HISTORY/PARTVI/RangyLil.htm

Thanks, Pete. I’d seen the website listed in Google, but it never occurred to me to look to see whether they had any nose art, or history on the name. Nice looking lady. When I download and blow up the color one I can’t tell whether it’s auburn or brunette. Any opinion? It makes me wonder whether I’ll find “Rangy Lil” in a listing of military “ballads” — hmmm.

Anyone know any books about famous B-24s in the Pacific? 54 missions in the last year of the war.

—
David M. Silver

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

From: (Stephanie)
Date: 22 Dec 2004 07:04:44 GMT
Subject: Re: RAHRGC: Glory Road and the Most Mammoth Hoax in History (Thursday, January 6, 9 PM to midnight, ET; and

Putting two cents down on the Hoax theory concerning sex, love, and mores as bandied about time to time in Heinleinian writings.

The earlier post concerning the use of the word ‘love’ where ‘sex’ may have been meant but edited to pass the editors….I believe it was meant to say sex, and that the author used a euphemism. The whole subplot of American views on sex meshes into so many of the other writings to come (already written? My juvie history is poor) that I assumed on first read that this was another prod by RAH to say ‘hey, maybe we are going about this wrong’. Now, I am reading this novel for only the second time (hooray! seems new!) and seeing a precursor to Smith once he ‘understands’ humans. Star seems to have that outlook that Smith had late in Stranger, the ‘wise oh that custom is so unnecessary’ attitude. That makes our Hero a mish mash of Jubal and Ben and Duke, I guess…though he strongly reminds me of Zebbie.

Anyway, random mutterings too late at night after too much MMOG-ing.

—
Stephanie
http://hometown.aol.com/merfilly27/myhomepage/profile.html

From: “David M. Silver”
Subject: Re: RAHRGC: Glory Road and the Most Mammoth Hoax in History (Thursday, January 6, 9 PM to midnight, ET; and
Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2004 02:24:44 -0800

In article ,
(Stephanie) wrote:

> That makes our Hero a mish mash of Jubal and Ben and
> Duke, I guess…though he strongly reminds me of Zebbie.

He should, because when we next see Oscar, at the party in “L’envoi” last chapter in _Number_ he winds up standing next to Zebbie, and they look nearly identical.

—
David M. Silver

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

From: “cmaj7dmin7”
Subject: Re: RAHRGC: Glory Road and the Most Mammoth Hoax in History (Thursday, January 6, 9 PM to midnight, ET; and
Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2004 16:49:40 GMT

“David M. Silver” wrote in message
news:…
> In article ,
> (Stephanie) wrote:
>
> > That makes our Hero a mish mash of Jubal and Ben and
> > Duke, I guess…though he strongly reminds me of Zebbie.
>
> He should, because when we next see Oscar, at the party in “L’envoi”
> last chapter in _Number_ he winds up standing next to Zebbie, and they
> look nearly identical.

It’s 1959, and the author’s been alive throughout the entirety of the motion picture era, to date. He sits to write his classic, strong-male-protagonist novel and casts somebody in the lead. Who?

Gary Cooper? Tall and lanky enough but maybe a little too slow of thought process and delivery of lines. Maybe too hard to cast against type since Oscar has to become more sexually liberated…

Clark Gable? Probably not tall enough but enough of a smartass. Probably too dissipated by then but a younger Gable.

Cary Grant? Some possibilities here if you can rewrite to accommodate the accent of hire an effective vocal coach.

Robert Mitchum? Interesting…but, probably not. Well, maybe. Rugged enough, for sure, and you don’t have to teach him the cynicism or how to project sexuality. Some clear possibilities. Maybe–but something gnaws at me…

Who else…?

Alan Ladd: too short.

Audie Murphy: too short, can’t act.

William Powell: from Kansas City but too short, too thin, too smart.

William Holden: hmmm…have to think about it.

Glenn Ford: Well…no. He’s got some of what we’re looking for but not enough or in the right amounts. Could be taller, too, or appear taller on film.

Okay, now. Who’s Star? What? It’s a whole lot easier to find somebody who can play her than the guy who “is” Oscar? The candidates are obvious? You think so? Why is that and who are they?

LNC
From: (Stas)
Date: 22 Dec 2004 23:47:57 GMT
Subject: Re: RAHRGC: Glory Road and the Most Mammoth Hoax in History (Thursday, January 6, 9 PM to midnight, ET; and

>It’s 1959, and the author’s been alive throughout the entirety of the motion
>picture era, to date. He sits to write his classic, strong-male-protagonist
>novel and casts somebody in the lead. Who?

Well, since he may have also been watching TV, on January 9th of that year he catchs the premire of “Rawhide”, watchs a few more episodes and decides that the young 20-ish actor playing Rowdy Yates has some potential for the role. From: “Dr. Rufo”
Subject: Re: RAHRGC: Glory Road and the Most Mammoth Hoax in History (Thursday, January 6, 9 PM to midnight, ET; and
Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2004 20:35:16 GMT

cmaj7dmin7 wrote:

< snip >

> It’s 1959, and the author’s been alive throughout the entirety of
> the motion picture era, to date. He sits to write his classic,
> strong-male-protagonist novel and casts somebody in the lead.
> Who?

< snip of the guys who CAN’T play Oscar >

If you’re going to keep this in 1959 for the purposes of casting, the first one I can think of is Warren Beatty. He made a hit in 1961 in Kazan’s “Splendor in the Grass.”
If you’re going to allow casting from the currently available persons, this will, of course, change.

> Okay, now. Who’s Star? What? It’s a whole lot easier to find
> somebody who can play her than the guy who “is” Oscar? The
> candidates are obvious? You think so? Why is that and who are
> they?

“Oh ho, Cisco!” I don’t believe you have the rights of it at all, at all. Just as above, I think the choices — in 1858 — are very limited for this role. The only one who comes to me is Raquel Welch. She had the right build and attitude. Perhaps, Jane Fonda but I don’t think she was ‘physically’ correct for the role. Much to ‘small’ in many senses of the word.
Once again, if you allow for ‘current’ casting, the choices broaden considerably.

I think the easiest explanation for this is that basically there has been a paradigm shift in the standard configuration of ‘the young leads’ during the intervening period.

What do you think? Who do you think is the ‘obvious choice’ for Star — in 1959?

Rufe
From: “David M. Silver”
Subject: Re: RAHRGC: Glory Road and the Most Mammoth Hoax in History (Thursday, January 6, 9 PM to midnight, ET; and
Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2004 15:46:29 -0800 In article, “Dr. Rufo” wrote:

> cmaj7dmin7 wrote:
>
> < snip >
>
> > It’s 1959, and the author’s been alive throughout the entirety of
> > the motion picture era, to date. He sits to write his classic,
> > strong-male-protagonist novel and casts somebody in the lead.
> > Who?
>
> < snip of the guys who CAN’T play Oscar >
>
> If you’re going to keep this in 1959 for the purposes of casting,
> the first one I can think of is Warren Beatty. He made a hit in 1961
> in Kazan’s “Splendor in the Grass.”
> If you’re going to allow casting from the currently available
> persons, this will, of course, change.
>

Gawd! A movie casting sub-thread in the reading group. Oh, well. To put a point to this speculation, if casted today, I think the kid who played SSgt Matt Eversmann (what a name!) in “Black Hawk Down,” could do Oscar fairly well. Joshua Hartnett. The one who played second banana to Ben Affleck in “Pearl Harbor,” if you didn’t see BHD. He has the ability to look tired and numb without losing presence by looking silly. (Tab Hunter in “Battle Cry” didn’t.)

>
> > Okay, now. Who’s Star? What? It’s a whole lot easier to find
> > somebody who can play her than the guy who “is” Oscar? The
> > candidates are obvious? You think so? Why is that and who are
> > they?
>
> “Oh ho, Cisco!” I don’t believe you have the rights of it at all,
> at all. Just as above, I think the choices — in 1858 — are very
> limited for this role. The only one who comes to me is Raquel
> Welch. She had the right build and attitude. Perhaps, Jane Fonda but
> I don’t think she was ‘physically’ correct for the role. Much
> to ‘small’ in many senses of the word.
> Once again, if you allow for ‘current’ casting, the choices broaden
> considerably.
>
> I think the easiest explanation for this is that basically there
> has been a paradigm shift in the standard configuration of ‘the
> young leads’ during the intervening period.
>

To too ‘sensitive,’ wimpy, and androgynous? OTOH, if they can find one taller than 5′ 6″ one of them could play the “young man coming out” of suite D, No. 17, rue Dante, “handsome of face and figure, and who looked as if he might be a hermaphrodite.” Depending on how they angle the camera.

> What do you think? Who do you think is the ‘obvious choice’ for Star
> — in 1959?
>
> Rufe

—
David M. Silver

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

From: “Big_Fella”
Subject: Re: RAHRGC: Glory Road and the Most Mammoth Hoax in History (Thursday, January 6, 9 PM to midnight, ET; and Saturday, January 8, 5 to 8 PM, ET)
Date: Fri, 24 Dec 2004 02:11:52 +1000

“Dr. Rufo”wrote in message

> What do you think? Who do you think is the ‘obvious choice’ for Star — in
> 1959?
>
> Rufe

Tina Louise would be my thought. From: “Dr. Rufo”
Subject: Re: RAHRGC: Glory Road and the Most Mammoth Hoax in History (Thursday, January 6, 9 PM to midnight, ET; and
Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2004 21:51:32 GMT

Big_Fella wrote:

> “Dr. Rufo” wrote in message
>
>
>
>>What do you think? Who do you think is the ‘obvious choice’ for Star — in
>>1959?
>>
>>Rufe
>
>
>
> Tina Louise would be my thought.
>
>

I just thought of another: Diana Rigg !! From: “Fred Waiss, Sr.”
Subject: Re: RAHRGC: Glory Road and the Most Mammoth Hoax in History (Thursday, January 6, 9 PM to midnight, ET; and
Date: Sun, 26 Dec 2004 19:26:20 -0600

“Dr. Rufo” wrote in message
news:E5Hyd.7708$…
>
>
> Big_Fella wrote:
>
>> “Dr. Rufo” wrote in message
>>
>>
>>
>>>What do you think? Who do you think is the ‘obvious choice’ for Star — in
>>>1959?
>>>
>>>Rufe
>>
>>
>>
>> Tina Louise would be my thought.
>>
>>
>
> I just thought of another: Diana Rigg !!

Good choice for 1959. For today, I’d have to go with Gina Davis. From: “Fred Waiss, Sr.”
Subject: Re: RAHRGC: Glory Road and the Most Mammoth Hoax in History (Thursday, January 6, 9 PM to midnight, ET; and
Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2004 05:03:23 -0600

“Fred Waiss, Sr.” wrote in message
news:cqnobu$h0$…
>
> “Dr. Rufo” wrote in message
> news:E5Hyd.7708$…
> >
> >
> > Big_Fella wrote:
> >
> >> “Dr. Rufo” wrote in message
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>What do you think? Who do you think is the ‘obvious choice’ for Star — in
> >>>1959?
> >>>
> >>>Rufe
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Tina Louise would be my thought.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > I just thought of another: Diana Rigg !!
>
> Good choice for 1959. For today, I’d have to go with Gina Davis.
>
Make that “Geena Davis,” Bonehead.

From: pixelmeow
Subject: Re: RAHRGC: Glory Road and the Most Mammoth Hoax in History (Thursday, January 6, 9 PM to midnight, ET; and
Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2004 15:34:31 -0500

On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 16:49:40 GMT, in alt.fan.heinlein, “cmaj7dmin7″
wrote:

>”David M. Silver” wrote in message
>news:…
>> In article ,
>> (Stephanie) wrote:
>>
>> > That makes our Hero a mish mash of Jubal and Ben and
>> > Duke, I guess…though he strongly reminds me of Zebbie.
>>
>> He should, because when we next see Oscar, at the party in “L’envoi”
>> last chapter in _Number_ he winds up standing next to Zebbie, and they
>> look nearly identical.
>
>It’s 1959, and the author’s been alive throughout the entirety of the motion
>picture era, to date. He sits to write his classic, strong-male-protagonist
>novel and casts somebody in the lead. Who?
>
>Gary Cooper? Tall and lanky enough but maybe a little too slow of thought
>process and delivery of lines. Maybe too hard to cast against type since
>Oscar has to become more sexually liberated…
>
>Clark Gable? Probably not tall enough but enough of a smartass. Probably too
>dissipated by then but a younger Gable.
>
>Cary Grant? Some possibilities here if you can rewrite to accommodate the
>accent of hire an effective vocal coach.
>
>Robert Mitchum? Interesting…but, probably not. Well, maybe. Rugged enough,
>for sure, and you don’t have to teach him the cynicism or how to project
>sexuality. Some clear possibilities. Maybe–but something gnaws at me…
>
>Who else…?
>
>Alan Ladd: too short.
>
>Audie Murphy: too short, can’t act.
>
>William Powell: from Kansas City but too short, too thin, too smart.
>
>William Holden: hmmm…have to think about it.
>
>Glenn Ford: Well…no. He’s got some of what we’re looking for but not
>enough or in the right amounts. Could be taller, too, or appear taller on
>film.
>
>Okay, now. Who’s Star? What? It’s a whole lot easier to find somebody who
>can play her than the guy who “is” Oscar? The candidates are obvious? You
>think so? Why is that and who are they?

When I was sitting at the table in Boston with David and Bill, a man came by with an envelope of (I think) original artwork from book covers, and he had a cover for Glory Road. The woman in that drawing *was* Star, that was exactly what she looks like to me. Only people who even come close, to me, are:

Bridgitte (sp?) Bardot
Raquel Welch
Jane Fonda

those are just looks-wise, though. That’s the easy part, IMHO. For that time period, I think the names I give don’t count; how about Sophia Loren? One of the Gabors? I dunno, that’s just looks too.

—
~teresa~
AFH Barwench

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

From: “cmaj7dmin7”
Subject: Re: RAHRGC: Glory Road and the Most Mammoth Hoax in History (Thursday, January 6, 9 PM to midnight, ET; and
Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2004 19:14:38 GMT

“pixelmeow” wrote in message
news:…

> When I was sitting at the table in Boston with David and Bill, a man
> came by with an envelope of (I think) original artwork from book
> covers, and he had a cover for Glory Road. The woman in that drawing
> *was* Star, that was exactly what she looks like to me. Only people
> who even come close, to me, are:
>
> Bridgitte (sp?) Bardot
> Raquel Welch
> Jane Fonda
>
> those are just looks-wise, though. That’s the easy part, IMHO. For
> that time period, I think the names I give don’t count; how about
> Sophia Loren? One of the Gabors? I dunno, that’s just looks too.
>
> —
> ~teresa~
> AFH Barwench

Woman, girl–I couldn’t be sure. At first glance I thought she was
eighteen, maybe twenty; later when I was able to look her square in her face
she still looked eighteen but could have been forty. Or a hundred and forty.
She had the agelessness of perfect beauty. Like Helen or Troy, or Cleopatra.
It seemed possible that she was Helen of Troy but I knew she wasn’t
Cleopatra because she was not a redhead; she was a natural blonde. She was a
tawny toast color allover without a hint of bikini marks and her hair was
the same shade two tones litter. It flowed, unconfined, in graceful waves
down her back and seemed never to have been cut.
She was tall, not much shorter than I am, and not too much lighter in
weight. Not fat, not fat at all save for that graceful padding that smoothes
the feminine form, shading the muscles underneath–I was sure there were
muscles underneath; she carried herself with the relaxed power of a lioness.
Her shoulders were broad for a woman, as broad as her very female hips;
her waist might have seemed thick on a lesser woman, on her it was
deliciously slender. Her belly did not sag at all but carried the lovely
double domed curve of perfect muscle tone. Her breasts–only her big rib
cage could carry such large ones without appearing too much of a good thing,
they jutted firmly out and moved only a trifle when she moved, and they were
crowned with rosy brown confections that were frankly nipples, womanly and
not virginal.
Her navel was that jewel the Persian poets praised.
Her legs were long for her height; her hands and feet were not small but
were slender, graceful. She was graceful in all ways; it was impossible to
think of her in a pose ungraceful. Yet she was so lithe and limber that,
like a cat, she could have twisted herself into any position.
Her face–How do you describe perfect beauty except to say that when you
see it you can’t mistake it? Her lips were full and her mouth rather wide.
It was faintly curved in the ghost of a smile even when her features were at
rest. Her lips were red but if she was wearing makeup of any sort it had
been applied so skillfully that I could not detect it–and that alone would
have made her stand out, for that was a year all other females were wearing
“Continental” makeup, as artificial as a corset and as bold as a doxy’s
smile.
Her nose was straight and large enough for her face, no button. Her
eyes–
She caught me staring at her. Certainly women expect to be locked at and
expect it unclothed quite as much as when dressed for the ball. But it is
rude to stare openly. I had given up the fight in the first ten seconds and
was trying to memorize her, every line, every curve.
Her eyes locked with mine and she stared back and I began to blush but
couldn’t look away. Her eyes were so deep a blue that they were dark, darker
than my own brown eyes.
I said huskily, “Pardonnez-moi, ma’m’selle,” and managed to tear my eyes
away.
She answered, in English, “Oh, I don’t mind. Look all you please,” and
looked me up and down as carefully as I had inspected her. Her voice was a
warm, fall contralto, surprisingly deep in its lowest register.
She took two steps toward me and almost stood over me. I started to get
up and she motioned me to stay seated, with a gesture mat assumed obedience
as if she were very used to giving orders. “Rest where you are,” she said.
The breeze carried her fragrance to me and I got goose flesh all over. “You
are American.”
“Yes.” I was certain she was not, yet I was equally certain she was not
French. Not only did she have no trace of French accent but also–well,
French women are at least slightly provocative at all times; they can’t help
it, it’s ingrained in the French culture. There was nothing provocative
about this woman–except that she was an incitement to riot just by
existing.
But, without being provocative, she had that rare gift for immediate
intimacy; she spoke to me as a very old friend might speak, friends who knew
each other’s smallest foibles and were utterly easy tete-a-tete. She asked
me questions about myself, some of them quite personal, and I answered all
of them, honestly, and it never occurred to me that she had no right to quiz
me. She never asked my name, nor I hers–nor any question of her.
At last she stopped and looked me over again, carefully and soberly.
Then she said thoughtfully, “You are very beautiful,” and added, “Au
‘voir”–turned and walked down the beach into the water and swam away.
I was too stunned to move. Nobody had ever called me “handsome” even
before I broke my nose. As for “beautiful!”
But I don’t think it would have done me any good to have chased her,
even if I had thought of it in time. That gal could swim.

**************************************
Maybe the pool of candidates isn’t so big but then, again, re-reading her description, I don’t know if I’d want such a creature actually to exist.

LNC
From: (BPRAL22169)
Subject: Re: RAHRGC: Glory Road and the Most Mammoth Hoax in History (Thursday, January 6, 9 PM to midnight, ET; and
Date: 24 Dec 2004 01:56:08 GMT

Pixelmeow:

>> When I was sitting at the table in Boston with David and Bill, a man
>> came by with an envelope of (I think) original artwork from book
>> covers, and he had a cover for Glory Road.

Off topic aside: It was Andy Porter
Bill
From: pixelmeow
Subject: Re: RAHRGC: Glory Road and the Most Mammoth Hoax in History (Thursday, January 6, 9 PM to midnight, ET; and
Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2004 23:20:29 -0500

On 24 Dec 2004 01:56:08 GMT, in alt.fan.heinlein,
(BPRAL22169) scribbled:

>Pixelmeow:
>
>>> When I was sitting at the table in Boston with David and Bill, a man
>>> came by with an envelope of (I think) original artwork from book
>>> covers, and he had a cover for Glory Road.
>
>Off topic aside: It was Andy Porter
>Bill

Thanks; I’ve never been good at remembering names. Impressive collection, though.

—
~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: (BPRAL22169)
Date: 22 Dec 2004 14:30:47 GMT
Subject: Re: RAHRGC: Glory Road and the Most Mammoth Hoax in History (Thursday, January 6, 9 PM to midnight, ET; and

Stephanie:

Although _Podkayne of Mars_ was the immediate next book after _Stranger_, Poddie had been started in October 1958 and was about 40% written, so he was completing a job already done. _Glory Road_ was the first book entirely conceived and written following _Stranger_.

Bill
From: (Stephanie)
Date: 22 Dec 2004 15:42:11 GMT
Subject: Re: RAHRGC: Glory Road and the Most Mammoth Hoax in History (Thursday, January 6, 9 PM to midnight, ET; and

From:

>Although _Podkayne of Mars_ was the immediate next book after _Stranger_,
>Poddie had been started in October 1958 and was about 40% written, so he was
>completing a job already done. _Glory Road_ was the first book entirely
>conceived and written following _Stranger_.

Thank you for updating my chronology. I, for some reason, had placed Stranger -after- Glory Road.

—
Stephanie
http://hometown.aol.com/merfilly27/myhomepage/profile.html

From: (BPRAL22169)
Date: 23 Dec 2004 01:44:19 GMT
Subject: Re: RAHRGC: Glory Road and the Most Mammoth Hoax in History (Thursday, January 6, 9 PM to midnight, ET; and

Stephanie:

It’s easy to get confused with the major editions of Stranger coming up in the late 1960’s and early 1970’s — a very unusual publishing history for that book.

Bill
From: charles krin
Subject: Re: RAHRGC: Glory Road and the Most Mammoth Hoax in History (Thursday, January 6, 9 PM to midnight, ET; and Saturday, January 8, 5 to 8 PM, ET)
Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2004 20:30:56 -0600

On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 18:36:07 -0800, “David M. Silver”
wrote:

>
>What is the most mammoth hoax in history? Is it that our appetites for
>sex should _not_ be educated and exercised, but rather repressed and
>labeled sinful? Or is it that “love” requires more than merely
>occasional exercise a despised animal act of passion for species
>procreation?

My take on it is that the “Hoax” is on the folks who figure that a woman who prostitutes herself for only one man (in a be all end all Church and State sanctioned marriage “til death do them part”) is some how better than a woman who studies to improve herself in order (in mental, physical and or erotic skills) to be able to keep the financial attentions of multiple men.

With some luck, I’ll be able to find Glory Road and an hour or two Thurs night.

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

From: (BPRAL22169)
Date: 23 Dec 2004 15:57:03 GMT
Subject: Re: RAHRGC: Glory Road and the Most Mammoth Hoax in History (Thursday, January 6, 9 PM to midnight, ET; and

Charles Krin

>My take on it is that the “Hoax” is on the folks who figure that a
>woman who prostitutes herself for only one man . . .is somehow better than a
woman who studies to improve herself in order to be able to keep the
>financial attentions of multiple men.

And let me point out how close in ideas this is to the “garden of Gethsemene” speech in Stranger. The passage may shed other light on the hoax.

Bill
From: “Puppet_Sock” Subject: Re: RAHRGC: Glory Road and the Most Mammoth Hoax in History (Thursday, January 6, 9 PM to midnight, ET; and Saturday, January 8, 5 to 8 PM, ET)
Date: 21 Dec 2004 11:28:24 -0800

Ok, I get it now. But here’s the thing.

You don’t pay a prostitue for sex. You pay her to leave afterwards.
Socks
From: Denny Wheeler
Subject: Re: RAHRGC: Glory Road and the Most Mammoth Hoax in History (Thursday, January 6, 9 PM to midnight, ET; and Saturday, January 8, 5 to 8 PM, ET)
Date: Sat, 25 Dec 2004 01:06:12 -0800

On 21 Dec 2004 11:28:24 -0800, “Puppet_Sock”wrote:

>Ok, I get it now. But here’s the thing.
>
>You don’t pay a prostitue for sex. You pay her to leave afterwards.

There is merit in that position.

—
-denny-

Some people are offence kleptomaniacs — whenever they see
an offence that isn’t nailed down, they take it 😉
–David C. Pugh, in alt.callahans

From: lal_truckee
Subject: Re: RAHRGC: Glory Road and the Most Mammoth Hoax in History (Thursday, January 6, 9 PM to midnight, ET; and Saturday, January 8, 5 to 8 PM, ET)
Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2004 10:17:10 -0800

David M. Silver wrote:
>

Aside:

Is Glory Road the only Heinlein where a young (Oscar is only a couple of years older than many of the Juvie heros) hero is dumber than a doorknob? No hope of redemption through the graces of a good mentor? No obvious future development into an Ubermensh?
From: Engr Bohn
Subject: Re: RAHRGC: Glory Road and the Most Mammoth Hoax in History (Thursday, January 6, 9 PM to midnight, ET; and Saturday, January 8, 5 to 8 PM, ET)
Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2004 20:09:10 GMT

Good afternoon,

Hail, lal_truckee! We who are about to post salute you.

> Is Glory Road the only Heinlein where a young (Oscar is only a couple of
> years older than many of the Juvie heros) hero is dumber than a doorknob?
> No hope of redemption through the graces of a good mentor? No obvious
> future development into an Ubermensh?

Hmm… good question. Certainly (almost?) all of them show their inexperience through poor judgment… but ignorance and inexperience *aren’t* the same as unintelligent. Hell, my youth demonstrates that quite well!

It’s been a few years since I read GR, so I can’t say with certainty. But was he dumb, or was he out of his element? He demonstrated at least a limited knowledge of Latin, so he absorbed *something* in school.

Take care,

—
Christopher A. Bohn ____________|____________
http://www.cse.ohio-state.edu/~bohn/ ‘ ** ** ” (o) ” ** ** ‘
“I wish to God these calculations had been executed by steam!”
– Charles Babbage

From: pixelmeow
Subject: Re: RAHRGC: Glory Road and the Most Mammoth Hoax in History (Thursday, January 6, 9 PM to midnight, ET; and Saturday, January 8, 5 to 8 PM, ET)
Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2004 15:45:21 -0500 On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 20:09:10 GMT, in alt.fan.heinlein, Engr Bohn wrote:

>Good afternoon,
>
>Hail, lal_truckee! We who are about to post salute you.
>
>> Is Glory Road the only Heinlein where a young (Oscar is only a couple of
>> years older than many of the Juvie heros) hero is dumber than a doorknob?
>> No hope of redemption through the graces of a good mentor? No obvious
>> future development into an Ubermensh?
>
>Hmm… good question. Certainly (almost?) all of them show their
>inexperience through poor judgment… but ignorance and
>inexperience *aren’t* the same as unintelligent. Hell, my youth
>demonstrates that quite well!
>
>It’s been a few years since I read GR, so I can’t say with certainty. But
>was he dumb, or was he out of his element? He demonstrated at least a
>limited knowledge of Latin, so he absorbed *something* in school.

I definitely got the impression that he felt out of his element. At least, that’s what I’m remembering: it has been a while since I read it, also. I found myself thinking that he was very naive, in a way, and that he was (what’s the word) yes, inexperienced, but he didn’t consider himself that way (who of us ever does??), he *thought* he was more world-wise (still can’t think of how to put this), and then Star walked into his life and kicked his hobby horse right out from under him. I think he was totally overwhelmed by her, in so many ways, and a lot of his actions have that feel of the young person trying to “show” the older person that “yes I can SO do it!” I

hope that makes sense to someone.

—
~teresa~
AFH Barwench

From: Engr Bohn
Subject: Re: RAHRGC: Glory Road and the Most Mammoth Hoax in History (Thursday, January 6, 9 PM to midnight, ET; and Saturday, January 8, 5 to 8 PM, ET)
Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2004 01:34:53 GMT

Good evening,

Hail, pixelmeow! We who are about to post salute you.

>>It’s been a few years since I read GR, so I can’t say with certainty.
>>But was he [Oscar] dumb, or was he out of his element? He demonstrated
>>at least a limited knowledge of Latin, so he absorbed *something* in
>>school.
>
> I definitely got the impression that he felt out of his element. At
> least, that’s what I’m remembering: it has been a while since I read it,
> also. I found myself thinking that he was very naive, in a way, and
> that he was (what’s the word) yes, inexperienced, but he didn’t consider
> himself that way (who of us ever does??), he *thought* he was more
> world-wise (still can’t think of how to put this), and then Star walked
> into his life and kicked his hobby horse right out from under him. I
> think he was totally overwhelmed by her, in so many ways, and a lot of
> his actions have that feel of the young person trying to “show” the
> older person that “yes I can SO do it!”
>
> I hope that makes sense to someone.

Makes sense to me — let’s call it Betty Sorenson Syndrome (for she embodies it so well). Delusions of worldliness?

Take care,
cb

—
Christopher A. Bohn ____________|____________
http://www.cse.ohio-state.edu/~bohn/ ‘ ** ** ” (o) ” ** ** ‘
“I wish to God these calculations had been executed by steam!”

– Charles Babbage From: pixelmeow
Subject: Re: RAHRGC: Glory Road and the Most Mammoth Hoax in History (Thursday, January 6, 9 PM to midnight, ET; and Saturday, January 8, 5 to 8 PM, ET)
Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2004 20:55:32 -0500

On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 01:34:53 GMT, in alt.fan.heinlein, Engr Bohn
scribbled:

>Good evening,
>
>Hail, pixelmeow! We who are about to post salute you.
>
>>>It’s been a few years since I read GR, so I can’t say with certainty.
>>>But was he [Oscar] dumb, or was he out of his element? He demonstrated
>>>at least a limited knowledge of Latin, so he absorbed *something* in
>>>school.
>>
>> I definitely got the impression that he felt out of his element. At
>> least, that’s what I’m remembering: it has been a while since I read it,
>> also. I found myself thinking that he was very naive, in a way, and
>> that he was (what’s the word) yes, inexperienced, but he didn’t consider
>> himself that way (who of us ever does??), he *thought* he was more
>> world-wise (still can’t think of how to put this), and then Star walked
>> into his life and kicked his hobby horse right out from under him. I
>> think he was totally overwhelmed by her, in so many ways, and a lot of
>> his actions have that feel of the young person trying to “show” the
>> older person that “yes I can SO do it!”
>>
>> I hope that makes sense to someone.
>
>Makes sense to me — let’s call it Betty Sorenson Syndrome (for she
>embodies it so well). Delusions of worldliness?

That’s a good phrase, sounds just about right! Glad someone understood. 🙂

—
~teresa~
AFH Barwench

From: (BPRAL22169)
Subject: Re: RAHRGC: Glory Road and the Most Mammoth Hoax in History (Thursday, January 6, 9 PM to midnight, ET; and
Date: 23 Dec 2004 01:50:14 GMT

Pixelmeow:

>he was very naive, in a way,
>and that he was (what’s the word) yes, inexperienced, but he didn’t
>consider himself that way (who of us ever does??), he *thought* he was
>more world-wise (still can’t think of how to put this), and then Star
>walked into his life and kicked his hobby horse right out from under
>him.

Umm– yeah. There’s a bit early on that’s kind of creepy that I think foreshadows the bit about the Dorals’ hospitality, where he can’t bring himself to bed the “little brown sisters” (quoting from memory) that show’s he’s culturally rigid in a way that suggests a lack of real life-experience — and also, in a way, prepares us for his realization about the great hoax being important to him, possibly even shattering.

Bill
From: pixelmeow
Subject: Re: RAHRGC: Glory Road and the Most Mammoth Hoax in History (Thursday, January 6, 9 PM to midnight, ET; and
Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2004 23:25:25 -0500

On 23 Dec 2004 01:50:14 GMT, in alt.fan.heinlein,
(BPRAL22169) scribbled:

>Pixelmeow:
>
>>he was very naive, in a way,
>>and that he was (what’s the word) yes, inexperienced, but he didn’t
>>consider himself that way (who of us ever does??), he *thought* he was
>>more world-wise (still can’t think of how to put this), and then Star
>>walked into his life and kicked his hobby horse right out from under
>>him.
>
>Umm– yeah. There’s a bit early on that’s kind of creepy that I think
>foreshadows the bit about the Dorals’ hospitality, where he can’t bring
>himself to bed the “little brown sisters” (quoting from memory) that show’s
>he’s culturally rigid in a way that suggests a lack of real life-experience —
>and also, in a way, prepares us for his realization about the great hoax being
>important to him, possibly even shattering.
>Bill

Yes, that’s it exactly. I feel like he never really loses it, all the way. It’s been at least two years since I’ve read it, but I feel like he was also (I really don’t know how to put what I’m thinking in here) feeling a little superior somehow? Does that make sense?

—
~teresa~
AFH Barwench

From: (BPRAL22169)
Date: 23 Dec 2004 15:43:56 GMT
Subject: Re: RAHRGC: Glory Road and the Most Mammoth Hoax in History (Thursday, January 6, 9 PM to midnight, ET; and

Pixelmeow

>I feel like he never really loses it, all the
>way.

Well, perhaps that makes him a bit American. . .

Bill
From: pixelmeow
Subject: Re: RAHRGC: Glory Road and the Most Mammoth Hoax in History (Thursday, January 6, 9 PM to midnight, ET; and
Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2004 11:13:41 -0500

On 23 Dec 2004 15:43:56 GMT, in alt.fan.heinlein,
(BPRAL22169) wrote:

>Pixelmeow
>
>>I feel like he never really loses it, all the
>>way.
>
>Well, perhaps that makes him a bit American. . .

*snerk*

—
~teresa~
AFH Barwench

From: (BPRAL22169)
Date: 24 Dec 2004 01:42:56 GMT
Subject: Re: RAHRGC: Glory Road and the Most Mammoth Hoax in History (Thursday, January 6, 9 PM to midnight, ET; and

Pixelmeow

>>>I feel like he never really loses it, all the
>>>way.
>>
>>Well, perhaps that makes him a bit American. . .
>
>*snerk*

Hey, now! That’s the GOOD part about Americans…
Bill
From: “Dr. Rufo”
Subject: Re: RAHRGC: Glory Road and the Most Mammoth Hoax in History (Thursday, January 6, 9 PM to midnight, ET; and
Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2004 05:10:55 GMT

BPRAL22169 wrote:
> Pixelmeow:
>
>
>> he was very naive, in a way, and that he was (what’s the word)
>> yes, inexperienced, but he didn’t consider himself that way
>> (who of us ever does??), he *thought* he was more world-wise
>> (still can’t think of how to put this), and then Star walked
>> into his life and kicked his hobby horse right out from under
>> him.
>
>
> Umm– yeah. There’s a bit early on that’s kind of creepy that I
> think foreshadows the bit about the Dorals’ hospitality, where
> he can’t bring himself to bed the “little brown sisters” (quoting
> from memory) that show’s he’s culturally rigid in a way that
> suggests a lack of real life-experience

Bill: Oscar says the reason he has trouble with bedding the “little brown sisters” is not because they’re brown but because they’re little. I found the passage:

“I was a hundred and ninety pounds of muscle and no fat, and I could
never convince myself that a female four feet ten inches tall and
weighing less than ninety pounds and looking twelve years old is in
fact a freely consenting adult. To me it felt like a grim sort of
statutory rape and produced psychic impotence.”

This doesn’t sound “culturally rigid” to me. He just doesn’t share a delight in “statutory rape” of “children”.

YMMV,
Rufe
From: (BPRAL22169)
Date: 23 Dec 2004 15:53:10 GMT
Subject: Re: RAHRGC: Glory Road and the Most Mammoth Hoax in History (Thursday,

Dr. Rufo

>Oscar says the reason he has trouble with bedding the
>”little brown sisters” is not because they’re brown but because
>they’re little.

Possibly — but I never quite believed him, not entirely, not 100%, and that phrase caused me to be alert that EC Gordon’s internal life was not as simple and unproblematic as he represents it (i.e. that he was a more complex character than he represented himself to be — and that his novelistic story might have something to do with what he knows/does not know about himself). So when we got to the Doral episode, I was prepared for it.

It functioned for me as foreshadowing.

Thinking about it in light of our recent discussion of Mary Lou Martin’s psychopathology, I’d say that Scar is putting one of his own on display very early on, when he admits that he is unable to treat an adult as an adult.

A post-colonial theorist would go on to point out that this is symbolic of colonial power rape of subordinated peoples — but _I_ wouldn’t go there, no.
Bill
From: pixelmeow
Subject: Re: RAHRGC: Glory Road and the Most Mammoth Hoax in History (Thursday,
Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2004 11:24:33 -0500

On 23 Dec 2004 15:53:10 GMT, in alt.fan.heinlein,
(BPRAL22169) wrote:

>Dr. Rufo
>
>>Oscar says the reason he has trouble with bedding the
>>”little brown sisters” is not because they’re brown but because
>>they’re little.
>
>Possibly — but I never quite believed him, not entirely, not 100%, and that
>phrase caused me to be alert that EC Gordon’s internal life was not as simple
>and unproblematic as he represents it (i.e. that he was a more complex
>character than he represented himself to be — and that his novelistic story
>might have something to do with what he knows/does not know about himself). So
>when we got to the Doral episode, I was prepared for it.
>
>It functioned for me as foreshadowing.
>
>Thinking about it in light of our recent discussion of Mary Lou Martin’s
>psychopathology, I’d say that Scar is putting one of his own on display very
>early on, when he admits that he is unable to treat an adult as an adult.
>
>A post-colonial theorist would go on to point out that this is symbolic of
>colonial power rape of subordinated peoples — but _I_ wouldn’t go there, no.
>Bill

This brings several things to my mind, one of which is Sharpie’s height and personality. She’s a small person with a HUGE personality (like or dislike, whatever). Wonder how Scar would have been around her? I mean, seeing as how Star is very tall. Was her height one of the reasons he could treat her as an adult? Or *does* he treat her as an adult… it’s been too long since I read it.

I also don’t know about the “little brown sister” part; is that a euphemism of some sort or just that he thought of them as “little sisters” because they were smaller than him and therefore his little sisters, sortof?

—
~teresa~
AFH Barwench

From: “David M. Silver”
Subject: Re: RAHRGC: Glory Road and the Most Mammoth Hoax in History (Thursday,
Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2004 11:57:40 -0800

In article ,
pixelmeow wrote:

> I also don’t know about the “little brown sister” part; is that a
> euphemism of some sort or just that he thought of them as “little
> sisters” because they were smaller than him and therefore his little
> sisters, sortof?

During the Filipino occupation and insurrection following the Treaty of Paris ending the Spanish-American War in which the U.S. purchased the Philippine Islands from Spain for $10 million, President McKinley announced a policy of “Benevolent Assimilation” for the peoples of the Philippines into U.S. culture and values. He referred in his speeches supporting this policy to the Filipino people as “Little Brown Brother,” promising to civilize, educate and raise them to appreciate Christian values, apparently failing to note the large majority already were Roman Catholic (perhaps that didn’t count in a turn-of-the-century White Anglo-Saxon Protestant United States). School teachers and books were sent over, among other things, to accomplish this “civilizing.” Most, too, of the standing regular Army wound up there as well, “civilizing.”

In any event, “Little Brown Brother” resisted “Benevolent Assimilation” and acquired a bad habit, for a time, of coming out of the brush and attacking American troops with bolos and whatever else came to hand, whenever they could. Pacification took a while longer than McKinley lasted.

The U.S. troops didn’t exactly share McKinley’s official sentiments one hundred percent. They had a little marching song they sang during the Insurrection.

“Damn, damn, damn the Filipinos,
God-damned Khakiac ladrones,
Underneath the starry flag,
Civilize them with a Krag,
And return us to our dear and happy homes!

The original Filipino army under Aguinaldo wore khaki, before he was defeated in a series of battles and went to a guerrilla war. The standard U.S. Army rifle at the beginning of the insurrection was the Krag-Jorgenson.

—
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: RAHRGC: Glory Road and the Most Mammoth Hoax in History (Thursday,
Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2004 11:38:30 -0800

In article ,
(BPRAL22169) wrote:

> Dr. Rufo
>
> >Oscar says the reason he has trouble with bedding the
> >”little brown sisters” is not because they’re brown but because
> >they’re little.
>
> Possibly — but I never quite believed him, not entirely, not 100%, and that
> phrase caused me to be alert that EC Gordon’s internal life was not as simple
> and unproblematic as he represents it (i.e. that he was a more complex
> character than he represented himself to be — and that his novelistic story
> might have something to do with what he knows/does not know about himself).
> So
> when we got to the Doral episode, I was prepared for it.
>
> It functioned for me as foreshadowing.
>
> Thinking about it in light of our recent discussion of Mary Lou Martin’s
> psychopathology, I’d say that Scar is putting one of his own on display very
> early on, when he admits that he is unable to treat an adult as an adult.
>
> A post-colonial theorist would go on to point out that this is symbolic of
> colonial power rape of subordinated peoples — but _I_ wouldn’t go there, no.
> Bill

Whether you go there or not, it seems to have been a repression overcome by Oscar by the time of the pillow-talk conversation between him and Star at Center, when they discuss what each might do in a hypothetical visit of the Doral’s family, and Star refers to “the little nymphette” whom Oscar enjoyed in the trip back to satisfy the Three Graces. Oscar’s discussion of the temptations placed before him, prior to the pillow talk, also included some rather small in size ladies of other humanoid species, particularly the one covered with chinchilla-like hair.

But there is a post-colonialism angst in that reference, which isn’t such a surprise for a Missouri-born author, with favorite son Twain “Sitting in the Darkness,” Camp Funston just up the road, and Willie Grayson whose first shot started that Insurrection coming from Kansas just next door.

—
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: RAHRGC: Glory Road and the Most Mammoth Hoax in History (Thursday,
Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2004 21:49:51 GMT

BPRAL22169 wrote:
> Dr. Rufo
>
>
>> Oscar says the reason he has trouble with bedding the “little
>> brown sisters” is not because they’re brown but because they’re
>> little.
>
>
> Possibly — but I never quite believed him, not entirely, not
> 100%, and that phrase caused me to be alert that EC Gordon’s
> internal life was not as simple and unproblematic as he
> represents it (i.e. that he was a more complex character than he
> represented himself to be — and that his novelistic story might
> have something to do with what he knows/does not know about
> himself). So when we got to the Doral episode, I was prepared
> for it.
>
> It functioned for me as foreshadowing.
>
> Thinking about it in light of our recent discussion of Mary Lou
> Martin’s psychopathology, I’d say that Scar is putting one of his
> own on display very early on, when he admits that he is unable to
> treat an adult as an adult.
>
> A post-colonial theorist would go on to point out that this is
> symbolic of colonial power rape of subordinated peoples — but
> _I_ wouldn’t go there, no. Bill
>

Bill, please don’t take offense, but I think you’re taking this point at more than face value. Oscar was sent to South-East Asia to help “our little brown brothers” in their efforts against “the Bad Guys.” That descriptor of the indigenous peoples of the area is what prompts him to mention “the little brown sisters.” He goes on to describe his concern as their physical size rather than their coloration. The excerpt I quoted is followed by his observation that in Singapore he might find “big girls.”

There are others who have no problems with choosing sexual partners who are petite and/or very young — the very notable Roman, Lucius Licinius Lucullus comes to mind. Lucullus’ friends noted his predilection but did not share in it. Whyso must Oscar?
From: (BPRAL22169)
Date: 24 Dec 2004 01:53:42 GMT
Subject: Re: RAHRGC: Glory Road and the Most Mammoth Hoax in History (Thursday, Dr. Rufo

>Bill, please don’t take offense, but I think you’re taking this
>point at more than face value.

Well, yeah — its face value doesn’t make face-value sense. There’s some kind of compulsion-disorder thing going on here, since Scar is telling us point-blank that his emotional reaction didn’t tally perfectly with his contemporaneous understanding of his circumstances. Bottom line is, his emotions insisted that an adult was a child, so he’s face-value telling us he’s got emotional problems in this area.

However, that really doesn’t mean any more than it raised a flag for me when I read it and functioned for me as foreshadowing.
Bill
From: “TreetopAngel” Subject: Re: RAHRGC: Glory Road and the Most Mammoth Hoax in History (Thursday,
Date: Fri, 24 Dec 2004 05:21:54 -0700

“BPRAL22169” writes:
> Dr. Rufo
>
>>Bill, please don’t take offense, but I think you’re taking this
>>point at more than face value.
>
> Well, yeah — its face value doesn’t make face-value sense. There’s
> some kind
> of compulsion-disorder thing going on here, since Scar is telling us
> point-blank that his emotional reaction didn’t tally perfectly with
> his
> contemporaneous understanding of his circumstances. Bottom line is,
> his
> emotions insisted that an adult was a child, so he’s face-value
> telling us he’s
> got emotional problems in this area.
>
> However, that really doesn’t mean any more than it raised a flag for
> me when I
> read it and functioned for me as foreshadowing.
> Bill
>

So, any person who does not partake of the native ladies has emotional problems? Or am I just not understanding what the problem is? Why does his inability to bed the locals mean he has an emotional problem? His excuse may be a way of justifying to himself and mostly to others why he does not bed them. I am rather proud of his taking the stand he did take, and a bit (only a bit mind you) with his capitulation. Oscar’s reasoning at the Doral’s had a different tack, you don’t bed the spouse and daughters of your host, admirable in our society.

I know an ex-airman who, along with a couple of other guys, rather than spend their off-time bedding the locals, spent their time and money helping out the local orphans with food and shoes. I have seen the pictures of the orphans and their benefactors.

E!
From: (BPRAL22169)
Date: 24 Dec 2004 14:32:55 GMT
Subject: Re: RAHRGC: Glory Road and the Most Mammoth Hoax in History (Thursday,

TreetopAngel

>So, any person who does not partake of the native ladies has emotional
>problems?

No, but any person who reacts to a class of people as if they were something other than they were has emotional problems (in at least the limited sense that his emotions and intellectual awareness are out of sync).

Bill
From: Howard Berkowitz
Subject: Re: RAHRGC: Glory Road and the Most Mammoth Hoax in History (Thursday,
Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2004 06:20:27 -0500

In article ,
(BPRAL22169) wrote:

> TreetopAngel
>
> >So, any person who does not partake of the native ladies has emotional
> >problems?
>
> No, but any person who reacts to a class of people as if they were
> something
> other than they were has emotional problems (in at least the limited
> sense that
> his emotions and intellectual awareness are out of sync).
> Bill
>

May I ask you to clarify if “other than what were” refers to “their” cultural context? If so, is it an emotional problem if a person of one culture declines to participate in behavior that, in one’s culture, would be unacceptable?

This becomes an interesting challenge of value judgement. For example, it seems fairly clear that the Doral’s entire society regarded impregnation by a Hero as highly desirable, and even the involvement of the youngest seemed enthusiastically consensual. There was no implication of child abuse.

Now, let us assume that Oscar is known to have some medical knowledge, superior to that of the Doral. The Doral’s culture includes female infibulation. The Doral, being enlightened, asks Oscar to perform the procedure on the youngest, confident it will be safer in his hands.

Emotional disturbance or acceptance of cultural diversity? And on whose part, if Oscar accepts or refuses the request?
From: (BPRAL22169)
Date: 28 Dec 2004 15:53:02 GMT
Subject: Re: RAHRGC: Glory Road and the Most Mammoth Hoax in History (Thursday,

Howard Berkowitz

Scar reacts to adult asian women as if they were children. That is, other than what they are. While Scar’s idea of how children are treated vs. adults is culturally conditioned, it’s not his cultural conditioning that is at issue here.
Bill
From: Howard Berkowitz
Subject: Re: RAHRGC: Glory Road and the Most Mammoth Hoax in History (Thursday,
Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2004 12:12:19 -0500

In article ,
(BPRAL22169) wrote:

> Howard Berkowitz
>
> Scar reacts to adult asian women as if they were children. That is,
> other than
> what they are. While Scar’s idea of how children are treated vs. adults
> is
> culturally conditioned, it’s not his cultural conditioning that is at
> issue
> here.
> Bill
>

Further clarification then. Are you focused on his attitude toward adult Asian women as they exist on his Earth, or on Doral-females with some similar attributes.

From memory, it was the Littlest Doralette that was concerning him — he appreciated the older daughter and the wife. That _does_ sound like he was making a rational distinction, in that society, between what he perceived as child (abuse) and consenting adults. In other words, he was not confusing the older Doralettes with Asian women perceived as children.

The key cultural concept that he missed was the Littlest Doralette was not, in the sexual mores of the Doral culture, a child.
From: “David M. Silver”
Subject: Re: RAHRGC: Glory Road and the Most Mammoth Hoax in History (Thursday,
Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2004 09:54:32 -0800

In article ,
Howard Berkowitz wrote:

> In article ,
> (BPRAL22169) wrote:
>
> > Howard Berkowitz
> >
> > Scar reacts to adult asian women as if they were children. That is,
> > other than
> > what they are. While Scar’s idea of how children are treated vs. adults
> > is
> > culturally conditioned, it’s not his cultural conditioning that is at
> > issue
> > here.
> > Bill
> >
>
> Further clarification then. Are you focused on his attitude toward adult
> Asian women as they exist on his Earth, or on Doral-females with some
> similar attributes.
>
> From memory, it was the Littlest Doralette that was concerning him — he
> appreciated the older daughter and the wife. That _does_ sound like he
> was making a rational distinction, in that society, between what he
> perceived as child (abuse) and consenting adults. In other words, he was
> not confusing the older Doralettes with Asian women perceived as
> children.
>
> The key cultural concept that he missed was the Littlest Doralette was
> not, in the sexual mores of the Doral culture, a child.

And it’s fairly clear from the way that Star teases him about her in regard to a potential visit by the Dorals to Center, in the last third of the book, during their long pillow talk, that his cultural inhibitions went out the window with the Littlest Doralette in his second visit to the honor of the Doral’s Bed.

—
David M. Silver

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

From: Howard Berkowitz
Subject: Re: RAHRGC: Glory Road and the Most Mammoth Hoax in History (Thursday,
Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2004 13:09:12 -0500

In article , “David M.
Silver” wrote:

> In article ,
> Howard Berkowitz wrote:
>
> > In article ,
> > (BPRAL22169) wrote:
> >
> > > Howard Berkowitz
> > >
> > > Scar reacts to adult asian women as if they were children. That is,
> > > other than
> > > what they are. While Scar’s idea of how children are treated vs.
> > > adults
> > > is
> > > culturally conditioned, it’s not his cultural conditioning that is at
> > > issue
> > > here.
> > > Bill
> > >
> >
> > Further clarification then. Are you focused on his attitude toward
> > adult
> > Asian women as they exist on his Earth, or on Doral-females with some
> > similar attributes.
> >
> > From memory, it was the Littlest Doralette that was concerning him —
> > he
> > appreciated the older daughter and the wife. That _does_ sound like he
> > was making a rational distinction, in that society, between what he
> > perceived as child (abuse) and consenting adults. In other words, he
> > was
> > not confusing the older Doralettes with Asian women perceived as
> > children.
> >
> > The key cultural concept that he missed was the Littlest Doralette was
> > not, in the sexual mores of the Doral culture, a child.
>
> And it’s fairly clear from the way that Star teases him about her in
> regard to a potential visit by the Dorals to Center, in the last third
> of the book, during their long pillow talk, that his cultural
> inhibitions went out the window with the Littlest Doralette in his
> second visit to the honor of the Doral’s Bed.

Similarities between “The Doral”, and the ephemeral and cybernetic Doras in TEFL, bring up a trivia question — was there a significant Dora in RAH’s life? From: “Dr. Rufo”
Subject: Re: RAHRGC: Glory Road and the Most Mammoth Hoax in History (Thursday,
Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2004 19:39:33 GMT

David M. Silver wrote:
< snip >

> And it’s fairly clear from the way that Star teases him about her in
> regard to a potential visit by the Dorals to Center, in the last third
> of the book, during their long pillow talk, that his cultural
> inhibitions went out the window with the Littlest Doralette in his
> second visit to the honor of the Doral’s Bed.
>

Star is teasing Oscar. On that we agree. He asks if she would offer Jocko the hospitality of “roof, table and bed.” Star answers that the decision is the husband’s (in Nevia). Oscar responds that he is asking her opinion. Star delays by asking if the invitation would include those traveling with Jocko — Letva and Muri (“Because he wouldn’t travel without his favorites”)? THEN Star mentions the little nymphet — whatshername.

MY reading is Star is teasing Oscar because Oscar couldn’t handle the appearance of the Littlest Bare in Nevia — so would he do better in Center?

Of course, YMMV.

Rufe
From: Chris Zakes
Subject: Re: RAHRGC: Glory Road and the Most Mammoth Hoax in History (Thursday,
Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2004 02:08:08 GMT

On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 09:54:32 -0800, an orbital mind-control laser
caused “David M. Silver” to write:

>In article ,
> Howard Berkowitz wrote:
>
>> In article ,
>> (BPRAL22169) wrote:
>>
>> > Howard Berkowitz
>> >
>> > Scar reacts to adult asian women as if they were children. That is,
>> > other than
>> > what they are. While Scar’s idea of how children are treated vs. adults
>> > is
>> > culturally conditioned, it’s not his cultural conditioning that is at
>> > issue
>> > here.
>> > Bill
>> >
>>
>> Further clarification then. Are you focused on his attitude toward adult
>> Asian women as they exist on his Earth, or on Doral-females with some
>> similar attributes.
>>
>> From memory, it was the Littlest Doralette that was concerning him — he
>> appreciated the older daughter and the wife. That _does_ sound like he
>> was making a rational distinction, in that society, between what he
>> perceived as child (abuse) and consenting adults. In other words, he was
>> not confusing the older Doralettes with Asian women perceived as
>> children.
>>
>> The key cultural concept that he missed was the Littlest Doralette was
>> not, in the sexual mores of the Doral culture, a child.
>
>And it’s fairly clear from the way that Star teases him about her in
>regard to a potential visit by the Dorals to Center, in the last third
>of the book, during their long pillow talk, that his cultural
>inhibitions went out the window with the Littlest Doralette in his
>second visit to the honor of the Doral’s Bed.

Did he?

On the way back to the Doral’s place Oscar says “One… three… thirty–I’ll die trying. But no little kids!” When they’re riding out three days later, it’s obvious that he spent a lot of time with Muri, the oldest daughter (and, one may presume, with Letva, her mother and quite possibly with several other ladies at House Doral) but *I* don’t find any textual evidence that the went to bed with the Little Bare.

Star’s teasing when they’re in bed in Center could, just as easily, be reminding Oscar of his inhibition about small women, rather than of his amorous adventures in Nevia. The fact that she’s *not* named, while the other two are says to me that she wasn’t as important as Oscar’s other lovers.

-Chris Zakes
Texas

Letva-mother, Muri-older sister,

I came up here for a party, and what happens? Nothing! Not even ice cream.
The gods looked down and laughed. This would be a better world for
children if the parents had to eat the spinach.

-Groucho Marx, “Animal Crackers”

From: (Stephanie)
Date: 29 Dec 2004 05:37:31 GMT
Subject: Re: RAHRGC: Glory Road and the Most Mammoth Hoax in History (Thursday,

>From: Chris Zakes

>Star’s teasing when they’re in bed in Center could, just as easily, be
>reminding Oscar of his inhibition about small women, rather than of
>his amorous adventures in Nevia. The fact that she’s *not* named,
>while the other two are says to me that she wasn’t as important as
>Oscar’s other lovers.

I agree with this, as the chinchilla he was attracted to was just at 5 feet tall. That height would have triggered the ‘child’ response, it seems.

—
Stephanie
http://hometown.aol.com/merfilly27/myhomepage/profile.html

From: (BPRAL22169)
Date: 28 Dec 2004 21:40:10 GMT
Subject: Re: RAHRGC: Glory Road and the Most Mammoth Hoax in History (Thursday,

Howard Berkowitz

Qmykeyboard is going on th fritZ

Hasnothing to do with any other culture–only what Zcar evidenec sbout his internal life

Bill
From: Denny Wheeler
Subject: Re: RAHRGC: Glory Road and the Most Mammoth Hoax in History (Thursday,
Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2004 18:24:44 -0800

On 28 Dec 2004 21:40:10 GMT, (BPRAL22169) wrote:

>
>QmykeyboardisgoingonthfritZ

Ithinkyouneedanotherone.

—
-denny-

Some people are offence kleptomaniacs — whenever they see
an offence that isn’t nailed down, they take it 😉
–David C. Pugh, in alt.callahans

From: “cmaj7dmin7”
Subject: Re: RAHRGC: Glory Road and the Most Mammoth Hoax in History (Thursday,
Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2004 18:11:07 GMT

“BPRAL22169” wrote in message
news:…
> Howard Berkowitz
>
> Scar reacts to adult asian women as if they were children. That is, other than
> what they are. While Scar’s idea of how children are treated vs. adults is
> culturally conditioned, it’s not his cultural conditioning that is at issue
> here.
> Bill

I’m off track. I thought the exact point was and the Great Hoax was cultural bias. Granted, it’s American culture contrasted with fictional cultures but the Hoax goes to some kind of implicit wrong-headedness about the nature of sex, no?

LNC
From: (BPRAL22169)
Date: 28 Dec 2004 21:42:50 GMT
Subject: Re: RAHRGC: Glory Road and the Most Mammoth Hoax in History (Thursday,

lNC

my keyboard ics going out

this was idecommntrescar’spsychology
Bill
From: “cmaj7dmin7”
Subject: Re: RAHRGC: Glory Road and the Most Mammoth Hoax in History (Thursday,
Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2004 01:56:23 GMT

“BPRAL22169” wrote in message
news:…
> lNC
> mykeyboardicsgoingout
>
> thiswasidecommntrescar’spsychology
> Bill

Keyboard, my ass. Get the fuck out of the leftover eggnog and go to WalMart. Keyboards are five bucks.

LNC
From: (BPRAL22169)
Date: 29 Dec 2004 16:01:01 GMT
Subject: Re: RAHRGC: Glory Road and the Most Mammoth Hoax in History (Thursday,

LNC

>Keyboard, my ass. Get the fuck out of the leftover eggnog and go to WalMart.
>Keyboards are five bucks.

Hehe, I want your Walmart to shop at. I couldn’t get a USB keyboard and had to settle for an os/2 ($23) that locked up my mouse when I plugged it in so I couldn’t click “next” on the driver install.

Bill
From: pixelmeow
Subject: Re: RAHRGC: Glory Road and the Most Mammoth Hoax in History (Thursday,
Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2004 11:35:12 -0500

On 29 Dec 2004 16:01:01 GMT, in alt.fan.heinlein,
(BPRAL22169) wrote:

>LNC
>
>>Keyboard, my ass. Get the fuck out of the leftover eggnog and go to WalMart.
>>Keyboards are five bucks.
>
>Hehe, I want your Walmart to shop at. I couldn’t get a USB keyboard and had to
>settle for an os/2 ($23) that locked up my mouse when I plugged it in so I
>couldn’t click “next” on the driver install.
>Bill

Oh good grief. Don’t you just love that sort of thing? 🙁

—
~teresa~
AFH Barwench

From: “cmaj7dmin7”
Subject: Re: RAHRGC: Glory Road and the Most Mammoth Hoax in History (Thursday,
Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2004 17:54:49 GMT

“pixelmeow” wrote in message
news:…
> On 29 Dec 2004 16:01:01 GMT, in alt.fan.heinlein,
> (BPRAL22169) wrote:
>
> >LNC
> >
> >>Keyboard, my ass. Get the fuck out of the leftover eggnog and go to WalMart.
> >>Keyboards are five bucks.
> >
> >Hehe, I want your Walmart to shop at. I couldn’t get a USB keyboard and had to
> >settle for an os/2 ($23) that locked up my mouse when I plugged it in so I
> >couldn’t click “next” on the driver install.
> >Bill
>
> Oh good grief. Don’t you just love that sort of thing? 🙁

Maybe now he’s legible again he’ll retype whatever that was he said that looked like “thiswasidecommntrescar’spsychology.” Maybe he won’t. Maybe he’ll get a PS2 instead of an OS/2 keyboard. Maybe I’ll install a Mac emulator on this machine and relive the good old days of Windows, 1984. Maybe I’ll get this DVD burner to work before 2084. Maybe I’ll quit typing random thoughts and send…

LNC
From: pixelmeow
Subject: Re: RAHRGC: Glory Road and the Most Mammoth Hoax in History (Thursday,
Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2004 14:11:27 -0500 On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 17:54:49 GMT, in alt.fan.heinlein, “cmaj7dmin7″ wrote:

>
>”pixelmeow” wrote in message
>news:…
>> On 29 Dec 2004 16:01:01 GMT, in alt.fan.heinlein,
>> (BPRAL22169) wrote:
>>
>> >LNC
>> >
>> >>Keyboard, my ass. Get the fuck out of the leftover eggnog and go to WalMart.
>> >>Keyboards are five bucks.
>> >
>> >Hehe, I want your Walmart to shop at. I couldn’t get a USB keyboard and had to
>> >settle for an os/2 ($23) that locked up my mouse when I plugged it in so I
>> >couldn’t click “next” on the driver install.
>> >Bill
>>
>> Oh good grief. Don’t you just love that sort of thing? 🙁
>
>Maybe now he’s legible again he’ll retype whatever that was he said that
>looked like “thiswasidecommntrescar’spsychology.” Maybe he won’t. Maybe
>he’ll get a PS2 instead of an OS/2 keyboard. Maybe I’ll install a Mac
>emulator on this machine and relive the good old days of Windows, 1984.
>Maybe I’ll get this DVD burner to work before 2084. Maybe I’ll quit typing
>random thoughts and send…

Guess that means it’s your turn to go to Walmart? I don’t guess you’ll get a DVD burner for anywhere near as cheap as a keyboard, but hey. At least it isn’t an AT keyboard. 😉

—
~teresa~
AFH Barwench

From: “cmaj7dmin7”
Subject: Re: RAHRGC: Glory Road and the Most Mammoth Hoax in History (Thursday,
Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2004 20:10:12 GMT

“pixelmeow” wrote in message
news:…

> Guess that means it’s your turn to go to Walmart? I don’t guess
> you’ll get a DVD burner for anywhere near as cheap as a keyboard, but
> hey. At least it isn’t an AT keyboard. 😉

I’ve got the burner, I’ve got the software that’s supposed to include the ripper, I just can’t get anything to rip, video-wise.

Someday, all this talk of parallel, serial, USB, Firewire, AT, XT, PS2, PCI, AGP, PCMCIA, SCSI will sound like a discussion of the best crank to use to start a Model T.

LNC
From: “Dr. Rufo”
Subject: Re: RAHRGC: Glory Road and the Most Mammoth Hoax in History (Thursday,
Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2004 21:26:27 GMT

cmaj7dmin7 wrote:
< snip >

> Someday, all this talk of parallel, serial, USB, Firewire, AT, XT, PS2, PCI,
> AGP, PCMCIA, SCSI will sound like a discussion of the best crank to use to
> start a Model T.

Just make certain you place your thumb parallel to the crank handle ’cause the ‘kick-back’ when the engine starts up can easily break it. < wEg >

Rufe
From: Howard Berkowitz
Subject: Re: RAHRGC: Glory Road and the Most Mammoth Hoax in History (Thursday,
Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2004 18:33:43 -0500

In article ,
“Dr. Rufo” wrote:

> cmaj7dmin7 wrote:
> < snip >
>
> > Someday, all this talk of parallel, serial, USB, Firewire, AT, XT, PS2,
> > PCI,
> > AGP, PCMCIA, SCSI will sound like a discussion of the best crank to use
> > to
> > start a Model T.
>
> Just make certain you place your thumb parallel to the crank handle
> ’cause the ‘kick-back’ when the engine starts up can easily break
> it. < wEg >
>
> Rufe

Not so much the thumb, but, when toggling binary or octal boot loaders into a front panel, a proficient person used several fingers at once. I am _most_ happy that Starman Jones’ practice of entering things in binary was a technological dead end. From: pixelmeow
Subject: Re: RAHRGC: Glory Road and the Most Mammoth Hoax in History (Thursday,
Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2004 19:01:59 -0500

On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 20:10:12 GMT, in alt.fan.heinlein, “cmaj7dmin7″
scribbled:

>”pixelmeow” wrote in message
>news:…
>
>> Guess that means it’s your turn to go to Walmart? I don’t guess
>> you’ll get a DVD burner for anywhere near as cheap as a keyboard, but
>> hey. At least it isn’t an AT keyboard. 😉
>
>I’ve got the burner, I’ve got the software that’s supposed to include the
>ripper, I just can’t get anything to rip, video-wise.

Need some different software for ripping/burning? Not that I’m any sort of expert on that, but I did find an alternative to Roxio that I like, so far. It’s called Alcohol 120%, and you don’t actually need to have a physical drive to burn to (although it’s good for that, too, if that’s what you want to do). Let me know and I can forward you a copy (note to self: copy of other CD in mail TOMORROW.)

>Someday, all this talk of parallel, serial, USB, Firewire, AT, XT, PS2, PCI,
>AGP, PCMCIA, SCSI will sound like a discussion of the best crank to use to
>start a Model T.

You have a very valid point, I think; but any bits of car talk I could possibly give to that one would be decades later on than that model. At least I know what much of the stuff in the engine is by looking at it, and know what a lot of it does… and have even taken tools to engine parts when I was a kid. That was fun!

—
~teresa~
AFH Barwench

From: Denny Wheeler
Subject: Re: RAHRGC: Glory Road and the Most Mammoth Hoax in History (Thursday,
Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2004 18:22:29 -0800

On 28 Dec 2004 15:53:02 GMT, (BPRAL22169) wrote:

>Howard Berkowitz
>
>Scar reacts to adult asian women as if they were children.

In only one aspect, so far as we know. And you left out one adjective there. “tiny adult asian women”–we have good reason to believe it’s ONLY their physical size that squicks him sexually.

—
-denny-

Some people are offence kleptomaniacs — whenever they see
an offence that isn’t nailed down, they take it 😉
–David C. Pugh, in alt.callahans

From: “cmaj7dmin7”
Subject: Re: RAHRGC: Glory Road and the Most Mammoth Hoax in History (Thursday,
Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2004 16:21:07 GMT

“BPRAL22169” wrote in message
news:…
> TreetopAngel
>
> >So, any person who does not partake of the native ladies has emotional
> >problems?
>
> No, but any person who reacts to a class of people as if they were something
> other than they were has emotional problems (in at least the limited sense that
> his emotions and intellectual awareness are out of sync).
> Bill

A horse is a horse, of course, of course, and no one can talk to a horse, of course. That is, of course, unless the horse is the famous…uh…what’s his name. Lemme start again.

A “class of people” who are “something other than they were?” I’m missing something here. For example, take the class of people, “old white guys.” If a young white woman’s reaction to the class is “highly amused by their foolishness,” since there’s no fool like an old one, does she have an emotional problem since her reaction varies from the reaction of an old white woman whose reaction is, “hardly amused by their folly”(?) Or is it the old woman with the gear loose in her head? Or is the “proper” reaction something else entirely and there’s a manual somewhere that sets forth how we’re all supposed to take “classes” of people?

Aren’t “classes” of people ad hoc, subjective and so highly personal that it does no empirical good to talk about them outside the limited context of their receiving similar treatment at the hands of persons with a duty to treat them similarly? Aren’t there really only two classes of people? Those who say there are two classes of people and those who say there aren’t?

LNC
From: (LV Poker Player)
Date: 27 Dec 2004 22:25:57 GMT
Subject: Re: RAHRGC: Glory Road and the Most Mammoth Hoax in History (Thursday,

>From: “TreetopAngel”

>>>Bill, please don’t take offense, but I think you’re taking this
>>>point at more than face value.
>>
>> Well, yeah — its face value doesn’t make face-value sense. There’s
>> some kind
>> of compulsion-disorder thing going on here, since Scar is telling us
>> point-blank that his emotional reaction didn’t tally perfectly with
>> his
>> contemporaneous understanding of his circumstances. Bottom line is,
>> his
>> emotions insisted that an adult was a child, so he’s face-value
>> telling us he’s
>> got emotional problems in this area.
>>
>> However, that really doesn’t mean any more than it raised a flag for
>> me when I
>> read it and functioned for me as foreshadowing.
>> Bill
>>
>
>So, any person who does not partake of the native ladies has emotional
>problems? Or am I just not understanding what the problem is? Why does
>his inability to bed the locals mean he has an emotional problem? His
>excuse may be a way of justifying to himself and mostly to others why he
>does not bed them. I am rather proud of his taking the stand he did
>take, and a bit (only a bit mind you) with his capitulation. Oscar’s
>reasoning at the Doral’s had a different tack, you don’t bed the spouse
>and daughters of your host, admirable in our society.

If I remember right (don’t have my copy handy) he did not capitulate when it came to the youngest daughter. He would do his best to honor his host by sharing his bed with wife and older daughter, but “no little kids!” I think he added?

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

From: “TreetopAngel” Subject: Re: RAHRGC: Glory Road and the Most Mammoth Hoax in History (Thursday,
Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2004 21:12:22 -0700

“LV Poker Player” writes:
> >From: “TreetopAngel”
>
>>>
>>
>>So, any person who does not partake of the native ladies has emotional
>>problems? Or am I just not understanding what the problem is? Why
>>does
>>his inability to bed the locals mean he has an emotional problem? His
>>excuse may be a way of justifying to himself and mostly to others why
>>he
>>does not bed them. I am rather proud of his taking the stand he did
>>take, and a bit (only a bit mind you) with his capitulation. Oscar’s
>>reasoning at the Doral’s had a different tack, you don’t bed the
>>spouse
>>and daughters of your host, admirable in our society.
>
> If I remember right (don’t have my copy handy) he did not capitulate
> when it
> came to the youngest daughter. He would do his best to honor his host
> by
> sharing his bed with wife and older daughter, but “no little kids!” I
> think he
> added?
>

To my recollection, also.

Somehow, C! got his hands on our copy first…waiting is… E!
From: “Oscagne”
Subject: Re: RAHRGC: Glory Road and the Most Mammoth Hoax in History (Thursday,
Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2004 22:33:14 -0600

“TreetopAngel” wrote in message
news:…
> “LV Poker Player” writes:
> > >From: “TreetopAngel”
> >
> >>>
> >>
> >>So, any person who does not partake of the native ladies has emotional
> >>problems? Or am I just not understanding what the problem is? Why
> >>does
> >>his inability to bed the locals mean he has an emotional problem? His
> >>excuse may be a way of justifying to himself and mostly to others why
> >>he
> >>does not bed them. I am rather proud of his taking the stand he did
> >>take, and a bit (only a bit mind you) with his capitulation. Oscar’s
> >>reasoning at the Doral’s had a different tack, you don’t bed the
> >>spouse
> >>and daughters of your host, admirable in our society.
> >
> > If I remember right (don’t have my copy handy) he did not capitulate
> > when it
> > came to the youngest daughter. He would do his best to honor his host
> > by
> > sharing his bed with wife and older daughter, but “no little kids!” I
> > think he
> > added?
> >
> To my recollection, also.
>
> Somehow, C! got his hands on our copy first…waiting is…

Give him something else to do with his hands. *shrug*

And if he’s too busy, ask for volunteers.

—
Oscagne
/sorry, what was the topic again?

From: “TreetopAngel” Subject: Re: RAHRGC: Glory Road and the Most Mammoth Hoax in History (Thursday,
Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2004 21:47:49 -0700

“Oscagne” writes:
>
> “TreetopAngel” wrote in message
> news:…
>>
>> Somehow, C! got his hands on our copy first…waiting is…
>
> Give him something else to do with his hands. *shrug*
>

It’s difficult for me to concentrate on my reading in that situation.

> And if he’s too busy, ask for volunteers.

I know, plenty of willing and able bodies to volunteer.

Remember the quote about giving her a desk and then leaving it alone?…C! and I do the same thing with books we are reading. No matter how much either of us wants to read a book, it is strictly “hands off” until the other is finished with it.

It works for us, has for the last 24 years and today marks our 20th anniversary. Of course, he is at work…

E!
Editor’s Note: Off topic posts offering congratulations and comments to E! deleted.

We offer our own congratulations!
From: “Bryan R. Stahl”
>
Subject: Re: RAHRGC: Glory Road and the Most Mammoth Hoax in History (Thursday, January 6, 9 PM to midnight, ET; and Saturday, January 8, 5 to 8 PM, ET)
Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2004 20:52:00 -0500

“pixelmeow” wrote in message
news:…
> On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 20:09:10 GMT, in alt.fan.heinlein, Engr Bohn
> wrote:
>
>>Good afternoon,
>>
>>Hail, lal_truckee! We who are about to post salute you.
>>
>>> Is Glory Road the only Heinlein where a young (Oscar is only a couple of
>>> years older than many of the Juvie heros) hero is dumber than a
>>> doorknob?
>>> No hope of redemption through the graces of a good mentor? No obvious
>>> future development into an Ubermensh?
>>
>>Hmm… good question. Certainly (almost?) all of them show their
>>inexperience through poor judgment… but ignorance and
>>inexperience *aren’t* the same as unintelligent. Hell, my youth
>>demonstrates that quite well!
>>
>>It’s been a few years since I read GR, so I can’t say with certainty. But
>>was he dumb, or was he out of his element? He demonstrated at least a
>>limited knowledge of Latin, so he absorbed *something* in school.
>
> I definitely got the impression that he felt out of his element. At
> least, that’s what I’m remembering: it has been a while since I read
> it, also. I found myself thinking that he was very naive, in a way,
> and that he was (what’s the word) yes, inexperienced, but he didn’t
> consider himself that way (who of us ever does??), he *thought* he was
> more world-wise (still can’t think of how to put this), and then Star
> walked into his life and kicked his hobby horse right out from under
> him. I think he was totally overwhelmed by her, in so many ways, and
> a lot of his actions have that feel of the young person trying to
> “show” the older person that “yes I can SO do it!”
>
> I hope that makes sense to someone.
>

Well, Oscar had some knowledge of engineering, physics, mathematics,and languages. He was planning to double major in law and engineering, up to the PhD level. IIRC, he made a comment about not being able to explain the guts because she didn’t have the math for it. So he was hardly the typical “dumb jock”, even if he did have a football scholarship.

He just thought he understood the way things are because of experience in America, Asia, and Europe, and found out the entire Earth was off in its thinking.

Bryn
From: pixelmeow
Subject: Re: RAHRGC: Glory Road and the Most Mammoth Hoax in History (Thursday, January 6, 9 PM to midnight, ET; and Saturday, January 8, 5 to 8 PM, ET)
Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2004 23:27:27 -0500

On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 20:52:00 -0500, in alt.fan.heinlein, “Bryan R.
Stahl”
> scribbled:

>”pixelmeow” wrote in message
>news:…
>> On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 20:09:10 GMT, in alt.fan.heinlein, Engr Bohn
>> wrote:
>>
>>>It’s been a few years since I read GR, so I can’t say with certainty. But
>>>was he dumb, or was he out of his element? He demonstrated at least a
>>>limited knowledge of Latin, so he absorbed *something* in school.
>>
>> I definitely got the impression that he felt out of his element. At
>> least, that’s what I’m remembering: it has been a while since I read
>> it, also. I found myself thinking that he was very naive, in a way,
>> and that he was (what’s the word) yes, inexperienced, but he didn’t
>> consider himself that way (who of us ever does??), he *thought* he was
>> more world-wise (still can’t think of how to put this), and then Star
>> walked into his life and kicked his hobby horse right out from under
>> him. I think he was totally overwhelmed by her, in so many ways, and
>> a lot of his actions have that feel of the young person trying to
>> “show” the older person that “yes I can SO do it!”
>>
>> I hope that makes sense to someone.
>>
>Well, Oscar had some knowledge of engineering, physics, mathematics,and
>languages. He was planning to double major in law and engineering, up to
>the PhD level. IIRC, he made a comment about not being able to explain the
>guts because she didn’t have the math for it. So he was hardly the typical
>”dumb jock”, even if he did have a football scholarship.
>
>He just thought he understood the way things are because of experience in
>America, Asia, and Europe, and found out the entire Earth was off in its
>thinking.

Yes, exactly. Book larnin’ don’t equal horse sense. 🙂

—
~teresa~
AFH Barwench

From: Fred J. McCall
Subject: Re: RAHRGC: Glory Road and the Most Mammoth Hoax in History (Thursday, January 6, 9 PM to midnight, ET; and Saturday, January 8, 5 to 8 PM, ET)
Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2004 22:40:24 GMT

pixelmeowwrote:

:Yes, exactly. Book larnin’ don’t equal horse sense. 🙂

Hell, HORSE SENSE don’t equal horse sense, the way most folk mean
it….

From: “David M. Silver”
Subject: Re: RAHRGC: Glory Road and the Most Mammoth Hoax in History (Thursday, January 6, 9 PM to midnight, ET; and Saturday, January 8, 5 to 8 PM, ET)
Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2004 13:59:10 -0800

In article ,
lal_truckee wrote:

> David M. Silver wrote:
> >
> Aside:
> Is Glory Road the only Heinlein where a young (Oscar is only a couple of
> years older than many of the Juvie heros) hero is dumber than a
> doorknob? No hope of redemption through the graces of a good mentor? No
> obvious future development into an Ubermensh?

I don’t know that he’s beyond “hope of redemption” with or without a good mentor, Lal, but I think I know what you’re referring to.

There are four or five novels by Heinlein which I categorize together, all involving the ones involving what I call “unfinished adults,” those who can use a leetle more seasoning, who aren’t exactly what we would call YA protagonists today (and who weren’t ones written deliberately by Heinlein for his “juvenile” market as Juvenile protagonists): Larry Smith from _Double Star_; D.B. Davis from _The Door Into Summer_; Juan Rico from _Starship Troopers_; poor doomed pretty Podkayne Fries from _Podkayne of Mars_; and Evelyn Cyril Gordon, our Oscar.

[If you wanted to look at it hard, there’s another; but he’s not young: Hugh Farnham from _Farnham’s Freehold_.]

Bill Patterson once mentioned, in a reading group chat, I think it was, or in some posts leading up to an old one a fairly long time back — maybe on AOL when we first got started, that the French once had a term for a novel written with a character like this: “cadet novel” is the term as it translates; and the purpose and intended audience of these novels were intended by the Frenchmen who wrote them for young adults, not adolescents, but simply _young_ _adults_.

It’s sort of a transition, a bildingsroman that isn’t about a boy, but a man (or about a girl, but a woman), type of form: the classic _Tom Jones_ or _Joseph Andrews_ or _Pamela_.

They’re all written at the start with hero in a low mimetic mode, for those who know what Fyre means by that. Oscar gets promoted, however, in a way, to high mimetic, i.e., to a true Hero First Class, by the end. So too do Smith, Davis, and Rico. Miss Fries didn’t make it, and buys her farm trying to make a pickup on a fairy and its cub, because sadly she didn’t have the “right stuff,” damn her parents and her uncle for never teaching it to her.

Oscar’s weakest muscle, his football player’s brain, isn’t exactly “dumb as a doorknob.” It’s just not as developed as those muscles that led the Central Valley in yardage gained but, later, in his sophomore year in college, didn’t lead his conference in scoring, didn’t win the golden football, and led to his college deemphazing the sport and his elderly coach, who was too easy on “Easy” Gordon, being fired.

Her Wisdom and Rufo are pretty good Mentors, so to speak, for Oscar. He just doesn’t realize it. They manipulate him rather well, too. And they also succeed where the old football coach and the first sergeant whom Oscar hated, failed. And maybe Cyrano had a hand in it.

See, “I’ll allow you no more than three stanzas. But I’m sentimental, I like to know what I’m killing.” and, “Come now, lad! … Pick it up! Would let me sing alone? Would die as a clown with ladies watching? Sing! — and say goodbye gracefully, with your last rhyme racing your death rattle. … Try! The price is the same either way.”

If it’s worth doing, Easy, it’s worth doing well. And if you do it well enough:

“_Touche!_ Well struck. And well sung. Let’s have the rest of it.” and,

“No, no, my friend, please leave it there. *** Very good. Keep trying. Now grant me your gift, I am more than ready.”

—
David M. Silver

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

From: (BPRAL22169)
Date: 23 Dec 2004 01:54:26 GMT
Subject: Re: RAHRGC: Glory Road and the Most Mammoth Hoax in History (Thursday, January 6, 9 PM to midnight, ET; and David Silver

>Oscar’s weakest muscle, his football player’s brain, isn’t exactly “dumb
>as a doorknob.” It’s just not as developed as those muscles that led the
>Central Valley in yardage gained but, later, in his sophomore year in
>college, didn’t lead his conference in scoring, didn’t win the golden
>football, and led to his college deemphazing the sport and his elderly
>coach, who was too easy on “Easy” Gordon, being fired.

Yeah — the theme that runs through the first part of the book is that he does’t fit where he is and it isn’t until his circumstances change that he comes into his own — which is, come to think of it, the theme of “Misfit,” as well.

George Edgar Slusser talked about the Heinlein hero who “loses only to win” (he was talking about a Calvinist interpretation, but you don’t have to pay attention to that). Scar seems to fit that profile.
Bill
From: “TreetopAngel” Subject: Re: RAHRGC: Glory Road and the Most Mammoth Hoax in History (Thursday, January 6, 9 PM to midnight, ET; and Saturday, January 8, 5 to 8 PM, ET)
Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2004 02:57:58 -0700

Piggybacking…

I can’t help but wonder why two supposedly “superior” beings, who knew and understood Earth culture and mores, did not explain to Oscar what he would encounter and how he should react when he got to the Doral’s household.

Oscar was not allowed the chance to make up his own mind about the situation until after the fact. His culture and mores were trod upon, not the other way around…

E!
From: “Bryan R. Stahl”
>
Subject: Re: RAHRGC: Glory Road and the Most Mammoth Hoax in History (Thursday, January 6, 9 PM to midnight, ET; and Saturday, January 8, 5 to 8 PM, ET)
Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2004 08:48:08 -0500

“TreetopAngel” wrote in message
news:…
> Piggybacking…
>
> I can’t help but wonder why two supposedly “superior” beings, who knew and
> understood Earth culture and mores, did not explain to Oscar what he would
> encounter and how he should react when he got to the Doral’s household.
>
> Oscar was not allowed the chance to make up his own mind about the
> situation until after the fact. His culture and mores were trod upon, not
> the other way around…
>

Star did explain that she hadn’t even thought it would be an issue, especially that she didn’t realize that he didn’t understand the meaning of “bed”. Her comment was she thought he would behave as a “Frenchman” would, and didn’t expect what happened. Plus it could have been part of his training; teaching him to think on his feet. Remember, he had to be in shape to defend his “soul” later on, and this could be a way of increasing his chances.

Bryan
From: Howard Berkowitz
Subject: Re: RAHRGC: Glory Road and the Most Mammoth Hoax in History (Thursday, January 6, 9 PM to midnight, ET; and Saturday, January 8, 5 to 8 PM, ET)
Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2004 10:55:53 -0500

In article , “Bryan R. Stahl”
> wrote:

> “TreetopAngel” wrote in message
> news:…
> > Piggybacking…
> >
> > I can’t help but wonder why two supposedly “superior” beings, who knew
> > and
> > understood Earth culture and mores, did not explain to Oscar what he
> > would
> > encounter and how he should react when he got to the Doral’s household.
> >
> > Oscar was not allowed the chance to make up his own mind about the
> > situation until after the fact. His culture and mores were trod upon,
> > not
> > the other way around…
> >
> Star did explain that she hadn’t even thought it would be an issue,
> especially that she didn’t realize that he didn’t understand the meaning
> of
> “bed”. Her comment was she thought he would behave as a “Frenchman”
> would,
> and didn’t expect what happened. Plus it could have been part of his
> training; teaching him to think on his feet. Remember, he had to be in
> shape to defend his “soul” later on, and this could be a way of
> increasing
> his chances.
>

I suggest that was stereotyping on Star’s part, although it may have been necessary for the story line. It’s not taken as a given that special operations personnel, or human intelligence operators, will think on their feet to figure out nuances of culture. Good mission preparation briefs on local customs. From: (BPRAL22169)
Date: 23 Dec 2004 16:02:58 GMT
Subject: Re: RAHRGC: Glory Road and the Most Mammoth Hoax in History (Thursday, January 6, 9 PM to midnight, ET; and

Bryan Stahl/Treetop Angel

Why didn’t Star & Rufo prepare Scar?

Another possible reason is that there are things you can learn but cannot be taught. And those are just the things that, if you try to attack them on a conscious level, you just raise defenses and make it impossible to learn them.

I couldn’t definitively say this was the main reason — but it fits in with the other preparatory training Scar was getting at the time. I think it’s possible Star and Rufo did not specifically intend for this in particular to happen, but that the preparatory adventures were designed witih opportunities for this particular parochial prejudice to come up and be dealt with in some fashion.
Bill
From: “cmaj7dmin7”
Subject: Re: RAHRGC: Glory Road and the Most Mammoth Hoax in History (Thursday, January 6, 9 PM to midnight, ET; and Saturday, January 8, 5 to 8 PM, ET)
Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2004 18:01:51 GMT

“David M. Silver” wrote in message
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: Glory Road and the Most Mammoth Hoax in History
> Dates
> and Times: Thursday, January 6, 2005, from 9 PM to midnight, ET
> and Saturday, January 8, 2005, from 5 to 8 PM, ET
> Place: TBA [look for a subsequent post in this thread for
> directions, etc.]
>
> Reading Recommended: Glory Road (mandatory). There’s a new hard
> cover edition issued by TOR in October, if you wish to give
> yourself a present, but any copy works just fine, including my old
> green and yellow covered paperback from Avon, printed in 1966.
>
> Chat Room Moderator: “agplusone,” i.e., me.
>
> In Chapter Eight of _Glory Road_ Oscar Gordon, Hero First Class, commits
> an enormous cultural faux paux when he declines the after dinner
> attentions of the Three Graces. Oscar, Her Wisdom, and Rufo, Oscar’s
> “groom,” are on the way to capture the Egg; and they’ve stopped, after
> vanquishing Igli at the Doral Jocko’s stronghold for refreshment, rest,
> and to replenish lost supplies. Everything went swimmingly well, as
> Jocko, who is an old friend of Star, Her Wisdom, offers the Hero what
> they need, asking only that “he will honor my house by accepting
> hospitality of roof … and table … and bed” which Hero Oscar accepts.
> A sumptuous feast of welcome follows. At its end, hours later, the
> Doral’s wife, Letva, flanked by two of her daughters, leads Oscar to his
> sleeping chamber and put Oscar, several wine cups to the wind, to bed,
> and withdraw.
>
> They then return, nude, and pose at his bedside, with Letva explaining
> that as he is their honored guest, now honoring their lord’s bed, and
> inquiring what is “a Hero’s pleasure? One? Or two? Or all three?”
>
> The Hero graciously declines. A gentleman doesn’t sleep with his host’s
> wife, or daughters, even if he has reason to believe his host is long
> past the point of several cups to the wind, does he?
>
> The Hero is awakened by Rufo and Star the next morning to literally
> “cold shoulder,” and informed that something has occurred which requires
> they depart immediately and flee the lands of the Doral, lest they
> forfeit their lives to him.
>
> That finally leads to an examination of American sexual mores, and
> discovery by Oscar of what he calls the “most mammoth hoax in history.”

Mention of this “hoax” comes before the protracted lecture on sex (at least the fully blown [winkwinknudgenudge] lecture). It’s arguable that the subsequent lecture develops the hoax’s nature and arguable that Oscar has already identified it and the discussion that follows is just proof.

While I have my own idea about articulation of the “hoax” I’m interested in knowing, first, what somebody else thinks he means. You’ll do, Dave. What’s he mean? If it’s that we’re weird here on Earth and the proof is that there’s no prostitution anywhere in the twenty universes besides Earth, I’m going to be awfully disappointed because that’s such a shallow assertion, offered without anything close to empirical evidence (making up fictional shit isn’t any kind of evidence). It’s like saying there’s no concept of employers and employees anywhere but Earth, no employment of any kind including self-employment.

Waiting to disclose my own theory, I remain,

Mum,

L.N.C.
From: “David M. Silver”
Subject: Re: RAHRGC: Glory Road and the Most Mammoth Hoax in History (Thursday, January 6, 9 PM to midnight, ET; and Saturday, January 8, 5 to 8 PM, ET)
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2004 03:11:21 -0800

In article ,
“cmaj7dmin7” wrote:

> While I have my own idea about articulation of the “hoax” I’m interested in
> knowing, first, what somebody else thinks he means. You’ll do, Dave. What’s
> he mean?

That’s one of the reasons why I picked this topic. I’m not sure — it’s very generally announced — and Oscar isn’t the brightest or most consistent bear out of the box.

Let’s start with an elimination to start the talk going:

Does he mean that the hoax is the valuation placed on coitus, i.e., that it has any value except non-monetary values. “The best things in life are free,” is what he’s whistling when the return visit to the Doral ends. Can he be saying that, solely, or simply?

Do you buy it only with love or affection or a mere mutual appetite for so long as it lasts, or a reciprocal and freely assumed duty, revokable by either at will? I recall a phrase made common (probably in Hugh Hefner’s magazines) about the time Glory Road was written, as the pill came into first usage: “the Zipless [short anglo-saxon form of fornicate].” Is it more complicated than that?

Then there is “marriage.” And bride price, dower, divorce, alimony, etc., and so on — community property, wife’s one-third, intestate succession, we could go on and on. What good do they do? What bad? Why bring them up? And what about what happens when they start talking about tossing their shoes?

What role if any does “jump rogue and leap whore” have?

Can we start with just that above?

BTW: anyone. Open season on any questions about Glory Road, while we’re here on the novel, are fair.

—
David M. Silver

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

From: Howard Berkowitz
Subject: Re: RAHRGC: Glory Road and the Most Mammoth Hoax in History (Thursday, January 6, 9 PM to midnight, ET; and Saturday, January 8, 5 to 8 PM, ET)
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2004 13:50:44 -0500

In article , “David M.
Silver” wrote:

> In article ,
> “cmaj7dmin7” wrote:
>
> > While I have my own idea about articulation of the “hoax” I’m
> > interested in
> > knowing, first, what somebody else thinks he means. You’ll do, Dave.
> > What’s
> > he mean?
>
> That’s one of the reasons why I picked this topic. I’m not sure — it’s
> very generally announced — and Oscar isn’t the brightest or most
> consistent bear out of the box.
>
> Let’s start with an elimination to start the talk going:
>
> Does he mean that the hoax is the valuation placed on coitus, i.e., that
> it has any value except non-monetary values. “The best things in life
> are free,” is what he’s whistling when the return visit to the Doral
> ends. Can he be saying that, solely, or simply?
>
> Do you buy it only with love or affection or a mere mutual appetite for
> so long as it lasts, or a reciprocal and freely assumed duty, revokable
> by either at will? I recall a phrase made common (probably in Hugh
> Hefner’s magazines) about the time Glory Road was written, as the pill
> came into first usage: “the Zipless [short anglo-saxon form of
> fornicate].” Is it more complicated than that?

I’m reasonably certain that the term to which you refer came from a feminist writer, IIRC Erica Jong in _Fear of Flying_. From: “David M. Silver”
Subject: Re: RAHRGC: Glory Road and the Most Mammoth Hoax in History (Thursday, January 6, 9 PM to midnight, ET; and Saturday, January 8, 5 to 8 PM, ET)
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2004 02:01:55 -0800

In article ,
Howard Berkowitz wrote:

> In article , “David M.
> Silver” wrote:
>
> > In article ,
> > “cmaj7dmin7” wrote:
> >
> > > While I have my own idea about articulation of the “hoax” I’m
> > > interested in
> > > knowing, first, what somebody else thinks he means. You’ll do, Dave.
> > > What’s
> > > he mean?
> >
> > That’s one of the reasons why I picked this topic. I’m not sure — it’s
> > very generally announced — and Oscar isn’t the brightest or most
> > consistent bear out of the box.
> >
> > Let’s start with an elimination to start the talk going:
> >
> > Does he mean that the hoax is the valuation placed on coitus, i.e., that
> > it has any value except non-monetary values. “The best things in life
> > are free,” is what he’s whistling when the return visit to the Doral
> > ends. Can he be saying that, solely, or simply?
> >
> > Do you buy it only with love or affection or a mere mutual appetite for
> > so long as it lasts, or a reciprocal and freely assumed duty, revokable
> > by either at will? I recall a phrase made common (probably in Hugh
> > Hefner’s magazines) about the time Glory Road was written, as the pill
> > came into first usage: “the Zipless [short anglo-saxon form of
> > fornicate].” Is it more complicated than that?
>
> I’m reasonably certain that the term to which you refer came from a
> feminist writer, IIRC Erica Jong in _Fear of Flying_.
> >

Oddly, I never read _Fear of Flying_. Because all the women were agog about it, I was afraid it was some Oprah-like or Springer-like thing, to put it in modern context; and so I skipped it. Years later I picked up her _Fanny, Being the True History of the Adventures of Fanny Hackabout-Jones_ (1980, Signet reissue edition 1991, ISBN 0-451-15890-3), because I thought it might turn out to be a parody of John Cleland’s _Fanny Hill_, and I was right. I thought it was hilarious; and I also think it, along with Frank Harris’ “autobiography,” _My Life and Loves_ (vols I to IV, 1922 et seq, and the partially completed V which then was forged to completion by someone else Trocchi in 1954)[1], Jong’s success influenced in no small way Heinlein to write _To Sail Beyond the Sunset: The Lives and Loves of Maureen Johnson_, in the form he did.

Note 1: See http://www.oddbooks.co.uk/harris/lifenloves.html for a synopsis of it, for those unfamiliar with it.

—
David M. Silver

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

From: “TreetopAngel” Subject: Re: RAHRGC: Glory Road and the Most Mammoth Hoax in History (Thursday, January 6, 9 PM to midnight, ET; and Saturday, January 8, 5 to 8 PM, ET)
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2004 07:49:38 -0700

“David M. Silver” writes:
> In article ,
> Howard Berkowitz wrote:
>
>>
>> I’m reasonably certain that the term to which you refer came from a
>> feminist writer, IIRC Erica Jong in _Fear of Flying_.
>> >
>
> Oddly, I never read _Fear of Flying_. Because all the women were agog
> about it, I was afraid it was some Oprah-like or Springer-like thing,
> to
> put it in modern context; and so I skipped it. Years later I picked up
> her _Fanny, Being the True History of the Adventures of Fanny
> Hackabout-Jones_ (1980, Signet reissue edition 1991, ISBN
> 0-451-15890-3), because I thought it might turn out to be a parody of
> John Cleland’s _Fanny Hill_, and I was right. I thought it was
> hilarious; and I also think it, along with Frank Harris’
> “autobiography,” _My Life and Loves_ (vols I to IV, 1922 et seq, and
> the
> partially completed V which then was forged to completion by someone
> else Trocchi in 1954)[1], Jong’s success influenced in no small way
> Heinlein to write _To Sail Beyond the Sunset: The Lives and Loves of
> Maureen Johnson_, in the form he did.
>
>
> Note 1: See http://www.oddbooks.co.uk/harris/lifenloves.html for a
> synopsis of it, for those unfamiliar with it.

I was introduced to the novels of Erica Jong by my future spouse, he thought I might get some more modern ideas about women and womanhood if I read them. I credit him and Erica with turning me into the self-assured female I am today, before that I was pretty much a doormat with SUCKER written on my forehead.

(C! created his own monster…)
From: (jeanette)
Subject: Re: RAHRGC: Glory Road and the Most Mammoth Hoax in History (Thursd…
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2004 08:32:11 -0800

I am compulsive enough that there are probably fewer than ten novels that I have decided not to finish. FEAR OF FLYING is one of them. I just didn’t get it.

Jeanette–who more usually finds herself counting the pages, hoping it will end soon.
From: (LV Poker Player)
Date: 21 Dec 2004 16:53:20 GMT
Subject: Re: RAHRGC: Glory Road and the Most Mammoth Hoax in History (Thursd…

>From: wolfj

>I am compulsive enough that there are probably fewer than ten novels
>that I have decided not to finish. FEAR OF FLYING is one of them. I
>just didn’t get it.

Is there something about Important Works that requires them to be obscure? Does just plain English storytelling automatically disqualify a work as being an Important Work?

LVPP–still wondering if I missed something in Slaughterhouse Five, or if the novel really is nonsense.

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

From: lal_truckee
Subject: Re: RAHRGC: Glory Road and the Most Mammoth Hoax in History (Thursd…
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2004 09:36:16 -0800

LV Poker Player wrote:
>>From: wolfj
>
>
>>I am compulsive enough that there are probably fewer than ten novels
>>that I have decided not to finish. FEAR OF FLYING is one of them. I
>>just didn’t get it.
>
>
> Is there something about Important Works that requires them to be obscure?

Obscure? Fear of Flying was a major presence in it’s time – famous and popular and influential – far from obscure. This group (rightfully) revels in the influence of Stranger in a Strange Land – Fear of Flying was/is bigger.

Or were you using “obscure” to mean difficult? I don’t think FoF is more or less difficult than any other socially influential book – it just requires that the reader be fertile soil for it’s full effect, same as any influential book.
From: (LV Poker Player)
Date: 21 Dec 2004 18:31:44 GMT
Subject: Re: RAHRGC: Glory Road and the Most Mammoth Hoax in History (Thursd…

>From: lal_truckee

>>>I am compulsive enough that there are probably fewer than ten novels
>>>that I have decided not to finish. FEAR OF FLYING is one of them. I
>>>just didn’t get it.
>>
>>
>> Is there something about Important Works that requires them to be obscure?
>
>Obscure? Fear of Flying was a major presence in it’s time – famous and
>popular and influential – far from obscure. This group (rightfully)
>revels in the influence of Stranger in a Strange Land – Fear of Flying
>was/is bigger.
>
>Or were you using “obscure” to mean difficult?

Difficult. My Webster’s Unabridged gives the (2) definition of obscure as “not clear to the understanding; hard to perceive”, and this is the one I meant. (6) is “of little or no prominence, note, fame, or distinction.”

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

From: “David M. Silver”
Subject: Re: RAHRGC: Glory Road and the Most Mammoth Hoax in History (Thursd…
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2004 09:53:33 -0800

In article ,
(LV Poker Player) wrote:

> >From: wolfj
>
> >I am compulsive enough that there are probably fewer than ten novels
> >that I have decided not to finish. FEAR OF FLYING is one of them. I
> >just didn’t get it.
>
> Is there something about Important Works that requires them to be obscure?
> Does just plain English storytelling automatically disqualify a work as being
> an Important Work?
>
> LVPP–still wondering if I missed something in Slaughterhouse Five, or if the
> novel really is nonsense.

It depends on whether you are pandering to the academic or some other community for “literary fame,” or the equivalent, or not. If you want your book immediately read by the “literary” or some other niche, such as feminists; and if you wish the fortune that results from professors of modern literature or of some niche studies program as “The Feminist Movement,” etc., et al., growing out of the 1960s, putting your book on their reading lists for undergraduate university or college courses, you write it as obscure and as appealing to the prejudices of that class of academic or zealot as you can.

That’s not always a bad thing.

A great example of this is Thomas Pynchon, who came to fame among academic circles, and came to fortune as a result of their selling for him a few hundred thousand or maybe million copies of _Gravity’s Rainbow_ as required texts these past twenty-five years since “academia” discovered what was an incredibly convoluted work the near “cult” favorite their undergrads and grad students were reading. Believe me, it’s obscure on the surface and it definitely appeals to the prejudices, political and others, of the academia at the time it was written — and to an extent today. That’s not to say it’s not a good work. I find it extremely intriguing, complicated, layer after layer; but it’s pretty close to too much arduous work to read more than perhaps every five years or so, for an amateur “lit-critic” such as I am. Somebody would have to pay me good money for me to go through GR with the total ceaseless attention to obscure detail after detail it deserves, or that gaining monetary recompense from that study would require.

By _Stranger in a Strange Land_ became the same sort of undergraduate favorite. It just didn’t become the favorite of academia in the 1960s and ’70s and onward because Heinlein was writing other works they certainly didn’t appreciate at the time. He certainly never tied to appeal to professors of literature (e.g., David MacKinnon, Clyde whatizname from TEFL, and the criticism expressed in EU are very much contrary to any appeal to them — see also the criticisms of ‘sociologists’ and ‘child psychologists’ — they were often the butts of his writings).

I haven’t read _Fear of Flying_, although I have read _Fanny_ and _The Merchant of Venice’s Daughter_ or whatever they renamed the Jong novel about her. I enjoyed them, because I think Jong may have lightened up a bit, once she attracted fame and fortune with F of F, and had a following. They’re funny, very well styled and written, and exciting; although it helps to have a passing acquaintance with Shakespeare and Marlowe and certain early English novelists such as DeFoe (author of Moll Flanders), Fielding (author of Tom Jones, and others), as well as other writers of that period including the pornographer John Cleland (author of Fanny Hill) to truly enjoy what Jong is doing, I can’t say whether I’d find F of F obscure in the sense I have defined it.

Kurt Vonnegut, and a few other SF & F writers I could name who are living, so I won’t, attempt to so appeal in a way, I think, to the “academia” or the “niche” crowds. They tend towards the sort of obscurity you find in his works; but then, so too, I think, did H.G. Wells and Aldous Huxley to an extent, especially after Wells, so they say, “sold his birthright for a pot of message.” Heinlein could have attracted academia’s favorable attention in the 1960s onward had he catered to the prejudices then present. He didn’t, and wouldn’t, at least not the way they understood their own prejudices, so he attracted some of their opprobrium, from the sixties onward. Heinlein’s work can tend to be obscure to people who don’t read with their minds fully engaged, because they don’t notice the sub-texts; but most of Heinlein’s early and mid-period work has a fluidity of style and story that obscures the obscurities of theme hidden away below; and if you grew along with his works through that early and middle period, you had a good chance of being able to follow along with Mitch, as Oscar says, in his later period; although it certainly turned out to be a bitch to some.

Time cures all things. The fashionable sometimes sloughs away. Sometimes it endures. Sometimes something not recognized as valuable is discovered by a more perceptive element of academia, and thereafter becomes our literature. Time will tell.

—
David M. Silver

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

From: “cmaj7dmin7”
Subject: Re: RAHRGC: Glory Road and the Most Mammoth Hoax in History (Thursday, January 6, 9 PM to midnight, ET; and Saturday, January 8, 5 to 8 PM, ET)
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2004 06:17:58 GMT

“David M. Silver” wrote in message
news:…
> In article,

> That’s one of the reasons why I picked this topic. I’m not sure — it’s
> very generally announced — and Oscar isn’t the brightest or most
> consistent bear out of the box.
>
> Let’s start with an elimination to start the talk going:
>
> Does he mean that the hoax is the valuation placed on coitus, i.e., that
> it has any value except non-monetary values. “The best things in life
> are free,” is what he’s whistling when the return visit to the Doral
> ends. Can he be saying that, solely, or simply?
>
> Do you buy it only with love or affection or a mere mutual appetite for
> so long as it lasts, or a reciprocal and freely assumed duty, revokable
> by either at will? I recall a phrase made common (probably in Hugh
> Hefner’s magazines) about the time Glory Road was written, as the pill
> came into first usage: “the Zipless [short anglo-saxon form of
> fornicate].” Is it more complicated than that?
>
> Then there is “marriage.” And bride price, dower, divorce, alimony,
> etc., and so on — community property, wife’s one-third, intestate
> succession, we could go on and on. What good do they do? What bad? Why
> bring them up? And what about what happens when they start talking about
> tossing their shoes?
>
> What role if any does “jump rogue and leap whore” have?
>
> Can we start with just that above?

Well, the somewhat verbatim (limited by my typing skills) text goes:

Late on the second day I had chanced on Star in the steam room of the
manor’s baths. For an hour we lay wrapped in sheets on adjacent slabs,
sweating it out and restoring the tissues. Presently I blurted out to her
how surprised–and delighted–I was. I did it sheepishly but Star was one to
whom I dared bare my soul.
She had listened gravely. When I ran down, she said quietly, “My Hero,
as you know, I do not know America. But from what Rufo tells me your culture
is unique, among all the Universes.”
“Well, I realize that the USA is not sophisticated in such things, not
the way France is.”
” ‘France!’ ” She shrugged, beautifully. ” ‘Latins are lousy lovers.’ I
heard that somewhere, I testify that it is true. Oscar, so far as I know,
your culture is the only semicivilized one in which love is not recognized
as the highest art and given the serious study it deserves.”
“You mean the way they treat it here. Whew! ‘Much too good for the
common people!’ ”
“No, I do not mean the way it is treated here.” She spoke in English.
“Much as I love our friends here, this is a barbarous culture and their arts
are barbaric. Oh, good art of its sort, very good; their approach is honest.
But–if we live through this, after our troubles are over–I want you to
travel among the Universes. You’ll see what I mean.” She got up, folding her
sheet into a toga. I’m glad you are pleased, my Hero. I’m proud of you.”
I lay there a while longer, thinking about what she had said. The
“highest art”–and back home we didn’t even study it, much less make any
attempt to teach it. Ballet takes years and years. Nor do they hire you to
sing at the Met just because you have a loud voice.
Why should “love” be classed as an “instinct”?
Certainly the appetite for sex is an instinct–but did another appetite
make every glutton a gourmet, every fry cook a Cordon Bleu? Hell, you had to
learn even to be a fry cook.
I walked out of the steam room whistling “The Best Things in Life Are
Free”–then chopped it off in sudden sorrow for all my poor, unhappy
compatriots cheated of their birthright by the most mammoth hoax in history.
**********************************

In the phrase, “…your culture is the only semicivilized one in which love is not recognized as the highest art and given the serious study it deserves…” is “love” Heinlein’s first choice of term or is it what survived the publisher’s editing process? If it’s his original term, rather than “sex,” is he euphemizing and does he mean “sex?”

I would contend that he can’t really mean “love” since love isn’t an art; sexual facilty may be, I supposed, elevated to a form of performance art and, I supposed, may be done lovingly by performance artists. If, though, that’s what Star’s saying, i.e., that there are such artists other than on Earth in the Twenty Universes, she’s implying that they’re all amateurs, that none receives any contractual consideration for her/his art and, I would contend, that demotes the performer from the status of artist to aficionado. The receipt of any consideration, even that given seemingly gratuitously in appreciation, would constitute prostitution, per se.

If he said “love” and he meant “love,” he’s got a funny idea of love. Either that or he’s a misguided, closet pantheistic, ultra-altruist.

Consider, Tamara. What was the title he eventually picked for her “calling?” It wasn’t “prostitute” or “whore” or anything that would leave with the reader the distasteful impression that she, like, did it for money. Still, she did it for money and she was a compensated courtesan. Oh, sure, he tried his best to describe her services in healing terms. Marvin Gaye would have appreciated her “Sexual Healing.” Woody got better under her, you know, care. All the way up through TSBBTS, she’s held up as the epitome of sexuality/sensuality/”love.”

So, we’re still no further along. What’s the hoax? Who’s perpetrating it? Who’s it on? Where’s the evidence? What’s it weigh? Who says so?

Okay, I’ll tip my opinion-hand a little: there’s a commonality between what he’s calling the “hoax” and the faux co-dependency and, for that matter, the issue of Rod’s race in “Tunnel.” The common theme is a puritanical beating around the bush, so to speak. No innuendo intended. In “Let There Be Light,” the writer’s toying with strong female characterization but, due to the times and the realities of having a product to sell, can’t just come out and make her as strong as she should be. Instead, he makes her subservient and comes off painting a picture of a somewhat schizo human: sublimely talented intellectually, physically stunning but simultaneously demurring for no rational reason. Rod’s race is significantly unclear for the same sales-reality reason. Oscar’s realization of a “hoax” goes to Heinlein’s hinting, hinting out of necessity instead of being about to come right out and say, that it’s not just men who like sex. He wants to come out and say that and he tries. Instead, he says “love.” Eventually, he went all the way to “FF or EF” but he still meant, and didn’t mean, just “love.” If “just love” has any genuine meaning other than to contrast it with not being able to say “fuck” in print and keep your publisher.

LNC
From: “Dr. Rufo”
Subject: Re: RAHRGC: Glory Road and the Most Mammoth Hoax in History (Thursday,
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2004 17:28:45 GMT

cmaj7dmin7 wrote:
> “David M. Silver” wrote in message

< snip of Glory Road quote >

> In the phrase, “…your culture is the only semicivilized one in which love
> is not recognized as the highest art and given the serious study it
> deserves…” is “love” Heinlein’s first choice of term or is it what
> survived the publisher’s editing process? If it’s his original term, rather
> than “sex,” is he euphemizing and does he mean “sex?”
>
> I would contend that he can’t really mean “love” since love isn’t an art;
> sexual facilty may be, I supposed, elevated to a form of performance art
> and, I supposed, may be done lovingly by performance artists. If, though,
> that’s what Star’s saying, i.e., that there are such artists other than on
> Earth in the Twenty Universes, she’s implying that they’re all amateurs,
> that none receives any contractual consideration for her/his art and, I
> would contend, that demotes the performer from the status of artist to
> aficionado. The receipt of any consideration, even that given seemingly
> gratuitously in appreciation, would constitute prostitution, per se.

Even though the “physical activities” were identical, I believe there would be a considerable difference between the art supplied by Tamara, and an act of “prostitution”. It must be the *intention* rather than the *activity* which qualifies the use of “art” versus “prostitution.”

From dictionary.com:
prosÂ·tiÂ·tuÂ·tion Pronunciation Key (prst-tshn, -ty-)
n.

1. The act or practice of engaging in sex acts for hire.
2. The act or an instance of offering or devoting one’s talent
to an unworthy use or cause.

Note meaning #2, please. I believe that RAH is saying that sexuality (in Oscar’s USA — his own? — ours?) is being offered or devoted to an unworthy use or cause.

Rufe
From: “David M. Silver”
Subject: Re: RAHRGC: Glory Road and the Most Mammoth Hoax in History (Thursday, January 6, 9 PM to midnight, ET; and Saturday, January 8, 5 to 8 PM, ET)
Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2004 15:56:20 -0800

In article ,
“cmaj7dmin7” wrote:

> Consider, Tamara. What was the title he eventually picked for her “calling?”
> It wasn’t “prostitute” or “whore” or anything that would leave with the
> reader the distasteful impression that she, like, did it for money. Still,
> she did it for money and she was a compensated courtesan. Oh, sure, he tried
> his best to describe her services in healing terms. Marvin Gaye would have
> appreciated her “Sexual Healing.” Woody got better under her, you know,
> care. All the way up through TSBBTS, she’s held up as the epitome of
> sexuality/sensuality/”love.”

I want to and think we should consider Tamara in this. Which is why I’m marking this section, now, so I can come back to it later — but I’ve got to get ready to take yet one more “short” trip to the Post Office, right now. Be back later, LN; but while I’m off and running, would anyone else care to comment on this valid point.

Star, and the Three Graces; and Madame Pompadour, Nell Gwyn, Theodora, Ninon de l’Enclos, and Rangy Lil; and Tamara from TEFL (and perhaps Maureen, “the somewhat Irregular Lady” whose Memoirs we read in TSBTS).

What do they have in common, that distinguishes them from the run-of-the-mill round heeled lady?

—
David M. Silver

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

From: “”
Subject: Re: RAHRGC: Glory Road and the Most Mammoth Hoax in History (Thursday, January 6, 9 PM to midnight, ET; and Saturday, January 8, 5 to 8 PM, ET)
Date: 24 Dec 2004 08:22:09 -0800

David M. Silver wrote:
> In article ,
> “cmaj7dmin7” wrote:
>
> > Consider, Tamara. What was the title he eventually picked for her “calling?”
> > It wasn’t “prostitute” or “whore” or anything that would leave with the
> > reader the distasteful impression that she, like, did it for money. Still,
> > she did it for money and she was a compensated courtesan. Oh, sure, he tried
> > his best to describe her services in healing terms. Marvin Gaye would have
> > appreciated her “Sexual Healing.” Woody got better under her, you know,
> > care. All the way up through TSBBTS, she’s held up as the epitome of
> > sexuality/sensuality/”love.”
>
> I want to and think we should consider Tamara in this. Which is why I’m
> marking this section, now, so I can come back to it later — but I’ve

> got to get ready to take yet one more “short” trip to the Post Office,
> right now. Be back later, LN; but while I’m off and running, would
> anyone else care to comment on this valid point.
>
> Star, and the Three Graces; and Madame Pompadour, Nell Gwyn, Theodora,
> Ninon de l’Enclos, and Rangy Lil; and Tamara from TEFL (and perhaps
> Maureen, “the somewhat Irregular Lady” whose Memoirs we read in TSBTS).
>
> What do they have in common, that distinguishes them from the
> run-of-the-mill round heeled lady?
>
> —
> David M. Silver
> https://www.heinleinsociety.org
> “The Lieutenant expects your names to shine!”
> Robert Anson Heinlein, USNA ’29
> Lt.(jg), USN, R’td

Not a great deal. The real question is why “the run-of-the-mill round heeled lady is not better regarded. To put it bluntly, if I want to get laid, and I do, why is it that I speak ill of women who put out? Well, I don’t. Why is “virtue,” which comes from a root meaning masculine strength, so often taken to mean: “won’t have sex” when ascribed to a woman? That is the hoax. It isn’t even the double standard, or not all of it. Men who sleep around get their share of disapproval in this neo-Puritanical age. This is fair, in that women always caught crap for this. However, fairness is not a virtue (there’s that word again) when it is merely applying nonsense standards across the board. It isn’t cute, being this easy.

There are several threads on afh where I am way behind. I have a great deal of reading and responding to do now because I have been on the phone with my mom, talking her into going into the city shelter when the power and the heat went off at her place. She didn’t want to leave her cat. It was tougher because, of course, I sympathized with her desire not to leave Woo-Too. However, a fairly young healthy cat with food and water at hand will not be endangered by a couple of days in a forty-degree apartment. An eighty-two year old woman would be. However, I promised her that I would help her worry about Woo-Too, and I am.

Will in New Haven

—

“There is a road, no simple highway
Between the dawn and the dark of night
And if you go, no one may follow
That path is for your steps alone”
Robert Hunter (Grateful Dead) “Ripple”

Editor’s Note: Number of Off topic posts deleted From: “David M. Silver”
Subject: Re: RAHRGC: Glory Road and the Most Mammoth Hoax in History (Thursday, January 6, 9 PM to midnight, ET; and Saturday, January 8, 5 to 8 PM, ET)
Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2004 13:55:47 -0800

In article ,
“cmaj7dmin7” wrote:

> Mention of this “hoax” comes before the protracted lecture on sex (at least
> the fully blown [winkwinknudgenudge] lecture). It’s arguable that the
> subsequent lecture develops the hoax’s nature and arguable that Oscar has
> already identified it and the discussion that follows is just proof.
>
> While I have my own idea about articulation of the “hoax” I’m interested in
> knowing, first, what somebody else thinks he means. You’ll do, Dave. What’s
> he mean? If it’s that we’re weird here on Earth and the proof is that
> there’s no prostitution anywhere in the twenty universes besides Earth, I’m
> going to be awfully disappointed because that’s such a shallow assertion,
> offered without anything close to empirical evidence (making up fictional
> shit isn’t any kind of evidence). It’s like saying there’s no concept of
> employers and employees anywhere but Earth, no employment of any kind
> including self-employment.
>
> Waiting to disclose my own theory, I remain,
>
> Mum,
>
> L.N.C.

Well, Mum, your dutiful Sun breaks through rain clouds out here today and returns to the fray after the ribald and joyous early celebrations of kicking the oblate spheroids, or whatever it is we do to pass these joyous holidays:

Just to start, before I skim through the several sections of TEFL for ammunition, I think the “hoax” has a bit to do with the Marxist theory of value — the old equal effort equals equal value argument. Sex by someone with a dead ass, eyes closed, biting teeth, and thinking of its sole purpose, bringing another soul into the world to be saved obviously has the same value as that of a hamadryad — not the cobra-related venomous snake, the tree nymph, so long as her tree hasn’t died yet.

“The Female Figure – Hamadryad

“One traditional symbolic meaning of the female nude is a Nature spirit.
One of these, the Hamadryad, represents a stand of oaks. The Hamadryad
is noble, robust, and fertile, full of potential: She oversees the
health and wisdom of her trees. The trees are a domain – a place – a
graceful, wild, wise, and magic place where people go to meet God, to
meet themselves. Hamadryads were depicted as Nature’s seductive
playmates; humans partook of their pleasures, solace and wisdom.

“Hamadryads perish when their trees die, or suffer when their trees are
defiled – their context destroyed, they lose their purpose. Because of
rampant overdevelopment, our endowment – the Nature Symbols – is being
systematically disembodied, along with Nature itself. To invoke Nature
spirits in traditional treatments, without expressing the present threat
to their very existence, would be a lie.”
Alzofon Art Institute: Explanatory Comments – Symbols
to the painting shown here:

http://www.jwwaterhouse.com/view.cfm?recordid=68

There’s also a nice sonnet by Poe on that page, mentioning Hamadryads. Finally, Hamadryads play a part in Cabell’s Jurgen:ACOJ

By parity of reasoning, sex by a proponent of “wham, bam, thankye ma’am” is of equal value as one who puts his whole mind and soul into a kiss.

And the proof is in the last part of the novel _Glory Road_ in Chapter 21, the section discussing Joanie, who as Rufo argued, had “been conditioned our of their sex instincts, [and, therefore] compensate by compulsive interest in rituals over the dead husk of sex … and each one is sure she knows ‘intuitively’ the right ritual for conjuring the corpse. … knows and no one can tell her any different … especially a man unlucky enough to be in bed with her.”

It’s Rufo who here adds the exception to the rule, the not over twelve year old segregated female, “especially from her mother–and even that may be too late.”

The parity of reason is stated as well: that “The American male is convinced that he is … a great lover. Spot checks prove he is as deluded as she is. Or worse. Historo-culturally speaking, there is strong evidence that the American male, rather than the female, murdered sex in your country.”

Faced with the only suggested alternative, skipping over to France once in a while, Oscar decides to become an anchorite for a while.

—
David M. Silver

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

From: “cmaj7dmin7”
Subject: Re: RAHRGC: Glory Road and the Most Mammoth Hoax in History (Thursday, January 6, 9 PM to midnight, ET; and Saturday, January 8, 5 to 8 PM, ET)
Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2004 06:14:01 GMT

“David M. Silver” wrote in message
news:…
> In article,

> Well, Mum, your dutiful Sun breaks through rain clouds out here today
> and returns to the fray after the ribald and joyous early celebrations
> of kicking the oblate spheroids, or whatever it is we do to pass these
> joyous holidays:

You say a sun not of York made glorious the winter of discontent concerning hoaxes and the hoaxed? Then, let’s cut right to the answer: the hoax is that there should be any mystery about sex. It’s as easy as FF or EF or as complicated as resurrection through the ministrations of a skilled practitioner but it’s not a mystery. The best things in life are free.

>
> Just to start, before I skim through the several sections of TEFL for
> ammunition, I think the “hoax” has a bit to do with the Marxist theory
> of value — the old equal effort equals equal value argument. Sex by
> someone with a dead ass, eyes closed, biting teeth, and thinking of its
> sole purpose, bringing another soul into the world to be saved obviously
> has the same value as that of a hamadryad — not the cobra-related
> venomous snake, the tree nymph, so long as her tree hasn’t died yet.

It’s pretty, in a convoluted, unnecessarily ornamented way but the truth’s still the truth: there’s no mystery. The corallary is there’s no mystery about the hereafter but the proof’s harder to write on the blackboard.

> > “The Female Figure – Hamadryad
>
> “One traditional symbolic meaning of the female nude is a Nature spirit.
> One of these, the Hamadryad, represents a stand of oaks. The Hamadryad
> is noble, robust, and fertile, full of potential: She oversees the
> health and wisdom of her trees. The trees are a domain – a place – a
> graceful, wild, wise, and magic place where people go to meet God, to
> meet themselves. Hamadryads were depicted as Nature’s seductive
> playmates; humans partook of their pleasures, solace and wisdom.

Now, a question: if the hoax is the truth I’ve suggested, doesn’t the seemingly enchanting myth of the Hamadryads do nothing but attempt to reinstill mystery into a straight-forward matter? Again, it’s a somewhat delightful excursion into a prespective of sex that’s intended to be purely pleasurable and a contrast; but a contrast from what? Why, a contrast from the hoax that there’s a mystery in the first place. Now, is that helpful or harmful?

> “Hamadryads perish when their trees die, or suffer when their trees are
> defiled – their context destroyed, they lose their purpose. Because of
> rampant overdevelopment, our endowment – the Nature Symbols – is being
> systematically disembodied, along with Nature itself. To invoke Nature
> spirits in traditional treatments, without expressing the present threat
> to their very existence, would be a lie.”
> Alzofon Art Institute: Explanatory Comments – Symbols
> to the painting shown here:
>
> http://www.jwwaterhouse.com/view.cfm?recordid=68
>
> There’s also a nice sonnet by Poe on that page, mentioning Hamadryads.
> Finally, Hamadryads play a part in Cabell’s Jurgen:ACOJ
>
> By parity of reasoning, sex by a proponent of “wham, bam, thankye ma’am”
> is of equal value as one who puts his whole mind and soul into a kiss.

And all cats are grey at night and the night you’re using to veil this discussion is pretend reflexivity which, again, begs the question. The best things in life are free and getting all mene-mene-tekel-upharshin on them doesn’t cheapen; it deceives.

> And the proof is in the last part of the novel _Glory Road_ in Chapter
> 21, the section discussing Joanie, who as Rufo argued, had “been
> conditioned our of their sex instincts, [and, therefore] compensate by
> compulsive interest in rituals over the dead husk of sex … and each
> one is sure she knows ‘intuitively’ the right ritual for conjuring the
> corpse. … knows and no one can tell her any different … especially a
> man unlucky enough to be in bed with her.”

If you call that proof, it’s the weakest I’ve seen from you. It’s classic, Heinleinian over-generalization, cut out of the whole cloth of his limited experience. It’s the Freudian mistake of extrapolating the entirely of the explanation of human “psychology” from the unreliable and ill-led oral utterances of pampered, wealthy, German women, prone to say anything and have it used against them.

>
> It’s Rufo who here adds the exception to the rule, the not over twelve
> year old segregated female, “especially from her mother–and even that
> may be too late.”

I would decline to remark on this opinion which borders on the expression of criminal intent in most jurisdictions.

>
> The parity of reason is stated as well: that “The American male is
> convinced that he is … a great lover. Spot checks prove he is as
> deluded as she is. Or worse. Historo-culturally speaking, there is
> strong evidence that the American male, rather than the female, murdered
> sex in your country.”

Nobody murdered sex. Somebody bottled sex a long time ago and has been selling franchises ever since. I’ve got a little one, Sony’s got a big one and the end users take their choices about whose to buy. So long as we keep it bottled our franchises make money. If word gets out that there’s no mystery, we’ll all have to go out and get real jobs.

>
> Faced with the only suggested alternative, skipping over to France once
> in a while, Oscar decides to become an anchorite for a while.

Jesus. He is dumb. The best things in life are free, there’s not mystery, it’s a hoax, so, let’s forget all that and make it hard. Hard on ourselves or just plain hard; take your choice.

LNC
From: “cmaj7dmin7”
Subject: Re: RAHRGC: Glory Road and the Most Mammoth Hoax in History (Thursday, January 6, 9 PM to midnight, ET; and Saturday, January 8, 5 to 8 PM, ET)
Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2004 06:34:18 GMT

“David M. Silver” wrote in message
news:…
> In article,

> It’s Rufo who here adds the exception to the rule, the not over twelve
> year old segregated female, “especially from her mother–and even that
> may be too late.”

He had added,

“Unless you can catch one not over twelve and segregate her,
especially from her mother–and even that may be too late. But don’t
misunderstand me; it evens out. The American male is convinced that he is a
great warrior, a great statesman, and a great lover. Spot checks prove that
he is as deluded as she is. Or worse. Historo-culturally speaking, there is
strong evidence that the American male, rattier than the female, murdered
sex in your country.”

Revisiting this airheaded crack for a minute, goddam, it’s an airheaded crack. What’s the Great Rufo going to teach the little girl? Where’s the Great Rufo get off dissing American men as self-appointed, great lovers? What’s his proof? Spot checks? What’s his claim? That they aren’t but he is? Where’s his proof? Taka guess.

Same proof that Earth’s the only place where prostitution exists. Fiction crap. Who can’t write fiction crap that sets up Earth as the only place in existence smart enough to charge for sex and make an equally valid point, if you want pretend parity of reason? Premise: everywhere but Earth, sex is nothing. Here, it has value because we were smart enough a long time ago to commercialize it and make it a mystery. The Twenty Universes gnash their collective teeth in envy.

So, that turns the hoax on its ear and makes it the Most Mammoth Dynamic in History. Everyplace else stagnates in comparison.

LNC
From: “David M. Silver”
Subject: Re: RAHRGC: Glory Road and the Most Mammoth Hoax in History (Thursday, January 6, 9 PM to midnight, ET; and Saturday, January 8, 5 to 8 PM, ET)
Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2004 23:49:59 -0800

In article ,
“cmaj7dmin7” wrote:

> Revisiting this airheaded crack for a minute, goddam, it’s an airheaded
> crack. What’s the Great Rufo going to teach the little girl? Where’s the
> Great Rufo get off dissing American men as self-appointed, great lovers?
> What’s his proof? Spot checks? What’s his claim? That they aren’t but he is?
> Where’s his proof? Taka guess.

Just guessing? I’d say *part* of “Rufo’s” opinion was based upon a study in which 5300 white males and 5940 white females provided almost all the data, with the majority of participants being younger white adults with some college education. Interviewees gave in-depth, face-to-face interviews to highly trained interviewers. In each history a subject would be questioned on up to 521 items, depending on his/her specific experience (the average in each case being near 300). Histories covered social and economic data, physical and physiologic data, marital histories, sexual outlets, heterosexual histories, and homosexual histories. Data was gathered from 1938 to 1964, when the project was closed.

See, further:

http://www.indiana.edu/~kinsey/research/ak-data.html

I’d say the other part came from an open marriage of about eleven years duration with Leslyn MacDonald.

—
David M. Silver

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

“David M. Silver” wrote in message
news:…
> In article ,
> “cmaj7dmin7” wrote:
>
> > Revisiting this airheaded crack for a minute, goddam, it’s an airheaded
> > crack. What’s the Great Rufo going to teach the little girl? Where’s the
> > Great Rufo get off dissing American men as self-appointed, great lovers?
> > What’s his proof? Spot checks? What’s his claim? That they aren’t but he is?
> > Where’s his proof? Taka guess.
>
> Just guessing? I’d say *part* of “Rufo’s” opinion was based upon a study
> in which 5300 white males and 5940 white females provided almost all the
> data, with the majority of participants being younger white adults with
> some college education. Interviewees gave in-depth, face-to-face
> interviews to highly trained interviewers. In each history a subject
> would be questioned on up to 521 items, depending on his/her specific
> experience (the average in each case being near 300). Histories covered
> social and economic data, physical and physiologic data, marital
> histories, sexual outlets, heterosexual histories, and homosexual
> histories. Data was gathered from 1938 to 1964, when the project was
> closed.
>
> See, further:
>
> http://www.indiana.edu/~kinsey/research/ak-data.html
>

I couldn’t find where Kinsey found American men or American women said they thought they were great lovers or that either side murdered sex. Lots of somewhat amusing frequency tables.

>
> I’d say the other part came from an open marriage of about eleven years
> duration with Leslyn MacDonald.

Maybe that would give a guy the impression he was a great this or that. Lover, maybe. By the way, I don’t know, what are the details of this “open marriage?” Open, how? Who’s idea? Who were the players? How’d it all work out?

In article ,
“cmaj7dmin7” wrote:

> “David M. Silver” wrote in message
> news:…
> > In article ,
> > “cmaj7dmin7” wrote:
> >
> > > Revisiting this airheaded crack for a minute, goddam, it’s an airheaded
> > > crack. What’s the Great Rufo going to teach the little girl? Where’s the
> > > Great Rufo get off dissing American men as self-appointed, great lovers?
> > > What’s his proof? Spot checks? What’s his claim? That they aren’t but he is?
> > > Where’s his proof? Taka guess.
> >
> > Just guessing? I’d say *part* of “Rufo’s” opinion was based upon a study
> > in which 5300 white males and 5940 white females provided almost all the
> > data, with the majority of participants being younger white adults with
> > some college education. Interviewees gave in-depth, face-to-face
> > interviews to highly trained interviewers. In each history a subject
> > would be questioned on up to 521 items, depending on his/her specific
> > experience (the average in each case being near 300). Histories covered
> > social and economic data, physical and physiologic data, marital
> > histories, sexual outlets, heterosexual histories, and homosexual
> > histories. Data was gathered from 1938 to 1964, when the project was
> > closed.
> >
> > See, further:
> >
> > http://www.indiana.edu/~kinsey/research/ak-data.html
> >
>
> I couldn’t find where Kinsey found American men or American women said they
> thought they were great lovers or that either side murdered sex.

No, nor could I, except by inference …

> Lots of
> somewhat amusing frequency tables.

… from the somewhat amusing (and contradicting) frequency tables.

> >
> > I’d say the other part came from an open marriage of about eleven years
> > duration with Leslyn MacDonald.
>
> Maybe that would give a guy the impression he was a great this or that.

Or the impression that certain someones else of either gender thought that they were great thises or thats.

> Lover, maybe.

Lovers, maybe not.

> By the way, I don’t know, what are the details of this “open
> marriage?” Open, how? Who’s idea? Who were the players? How’d it all work
> out?
>
> LNC

Published statements? Mainly limited to those in Dr. James’ study of Leslyn in The Heinlein Journal, Issue 9, “Regarding Leslyn,” a biographical sketch of Leslyn MacDonald Heinlein Mocabee. The story of how he met her and their first night are somewhat astonishing. Basically, classmate Caleb Lanning had a girlfriend he wanted to marry and asked Heinlein to meet her, taking him to a party where he could do so. They met. Heinlein and Leslyn fell in love (or ‘somethin’) at first sight. All three then wound up sharing the bed that night. Thus far, beyond that, details are very sketchy and players only determined by weak inferences — I doubt anyone will find a written scorecard kept regularly by either player: somethings about a photography hobby and mutual shared enjoyments of amateur models, nudism, “Hollywood” social scenes, etc. Perhaps there are more coming in “Learning Curve,” volume 1 of Patterson’s biography. Or not.

—
David M. Silver

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

“David M. Silver” wrote in message
news:…

> Published statements? Mainly limited to those in Dr. James’ study of
> Leslyn in The Heinlein Journal, Issue 9, “Regarding Leslyn,” a
> biographical sketch of Leslyn MacDonald Heinlein Mocabee. The story of
> how he met her and their first night are somewhat astonishing.
> Basically, classmate Caleb Lanning had a girlfriend he wanted to marry
> and asked Heinlein to meet her, taking him to a party where he could do
> so. They met. Heinlein and Leslyn fell in love (or ‘somethin’) at first
> sight. All three then wound up sharing the bed that night. Thus far,
> beyond that, details are very sketchy and players only determined by
> weak inferences — I doubt anyone will find a written scorecard kept
> regularly by either player: somethings about a photography hobby and
> mutual shared enjoyments of amateur models, nudism, “Hollywood” social
> scenes, etc. Perhaps there are more coming in “Learning Curve,” volume 1
> of Patterson’s biography. Or not.

I thought I’d bought Issue 9 of the Journal but I guess I didn’t. Do you know if any are still available?

> “David M. Silver” wrote in message
> news:…
>
> > Published statements? Mainly limited to those in Dr. James’ study of
> > Leslyn in The Heinlein Journal, Issue 9, “Regarding Leslyn,” a
> > biographical sketch of Leslyn MacDonald Heinlein Mocabee. The story of
> > how he met her and their first night are somewhat astonishing.
> > Basically, classmate Caleb Lanning had a girlfriend he wanted to marry
> > and asked Heinlein to meet her, taking him to a party where he could do
> > so. They met. Heinlein and Leslyn fell in love (or ‘somethin’) at first
> > sight. All three then wound up sharing the bed that night. Thus far,
> > beyond that, details are very sketchy and players only determined by
> > weak inferences — I doubt anyone will find a written scorecard kept
> > regularly by either player: somethings about a photography hobby and
> > mutual shared enjoyments of amateur models, nudism, “Hollywood” social
> > scenes, etc. Perhaps there are more coming in “Learning Curve,” volume 1
> > of Patterson’s biography. Or not.
>
> I thought I’d bought Issue 9 of the Journal but I guess I didn’t. Do you
> know if any are still available?
>
> LNC

I think so. Try an order from the website. Note the issue you want on it. Should be somewhere for comments. Otherwise E-mail me; and I’ll pass it on.

—
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: RAHRGC: Glory Road and the Most Mammoth Hoax in History (Thursday, January 6, 9 PM to midnight, ET; and Saturday, January 8, 5 to 8 PM, ET)
Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2004 06:53:13 -0800

In article ,
“cmaj7dmin7” wrote:

> I couldn’t find where Kinsey found American men or American women said they
> thought they were great lovers or that either side murdered sex.

Back to “murdering sex” for a moment: I don’t think Kinsey made a deliberate finding (but then, as you note, there are some amusing tables); I’d look for the corpus delicti elsewhere in a society where the clergy (men) firmly controlled and licensed sex, and all things therein related, doing so from an atmosphere of putative ignorance and deliberate repression of their presumptive ignorati. But then, I’m only the sun …

And can someone explain to me all the jokes about what the dog did, or didn’t do, in the night?

—
David M. Silver

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

“David M. Silver” wrote in message
news:…
> In article ,
> “cmaj7dmin7” wrote:
>
> > I couldn’t find where Kinsey found American men or American women said they
> > thought they were great lovers or that either side murdered sex.
>
> Back to “murdering sex” for a moment: I don’t think Kinsey made a
> deliberate finding (but then, as you note, there are some amusing
> tables); I’d look for the corpus delicti elsewhere in a society where
> the clergy (men) firmly controlled and licensed sex, and all things
> therein related, doing so from an atmosphere of putative ignorance and
> deliberate repression of their presumptive ignorati. But then, I’m only
> the sun …

I persist in insisting that there’s no mystery and that was what he realized and called a hoax.

>
> And can someone explain to me all the jokes about what the dog did, or
> didn’t do, in the night?

I don’t have them and haven’t read them for years, but, the dog did nothing in the night when the dog could have been reasonably expected to have barked because of the presence of a stranger. I guess it’s the innuendo that’s gotten the chuckles. Who knows?

LNC

> —
> David M. Silver
> https://www.heinleinsociety.org
> “The Lieutenant expects your names to shine!”
> Robert Anson Heinlein, USNA ’29
> Lt.(jg), USN, R’td

From: William Hughes
Subject: Re: RAHRGC: Glory Road and the Most Mammoth Hoax in History (Thursday, January 6, 9 PM to midnight, ET; and Saturday, January 8, 5 to 8 PM, ET)
Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2004 16:36:28 -0600

On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 06:53:13 -0800, in alt.fan.heinlein “David M. Silver”
wrote:

> And can someone explain to me all the jokes about what the dog did, or
> didn’t do, in the night?

Sherlock Holmes, “Silver Blaze”.

RB
From: Chris Zakes
Subject: Re: RAHRGC: Glory Road and the Most Mammoth Hoax in History (Thursday, January 6, 9 PM to midnight, ET; and Saturday, January 8, 5 to 8 PM, ET)
Date: Sat, 01 Jan 2005 18:53:35 GMT

On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 06:53:13 -0800, an orbital mind-control laser
caused “David M. Silver” to write:

>In article ,
> “cmaj7dmin7” wrote:
>
>> I couldn’t find where Kinsey found American men or American women said they
>> thought they were great lovers or that either side murdered sex.
>
>Back to “murdering sex” for a moment: I don’t think Kinsey made a
>deliberate finding (but then, as you note, there are some amusing
>tables); I’d look for the corpus delicti elsewhere in a society where
>the clergy (men) firmly controlled and licensed sex, and all things
>therein related, doing so from an atmosphere of putative ignorance and
>deliberate repression of their presumptive ignorati. But then, I’m only
>the sun …
>
>And can someone explain to me all the jokes about what the dog did, or
>didn’t do, in the night?

I’m pretty sure that’s a reference to a Sherlock Holmes story, “Silver Blaze”. Basic plotline is that a famous racehorse is stolen, and Holmes is called in to help.

He figures out that it must have been an inside job, “because of the strange behavior of the dog in the night”. Watson says “but the dog did nothing strange in the night”, and Holmes says “that was the strange behavior.” Obviously the watchdog knew the horse thief and therefore didn’t raise the alarm as would have happened if a stranger had done it.

-Chris Zakes
Texas

I came up here for a party, and what happens? Nothing! Not even ice cream.
The gods looked down and laughed. This would be a better world for
children if the parents had to eat the spinach.

-Groucho Marx, “Animal Crackers”

From: “Dr. Rufo”
Subject: Re: RAHRGC: Glory Road and the Most Mammoth Hoax in History (Thursday,
Date: Sat, 01 Jan 2005 00:26:05 GMT

cmaj7dmin7 wrote:
> “David M. Silver” wrote in message
> news:…
>
>> In article ,
>
>
>> It’s Rufo who here adds the exception to the rule, the not over
>> twelve year old segregated female, “especially from her
>> mother–and even that may be too late.”
>
>
> He had added, “Unless you can catch one not over twelve and
> segregate her, especially from her mother–and even that may be
> too late. But don’t misunderstand me; it evens out. The American
> male is convinced that he is a great warrior, a great statesman,
> and a great lover. Spot checks prove that he is as deluded as she
> is. Or worse. Historo-culturally speaking, there is strong
> evidence that the American male, rattier than the female,
> murdered sex in your country.”
>
> Revisiting this airheaded crack for a minute, goddam, it’s an
> airheaded crack. What’s the Great Rufo going to teach the little
> girl? Where’s the Great Rufo get off dissing American men as
> self-appointed, great lovers? What’s his proof? Spot checks?
> What’s his claim? That they aren’t but he is? Where’s his proof?
> Taka guess.

For the “purposes of the story” aren’t Her Wisdom and Rufo supposed to be far older and wiser than the Hero Oscar? Don’t they have him convinced that they are so. With the corollary that whatever they say is Gospel and shame the Devil?

Whenever Oscar comes close to twigging that something’s amiss, he gets another dose, right? Rufo tells him that he was had and then gives him another dose — to help him out in his domestic situation (“by the blood we spilled on the Glory Road”). OR, is it to keep Oscar within control? “Tinkers to Evers to Chance”? The poor schlemiel gets “the straight dope” from BOTH of them and is thereby easier to handle.

Rufo tells the Hero-Schlub straight-out that Her Wisdom has been carefully “honing him from the time of his childhood” to create the Hero She needs for the Quest for the Egg of the Phoenix. And STILL Oscar never twigs that his Irish Sweepstakes winnings are (very likely) the result of further manipulations from the Twenty Universes.

>
> Same proof that Earth’s the only place where prostitution exists.
> Fiction crap. Who can’t write fiction crap that sets up Earth as
> the only place in existence smart enough to charge for sex and
> make an equally valid point, if you want pretend parity of
> reason? Premise: everywhere but Earth, sex is nothing. Here, it
> has value because we were smart enough a long time ago to
> commercialize it and make it a mystery. The Twenty Universes
> gnash their collective teeth in envy.
>
> So, that turns the hoax on its ear and makes it the Most Mammoth
> Dynamic in History. Everyplace else stagnates in comparison.

BRAVO! Well-done!
The View from The Loyal Opposition is Heard and Recorded!
As you say, this position is no more or less valid than that stated by Rufo et al. It just doesn’t “fit” with purposes of the story and the “controls” needed to keep the Hero Oscar in line (on his leash).

To align with the opening quotation: “Don’t worry about HIM, Theodotus. Star and Rufo will give that ignorant barbarian the ‘correct perspective’ on his customs and mores.”

Whaddyathink?
Rufe
From: “David M. Silver”
Subject: Re: RAHRGC: Glory Road and the Most Mammoth Hoax in History (Thursday, January 6, 9 PM to midnight, ET; and Saturday, January 8, 5 to 8 PM, ET)
Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2004 17:29:29 -0800

In article ,
“Dr. Rufo” wrote:

>
> For the “purposes of the story” aren’t Her Wisdom and Rufo supposed
> to be far older and wiser than the Hero Oscar?

Just a minor question: what are the author’s purposes of this story, overall?

Heinlein’s just off a stint of thirteen annual “juveniles,” the last one, rejected by Scribners, described by him as actually an adult novel written for his now-grown audience, sans cleavages and bedroom scenes, so it might slip by the editor once again at Scribners. It didn’t. Once rejected, it was rewritten somewhat, adding the OCS sequence, and sold to Putnam. How come Heinlein didn’t bother to put “cleavages and bedroom scenes” in it while he was rewriting it?

Too bedroomed out by Stranger in a Strange Land?

Were his purposes only the now at-leisure bet we’ve heard about that he could write a salable story in the fashionable sword and sorcery mode or did he intend to include something else that his last dozen or so stories were missing? And who was that bet with, anyway?

—
David M. Silver

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

From: “cmaj7dmin7”
Subject: Re: RAHRGC: Glory Road and the Most Mammoth Hoax in History (Thursday, January 6, 9 PM to midnight, ET; and Saturday, January 8, 5 to 8 PM, ET)
Date: Sat, 01 Jan 2005 07:14:15 GMT

“David M. Silver” wrote in message
news:…
> In article ,
> “Dr. Rufo” wrote:
>
> >
> > For the “purposes of the story” aren’t Her Wisdom and Rufo supposed
> > to be far older and wiser than the Hero Oscar?
>
> Just a minor question: what are the author’s purposes of this story,
> overall?

To earn a living. To cultivate the self-indulgence of injecting personal opinion into fiction (I’m neither cricizing nor complaining). To say outloud some of the things he’d been thinking about for awhile…

>
> Heinlein’s just off a stint of thirteen annual “juveniles,” the last
> one, rejected by Scribners, described by him as actually an adult novel
> written for his now-grown audience, sans cleavages and bedroom scenes,
> so it might slip by the editor once again at Scribners. It didn’t. Once
> rejected, it was rewritten somewhat, adding the OCS sequence, and sold
> to Putnam. How come Heinlein didn’t bother to put “cleavages and bedroom
> scenes” in it while he was rewriting it?

Stubborness. “Never rewrite.” If he had to do it, he’d do it absolutely minimally.

>
> Too bedroomed out by Stranger in a Strange Land?
>
> Were his purposes only the now at-leisure bet we’ve heard about that he
> could write a salable story in the fashionable sword and sorcery mode or
> did he intend to include something else that his last dozen or so
> stories were missing? And who was that bet with, anyway?

I haven’t heard of this but it’s a “McArthur Park” kind of a bet if there was one.

LNC
From: Chris Zakes
Subject: Re: RAHRGC: Glory Road and the Most Mammoth Hoax in History (Thursday, January 6, 9 PM to midnight, ET; and Saturday, January 8, 5 to 8 PM, ET)
Date: Sat, 01 Jan 2005 19:50:19 GMT

On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 17:29:29 -0800, an orbital mind-control laser
caused “David M. Silver” to write:

>In article ,
> “Dr. Rufo” wrote:
>
>>
>> For the “purposes of the story” aren’t Her Wisdom and Rufo supposed
>> to be far older and wiser than the Hero Oscar?
>
>Just a minor question: what are the author’s purposes of this story,
>overall?
>
>Heinlein’s just off a stint of thirteen annual “juveniles,” the last
>one, rejected by Scribners, described by him as actually an adult novel
>written for his now-grown audience, sans cleavages and bedroom scenes,
>so it might slip by the editor once again at Scribners. It didn’t. Once
>rejected, it was rewritten somewhat, adding the OCS sequence, and sold
>to Putnam. How come Heinlein didn’t bother to put “cleavages and bedroom
>scenes” in it while he was rewriting it?
>
>Too bedroomed out by Stranger in a Strange Land?

My dear boy, that was 1959, still a couple of years before “Stranger” and the sexual revolution. In those days, a “racy” passage would be something like the skinny-dipping scene in “If This Goes On” or the girl sleeping nude in “They Do It With Mirrors”. In his adult novel “The Puppet Masters”, published nine years earlier, he had to cut out Sam and Mary’s coed shower scene and the “no rules” wrestling match because they were too graphic for the time.

And where would he have *put* such a scene? Juan’s date with Carmen on Sanctuary is the only likely spot, unless Heinlein were to write a whole extra chapter *just* to have a sex scene in his book (unlikely.) And what purpose would it serve in a book that is, in essence, talking about the duties of citizenship, not about how much fun Maureen Johnson Smith can have in the first half of the 20th century

If, as you say, it was aimed at his now-grown juvie audience, I expect they were still looking for something in a similar vein; it certainly wouldn’t have sold to his usual Scribner’s library market. Arguably, he was writing two very different, but equally controversial books, one about politics and the duties of citizenship, one about sex and religion.

Debates about the social structure of the ST universe are fairly common, but I don’t think I’ve ever seen a debate here about (for example) whether it’s better to eat your dead instead of burying them, or whether casual in-family nudity is appropriate. Why is that, I wonder?

-Chris Zakes
Texas

I came up here for a party, and what happens? Nothing! Not even ice cream.
The gods looked down and laughed. This would be a better world for
children if the parents had to eat the spinach.

-Groucho Marx, “Animal Crackers”

From: “David M. Silver”
Subject: Re: RAHRGC: Glory Road and the Most Mammoth Hoax in History (Thursday, January 6, 9 PM to midnight, ET; and Saturday, January 8, 5 to 8 PM, ET)
Date: Sat, 01 Jan 2005 20:49:16 -0800

In article ,
Chris Zakes wrote:

> On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 17:29:29 -0800, an orbital mind-control laser
> caused “David M. Silver” to write:
>
> >In article ,
> > “Dr. Rufo” wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> For the “purposes of the story” aren’t Her Wisdom and Rufo supposed
> >> to be far older and wiser than the Hero Oscar?
> >
> >Just a minor question: what are the author’s purposes of this story,
> >overall?
> >
> >Heinlein’s just off a stint of thirteen annual “juveniles,” the last
> >one, rejected by Scribners, described by him as actually an adult novel
> >written for his now-grown audience, sans cleavages and bedroom scenes,
> >so it might slip by the editor once again at Scribners. It didn’t. Once
> >rejected, it was rewritten somewhat, adding the OCS sequence, and sold
> >to Putnam. How come Heinlein didn’t bother to put “cleavages and bedroom
> >scenes” in it while he was rewriting it?
> >
> >Too bedroomed out by Stranger in a Strange Land?
>
> My dear boy, that was 1959, still a couple of years before “Stranger”
> and the sexual revolution.

Geez, Chris, I just love it when someone tries to tell me about 1959 … or, for that matter, 1963.

> In those days, a “racy” passage would be
> something like the skinny-dipping scene in “If This Goes On” or the
> girl sleeping nude in “They Do It With Mirrors”. In his adult novel
> “The Puppet Masters”, published nine years earlier, he had to cut out
> Sam and Mary’s coed shower scene and the “no rules” wrestling match
> because they were too graphic for the time.
>

The novel _Peyton Place_, by Grace Metalious, was published in 1956. It went to the top of the best seller list and remained there, it seemed, forever. That was the beginning of my tenth grade year. I do not know _anyone_ in my class who hadn’t read it by at least the end of the year. It was a “mark of sophistication” in my school to walk around with a 50 cent paperback copy on top of your classroom binder [this was back before backpacks, when you actually got a locker convenient to classes, cf. _Have Spacesuit–Will Travel_]. A movie, heavily edited and cleansed of the more steamy scenes, was out by 1957. It was generally disappointing to the teen age set because it was so heavily edited to remove the steam. Then there was a TV series. They were both boring, because you couldn’t put the steaminess on the big or the little screen. There was a sequel to the novel. It was sort of boring because the POV character for most of us, the daughter, Allison, was no longer a teen. _But,_ the original novel outsold every novel before it for all time. Since then, two novels have surpassed it; but it’s still the third best seller of all time.

It’s in print. Go read it, really read it, and then come back and tell us all about what was possible in mass market fiction novels in 1959.

Paperback: 372 pages
Publisher: Northeastern University Press (April 1, 1999)
ISBN: 1555534007

—
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: RAHRGC: Glory Road and the Most Mammoth Hoax in History (Thursday, January 6, 9 PM to midnight, ET; and Saturday, January 8, 5 to 8 PM, ET)
Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2005 00:01:07 GMT

On Sat, 01 Jan 2005 20:49:16 -0800, an orbital mind-control laser
caused “David M. Silver” to write:

>In article ,
> Chris Zakes wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 17:29:29 -0800, an orbital mind-control laser
>> caused “David M. Silver” to write:
>>
>> >In article ,
>> > “Dr. Rufo” wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> For the “purposes of the story” aren’t Her Wisdom and Rufo supposed
>> >> to be far older and wiser than the Hero Oscar?
>> >
>> >Just a minor question: what are the author’s purposes of this story,
>> >overall?
>> >
>> >Heinlein’s just off a stint of thirteen annual “juveniles,” the last
>> >one, rejected by Scribners, described by him as actually an adult novel
>> >written for his now-grown audience, sans cleavages and bedroom scenes,
>> >so it might slip by the editor once again at Scribners. It didn’t. Once
>> >rejected, it was rewritten somewhat, adding the OCS sequence, and sold
>> >to Putnam. How come Heinlein didn’t bother to put “cleavages and bedroom
>> >scenes” in it while he was rewriting it?
>> >
>> >Too bedroomed out by Stranger in a Strange Land?
>>
>> My dear boy, that was 1959, still a couple of years before “Stranger”
>> and the sexual revolution.
>
>Geez, Chris, I just love it when someone tries to tell me about 1959 …
>or, for that matter, 1963.

I was afraid that line might turn around and bite me, since I was only 4 in 1959.

>> In those days, a “racy” passage would be
>> something like the skinny-dipping scene in “If This Goes On” or the
>> girl sleeping nude in “They Do It With Mirrors”. In his adult novel
>> “The Puppet Masters”, published nine years earlier, he had to cut out
>> Sam and Mary’s coed shower scene and the “no rules” wrestling match
>> because they were too graphic for the time.
>>
>
>The novel _Peyton Place_, by Grace Metalious, was published in 1956. It
>went to the top of the best seller list and remained there, it seemed,
>forever. That was the beginning of my tenth grade year. I do not know
>_anyone_ in my class who hadn’t read it by at least the end of the year.
>It was a “mark of sophistication” in my school to walk around with a 50
>cent paperback copy on top of your classroom binder [this was back
>before backpacks, when you actually got a locker convenient to classes,
>cf. _Have Spacesuit–Will Travel_]. A movie, heavily edited and cleansed
>of the more steamy scenes, was out by 1957.

But why (if such steamy scenes were so commonplace) was it considered necessary to edit the movie so severely? For that matter, was the book all that good in-and-of itself, or was its bestseller status due mainly to its controversial nature?

>It was generally
>disappointing to the teen age set because it was so heavily edited to
>remove the steam. Then there was a TV series. They were both boring,
>because you couldn’t put the steaminess on the big or the little screen.
>There was a sequel to the novel. It was sort of boring because the POV
>character for most of us, the daughter, Allison, was no longer a teen.
>_But,_ the original novel outsold every novel before it for all time.
>Since then, two novels have surpassed it; but it’s still the third best
>seller of all time.

FWIW, I did a bit of web-searching under “20th century bestsellers” and similar entries, and the best I could find was http://www3.isrl.uiuc.edu/~unsworth/courses/bestsellers/best50.cgi. which lists it as #3 in 1956 fiction and #2 in 1957 fiction. Another website, http://www.ipl.org/div/farq/bestsellerFARQ.html doesn’t list it in their top ten books of all time, but does have it in their list of books that sold over 10 million copies.

-Chris Zakes
Texas

I came up here for a party, and what happens? Nothing! Not even ice cream.
The gods looked down and laughed. This would be a better world for
children if the parents had to eat the spinach.

-Groucho Marx, “Animal Crackers”

In article ,
Chris Zakes wrote:

> >The novel _Peyton Place_, by Grace Metalious, was published in 1956. It
> >went to the top of the best seller list and remained there, it seemed,
> >forever. That was the beginning of my tenth grade year. I do not know
> >_anyone_ in my class who hadn’t read it by at least the end of the year.
> >It was a “mark of sophistication” in my school to walk around with a 50
> >cent paperback copy on top of your classroom binder [this was back
> >before backpacks, when you actually got a locker convenient to classes,
> >cf. _Have Spacesuit–Will Travel_]. A movie, heavily edited and cleansed
> >of the more steamy scenes, was out by 1957.
>
> But why (if such steamy scenes were so commonplace) was it considered
> necessary to edit the movie so severely? For that matter, was the book
> all that good in-and-of itself, or was its bestseller status due
> mainly to its controversial nature?
>

They weren’t “commonplace,” but they were possible in mass market fiction. Movie codes are usually more restrictive than those censorships that apply to books. Controversial nature certainly applied to _Peyton Place_, it was damned from pulpits across the land and by the establishment lit-crit types as well, as a “trashy” book unworthy of the attention placed on it by sales, which were astonishing. There’s supposed to be a fairly good essay in the recent 1999 edition and a book of criticism written by Ardis Cameron about the more recent edition. In it, Metalious’ prose style has been praised as well as her ‘feminist’ viewpoint, before the 1960s rise of such a viewpoint. As if the 1960s invented the thing.

Recall that Kinsey’s two reports _Sexual Behavior in the Human Male_ and _ Sexual Behavior in the Human Female_ were only published in 1948 and 1953 respectively.

Metalious’ book was right on the cutting edge of what could be published for 1956, for although two 1930s cases pointed where the law was going [United States v. Dennett, 39 F.2d 564, 568 (2d Cir. 1930) and United States v. One Book Called “Ulysses,” 5 F. Supp. 182, 183-85 (S.D.N.Y. 1933), affirmed, United States v. One Book Entitled Ulysses by James Joyce, 72 F.2d 705, 706-07 (2d Cir. 1934)], it wasn’t until 1957 that the US Supremes themselves came out with a definition of obscenity — although the case had been working its way up to them in the years before, in Roth v. United States, when Brennan wrote for the Court that even though sex is “a great and mysterious motive force in human life,” and “a subject of absorbing interest to mankind through the ages,” sexual materials that have a predominantly “prurient” appeal to the average adult, and that utterly lack “redeeming social importance,” are not protected by the First Amendment. Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476, 483-87 (1957).

American courts for the next 16 years struggled to apply Brennan’s “utterly without redeeming social importance” formula to sexual art and literature. Henry Miller’s Tropic of Cancer and D.H. Lawrence’s unexpurgated Lady Chatterley’s Lover were among the works freed from official censorship after the Roth decision. Grove Press v. Gerstein, 378 U.S. 577 (1964) (Tropic of Cancer); Grove Press v. Christenberry, 175 F. Supp. 488 (S.D.N.Y. 1959), affirmed, 275 F.2d 433 (2d Cir. 1960) (Lady Chatterley).

Since then the turns and twists have been subject to the usual political winds. E.g., Miller v. California’s three pronged ambiguous test, described by Brennan, in dissent, as the conclusion that judicial efforts to articulate a definition of “obscenity” are doomed to failure. “Although we have assumed that obscenity does exist, and that we ‘know it when [we] see it,'” Brennan wrote, “we are manifestly unable to describe it in advance except by reference to concepts so elusive that they fail to distinguish clearly between protected and unprotected speech.” Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton, 413 U.S. 49, 84 (1973) (dissenting opinion of Justice Brennan).

>
> >It was generally
> >disappointing to the teen age set because it was so heavily edited to
> >remove the steam. Then there was a TV series. They were both boring,
> >because you couldn’t put the steaminess on the big or the little screen.
> >There was a sequel to the novel. It was sort of boring because the POV
> >character for most of us, the daughter, Allison, was no longer a teen.
> >_But,_ the original novel outsold every novel before it for all time.
> >Since then, two novels have surpassed it; but it’s still the third best
> >seller of all time.
>
> FWIW, I did a bit of web-searching under “20th century bestsellers”
> and similar entries, and the best I could find was
> http://www3.isrl.uiuc.edu/~unsworth/courses/bestsellers/best50.cgi,
> which lists it as #3 in 1956 fiction and #2 in 1957 fiction.

Both years, eh? It sold over 7 million copies the first year in print. That couldn’t have been a hard cover rating in 1956, then a soft cover rating in 1957, could it? I wonder whether it came out in June or December? It’s the only fiction, I note, at the top of the list over two years.

> Another
> website,
> http://www.ipl.org/div/farq/bestsellerFARQ.html doesn’t list it in
> their top ten books of all time, but does have it in their list of
> books that sold over 10 million copies.

Supposedly, before the 1999 edition, it sold a total of over 60 million copies. The movie and the 1960s TV series no doubt had something to do with that.

See, http://www.meekermuseum.com/ppbook.html

The figures that site shows are admittedly a “best guess” from The Top 10 of Everything by Russell Ash, 1997 (DK Pub., 1996, pp 112-113.) It claims Valley of the Dolls as the highest fiction. Note the position of GWTW, which is frequently advertised as the fiction best seller of all time, on that list. In the “Notes” section following Ardis Cameron’s essay to the 1999 edition [which I haven’t read], “we” learn that Peyton Place quickly surpassed Gone With the Wind as the top-selling fiction book of all time. As of 1988, Peyton Place was in third place, behind The Godfather and The Exorcist.

BTW, after I posted last night, I asked my wife, a few years younger whether she read it the first year it came out. She did. As a fifth grader or sixth grader in Midland, Texas. One of her girlfriends got her hands on a copy, so they “shared” it, hiding it from their parents, in 1956 or ’57, while reading the ‘steamy’ parts to each other. So reading it wasn’t a mark of ‘sophistication’ in Blue State metropolises alone.
😉

—
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: RAHRGC: Glory Road and the Most Mammoth Hoax in History (Thursday, January 6, 9 PM to midnight, ET; and Saturday, January 8, 5 to 8 PM, ET)
Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2005 03:04:25 -0800

On Sun, 02 Jan 2005 19:50:53 -0800, “David M. Silver”
wrote:

Chris Zakes:
>> But why (if such steamy scenes were so commonplace) was it considered
>> necessary to edit the movie so severely? For that matter, was the book
>> all that good in-and-of itself, or was its bestseller status due
>> mainly to its controversial nature?
>>
>
>They weren’t “commonplace,” but they were possible in mass market
>fiction.

Yes. True. There were some books with steamy passages, in mass market fiction, or in “literati”/”intellectual” fiction. (largely thanks to Erskine Caldwell)

But this subthread took off from Chris’s comment that ‘racy’ scenes wouldn’t have been acceptable in Heinlein’s work. And he’s quite right–SF publishers wouldn’t have accepted it, imo. (likely the readers wouldn’t have, either. At least not right away)

NB: PJF said this in an interview in 1998, about his first two submissions of “The Lovers”: “The editor, John Campbell, turned it down with the comment it made him want to throw up. So I sent it to the next-best market, Galaxy, which actually had a reputation for printing more literary stories, and I got the same reaction from the editor. Made him sick.”

Granted, that was in 1952, or perhaps ’51–but I think it’s significant.

(Now to find a copy of _Peyton Place_, as I’ve not read it in at least 35 years)

—
-denny-

Some people are offence kleptomaniacs — whenever they see
an offence that isn’t nailed down, they take it 😉
–David C. Pugh, in alt.callahans

Know the signs!
http://www.heartinfo.org/ms/guides/9/main.html

In article ,
Denny Wheeler wrote:

> On Sun, 02 Jan 2005 19:50:53 -0800, “David M. Silver”
> wrote:
>
> Chris Zakes:
> >> But why (if such steamy scenes were so commonplace) was it considered
> >> necessary to edit the movie so severely? For that matter, was the book
> >> all that good in-and-of itself, or was its bestseller status due
> >> mainly to its controversial nature?
> >>
> >
> >They weren’t “commonplace,” but they were possible in mass market
> >fiction.
>
> Yes. True. There were some books with steamy passages, in mass market
> fiction, or in “literati”/”intellectual” fiction. (largely thanks to
> Erskine Caldwell)
>
> But this subthread took off from Chris’s comment that ‘racy’ scenes
> wouldn’t have been acceptable in Heinlein’s work. And he’s quite
> right–SF publishers wouldn’t have accepted it, imo. (likely the
> readers wouldn’t have, either. At least not right away)
>
> NB: PJF said this in an interview in 1998, about his first two
> submissions of “The Lovers”: “The editor, John Campbell, turned it
> down with the comment it made him want to throw up. So I sent it to
> the next-best market, Galaxy, which actually had a reputation for
> printing more literary stories, and I got the same reaction from the
> editor. Made him sick.”
>
> Granted, that was in 1952, or perhaps ’51–but I think it’s
> significant.
>
> (Now to find a copy of _Peyton Place_, as I’ve not read it in at least
> 35 years)
>

It wasn’t republished until 1961, the same year SiaSL came out, which I think is significant as well. Philip Jose Farmer’s first science fiction story was a novella, “The Lovers,” that appeared in Startling Stories in 1952 and broke the taboo against the use of mature sex in a science fiction magazine.

But it won him a Hugo award in 1953. In it, Hal Yarrow, the main character is a linguist (many of Farmer’s characters are linguists) who is studying the languages on another planet. He discovers that the planet has been visited by humans before and he falls in love with a descendant of those previous visitors.

SPOILER

However, she is not what she seems. It deals with the attraction of a man for an alien insectoid female and created a scandal at the time it was published, for it was the first time eroticism was introduced in Science-Fiction. But it won him a Hugo award in 1953.

That, I would say, foreshadows a good number of things that, while they might not cause me to frow up, might turn my hair grey, or at least cause me to giggle hysterically. I wonder if she eats him when they’re done, or while engaged so to speak.

I’ll admit that I don’t think I ever read it. For that matter, I never purchased or, to my knowledge, read a copy of Startling Stories; and I know I wasn’t even reading SF in 1952, when I was nine-years-old, Jules Verne and pre-genre labeling stories aside.

A fairly decent web-posted biography appears here: http://www.editoreric.com/greatlit/authors/Farmer.html

And there’s an obvious note in it that might shed a bit of light on The Cat Who Walks Through Walls.

On Peyton Place, it’s been about the same time for me. I’m actually tempted to buy the Northeastern U edition, for the introduction. It’s less than $10 from Amazon.

—
David M. Silver

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

On Sun, 02 Jan 2005 19:50:53 -0800, an orbital mind-control laser
caused “David M. Silver” to write:

>In article ,
> Chris Zakes wrote:
>
>> >The novel _Peyton Place_, by Grace Metalious, was published in 1956. It
>> >went to the top of the best seller list and remained there, it seemed,
>> >forever. That was the beginning of my tenth grade year. I do not know
>> >_anyone_ in my class who hadn’t read it by at least the end of the year.
>> >It was a “mark of sophistication” in my school to walk around with a 50
>> >cent paperback copy on top of your classroom binder [this was back
>> >before backpacks, when you actually got a locker convenient to classes,
>> >cf. _Have Spacesuit–Will Travel_]. A movie, heavily edited and cleansed
>> >of the more steamy scenes, was out by 1957.
>>
>> But why (if such steamy scenes were so commonplace) was it considered
>> necessary to edit the movie so severely? For that matter, was the book
>> all that good in-and-of itself, or was its bestseller status due
>> mainly to its controversial nature?
>>
>
>They weren’t “commonplace,” but they were possible in mass market
>fiction. Movie codes are usually more restrictive than those censorships
>that apply to books. Controversial nature certainly applied to _Peyton
>Place_, it was damned from pulpits across the land and by the
>establishment lit-crit types as well, as a “trashy” book unworthy of the
>attention placed on it by sales, which were astonishing.

One of the articles on one of the websites I cited yesterday said that Metalious’ husband, a school principal, lost his job because of the book.

Is it posible that the book’s reception was one of the indicators that Heinlein used to decide if the world was ready for “Stranger”? Unfortunately, there’s nothing in “Grumbles” on the subject between 1955 and 1960 (although Heinlein *does* mention “Peyton Place” as one of a number of “mainstream” books that he doesn’t want to imitate in a 1960 letter to Lurton Blassingame.)

-Chris Zakes
Texas

“Two things I have ever respected are warmth and the ability to sit still.”

-Mayland Long in “Tea With the Black Dragon” by R.A. MacAvoy

“Dr. Rufo” wrote in message
news:x6mBd.3649$…

> Whaddyathink?
> Rufe

I think it transcends fantasy, even, to posit there’s no prostitution anywhere but here. Who’s got so big a solar-system inferiority complex as to want to lay claim to a thing? Why, somebody who’d, in the next fictional breath, elevate the profession to a position superior to any other and make the argument that it couldn’t have happened any other way. See, Maureen’s subsuming of the entirety of the Tamara mystique and, in doing so, since she’s uberWoody, the process embracing both genders.

In article ,
“David M. Silver” 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: Glory Road and the Most Mammoth Hoax in History
Dates
and Times: Thursday, January 6, 2005, from 9 PM to midnight, ET
and Saturday, January 8, 2005, from 5 to 8 PM, ET

Place: “Heinlein Readers Group chat” on AIM freeware. See,
generally, https://www.heinleinsociety.org/readersgroup/index.html#Info

Reading Recommended: Glory Road (mandatory).

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

There are three days to go until Thursday, January 6th.

What have our pre-meeting posts concluded, about

1. What was the “Most Mammoth Hoax in History”?

We’re not certain.

2. What were the “American sexual mores” of 1962?

They’re not too well defined for all of us, and not very well
articulated for those of us who think we know.

3. What was Heinlein’s major purpose or purposes in writing _Glory Road_, groceries on the table aside?

There’s disagreement.

4. How did earlier or later stories written by Heinlein tie into whatever the themes of this novel are?

We haven’t had a lot of tie-ins noted.

5. What are the noticeable changes that have occurred in the past forty or so years?

We’ve beem though the so-called “sexual revolution” that evidently came to notice in the middle 1960s, writers have more freedom in writing about sexuality, and readers grant them more license; but has that change significantly affected the writing or reading of SF and Fantasy?

Anyone who wishes to attend any part of the chat on either or both dates may do so, subject only to usual courtesies.

But, whether you plan to attend the chat or not, what do you think about the points summarized above? What are we missing? What’s not been said that should be discussed in the chats?

We’re looking forward to seeing you, here, in pre-meeting posts, or in the chat.

—
David M. Silver

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

In article ,
“David M. Silver” wrote:

> 2. What were the “American sexual mores” of 1962?
>
> They’re not too well defined for all of us, and not very well
> articulated for those of us who think we know.

Here’s a little clip that, while specifying Britain, is equally applicable this side of the pond for the time.

It’s from http://iafrica.com/loveandsex/features/157030.htm

It deals with a little tome titled “The Joy of Sex,” first published in the 1970s.

Alex Comfort, an eccentric man of many trades, was a doctor by
training, a poet and writer by craft, a peace activist and anarchist who
once shared a prison cell with the philosopher Bertrand Russell.

Legend has it that he summed up the birds, bees and all between to
write his book in a mere two weeks.

Comfort, who died in 2000 at 80, said he decided to write “The
Joy…” when one of his patients, a pregnant woman, confessed she was
worried.

Her pregnancy had humiliated her, she said, “because now all my
neighbours will know what my husband and I get up to.”

>From that account, I think he’d have gotten along quite well with a certain old country doctor who went missing during the bombing of Coventry Cathedral, named Ira Johnson. Continuing …

Comfort’s gallery of descriptions and positions are presented without false modesty.

In the bedroom or a daring slew of other spots, in flamboyant costume or a birthday suit, even using the big toe ‹ Comfort enlightened millions shamelessly with a streak of suggestions, calling only for his counsel to be applied between consenting adults.

His writing, while it assumed certain 1970s conventions of gender and sexual identity not up to date with current beliefs, was often peppered with humour.

“In England to have regular love out-of-doors, you need to be
frost-proof and own a park. In Spain, you need to be priest-proof,” he
wrote.

His writing was coupled with illustrations ‹ hirsute man, bangled, long-tressed woman ‹ that were based on photos taken of a husband-wife couple posing according to Comfort’s descriptions.

In his chapter on “perversions”, he turned around common contempt for certain sexual practices and focussed it instead on the abuse of power.

“The commonest perversions in our culture are getting hold of some power and using it to kick people around,” he said.

Maybe the later is the “most mammoth hoax in history”?

Perhaps that will shed a little light on where we were, only thirty-five years ago, seven years after _Glory Road_. As was the case with _Peyton Place_ I don’t know anyone who hadn’t either purchased and read, or simply borrowed and read “The Joy of Sex” within a year of its publication.

—
David M. Silver

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

On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 10:24:22 -0800, an orbital mind-control laser
caused “David M. Silver” to write:

>In article ,
> “David M. Silver” 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: Glory Road and the Most Mammoth Hoax in History
> Dates
> and Times: Thursday, January 6, 2005, from 9 PM to midnight, ET
> and Saturday, January 8, 2005, from 5 to 8 PM, ET
>
> Place: “Heinlein Readers Group chat” on AIM freeware. See,
>generally, https://www.heinleinsociety.org/readersgroup/index.html#Info
>
> Reading Recommended: Glory Road (mandatory).
>
> Chat Room Moderator: “agplusone,” i.e., me.
>
>There are three days to go until Thursday, January 6th.
>
>What have our pre-meeting posts concluded, about
>
> 1. What was the “Most Mammoth Hoax in History”?
>
> We’re not certain.

That sex is bad and/or that sex is a commodity that must be controlled. It’s pretty much the same thing he says in a number of his later books.

> 2. What were the “American sexual mores” of 1962?
>
> They’re not too well defined for all of us, and not very well
>articulated for those of us who think we know.

Having gotten bitten once for pontficating about adult subjects from a time when I was still a kid, I’m going to pass on this one.

> 3. What was Heinlein’s major purpose or purposes in writing _Glory
> Road_, groceries on the table aside?
>
> There’s disagreement.

Fantasy was starting to gain in popularity (notably “Lord of the Rings” and the Conan stories) I expect Heinlein was trying his hand at a different genre. We know he didn’t like being pigeonholed.

> 4. How did earlier or later stories written by Heinlein tie into
> whatever the themes of this novel are?
>
> We haven’t had a lot of tie-ins noted.

> 5. What are the noticeable changes that have occurred in the past > forty or so years? > > We’ve beem though the so-called “sexual revolution” that evidently >came to notice in the middle 1960s, writers have more freedom in writing >about sexuality, and readers grant them more license; but has that >change significantly affected the writing or reading of SF and Fantasy? I think so. Take a look at some of Mercedes Lackey’s stories, for example–gay characters in major roles, intimate scenes, etc. (She’s something of a Heinlein fan too. There’s a senior artificer/engineer named “Master Henlin” in her book “Storm Warning”.)

-Chris Zakes
Texas

“Two things I have ever respected are warmth and the ability to sit still.”

-Mayland Long in “Tea With the Black Dragon” by R.A. MacAvoy

From: “Dr. Rufo”
Subject: Re: RAHRGC: Glory Road and the Most Mammoth Hoax in History (Thursday,
Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2004 22:02:49 GMT

cmaj7dmin7 wrote:

< snip >

>>I believe that RAH is saying that
>>sexuality (in Oscar’s USA — his own? — ours?) is being offered or
>>devoted to an unworthy use or cause.
>>
>>Rufe
>
>
> I believe RAH was writing fiction and could say anything he wanted, whether
> or not it would hold water, share water or drown the subsequent revisionist
> in a pool of murky rationalizations.

First, please, be careful, be very careful how you use that “murky” word. Verb. sap. Doncha know?

Fourth, likely the criminal codes you cited are an argument for the “position” RAH was suggesting in re the Hoax.

Third, and lastly, I wasn’t trying to “defend” RAH’s position merely to enunciate it — paraphrase it to reflect understanding — a mental exercise, rather like . . . playing Bridge?

Rufe
From: (Stephanie)
Date: 28 Dec 2004 21:04:38 GMT
Subject: Re: RAHRGC: Glory Road and the Most Mammoth Hoax in History (Thursday, January 6, 9 PM to midnight, ET; and

>From: Mary Shafer
>

>Is it possible that the issue is being over-analyzed here? Or that
>the author’s personal beliefs are being ignored?

Ahh, but it has been argued many times in this forum that we cannot say exactly what the author’s personal beliefs are. We know what he wrote…and there are themes that repeat to significant degree in his writings, but it does not follow that he necessarily felt all these things as his beliefs.

(Arguing for the devil, perhaps)

—
Stephanie
http://hometown.aol.com/merfilly27/myhomepage/profile.html

From: Denny Wheeler
Subject: Re: RAHRGC: Glory Road and the Most Mammoth Hoax in History (Thursday,
Date: Sat, 01 Jan 2005 00:51:30 -0800

On Sat, 01 Jan 2005 04:05:07 GMT, Fred J. McCall
wrote:

>Denny Wheeler wrote:
>
>:On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 10:33:19 -0700, “TreetopAngel”
>: wrote:
>:
>:>”Denny Wheeler” writes:
>:>> On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 23:03:39 -0500, Howard Berkowitz
>:>> wrote:
>:>>
>:>>>In article ,
>:>>> wrote:
>:>>>
>:>>>> On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 18:36:15 -0800, in alt.fan.heinlein Denny
>:>>>> Wheeler
>:>>>> wrote:
>:>>>> > On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 19:02:41 -0500, pixelmeow
>:>>>> > wrote:
>:>>>> > >On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 14:26:03 -0800, in alt.fan.heinlein, Denny
>:>>>> > >Wheeler
>:>>>> > > scribbled:
>:>>>> > >
>:>>>> > >>On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 14:03:58 -0600, “atwork”
>:>>>> > >>wrote:
>:>>>> > >>
>:>>>> > >>>Think she needs a kitten?
>:>>>> > >>
>:>>>> > >>Doesn’t everyone?
>:>>>> > >
>:>>>> > >Well so long as it’s not a horny grocer (tea salesman?) who
>:>>>> > >brings it
>:>>>> > >over. 😉
>:>>>> >
>:>>>> > How about The Spanish Inquisition?
>:>>>> > (NObody’s ready for the Spanish Inquisition!!!
>:>>>> > BWAAAHAAAAHAAAA!!!)
>:>>>>
>:>>>> That’s it. Time to break out the comfy chair…
>:>>>
>:>>>Will you have Spam with that Inquisition?
>:>>
>:>>
>:>> Got some, thanks. But there seems to be a Norwegian Blue on this
>:>> branch here…
>:>
>:>He’s dead!
>:>
>:Naw, he’s just sleeping.
>
>Then why are his feet nailed to the perch?
>

Well, o’course it was nailed there! If I hadn’t nailed that bird down, it would have nuzzled up to those bars, bent ’em apart with its beak, and

VOOM! Feeweeweewee!

—
-denny-

Some people are offence kleptomaniacs — whenever they see
an offence that isn’t nailed down, they take it 😉
–David C. Pugh, in alt.callahans

Know the signs!
http://www.heartinfo.org/ms/guides/9/main.html

End of Postings
Go Beginning of Posts
Here Begins the Discussion
You have just entered room “Heinlein Readers Group chat.”

AGplusone has entered the room.

AGplusone: Ugh, Kemo Sabe.

DavidWrightSr: Greetings

DavidWrightSr: test

AGplusone: working

DavidWrightSr: Response was a little slow. How about yours?

DavidWrightSr: Hi jane!

aggirlj: Hi Sr, how are you?

AGplusone: ‘lo, Janey.

aggirlj: Hidey

DavidWrightSr: Getting older every day

DavidWrightSr: I don’t mind getting older.I just hate feeling older

aggirlj: I decided to start subtracting, I am getting younger and sillier

AGplusone: Well, I could tell that when you mentioned Tom Nardini. Nice guy, and I know you loved handling his accounts at Rhein Schriber, or whomever they were.

aggirlj: Exactly.

AGplusone: R-S was a CPA firm here in L.A. where Jane worked, David.

DavidWrightSr: Ok. I wondered what that was about 😉

aggirlj: Tom was so nice he just didn’t survive. Looked him up on Google, only really two films.

DavidWrightSr: Was he director? Producer or what?

AGplusone: Ralph Kent Cook hired Jane away from R-S to run his books for a while. Ralph = son of Jack Kent Cooke.

aggirlj: Actor. He was in other shows on TV though.

DavidWrightSr: My son worked the writer’s circuit for a while. Had some possible chances on a script that he wrote, but it all fell through.

AGplusone: In Cat Ballou, remember the kid (Indian looking like a Lou Diamond Philips) who dressed Lee Marvin up for the big fight with Lee’s evil brother.

DavidWrightSr: Was that him?

AGplusone: Yeah.

aggirlj: Exactly.

DavidWrightSr: I do recall him and can even recall what he looked like.

AGplusone: Better looking that LDP

aggirlj: Italian.

DavidWrightSr: That was a very funny movie. Loved it.

aggirlj: The horse was a riot.

aggirlj: Not sure if they trained it or stuffed it.

DavidWrightSr: That scene with Marvin and the horse leaning against the building broke me up

aggirlj: btw, I am way into ‘The Cat Who Walked Through Walls.”

DavidWrightSr: First time?

aggirlj: yep

DavidWrightSr: I hate you 🙂

aggirlj: I like it a lot.

aggirlj: He wrote it ’85.

aggirlj: There’s a guy where I work who I’ve been chatting with who reads. We had a Secret Santa thingy and I drew his name. Got him Rocket Ship Galileo; Red Planet and SIASL. Bought myself Cat and the Fantasies

DavidWrightSr: His first Heinleins?

AGplusone: Where’d you find a copy of RSG?

aggirlj: He checked out FUTL to read frist from the library.

aggirlj: It’s the one I bought through Alibris or one of those places. Still have the other.

AGplusone: Ah, good.

DavidWrightSr: BTW David. Is income from Amazon doing any good?

AGplusone: nickle and dime … they just changed their method of crediting people

AGplusone: If you go from one of our links to another book it doesn’t count

aggirlj: ohhhhhhh, hmmmmm!

DavidWrightSr: That sucks.

AGplusone: uh-huh

AGplusone: write them a nasty letter

aggirlj: Yes, David Sr, his first. And I think we’ll have him hooked.

DavidWrightSr: Does it just drop the info about THS?

DavidWrightSr: I hate him even more 😉

AGplusone: yeah

AGplusone: So if you go to buy two books, and just one from our link, the second doesn’t count.

DavidWrightSr: There might be a way that I can figure out for people to stick it back in manually if it drops. I’ll check into it.

AGplusone: There is: copy, cut and paste.

aggirlj: Glad we got the ones off to China on the old way.

DavidWrightSr: I see a number of people. I send invites.

AGplusone: time to start dragging them in with our tractor beams

pixelmeow has entered the room.

pixelmeow: hello!

aggirlj: I’m waiting for Pam to come on. I let her know and she said she might be up. She thinks she’s coming down with something.

aggirlj: Hi Teresa!

DavidWrightSr: Hi Teresa!

AGplusone: Are you trying to seduce me, Mrs. Robinson?

pixelmeow: me???

Reilloc has entered the room.

pixelmeow: what did I do????

aggirlj: He LN!

AGplusone: Hi, LN

aggirlj: hey

Reilloc: Hi, guys.

Reilloc: What did I miss?

aggirlj: Nada

pixelmeow: David the Younger says I’m trying to seduce him!

Reilloc: Reduce him?

pixelmeow: heh.

Dehede011 has entered the room.

joelrmpls has entered the room.

aggirlj: Hi Ron, how are you?

joelrmpls: Hi, all.

pixelmeow: hi ron!

AGplusone: Hi, Joel. nice to see you

pixelmeow: hi joel!

joelrmpls: Good to see y’all.

Dehede011: Muchas Gracias to whoever sent me the invitation.

aggirlj: Hi Joel, I’m Jane.

IrishBet has entered the room.

Dehede011: I am Ron

pixelmeow: yeah, I got an invite too, thanks!

aggirlj: Hey Pam!!!!

IrishBet: Thanks for the heads-up, Jane

aggirlj: I didn’t see your name, hmmm, better check.

IrishBet: Hello, all

AGplusone: That’s because she took back her maiden name. Teresa is now Mrs. Robinson.

pixelmeow: I’m now MISS Robinson, thankyouverymuch.

pixelmeow: MISS.

AGplusone: Ooooh! Even worse.

pixelmeow: so there!

Reilloc: I think it’s all a hoax.

Dehede011: My ex did the same. She took back her maiden name and I know why. LOL

aggirlj: Well you’re on my buddy list but just didn’t pop up. Good ‘ole AOL

AGplusone: It is: hokesh …

AGplusone: pokesh …

pixelmeow: snort.

AGplusone: it’s all indistinguishable from magic

Dehede011: Hi Pixie

pixelmeow: hi ron. 🙂

pixelmeow: so hokesh, what was that, the planet?

moultonfcx has entered the room.

aggirlj: Hey is that you Fred?

Dehede011: Hey, is it permissable to share good news?

pixelmeow: absolutely!

pixelmeow: um, David, I shouldn’t have leaped in, sorry

AGplusone: Okay, question number one: {Hi, Fred] “Why is love considered an instinct, and not taught?”

joelrmpls: Yup. I would hope so.

AGplusone: Is that simply the hoax?

DavidWrightSr: What’s the good news Ron?

Dehede011: My final divorce papers just came through recently. My part of the settlement was my house, And, today the house is paid off.

Merfilly27 has entered the room.

pixelmeow: that’s terrific!

pixelmeow: Hi Steph!!!

aggirlj: That’s great

joelrmpls: That’s definitely cool.

Reilloc: Who said love was an instinct?

aggirlj: Hi Steph.

Merfilly27: I completely forgot guys

Dehede011: Hi, Steph

pixelmeow: David said “it is considered”, but is it?

Merfilly27: Hello to all, apologies for lateness

AGplusone: Oscar thinks his society thinks so …

pixelmeow: ooo, all of two minutes.

AGplusone: after all, no classes in it …

pixelmeow: yeah…

pixelmeow: but is love instinctive?

AGplusone: all you have to do is “lay back” and wiggle …

pixelmeow: that’s not love.

Merfilly27: I’m afraid I can’t stay folks…doing it again Saturday?

moultonfc: Love or lust

Dehede011: You learn it with your mother’s milk.

aggirlj: Yes

aggirlj: 3:00 PM EST

joelrmpls: I just got a call that I’ve got to take. Later, possibly. I’ll lurk, if that’s okay, and hope to return.

Merfilly27: then I’ll try to be here…school started for me today

pixelmeow: wait, that should be 5pm EST, right?

aggirlj: Sorry, maybe I’m wrong.

Merfilly27: ok

pixelmeow: jane, jane, jane.

pixelmeow: bad jane!

Merfilly27: bye folks…enjoy

Merfilly27 has left the room.

Dehede011: Bye

IrishBet: Why do we confuse sex with love?

Dehede011: Because we use sex to express love sometimes??

pixelmeow: because some people think that getting sex equals getting love?

AGplusone: “Sex baits the trap, but sex is not … ” Love.

Reilloc: Because nobody knows what love is.

IrishBet: We use chocolate to express love, but no one confuses chocolate with love. 😉

IrishBet: Welll . . . . .

aggirlj: Early on that would be what most people think. But later you know better. Sex does not equate to Love. Sex can be hate as well.

Dehede011: It is strange but I first experienced the difference on my honeymoon

pixelmeow: sex can be power, as in rape

pixelmeow: now chocolate…

Dehede011: Yes, and I’ve had a girlfriend tell me they experienced intercourse as power

pixelmeow: that is a whole other story!

Dehede011: tell me she………

IrishBet: The three best things in life, the universe and everything.

moultonfcx has left the room.

aggirlj: Two movies to see, ‘Like Water for Chocolate’ and

aggirlj: racking my brain, the one with Johnny Depp

BPRAL22169 has entered the room.

AGplusone: I’m almost afraid to ask what you experienced, Ron. When LL in TEFL says, “Sex baits the trap, but sex is not … ” he was talking about marriage in one form or another. And Eros … but is it fair to use TEFL to ‘splain Glory Road

Reilloc: Don Juan Demarco

pixelmeow: hey bill!!!

BPRAL22169: Hey, It worked

AGplusone: and Oscar’s “Hoax”?

BPRAL22169: I was just about to see about signing in directly.

aggirlj: No that was with Brando

aggirlj: Chocolate I think with an accent.

aggirlj: Choco latt

Dehede011: David all I meant is that as a sailor I had experienced sex but on my honeymoon experienced love as an emotion so thick I could cut it with a knife.

pixelmeow: how are ya, bill?

aggirlj: Hi Bill.

Dehede011: Hi, BPRAL

pixelmeow: yes, Ron, that’s a big difference.

pixelmeow: a wonderful one, if you ask me.

AGplusone: Basic question again: Why should “love” be classed as an “instinct”?

Dehede011: I don’t think it is.

Reilloc: So, Oscar called love an instinct because his writer didn’t understand the difference.

pixelmeow: then what is it?

aggirlj: Well hormones come into play and you get all dizzy and stuff

Reilloc: Love is a set of behaviors with underlying feelings.

AGplusone: It does, and you do.

Dehede011: Love is deciding that you are going to help another be all they can be.

aggirlj: Nice rendition. Sounds about right.

pixelmeow: Love is caring about the welfare of someone else more than your own.

AGplusone: In TEFL it’s defined as putting someones welfare and happiness above your own.

Dehede011: Yes,

pixelmeow: yes.

Reilloc: I disagree with that.

Dehede011: Three ways of saying the same thing

pixelmeow: I think that’s a good definition, so long as it isn’t taken too far.

AGplusone: how ’bout on a par with your own, LN

Reilloc: You have to be able to love yourself before you can love somebody else.

pixelmeow: How would you define it, LN?

pixelmeow: true

aggirlj: So right LN.

moultonfcx has entered the room.

Reilloc: If you put somebody else’s well being above your own in all circumstances, you’re not loving, you’re trying to be a martry.

Reilloc: martyr

IrishBet: When the happiness of another person becomes as essential to yourself as your own, then the state of love exists.

AGplusone: “The best things in life are free,” does that mean free of charge or freely given.

IrishBet: SIASL

aggirlj: Duh.

Reilloc: It means are free and always were in spite of the false mystery in which they’re attempted to be veiled.

BPRAL22169: Mark Twain’s definition, btw.

AGplusone: But there ain’t no such thing as a free lunch. Does that mean there ain’t no love?

pixelmeow: love ain’t lunch.

Reilloc: Love?

Reilloc: Who said love?

IrishBet: Was it, Bill? That’s interesting. I missed that.

aggirlj: I think it only means there are consequences.

Reilloc: What’s love got to do with it.

Reilloc: Tina Turner.

pixelmeow: that’s sex.

AGplusone: Ike taught her that, din’ he?

pixelmeow: I think he did.

Reilloc: Beats me.

pixelmeow: H

pixelmeow: A

BPRAL22169: It’s in “What Is Man?” which I think he published in 1908 or 1909.

aggirlj: lol

IrishBet: Learn something every day.

AGplusone: What’s the difference between love and altruism … which we are supposed to shun, or at least carefullye examine, then wallow in it if we must?

Reilloc: And then he died?

BPRAL22169: 1910; came in with Halley’s and went out with it.

AGplusone: Pretty close. Haley’;s came in: Twain went out: Heinlein came in …

aggirlj: Let me get the dictionary, don’t know the formal def

IrishBet: Altruism? No such animal.

moultonfc: Why do you say that?

Reilloc: Altrism is never having to say you’re sorry?

AGplusone: “Coincidence? I think not … ” cue Twilight Zone theme.

aggirlj: for real, still looking’

IrishBet: Jubal was right — we all do what pleasures most or hurts least.

Reilloc: My younger son was born in ’88.

AGplusone: Hmmm. How come you didn’t name him Robert Anson?

aggirlj: Selflishness is not my bag.

Reilloc: His mother was a stick in the mud.

aggirlj: or I may have spelled it wrong, selflessness?

IrishBet: Jane, “pleasuring most” isn’t necessarily selfish.

BPRAL22169: Not strictly gtrue (about Jubal’s notion of what “we all” do; your 1988-wife, LNC, may well be a stick-in-the-mud for all I know)

AGplusone: What do you think about Glory Road and “love” or the greatest hoax on mankind? Joel?

aggirlj: Not saying that, I meant to the detriment of the self.

BPRAL22169: It’s true of a certain type of person at all times; and of another type of person at one stage or another of his life or in one respect but not in others.

Reilloc: There’s no love in Glory Road.

pixelmeow: I agree.

AGplusone: What is there, then, if not “love”?

Reilloc: There’s romanticization of the male-female relationship but there’s no love.

pixelmeow: I think Oscar is in awe of Star.

aggirlj: Adventure and conquest.

pixelmeow: yeah.

AGplusone: Jumping over swords!

pixelmeow: he may think he’s in love;…..

pixelmeow: yeah, that’s very romantic

Dehede011: I think Oscar is a man on a quest for fulfillment

pixelmeow: yeah.

jilyd has entered the room.

jilyd: Thanks for the invite, David.

pixelmeow: hi there!!!

aggirlj: Hi Dee

pixelmeow: *hug*

Dehede011: Hi Dee

jilyd: Hello all, good to see you.

Reilloc: Neither jumping over nor the distribution of swords by strange women in lakes is any way to define love.

AGplusone: Is “love” the old rocky road, too?

DavidWrightSr: Hi Dee. You are welcome.

pixelmeow: ROFL!!!

Reilloc: Hi, Dee.

AGplusone: Never fully attained, always to be won?

AGplusone: ‘lo Dee

jilyd: Can I interrupt long enough to introduce myself to IrishBet and moultonfcx?

aggirlj: That’s why he gets bored don’t you think.

Dehede011: The novel closes with Oscar unfulfilled IMHO

Reilloc: Allow me.

pixelmeow: go ahead, and I’d like some the other direction

Reilloc: IrishBet and moultonfcx, meet Dee from Georgia.

moultonfc: Hello

jilyd: Thak you, LN.

pixelmeow: that’s alabama…

AGplusone: [which other, Pix?]

Reilloc: What’s the difference?

pixelmeow: as in, I don’t know everyone here…

moultonfc: Hello from Fred from California

IrishBet: Hello, Dee from Georgia . . . I’m Pam from Maryland

jilyd: Alabama, but Ga. and Florida are both within a half-hour’s drive, so close enough. 🙂

pixelmeow: Hi!

Dehede011: And don’t fail to mention Auburn University and their recent exploits.

AGplusone: Fred Moulton, Pam Somers, meet Dee

pixelmeow: Hi!

aggirlj:

Dehede011: I’m Ron, Dee

Reilloc: That’s Ron, Dee.

pixelmeow:

Reilloc: His divorce is final and his house is paid off.

jilyd: I want to find out about that name someday, IrishBet. It sounds like there could be a story behind it.

Dehede011: Nope that is Pixie.

AGplusone: You’re always Ron, Ron. Think of something original.

pixelmeow: LOL!

AGplusone: ;P

Dehede011: Dehede

pixelmeow: Gezundheit.

IrishBet: It’s something my grandfather used to say about my Irish grandmother. 🙂

BPRAL22169: Oh? I always assumed it had something to do with the Irish Sweepstakes.

IrishBet: (Why have my fonts developed a life of their own?)

jilyd: I don’t know if Ron is pulling LN’s lewg, or mine.

jilyd: As if I would not recognize him.

pixelmeow: heh.

Reilloc: Ask Ron.

Dehede011: Heck Ron doesn’t usually know that, Dee

jilyd: AG, I guess there is happiness in your house this week, as in mine.

Reilloc: You guys have new, warm puppies?

aggirlj: Kitties?

AGplusone: Comes in a bottle as always … after effects of gifts my wife gets at the shop.

jilyd: FOr the few poeple that don’t know, my husband is an Auburn alumn, and teh Sugar Bowl made him a (and therehore me) a happy camper.

Dehede011: I have to say USC really opened my eyes.

AGplusone: Uh, you mean Spoiled Children’s skinning of Oklahoma?

aggirlj: Yeah, that was a rout.

AGplusone: Well, it’s the overrating we regularly get …

AGplusone: Lucky Auburn.

Dehede011: Yes, I am wondering if that was a fluke or if west coast football is just that much more powerful

jilyd: Gee, I detest football, and I expected it. You fans should not have been surprised (or at least not admit it.)

SimoneDiMatteo has entered the room.

SimoneDiMatteo: Evening All

aggirlj: Hi Simone!

jilyd: Hi, Simone. I’m Dee. Good to meet you.

Dehede011: With baseball a couple of months away I want to read the book on MONEYBALL

aggirlj: Or is that the Sage?

SimoneDiMatteo: Hello Jane!

SimoneDiMatteo: No it’s me 🙂

aggirlj: Kewl.

SimoneDiMatteo: Hello Dee, nice to meet you too.

pixelmeow: hello!

Dehede011: Hi Y’all

jcgsmtop1 has entered the room.

pixelmeow: hi!

ScottW469 has entered the room.

pixelmeow: hi!

jcgsmtop1 has left the room.

ScottW469: hi

BPRAL22169: I’m getting sound effects

SimoneDiMatteo: me too

Reilloc: I have no auditory hallucinations.

AGplusone: The topic tonight is “Love: the greatest hoax on Mankind” according to Glory Road by Heinlein.

AGplusone: Or is Love the hoax?

aggirlj: Hi don’t know your handle.

Dehede011: Ax

SimoneDiMatteo: interesting topic David

IrishBet: I never saw Oscar and Star’s relationship as “love”

AGplusone: Why not?

Reilloc: Somebody reinvite Teresa.

aggirlj: done

AGplusone: he’s the hero, she’s the Empress with a Quest … aren’t they supposed to be in Love?

moultonfc: Love can be different things to different people and they certainly stated that they had love.

IrishBet: They seemed in very separate orbits.

moultonfc: So from the perspective of the reader arewe to say that they did not have love? What about the intention andperspective of the author?

Dehede011: brb, 60 sec

AGplusone: Or did she just sweeted the pot and fortify his resolve with the patented motion.

AGplusone: sweeten

aggirlj: I think they were like two adolescents and in lust and had a wonderful lively courtship

IrishBet: Star may have been affectionate, but I saw this as a device to manipulate Oscat.

IrishBet: Oscar

BPRAL22169: Oh, BTW, Fred, your renewal came in today’s mail.

aggirlj: Always there was a device, from early on.

IrishBet:

moultonfc: Just because something is manipulative does not necessary mean it can not be love does it?

jilyd: Scar seemed to view Oscar more like a favorite pet than a love, to me.

aggirlj: Look, I check out the younger ones and you have to make it fun and not that serious.

AGplusone: Well, she is a professional woman … has a job and important career goals.

jilyd: No, Fred, but be vary careful there.

AGplusone: Saving the Universe.

AGplusone: Oscar complains that when he realizes where he stands that he’s been turned into a male prostitute … is he right?

moultonfc: I realize that one must be careful but we need to also avoid to broad of a generalization

BPRAL22169: Well — there’s also an element of self-selection going on here — Oscar wanted to be a hero of romance, and she was training him up to achieve his own goals.

SimoneDiMatteo: Puts being in love in perspective with all that to do.

IrishBet: Oscar was objectified.

BPRAL22169: In the end Oscar had to choose between love and romance, didn’t he?

AGplusone: Think of poor Philip of Greece: out there on his yacht with nothing to do but drink and make Mary.

Reilloc: No.

pixelmeow has left the room.

jilyd: Who never manipulates the ones we love? Ever manipulated the spouse into a physical, f’rinstance? It s not necessarily a bad thing. But it is too close to dishonesty for comfort.

AGplusone: What were his choices?

SimoneDiMatteo: Doesn’t love and romance go hand in hand?

pixelmeow has entered the room.

pixelmeow: there!

pixelmeow: I got booted!

BPRAL22169: Well, that’s the theory, innit, Simone?

pixelmeow: thanks, Jane!

IrishBet: I don’t think so, Simone. I never felt romance towards my kids — but love? Certainly.

aggirlj: you’re welcome

SimoneDiMatteo: Oh but Irish, I was refering to the love between him and her.

BPRAL22169: This book is probably the most straightforwardly Cabellian thing RAH ever wrote.

jilyd: LN, if you are going to be that brief, could you at least tell us who you are answering? 🙂

SimoneDiMatteo: I agree romance doesn’t equate to love within the context of family.

aggirlj: Aren’t there different kinds of love. Fillilial, maternal . . .

IrishBet: I think for Oscar, love and romance went hand-in-hand.

IrishBet: Not for Star

AGplusone: Eros, agape …

Reilloc: I have to show my work?

Reilloc: Jesus…

IrishBet: LoL

jilyd: Didn’t RAH give us a good working definition for love? That condition where the welfare of the beloved is essential to your own?

IrishBet: When the happiness of another person becomes as essential to yourself as your own, then the state of love exists.

jilyd: LOL

BPRAL22169: And by that test, what Oscar has for Star at the end doesn’t really qualify, does it?

Reilloc: That sounds like pleasing the boss to keep your job is love.

pixelmeow: I don’t think it does, Bill.

IrishBet: And vice versa, Bill

AGplusone: What happens when it’s more esstential? Is that co-dependency?

aggirlj: 😀

SimoneDiMatteo: lol Reil…I had the same thought.

BPRAL22169: So — he chose romance of tilting at windmills over love.

IrishBet: That isn’t love, David — that’s need.

IrishBet: Very different

SimoneDiMatteo: We all need love.

Reilloc: Love, schmove, it’s unproductive to talk about it.

pixelmeow: very funny, David.

pixelmeow: yes, Bill, that’s what I think

BPRAL22169: I think so, Pam — I don’t know that Oscar’s happiness was ever “essential” to Star’s — she was a much bigger person than his horizons could fill.

AGplusone: He decides to come back in a few years and walk Star’s rough and rugged road again, after a bit of more romance

Reilloc: Sex is the issue.

aggirlj: She had many waiting in reserve remember?

BPRAL22169: I think (David) that co-dependency is not having the emotion — it’s how you “do” it.

Reilloc: The hoax “revelation” came during a discussion of sex, not love.

SimoneDiMatteo: Savior of the universe would have a line…especially a woman.

jilyd: Well, I suppose you could look at that suituation as well, LN. But I can’t figure out a sityuation where the RAH definition does not apply, that I would call love.

AGplusone: So did ‘Lita … of the four things: love, money, war and politics, all she wanted was money and love.

aggirlj: Gee, sounds like a plan.

Reilloc: What’s that Dee?

Reilloc: Let me figure out what you said…

AGplusone: Oh … not demonstrative enough, and so, therefore, he musta killed his wife!

Reilloc: I give up.

pixelmeow: indeed.

Reilloc: What did you say?

IrishBet: (I could live on money and love.)

jilyd: Agreeing that, since you raised it, the pleasing the boss issue, not love, might come under the heading of teh “definition.”

ScottW469 has left the room.

SimoneDiMatteo: Could live on money.

Reilloc: You can’t figure out a situation where the RAH definition…isn’t love.

aggirlj: (easy)

Reilloc: Oh.

Reilloc: That’s why I say, “love, schmove.”

jilyd: But that I can’t figure out a situation that is love, and does not include the RAH definition.

BPRAL22169: I dunno (LNC and Dee) — not all conditions precedent might count.

aggirlj: I’m lost on this one.

Reilloc: We could sit here for the next month and write the definitive song about it and nobody outside the room might agree.

jilyd: How so, Bill?

BPRAL22169: After all, it’s not your boss being pleased that might be essential to your happiness — it’s continuing to get those checks.

Reilloc: Sex is the issue.

SimoneDiMatteo: How so?

BPRAL22169: You can conceivably arrange to get the checks whether or not your boss is pleased.

jilyd: Your point being, LN?

AGplusone: Then why is “sex” classed as an instinct?

Reilloc: That the “hoax” is that sex is not the mystery it’s made out to be.

BPRAL22169: If he can be dropped from the equation, it’s probably not what RAH and Twain were talking about

aggirlj: Survival need.

BPRAL22169: That’s a very succinct statement.

SimoneDiMatteo: bodily function

jilyd: If he whocan be dropped? Lost me, Bill.

IrishBet: Propagation of the species doesn’t need love.

Reilloc: It’s made out to be a mystery in order to give it currency, for one thing.

AGplusone: I agree with it’s not a mystery, but disagree that it’s not a learned skill that takes a degree of something plus to learn well.

BPRAL22169: If the boss can be dropped from the “please” equation.

BPRAL22169: Well — there’s sex and then there’s sex…

Reilloc: That’s why the assertion that there’s no prostitution anywhere but Earth.

SimoneDiMatteo: experience is the finest teacher

moultonfc: Sex has many aspects, biological, cultural, etc.

Reilloc: The implication is that everywhere else there’s nothing special attached to it and it can be given no monetary value.

pixelmeow has left the room.

AGplusone: But that’s a false assertion: Star makes Scar a prostitute, a kept man.

jilyd: I am sure it is not what he was talking about, but LN pointed out that, at least with my wetware-based rephrasing, it is imprecise.

moultonfc: The assertion about no prostitution except on Earth was a weak point to me

pixelmeow has entered the room.

IrishBet: I think Oscar decided his cultural mores (as applied to sex) were a hoax.

Reilloc: What an intentionally argumentative remark, Dave.

pixelmeow: I’m having problems tonight, sorry

AGplusone: A “consort”

BPRAL22169: No, David, he simply feels that way. She is paying off her debt.

Reilloc: I’m not saying I don’t like it.

IrishBet: That’s pretty cold, Bill. “Paying off her debt”

aggirlj: I agree Bill.

IrishBet: What’s love got to do with that?

SimoneDiMatteo: :X

Reilloc: Just a second hand emotion, you say?

aggirlj: She didn’t concieve of any other reason for him to be so upset.

BPRAL22169: I don’t think Scar could “love” Oscar as an adult — Oscar is simply not an adult to her way of thinking.

aggirlj: That too.

Reilloc: Again, with the love.

moultonfc: But Oscar changed near the end of the book

Dehede011: And I don’t think he is depicted as one.

AGplusone: It takes Rufo to shove him out to grow up …

BPRAL22169: Irrespective of the messy emotional stuff, Oscar did her a hero’s service, and she made sure he got a hero’s reward.

IrishBet: Love keeps coming up because Oscar equates love/romance/sex/fidelity

moultonfc: But he is changing

BPRAL22169: Yeah — but Star doesn’t necessarily.

SimoneDiMatteo: because they view things from different perspectives

BPRAL22169: Equate, I mean, not “change.”

Reilloc: Love’s the cloud that hides the sex hoax, then.

BPRAL22169: Yeah — she’s — whjat? — 300 years older than he?

Dehede011: Tell me what is sex but two sets of nerve endings and two personalities rubbing together

Reilloc: Well…

pixelmeow: ew.

aggirlj: rather dry

SimoneDiMatteo: And unfortunately, I have to go…son who has research on a paper to do. Thank you for the invite, I wish I had more time…tcoy.

Reilloc: What’s history but the struggle of the proletariat?

SimoneDiMatteo has left the room.

Reilloc: Later, SDM.

Dehede011: Thanks for being here

AGplusone: And the wages of war are? Rapine (all the sex you want whenever you want it) and plunder (bowls of precious stones to make babbles out of)? Full payment. He says he wants that at the beginning, he got it.

aggirlj: Be careful what you wish for

pixelmeow: indeed.

BPRAL22169: I think Star was pretty clear on the nature of the bargain.

AGplusone: Good business woman.

IrishBet: Star was clear — Oscar wasn’t clear.

Reilloc: I think one of the problems is taking as gospel what the writer says or that he even has any clue what he’s saying.

Dehede011: I agree that Star was an adult

AGplusone: And no false advertising, either.

BPRAL22169: Bingo. Though in this case I think he had a clue.

Reilloc: He had some clue like we all do.

BPRAL22169: It’s a very close argument — though in a style that is not seen much any more.

IrishBet: It’s gospel only so far as the characters are concerned. 😉

Reilloc: His opinion’s no better than mine or yours, though.

BPRAL22169: One of the things that struck me very forcibly is how very Wylie-esque his argument is.

Reilloc: Wylie Coyote?

pixelmeow: Wylie?

aggirlj: LN, nice visual.

BPRAL22169: Philip Wylie — if you were to make a prose statement of this “hoax” argument, it would drop right into Generation of Vipers.

IrishBet: Oscar expected the romantic “hero/princess” result, while Star meant only what she offered.

BPRAL22169: Pam, I think Star offered herself as the “rescued princess” part of the deal.

AGplusone: And Rufo came along because he had to, but struggled to keep his lip zipped while she did it to the naif.

Dehede011: Yet Star always seemed to be powerfully connected to Oscar emotionally

aggirlj: Do you think he may have been there before once or twice, Rufe that is.

IrishBet: Bill, only until the result was achieved. Once the Egg was handled, the relationship changed. Star knew that. Oscar didn’t.

IrishBet: “When the ship lifts, all bills are paid”

AGplusone: Star was a much better actress than any Scar had ever seen.

Reilloc: I was married to an actress once.

BPRAL22169: Yeah. It may be that she was just waitingfor it to hit him — and keeping her end of the bargain.

pixelmeow: anyone we know?

BPRAL22169: Like in the Howard Families; long-lifers know marriage is not forever.

Reilloc: I don’t think so.

AGplusone: And willing to offer a stopping off place, once he strayed back again.

moultonfc: Perhaps she was hoping that he would mature

Dehede011: Did any of you also get the feeling that Star was emotionally connected to Oscar??

AGplusone: Keeping her bargain to the end.

Reilloc: Of course.

moultonfc: Yes

IrishBet: It may be that (contrary to popular wisdom) sex is a lot more complicated for men than it is for women.

AGplusone: Like a mother, perhaps.

BPRAL22169: Yeah — but not as equals, I think.

IrishBet: Some men, I guess.

IrishBet: Some women

Reilloc: Now, don’t go saying that’s love or it’s not.

Reilloc: It’s not about love, it’s about sex.

IrishBet: AMen

AGplusone: Hoping he’ll grow into it.

Reilloc: Hoping?

Reilloc: Maybe.

BPRAL22169: David, I don’t think so — I think she knew he would grow out of it, because that’s what becoming an adult means

moultonfc: Oscar seems to change at the end of the book

Reilloc: Who can say what a 500 year old person thinks is love?

IrishBet: It’s always about sex.

Reilloc: Why?

AGplusone: He does. He knows he’s got some more romancing to do …

pixelmeow: How does he change to you, Fred?

IrishBet: And sex is frequently about something else.

moultonfc: The reflections onthe last 2 pages

Reilloc: It should be.

pixelmeow: I don’t have the book here; it’s in storage. Refresh my memory?

moultonfc: For example he considers marriage to the Doral sisters

moultonfc: Including the young one

AGplusone: Joel: are you awake? Walter = grown up Scar?

pixelmeow: yeah, that’s a change…

Reilloc: That business about, how’d he put it, going without or going to France, was funny.

pixelmeow: Joel said he had other stuff to do but would lurk

AGplusone: unlurk him

pixelmeow: heh.

IrishBet: brb

pixelmeow: what was he gonna go without, LN?

pixelmeow: I don’t recall.

Reilloc: In one breath, he claims to have discovered the hoax and in the next breath he’s still taken in by it.

Reilloc: Going without sex.

pixelmeow: okay, I thought that was maybe it.

AGplusone: He still has to test himself with the real hoax in Hokesh, doesn’t he, LN?

AGplusone: Again and again and again.

Reilloc: He knows the problem but still can’t figure out how to avoid the engtanglements.

pixelmeow: okay, so what do each of you think the hoax is?

Reilloc: Compare, Oscar’s continuing confusion with the LL/school teacher relationship in TEFL.

pixelmeow: Dora.

Reilloc: Dora’s teacher.

pixelmeow: ah, right.

IrishBet: Quid pro quo

Reilloc: They had more than casual sex.

Reilloc: There was love.

pixelmeow: I think so.

IrishBet: There was respect and affection. Is that love?

Reilloc: Isn’t it?

pixelmeow: it can be.

Reilloc: Who says it has to be all-consuming?

IrishBet: So what did they have that Oscar and Star didn’t.

pixelmeow: LL’s maturity?

AGplusone: Oscar’s still at the point where he thinks he’s never going to die (or really doesn’t care): does that make a difference?

Reilloc: It’s not what they had, it’s what Oscar didn’t learn.

pixelmeow: what’s that?

Reilloc: Why talk about abstaining or going to France if he learned anything?

Reilloc: Find somebody for whom you have respect and affection and it’s mutual.

IrishBet: David, doesn’t that make Oscar an adolescent still?

aggirlj: Exactly how I see him.

AGplusone: There’s the story about Reisling and the ugly whore in TEFL … but most beautiful to Reisling, because he didn’t see. Yes, Pam, it does.

Dehede011: I agree

aggirlj: brb

AGplusone: Oscar sees Helen of Troy, but doesn’t perceive because of his adolescent mind.

IrishBet: I think Oscar was too awed by Star to respect her as an equal.

BPRAL22169: The most important sex organ

AGplusone: It’s all in your mind, Bill!

Reilloc: The Wurlitzer?

IrishBet: (Well most of it)

pixelmeow: Pam, that is exactly what I think.

BPRAL22169: Well, part of it anyway

Dehede011: Is that what I am seeing in Star’s feelings about Oscar? David it seems like she has the feelings but perhaps she dispares of his ever growing up.

Reilloc: is this thing on?

AGplusone: Okay, part-mind, part-Wurlitzer …

pixelmeow: I see you, LN

BPRAL22169: Did someone say something?

Dehede011: See you

AGplusone: Not really, I think she hires Rufo to tutor him, and then drives Scar to him.

moultonfc: Consider that at the end of the book Oscar seeks out Rufo as a companion

AGplusone: Go walk the Glory Road with him some more, Rufe. Take him out for more exercise.

Reilloc has left the room.

Reilloc has entered the room.

aggirlj: Sounds like there was or should have been a sequel in the end.

pixelmeow: there you go, LN

AGplusone: see this LN?

moultonfc: The story hooks are there for a sequel

IrishBet: Can you see us now, LN?

Dehede011: Drives Scar to Rufo — for more tutoring

Dehede011: ??

BPRAL22169: I don’t think so — the last 100 pages argues very violently against a sequel — It would be the same story told all over again.

Reilloc has left the room.

Reilloc has entered the room.

BPRAL22169: If it weren’t the same story, there would be no point in telling it.

AGplusone: Well, it could be if life were only a Cabellian comedy.

Reilloc has left the room.

IrishBet: The only way it would be a different story is if Oscar grows up.

Reilloc has entered the room.

moultonfc: A sequel if it focused on oscar with out star

Reilloc: Goddam AOL.

BPRAL22169: Exactly, Pam — and then he wouldn’t want the same story.

pixelmeow: yes indeedy.

pixelmeow: you see us now?

AGplusone: Amen re AOL

Reilloc: I pay good, ill-earned money for this shit.

IrishBet: AoHell?

AGplusone: You on AIM now?

pixelmeow: LN, if you have DSL, you don’t have to pay for aohell.

Reilloc: I’m on AOL.

pixelmeow: dialup?

Reilloc: I should dump AOL.

aggirlj: I see it more as travels with Rufo.

aggirlj: It is slowing down a mite.

Reilloc: No, DSL.

aggirlj: I’m in limbo it would seem.

AGplusone: Five minutes break. Dee has the con.

AGplusone: conn

Reilloc: Let’s mutiny.

pixelmeow: well, you can use aim to do this, instead of going into aol.

AGplusone: I am off to water Bob

pixelmeow: that’s what I do…

pixelmeow: you gonna lead, LN?

aggirlj: Arghh, avast let out the plank.

moultonfc: Sorry but I must leave for dinner with friends.

Reilloc: I should but I want to make sure AOL’s really screwing me good.

aggirlj: Bye Fred, nice to see you.

Reilloc: Later, Fred.

pixelmeow: thanks for coming, Fred!

moultonfc: Bye.

AGplusone:

BPRAL22169: That’s right, LNC, you have to watch them all the time — over and over again!

jilyd: De can’t have the conn–she is STILL trying to catch up on the ng, as well as here!

jilyd: Bye Fred, good to meet you!!

Reilloc: Bill knows.

Reilloc: He’s a victim, too.

pixelmeow: you’re not gonna catch up, Dee.

moultonfcx has left the room.

pixelmeow: just giveit up.

Reilloc: I can’t.

BPRAL22169: ‘deed I do. I take it from the announcement that there will be a Saturday meeting this time.

Reilloc: The kids’ email addresses are here.

aggirlj: I’m on Google for my newsgroup and it doesn’t filter. I wish DSH would stop!!!!!

jilyd: I have marked loads of threads as read, but I saw your latest exchange with LN, and backtracked to the top of thread.

pixelmeow: you can change your aol to the high speed one, for broadband, and the cost is less

Reilloc: I’ve done that.

pixelmeow: and then download aim, and use that to do this instead of logging on to aol.

AGplusone: [I come in straight off my DSL and AIM rather than using AOL anymore, LN]

jilyd: Mine folters ofr individual posters, but not for crossposting, so I sitll get all the stupid replies.

Reilloc: I should try that for the chats, at least.

pixelmeow: Yeah, Dee, I jumped all over LN this morning, wasn’t that just lovely?

Reilloc: My son’s on AIM now.

jilyd: And BTW, it still makes me cringe to see ” I wish DSH would stop!!!!!” 😉

aggirlj: You were a bit cranky it would seem.

aggirlj: To pix

pixelmeow: yeah, a little…

pixelmeow: but we talked, and it’s all okay.

Reilloc: Why would anybody want to jump on harmless me?

AGplusone: Well, we do have two members in Hawaii, he said, darkly.

pixelmeow: ha.

pixelmeow: ha very ha.,

Reilloc: Two members in Hawaii?

Reilloc: Of what?

Reilloc: THS?

BPRAL22169: Oh, yeah, that reminds me — who was the Hawaii reference? Didn’t suggest anything to me when I read that.

AGplusone: uh-huh

aggirlj: Me either

Reilloc: So, what’s he saying?

jilyd: Actually, you both ended up quite civil. I don’t get quite as irritated by reading the crankiness, when the people involved try to resolve it, or else just shut up in public, before it drags on and on.

BPRAL22169: I think the German contingent had its foot somewhere the sun wasn’t shining today.

pixelmeow: and I wish I were in Hawaii.

pixelmeow: hello…….

jilyd: IS the Hawaii reference to our lacrymose friend?

Reilloc: Weepy?

Reilloc: brb…

jilyd: Yes, the one of two who mist not be named.

aggirlj: I think you’ve got it!

BPRAL22169: Not ringing any bells — I don’t look at every thread.

AGplusone: DSH … no, dopey.

pixelmeow has left the room.

pixelmeow has entered the room.

BPRAL22169: I never considered DSH one of “us.”

pixelmeow: who in hell must not be named, and what in hell is that other word?

jilyd: AG, Stop that! You, too, Bill!

IrishBet: “lacrymose” means weepy or whiney

jilyd: That word means tearful, and I was thinking of a certain person whose assets are frozen.

pixelmeow: what did they do???

LanaiHoward has entered the room.

pixelmeow: HUH?

pixelmeow: OH!

pixelmeow: I get it.

pixelmeow: Hi, Howard!

AGplusone: I’m still rowing in my boat … have you clearned away all boarders yet, Dee?

jilyd: They keep talking bad about DSH.

aggirlj: My dog and cat a romping about and doing their ritual. It’s a laugh and a half.

aggirlj: Hi Howard.

jilyd: Do you remeber my initials. pix?

LanaiHoward: Hi all. Using the new Mac chat software — not sure yet how it works.

pixelmeow: OH!!!!!

pixelmeow: I forgot that!!!

AGplusone: It’s safe to return and find out who stole the strawberry ice cream.

aggirlj: Here’s your ball bearings.

pixelmeow: well, you’re here, and that’s a good starrt.

LanaiHoward: Is Captain Queeg among us?

Reilloc: The mess boys did it.

Reilloc: Duplicate key to the ward room.

AGplusone: Okay … back on. Who’s got a question about Glory Road?

LanaiHoward: Queeg was responsible for the Greatest Lie in History?

Reilloc: No, Fred McMurray.

Dehede011: I have one for BPRAL

AGplusone: /ga, Ron

AGplusone: Howard: you know everyone here?

BPRAL22169: /ga Ron

Dehede011: You called GR Heinlein’s most Cabellesque novel. Can you expand on that?

BPRAL22169: Let’s see — I want to get a very short version of this, because it can go on and on.

aggirlj: ‘xplain Casbellesue pleae.

aggirlj: please

Dehede011: BPRAL will you take that question??

BPRAL22169: James Branch Cabell was the most famous writer in the english language between 1920 and 1929. Friend of Sinclair Lewis and others.defined his kind of comedy as three acts; in the first

BPRAL22169: you set up the problem, and envision your heart’s desire; i nthe second you strive toward it and in the third —

BPRAL22169: You either achieve it and find it wasn’t what you wanted after all, or else (“the difference being negligible”) you fail to attain it and find that “happiness, after all, lies further on down the rocky, befogged road.”

aggirlj: TYVM

BPRAL22169: The fact that Heinlein included that stuff after finding the Egg means he was doing this very deliberately.

Dehede011: Okay,

BPRAL22169: Not everybody got it — Avram Davidson wanted to cut that part when he pubbed it in F&SF

AGplusone: And when the editors wanted to chop the last third of GR, he told his agent it was a Cabellian comedy, and on purpose.

BPRAL22169: That’s what led tot he “sexed up fairy story” comment in Grumbles.

BPRAL22169: Yes.

AGplusone: So Oscar’s a bit like good old befogged Lear, or Hammy on the top of the castle in Elsinore.

Dehede011: So is it fair to say that Scar found what he wants is further down the road but in the meantime he has grown a little toward that goal

aggirlj: That’s the feeling I get.

BPRAL22169: For Cabell, that was the whole reality of life.

BPRAL22169: Heinlein had other patterns, too – but in GR he hews very closely to Cabell’s line.

IrishBet: There’s always a letdown after one slays the dragon. Where do you go from there?

Dehede011: Okay, and the feeling I get from Star is that she sees in Scar the man she wants as soon as he grows up.

AGplusone: ‘nuther day, ‘nuther dragon

AGplusone: Well, they do show up still together in L’Envoi

Reilloc has left the room.

Dehede011: And maybe feels some pain because she has no guarentee that he will ever grow up and return to her.

Reilloc has entered the room.

pixelmeow: what are you up to now?

Reilloc: Goddam AOL, again.

AGplusone: So maybe he’s earned back his Corporal stripes again, or finally made Sergeant

Dehede011: Interesting play on words David

Dehede011: He was her knight

Dehede011: And in when knights really carried swords I am told the alternate term for them was Sergeant

AGplusone: Btw, Bill: What do you make of the resemblance between Zebbie and Scar in that scene?

BPRAL22169: I’m not sure what there is to make — they could be corresponding characters from alterate universes, but there isn’t really much information to base a speculation on, is there?

IrishBet: Zebbie was a much fuller character than Oscar was.

AGplusone: “L’Envoi” is the last chapter of The Number of the Beast, Jane.

Reilloc has left the room.

aggirlj: Okay, thanks.

Dehede011: What does L’Envoi mean??

DavidWrightSr: I have sometime thought that RAH was making a joke for those who thought that all his characters were the same

BPRAL22169: “The message,” I think.

AGplusone: but very much the same. Falls in love at first sight with a Mad Scientist’s Daughter.

BPRAL22169: Could be.

AGplusone: Impulsive, immature …

AGplusone: still got a bit of growing up to do

IrishBet: I didn’t see Zebbie as immature.

Dehede011: I don’t get that feeling about Zebbie

pixelmeow: I didn’t either.

AGplusone: drives around with a concealed canon in his car

pixelmeow: that’s immature?

Dehede011: Zebbie is quick to make up his mind but not impulsive.

DavidWrightSr: Remember that he did the same thing with Deety and Libby(Elizabeth)

Reilloc has entered the room.

AGplusone: And Poddy and Holly and …

pixelmeow: hello again

Reilloc: Hello, I must be going.

BPRAL22169: There’s something else about that first dance scene — it’s an evocation of Doc Smith’s Lensman. In that (Galactic Patrol, I think), the boy and girl were penultimates of two breeding lines.

Dehede011: Nice talking to you

BPRAL22169: Theyw ere “meant for each other.”

Dehede011: Yes,

aggirlj: Just popped in to say goodbye? Well then Ciao. Was nice.

AGplusone: You don’t show up for IMs, LN, either.

AGplusone: Maybe you need to reinstall the software.

Reilloc: How now?

aggirlj: So okay, have we identified the hoax yet? I’m kind of curious what you all might think it is.

jilyd: I have seen you all along, so I don’t know what he means.

pixelmeow: what do you think it is?

aggirlj: PPPPPPPPP

Dehede011: Heinlein talked us into spending our beer money on his novel

pixelmeow: what do you think Howard?

AGplusone: Now it sends. Do you receive it. Not that I haven’t wanted a canon pointing backwards for some tailgaters on the freeway, Pam.

IrishBet: There seems to be some unspoken social condition, though, David. Afdter all, Deetie & Jacob had that survival shack.

aggirlj: I really haven’t the foggiest except that from the clues Scar really didn’t have a choice.

IrishBet: hoax is: sex = love = fidelity = romance = sex

Dehede011: Was that strictly a survival shack or was that their regular home

BPRAL22169 has left the room.

IrishBet: It was where they lived, but stocked for survival — and for remaining hidden at need.

BPRAL22169 has entered the room.

BPRAL22169: OK — I just signed on from AIM; can anyone see me?

Dehede011: That was my impression also. But these days everyone is stocked with something

AGplusone: yes

aggirlj: yep

Reilloc: Where’d Bill go?

Reilloc: I can’t seehim.

IrishBet: Bill I see you. You left the room twice before you came back/

Reilloc: jk

IrishBet: Neat

Dehede011: I see you on IM

DavidWrightSr: No problem Bill.

BPRAL22169: I ws in the AOL screen; now i’m in the AIM screen. I see you, LNC.

BPRAL22169: (unfortunately it signed me out of the AOL room)

Reilloc: Then get your ass in here on Sunday and play cards.

BPRAL22169: Always assuming the sky doesn’t fall…

pixelmeow: how do you guys do that…

aggirlj: It must be a software or do you call out everything.

Dehede011: Given Heinlein’s fallout shelter, I think he was just amusing himself with the survival characteristics while adding color to his story

jilyd: Do what?

BPRAL22169: Bridge? We could always use a fifth…

IrishBet: Don, but it seems to give Zebbie a reason to have a cannon on his car, also.

AGplusone: I can also always use a fifth, bring two please.

BPRAL22169: You have to register with Yahoo games, and they have a whole series of rooms.

AGplusone: fairly painless. even works for Macs

Dehede011: As the Episcopalians say, “Where ever three or four are gathered together there will also be a fifth.”

IrishBet: You’d better show up, Bill — David has me rereading Goren.

IrishBet: 🙁

Reilloc: Re-read Goren but learn SAYC.

BPRAL22169: I’m so sorry foryou.

Dehede011: SAYC??

BPRAL22169: What’s SAYC?

pixelmeow: I’d love to come, but I don’t know how to play the game yet.

AGplusone: What about my theory? GR is a educate the former juvies. No one knew SiaSL was going to take off then, and he decided to write a book about the grownup juveniles …

IrishBet: I have to review that, too. Used that convention in college.

AGplusone: the ones who wore the pocket protectors he saw at SF cons.

Reilloc: Standard American Yellow Card.

Dehede011: Okay, thanks

IrishBet: 😉

BPRAL22169: Ah, yes — I always called it American Standard from the Am. Federation of Bridge, I think.

IrishBet: David, I think there’s a lot to that — a transitional vehicle.

BPRAL22169: At the time, Heinlein was corresponding with George Scithers, a big sword-and-sorcery fan who had taken an electronics course from RAH’s brother at West Point.

pixelmeow: how does one register with Yahoo Games?

AGplusone: “about sex for the grownup juvies”

IrishBet:

AGplusone: snerk

Reilloc: What was the question?

AGplusone: maybe 4EK

Reilloc: Who was that lady I saw you with?

IrishBet: He admitted he was a virgin when he criticized RAH’s use of sex.

AGplusone: He did? Where?

IrishBet: It’s right on his website, David.

AGplusone: Ah …

jilyd: IrishBet, you named the other “who must not be named.”

Reilloc: He’d had no rite of passage?

IrishBet:

jilyd: “speak of teh ddevil and his demon will appear.”

Reilloc: It’s interesting that in Rite of Passage, his attempt to write a Heinlein juvenile, his protagonist had sex.

IrishBet: He describes himself as a pretty geeky geek — visited a house with friends and was the only one to stay downstairs.

AGplusone: 1968 … maybe Panshin got some between 58 when he got drafted and did two years in the Army, and then …

Reilloc: I read it in ’69.

AGplusone: Got Nebula in 68

AGplusone: I’ve never read it.

Dehede011: I bought Panshin’s book HEINLEIN IN DIMENSION in the early 70s. As I read it I disagreed on every point he made.

IrishBet: He put the whole thing up online, along with a bunch of apologetics.

Reilloc: Really?

AGplusone: Anyone enjoy Varley’s recent ‘juvie’?

Reilloc: You mean I bought the ebook and didn’t have to?

Dehede011: But in the end I came away with an increased understanding of why I liked Heinlein

AGplusone: Red Thunder, or whatever it’s named.

IrishBet: Didn’t have to.

AGplusone: I think he’s taken it down again … last time I looked for it, I couldn’t find it in that morass.

Dehede011: For that reason I will always be grateful to Panshin. He completed the job of making me a Heinlein fan.

IrishBet: http://www.enter.net/~torve/critics/lounge.htm

IrishBet: link is at the bottom of that page.

AGplusone: Does he still have the written debate on Troopers up there?

BPRAL22169: The PSFK debate? Last time I looked.

IrishBet: In the “Annex to the Critics Lounge”

AGplusone: Yeah, the PSFK debate. How about read Red Thunder?

BPRAL22169: That’s not ringing bells.

BPRAL22169: I keep thinking “Red Dawn,” and that’s not right.

Dehede011: BRB

IrishBet: I like that.

AGplusone: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0441010156/10 3-3495942-3528647?v=glance

AGplusone: Very reminiscent of RSG, brought to today’s sixteen seventeen year olds

Dehede011 has left the room.

AGplusone: w/sex

BPRAL22169: Oh, yeah. I lost interest in Varley some time ago.

AGplusone: This may get it back.

IrishBet: Have you read it, David?

AGplusone: Enjoyed it far more than Steel Beach, et al. Yes.

AGplusone: Recommend it highly.

IrishBet: Do we have a general link to Amazon from THS website?

AGplusone: No, but we can.

Reilloc: Will they pay?

IrishBet: We should. Pennies make dimes.

AGplusone: Might write a review …

IrishBet: They pay.

AGplusone: They have changed something recently, btw. If you go to their site from our link, but buy anything else, they don’t pay anymore.

IrishBet: And, considering I’ve spendover $100 on Amazon since Christmas, THS is welcome to some of it. I’veseen a generic “search” link on other sites.

AGplusone: E.g., use our link to one book, then shift and buy something else ….

AGplusone: they don’t pay the referral.

BPRAL22169: Take down the link and let them know. If they don’t value the customers we send them, then we shouldn’t be sending them customers.

IrishBet: David, what if the search initiates from our site? (at least for that search) I’ve seen that type link elsewhere.

AGplusone: So it’s either put up a clutter of links … or suffer … or dispense with that.

aggirlj: Have to go eat dinner. See some of you Saturday maybe?

IrishBet: I have a Balticon meeting Saturday.

AGplusone: David Wright is looking at that … we’ll see.

AGplusone: Well, let me suggest something for a topic next meeting before you all go.

AGplusone: I’ve had a suggestion from a programming director I’ll need some help on: Heinlein’s use of language (i.e., linguistics) in SiaSL and others.

AGplusone: I don’t think she’s talking about the offshoot to liguistics in lit-crit either.

Dehede011 has entered the room.

Dehede011: Back, I just had a very spooky anomaly show up on my screen

AGplusone: I also think there’s some of that in TEFL as well.

Reilloc: Linguistics?

Reilloc: For example?

IrishBet: For instance . . . .?

AGplusone: uh-huh …

Reilloc: coke

DavidWrightSr: Can you clarify that Linguistics a little better?

IrishBet: 🙂

DavidWrightSr: I mean, what are they looking for?

BPRAL22169: You mean Whorf-Sapir stuff?

AGplusone: two part answer: number one, see, http://www.lsadc.org/

AGplusone: Yep, somewhat or one part

DavidWrightSr: Are we referring to what he said *about* linguistics, or a linguistic analysis of his writing?

AGplusone: number two: frex: in TEFL when LL is talking to computer about ‘Lita and Joe, he mentions the referent in the language used on Blessed, or whatever the planet is, for pronouns is always the male pronoun, it was a mark of the male-

AGplusone: oriented culture, etc. And then there’s the ‘semantics’ parts of Whorf-Sapir stuff.

aggirlj: What about in TMIAHM?

AGplusone: Yes, the dialect

BPRAL22169: The site is a professional linguist’s site, so they’re talking about what he said about linguistics, semantics, how language shapes your ability to deal with reality, etc.

AGplusone: I think so.

LanaiHoward: Not sure if I’m still connected. I’m afraid the screen on this new Mac IChat hurts my eyes.

AGplusone: Seems to be the overall theme at Norwescon this year.

BPRAL22169: RAH got nearly all his stuff about linguistics through Korzybski.

AGplusone: You can use AIM, Howard. I don’t use iChat for chats. Not there yet.

Reilloc: They’re talking semiotics and not linguistics.

AGplusone: Well, that’s one point Bill, but maybe not all …

AGplusone: I think that’s part of it too, LN.

Reilloc: Years ago, I was reading some author whose name I can’t remember now…

Reilloc: He was, like Umberto Eco, very into semiotics.

Reilloc: Percy Walker.

aggirlj: afk

BPRAL22169: Oh, yeah.

AGplusone: What I’m thinking is using the topic for an examination continuing “Love” and also linguistics usage

Reilloc: There’s a Percy Walker Project at the University of North Carolina, I think.

Reilloc: Not love again.

AGplusone: Since TEFL and SiaSL touch heavily into both.

AGplusone: But a transitional thing … theme

AGplusone: and you can go off-target into tangents on both to your heart’s content

AGplusone: Howard? Your thoughts? Computer linguistics?

BPRAL22169: Today’s the first day of the conference, isn’t it?

AGplusone: Or, I’m easy, as ever. Any other topics … ? What conference?

LanaiHoward: Unfortunately, I can’t use AIM until I install more RAM. Explorer blows up at a glance.

AGplusone: Norwescon is Easter Weekend.

IrishBet: Howard, download Netscape.

AGplusone: Don’t use explorer. What amount of ram have you got in what you’ve got?

IrishBet: I hate Explorer

AGplusone: Use Safari.

IrishBet: I hate all things Microsoft.

LanaiHoward: My computational linguistics background is devoted to programming language.

DavidWrightSr: Better still, use Firefox

AGplusone: That’s part of it … choices

LanaiHoward: Safari blows up equally. I have 256 Neg at present — got some 512 meg chips but always hesitate to install thigns — I am software, not hardware…

LanaiHoward: an electrostatic discharge waiting to happen

BPRAL22169: The lsadc annual conference. Jan 6-9

AGplusone: You have an iMac?

LanaiHoward: As far as human linguistics, I have stayed closer to some of the work in cultural anthropology, not the new schools such as semiotics

LanaiHoward: G4 tower

aggirlj: I am gone guys. Bye for now:-)

BPRAL22169: I’d be willing to try it — but it strikes me this is a little specialized for our group.

IrishBet: Niters, Jane

AGplusone: Should not have a problem. Running OS X?

LanaiHoward: 10.3.7.

aggirlj: {{{{{hugs}}}}}}

AGplusone: It struck me as a little speicalized for a general SF con.

aggirlj has left the room.

IrishBet: {{{ Jane }}}

AGplusone: I don’t know how you’re having problems. Something is weird.

BPRAL22169: Possibly you’re right, but cons get desperate for programming and some strange thigns show up from time to time.

AGplusone: 256 ought to work just fine.

IrishBet: I’d need some background material — but I’ll try it.

AGplusone: Background is the essays on that site.

Reilloc: I’ll try it but it’s really a specialized field of serious study.

BPRAL22169: That’s a lot of material to cover.

AGplusone: Agree

AGplusone: a challenge

DavidWrightSr: I’ll take a look into it. I have a degree in Linguistics, but have never actually worked in the field.

AGplusone: deals with work usage … a writer’s skill

IrishBet: Okay. I’ll fit it in in between membership and Balticon and recruiting and figuring out panels.

AGplusone: I knew that David

jilyd: Goodnight, friends.

AGplusone: ‘

Reilloc: Night, Dee.

pixelmeow: night, Dee!

IrishBet: Nice to ‘meet’ you, Jill

IrishBet: De

IrishBet: Dee

IrishBet: damn

AGplusone: See you all Saturday.

jilyd has left the room.

Dehede011: Guys, I am out of here. But it was great fun.

Dehede011: Bye

AGplusone: I’ll still around until the end of trhe hour for anyone who wishes to stick.

pixelmeow: Howard, another browser you can try is Firefox

Dehede011 has left the room.

pixelmeow: I use it, it’s very lightweight,

IrishBet: I’ve heard good things about Firefox.

pixelmeow: it’s a great program.

pixelmeow: I love it.

AGplusone: I think you need to run First Aide, Howard. Have disk?

pixelmeow: only time I use IE is when whatever page I’m trying to go to absolutely has to have IE.

Reilloc: Hey, you mac guys.

LanaiHoward: Run First Aid and Norton utilities. Had to rebuild onto an external Firewire drive when I had an unrecoverable crash on my internal HD.

IrishBet: I don’t know the first thing about Macs

Reilloc: I bought a mac laptop the other day and might need some tech support.

LanaiHoward: For that matter, ran Diskwarrior and Techtool.

AGplusone: Call me.

Reilloc: It’s an old one but I wanted to see it again.

AGplusone: You shouldn’t have problems with 256 Ram

IrishBet: As much as I hate MS, I need it for work. 🙁

AGplusone: Not for just a browser and AIM

LanaiHoward: Laughs as I remember the time the US Labor Department needed to take out double door frames to add 4 MB of RAM (360/65)

IrishBet: You’re dating yourself, Howard.

AGplusone: I have 256 on the old iMac, and never ran into problems with that amount using good knows what else more with OS X

LanaiHoward: I think I’m now on a long-term contract—once I have some cash flow again, I’ll get in a second drive.

IrishBet: Although . . . . I recall the false floors two feet above the real floor.

AGplusone: Well, if you don’t fix it by Memorial Day … maybe I’ll make an appointment. Pay me with good alcohol

LanaiHoward: Irishbet, you misconstrue. I remember when the 360/65 was new. First machine I used was an IBM 1130, then UNIVAC 1108…then ported stuff from 7090

LanaiHoward: Sort of fondly remember writing OS/360 Type 1 supervisor call (interrupt) handler — max 256 bytes.

BPRAL22169: Have a good one.

BPRAL22169 has left the room.

DavidWrightSr: And it’s been a long, been a long time 😉

DavidWrightSr: I am getting very slow response.

DavidWrightSr: test

DavidWrightSr: wow. that took about 5 minutes to get through.

AGplusone: I see you now David

Reilloc: Can you see me, David?

pixelmeow: I see you…

DavidWrightSr: Yes. I could see everyone, but all of those messages never went through until just now. I sent the first one minutes ago

Reilloc: It’s goddam AOL, David.

Reilloc: Somebody should sue.

pixelmeow: heh.

DavidWrightSr: I’m not on AOL.

pixelmeow: damn lawyer.

AGplusone: I can

DavidWrightSr: Might be my firewall.

IrishBet: AIM is AOHell software.

AGplusone: but I’m getting a lag too. About 1 … 2 …. minutes

AGplusone: Just started now.

AGplusone: I think they shut down some servers.

IrishBet: Crap

pixelmeow: I’ve had the problem several times tonight, so has LN, and I think others have also.

DavidWrightSr: Ah, It’s not just me then.

pixelmeow: I’ve gotta get to bed, guys; gotta get up early in the morning

IrishBet: Teresa, are you coming up to Balticon?

pixelmeow: when is it?

IrishBet: Memorial Day weekend

IrishBet: end of May

DavidWrightSr: Irish. You live near Balimer?

AGplusone: yep. see if this continues … AOL servers.

AGplusone: Take care everyone.

AGplusone: Got log David?

DavidWrightSr: Got it.

pixelmeow: I’ll have to think about it, those things are so damn expensive…

IrishBet: Just outside the city. 🙂

DavidWrightSr: I used to live in Columbia, MD

pixelmeow: Pam, have I met you before?

pixelmeow: in person?

IrishBet: Just a spit and a throw down the road.

AGplusone: lag … 2 minutes, 3,

IrishBet: Teresa, I don’t think so. David sic’d me on you. I may need help.

IrishBet: 🙂

DavidWrightSr: We moved to Arizona in 1974 or thereabouts.

pixelmeow: ah, okay

Reilloc: I might move to someplace warm.

IrishBet: I’ll drop you an e-mail once I figure out what’s going on.

DavidWrightSr: Now I’m back in birth state of Georgia

Reilloc: Reminds me of a lawyer joke.

AGplusone: Okay, I’m braced …

Reilloc: Lawyer wakes up from surgery and the doctor’s standing by him…

AGplusone: Uh-huh

Reilloc: Doctor says, “The procedure turned out great and you’re going to be fine.”

AGplusone: and …

Reilloc: Lawyer says, “So why are all the blinds drawn in the room?”

IrishBet:

Reilloc: Doctor says, “There’s a fire in the building across the street and we didn’t want you to wake up and think you’d died.”

DavidWrightSr: LOL

IrishBet: ooooooo

IrishBet: oops

AGplusone: [or jump out of bed, run across the street, and start passing out business cards to the victims …

DavidWrightSr: Gotta Go Folks. See ya Saturday.

pixelmeow has left the room.

DavidWrightSr: If you say anything further worth logging, send it to me. 😉

AGplusone: Yeah, me too … I guess … g’nite from Andrea to you all. Tommy’s burgers from the fast food place tonight.

Reilloc: Later, David.

IrishBet: I’m off . . . . night all . . . . nice to meet everyone

LanaiHoward: night!

AGplusone: G’nite David, from New York.

Reilloc: Pam, Dave, Howard…

LanaiHoward has left the room.

DavidWrightSr: Night Chet

IrishBet has left the room.

Reilloc: See you around the campfire.

Reilloc has left the room.

AGplusone: G’nite Joel

DavidWrightSr: I don’t think that he is paying any attention to us 🙂

DavidWrightSr: C ya!

AGplusone: ‘sallright. He’ll see it when he comes back. bye
End of Discussion

Click Here to Return to Index

by The Heinlein Society
on February 16, 2013

Heinlein Readers Discussion Group Thursday 01/06/2005 9:00 P.M. EST Glory Road and the Most Mammoth Hoax in History