Heinlein Reader’s Discussion Group
Thursday 10-26-2000 9:00 P.M. EDT
Time Enough For Love #3
Here Begin The A.F.H. postings
Subject: Re: Time Enough For Love
Date: 10/15/2000
>Having risked his all to help
>the society that expelled him, he had demonstrated pro-societal behavior
While I quite agree with you, it is nevertheless true that Heinlein said: they were wrong.
Heinlein deeply believed in the power of personal growth. Maybe we’re seeing him disagree with Wells. Wells in _A Modern Utopia_ had the society’s incorrigibles isolated on islands according to type (i.e., alcoholics on one island; sexual criminals on another, etc.), but they were only put there until the judgment of
incorrigibility was made (remember, Wells was British with the British sense of the iron-curtain of class sensibilities). Young offenders under 25 were also isolated but the implication was they could be educated out of it.
Bill
————————————————————————————————-
10/27/2000 2:36:22 PM Opening “System Log 10/27/2000”
RAH-AIM Notice of Meetings 10-26 & 28-00 TEFL II
Subject: RAH-AIM Notice of Meetings 10-26 & 28-00 TEFL II
Date: Thu, Oct 19, 2000 3:42 PM
The Robert A. Heinlein Reading Group
Notice of Meetings
http://members.aol.com/agplusone/rahmain.htm
Date: Thursday, October 26, 9 PM to midnight, ET, and Saturday, October 28, 2000, 5 to 8 PM, ET.
Topic: Part Two discussions with the novel _Time Enough For Love_. Chat Cohosts: David Wright, Sr () and Jane Davitt (), Will Reich (), “Bert” (), and Bill Patterson ().
Those who’ve read the logs of the chats for last Thursday and Saturday [see our archives at http://www.alltel.net/~dwrighsr/heinlein.html (Thursday’s link is “AIM 10-16-2000 TEFL” and Saturday’s link is “AIM 10-14-2000 TEFL”)] already know that in our next meetings next we will continue with the novel _Time Enough For Love_ as two weeks has proven not time enough to do more than scratch the surface. Although Jane (arrival of baby permitting) and Dave Wright will continue to share hosting duties, three other frequent participants have agreed to help on some aspects they particularly wish to discuss and begin their leadoff posts for this excursion. Will Reich will be discussing the frequent criticisms he, and others, find levied against Heinlein writings that perhaps begin with this work;”labert” sociological aspects he sees or questions inherent in this novel; and Bill Patterson the concept of “World As Myth” he sees picked up or resumed most remarkably in this novel. It’s suggested that, concerning this last point, the short story “‘–All You Zombies–‘” that first appeared in the magazine Fantasy & Science Fiction, March 1959, be reviewed.
Additionally, I’d point out there’s a recent thread concerning the structure of this unusual novel started by a new participant on AFH, entitled “Subject: Posting for the AIM RAH Readers Group on TEFL
——————————————————————————
Date: Tue, Oct 17, 2000 4:14 PM” that you might consider.
Note: “‘–All You Zombies–‘” is collected most recently in _The Fantasies of Robert A. Heinlein_ (TOR, 1999, ISBN 0-312-87245-3, a hardbound collection) and you might consider picking up a copy as it contains all of what previously was collected in Waldo and Magic, Inc. and The Unpleasant Profession of Jonathan Hoag.
Please remember to help them out by your thoughts in posts before the meetings. As always, there is more than just the ‘story’ to talk about this one of Heinlein’s works.
For information on how to participate in the chats, download software from http://www.aol.com/aim/home.html/and read the directions on David Wright’s website: http://www.alltel.net/~dwrighsr/heinlein.html
Until next Thursday and Saturday, or unless I see you on this thread, good reading, good eating and good loving … all possible if you make time enough.
—
David M. Silver
“I expect your names to shine!”
——————————————————————————
Subject: Re: RAH-AIM Notice of Meetings 10-26 & 28-00 TEFL II
Date: Sat, Oct 21, 2000 2:34 PM
AGplusone wrote:
>
>Topic: Part Two discussions with the novel _Time Enough For Love_.
>
I just read The Tale of The Adopted Daughter ( working my way through story by story…). It’s probably one of the most popular pieces of Heinlein’s writing and certainly evokes a lot of emotion for various reasons. Few thoughts on some details rather than the story itself……
Phyllis Briggs-Sperling is the, “first woman to win the Ira Howard Memorial Century Medal for contributing one hundred registered offspring to the Families. Took her less than two centuries but Phyllis was a girl of simple tastes, the other being pencil and paper and time to think about geometry.”
With a hundred kids to change, feed and cuddle I’m surprised she had time to think about _anything_….I did some maths….less than 2 centuries is too vague but if we assume 180 child bearing years ( since I hope she waited till at least 15 to have her first baby) then that’s a baby every 20 months or so. Assume some multiple births of course but then she would need some breaks for menopause and rejuvenation. I’m not sure it’s possible but I can see why it took a while for that particular award to be given.
Also, I often wondered how long it was between Dora’s death and the start of TEFL. I can’t remember if it was ever sorted out but Buck was born on Earth on 3031; assume that’s about the same as Dora’s date of birth, I think she would have lived until about 80, which brings us to 3111. Lazarus was born in 1912 and is 23 centuries old at the start of TEFL I think, making it 4212 ( approximately). Therefore, it’s about 1100 years after. The numbering of years altered but that should be about right; I’m open to corrections 🙂 This strikes me as being incredible; a thousand years and he can still cry over the memory of her loss…..it has to have been a pivotal moment in his life and yet I’m not sure we see that it’s had that much effect on him. Is he mellowed by his life with Dora? Is he less sure that long life is preferable to short? Can anyone point to a change that we can see in Lazarus that’s directly attributable to Dora?
One last point….I could be suffering a knee jerk reaction but does anyone else think Lazarus is sincere when he says,
“Dora wasn’t subject to menstrual cramps, and neither of us told the girls to expect them. Being myself convex instead of concave, I refrain from commenting on the theory that such pains are a conditioned reflex; I don’t think I’m entitled to an opinion – you might ask Ishtar.”
And then again you might not…..grr….morning sick free pregnancies, no cramps, babies born in the middle of card games….grr…
Jane
——————————————————————————
Subject: Re: RAH-AIM Notice of Meetings 10-26 & 28-00 TEFL II
Date: Thu, Oct 26, 2000 11:26 AM
>Until next Thursday and Saturday, or unless I see you on this thread, good
>reading, good eating and good loving … all possible if you make time enough.
I have to anticipate a possibility I may be late tonight, Thursday, October 26, for the chat. My sister is arriving from Colorado and we have to perform a final filial duty since my mother’s remains are going to be sent east today to be buried alongside her parents and predeceased brothers and sisters. If I am late there is a likelihood I may not arrive at all this evening as my immediate family’s getting together may turn out to be a wake (we are part Irish, after all). My mother died in the hospital early Monday morning, hopefully under sufficient medication that she didn’t realize the fight was over.
Frances Katherine Flocker Silver Ahern
August 6, 1920 – October 22, 2000
Third [child] of a family of eleven children of Dominick Floceri, an immigrant to the United States from Reggio, Calabria, Italy and his wife, Mary Agnes Mee [MacNaMee] Flocker, of Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan, she was born in Kenosha, Wisconsin, raised and educated in parochial schools of that city and graduated St. James High School with academic honors in 1935, at age 15.
Daughter of a factory worker, with eight younger chlldren to raise, she immediately left home and went to work, higher education not being an option. Six years later, on June 15, 1941, she married Benjamin R. [Berel] Silver, himself the son of immigrants to the United States from Poland and Russia, and had three children of that marriage. Widowed sixteen years later, she raised them to maturity.
A working mother almost all her married life, and self-supporting after her children were grown, she was self-reliant, responsible, and sometimes stubborn to an extreme about morality and honesty. She supported herself and her family by employment predominantly in the hotel and restaurant industry, employed in virtually ever task in that trade from waitress to owner of a small dinner house. She trained her daughter as a bookkeeper; and the daughter became an accountant, specializing in audits in the hotel and restaurant industry. Her elder son was a lawyer, her younger is a teacher. Both sons served honorably in the military and naval services of their country during Vietnam, as their father and uncles did during World War II.
She devoted her life to her family, although she did occasionally please herself as she was entitled to do.
And in 1945, while they waited in California for her husband and her brothers to return home from the Pacific, she taught her three-year-old first child David to read, as she believed literacy and learning through reading was the relief of the tediums and pains of life.
Thank you, mother.
She is survived by two sisters, two brothers, three children, two grandchildren, and numerous cousins, nieces and nephews.
—
David M. Silver
“I expect your names to shine!”
——————————————————————————
Subject: Re: RAH-AIM Notice of Meetings 10-26 & 28-00 TEFL II
Date: Thu, Oct 26, 2000 11:51 AM
[snipped notice of probable absence and obiturary notice to preserve available space on archives website]
I couldn’t snip that….My heartlfelt condolences to you and yours…
JenO.
To a Life Well Lived…..
——————————————————————————
Subject: Re: RAH-AIM Notice of Meetings 10-26 & 28-00 TEFL II
Date: Thu, Oct 26, 2000 12:40 PM
>JenO.
>To a Life Well Lived…
Thank you, Ms O’Malley,
The good sisters who taught the daugter of someone named Mary Agnes MacNaMee and she, herself, wouldn’t have had it any other way, although she was annoyed a bit about having to spend the last few months in a bed.
I did forget to mention one thing: It goes without saying that between Dave Wright, Jane Davitt, Labert, Will Reich (if he tears himself away from his beloved Yankees), and Bill Patterson to cohost and guide the discussion you’ll all do fine tonight and I look forward to reading the log if I do not make it.
For the next meetings, the ones two weeks off (not this coming Saturday, which is a repeat), the topic will be “Women in Heinlein” co-hosted by Jane Davitt and Randi Patterson who each have promised not to leave any blood on each other. Stephanie Vickers (Merfilly) had promised to help them out, but in light of Ebon’s illness probably cannot. Any of the rest of you would be very helpful and welcome to Jane and Randi, especially if Eleanor’s younger sister arrives before the fortnight is out. E mail them with your offers please, and please copy me so I can make out the scorecards.
See you all next when I see you …
—
David M. Silver
“I expect your names to shine!”
——————————————————————————
Subject: Re: RAH-AIM Notice of Meetings 10-26 & 28-00 TEFL II
Date: Thu, Oct 26, 2000 8:40 PM
JenOMalley wrote:
>
[snipped notice of probable absence and obiturary notice]
>
>I couldn’t snip that….My heartlfelt condolences to you and yours…
>
>JenO.
>To a Life Well Lived…..
Oh, man, David. I am so sorry. Your mom was a Hell of a woman David. She sounds like a woman RAH would have written about.
—
William Dennis II
http://www.ournet.md/~libertarian
http://www.ournet.md/~coolwebpages
——————————————————————————
Subject: Re: RAH-AIM Notice of Meetings 10-26 & 28-00 TEFL II
Date: Thu, Oct 26, 2000 12:58 PM
David, my sympathy on your loss. I’m glad it ended peacefully for your mother and I can imagine how much you’ll miss her. She sounds like a wonderful woman. I’m very sorry.
Jane
——————————————————————————
Subject: Condolences
Date: Thu, Oct 26, 2000 3:31 PM
Message-id:
“AGplusone” wrote in message news:
[snipped notice of probable absence and obiturary notice]
David,
Please accept my condolences. I know that words will never help in a real sense, but it’s all we can offer. Please know that we’re here for any help we can give.
—
Bryan
“for to him that is pitiless the deeds of pity are ever strange and beyond reckoning.” – Tolkien
——————————————————————————
Subject: Re: RAH-AIM Notice of Meetings 10-26 & 28-00 TEFL II
Date: Thu, Oct 26, 2000 9:51 PM
[snipped notice of probable absence and obiturary notice]
David, I wish I had seen this earlier in the day. My condolences to you, and a warm hug from our family to yours.
Filly
http://hometown.aol.com/merfilly8/myhomepage
“You can’t depend on your eyes when your imagination is out of focus.”
–Mark Twain
——————————————————————————
Subject: Re: RAH-AIM Notice of Meetings 10-26 & 28-00 TEFL II
Date: Fri, Oct 27, 2000 2:58 AM
Message-id:
Please accept condolences.
Your mother’s name defintely shinned !!
—mac
*********************************************
——————————————————————————
AGplusone wrote in message
[snipped notice of probable absence and obiturary notice]
Posting for the AIM RAH Readers Group on TEFL
Subject: Posting for the AIM RAH Readers Group on TEFL
Date: Tue, Oct 17, 2000 4:14 PM
I’m posting this (and two other msgs) in the a.f.h. group at the behest of Bill Patterson, who I’ve known since late 1974. I’ve been a Heinlein fan since early 1964, when I was eight going on nine. These posts are with respect to the ongoing discussion in the online AIM Heinlein Reading Group, currently discussing TIME ENOUGH FOR LOVE.
I haven’t been able to participate much before now, due to press of family and business (I am lobbyist scum for a space company founded by Pete Conrad, and I have a 11 month old baby boy, a four year old girl, and a 17 year old stepdaughter) (i.e., I don’t have any life of my own anymore…).
I read the posts and discussion logs afterwards as they get put up on the website, and then generally call up Bill Patterson and bore him to death arguing over points that have already been covered…
Bill finally got fed up enough with me to force me to actually write up some of my points in time to -actually- participate in a timely discussion..!
Here’s my first point.
*******************************
I first read TEFL when it came out in 1973; I had bought two copies of the book – one for me, and one as a graduation present for my then-girlfriend. (I finished my first reading of TEFL during her graduation ceremonies, which were incredibly boring, as were mine a few days later.) I’ve read it about ten time since then over the years (at least).
Throughout most of these readings I always took away from TEFL what I’d always had – great book; nice collection of interlocked stories; nice stfnal take on the Arabian Nights. In other words, a “mere” surface take.
This book is much more than that, of course. It is, upon more years of reading and reflection (dare I say it?) literature. It is an integrated whole, not just interlocked parts, with every part reinforcing every other part. It is as well thought out, and crafted with as much care, as SIASL. Why isn’t this as acknowledged a point for TEFL?
TEFL *is* highly structured, and the structure is complex, and it is as obvious as…er….the nose on one’s face. (If one is looking in a mirror, of course! ) Heinlein once again has hidden everything in complete plain view, and yet, three decades on, not a single person has (to my admittedly limited knowledge) ever made a comment on the fact that…
…TEFL is a *musical* composition. Of great complexity. (Among many other things all at once too, of course.)
Take a look at the Table Of Contents, fa ghu’s sake. There are Chapter titles in this book that are literal bars of music. What more hints does one need – a smack upside the head?!
There it has all sat, at the very front of the book, for almost thirty years now, in utter plain view – a score for the “plan” of the book. Robert Heinlein, once again, must be astounded at how -easy- it is to put something over on all us marks..!
I first mentioned this observation to Bill Patterson back in 1975. Alas, I don’t have enough musical background (i.e., total ignorance) to, first of all, read music. (There was a time I could. That would have last been about 1973. It’s all gone now.) So I don’t know what the bars of music are supposed to sound like (and thus what the “titles” are for those particular Chapters). I also don’t have any knowledge about forms of music – the plan is there in plain musical notation and form for those that do have this background. Certainly this is an area of human endeavor that Robert Heinlein, (mostly) self taught polymath, clearly had knowledge of. He was a cultured man, and prided himself on being so. He -worked- at it. His musical knowledge shows up here and there in casual mentions all through his work. Clearly the musical structure of TEFL is something that he must have carefully considered…
We have an advertising motto at the company I work for (Universal Space Network): “We make it all look easy.” And to make that motto true, we all of us work our leeetle rear ends off. Heinlein, too, has always made it look easy. And as the years go by, and as we delve closer into what he actually wrote, it becomes obvious upon some closer examination that the depth of thought and work that went into every thing he wrote – especially in the later years – is deep and devious.
So – does anyone with -any- sort of musical knowledge want to comment on TEFL’s “score?” The orchestration? Is this a symphony, or an opera, or a concerto, or what?
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
——————————————————————————
Subject: Re: Posting for the AIM RAH Readers Group on TEFL
Date: Tue, Oct 17, 2000 11:56 PM
>So – does anyone with -any- sort of musical knowledge want to comment on
TEFL’s “score?” The orchestration? Is this a symphony, or an opera, or
>a concerto, or what
One of the nice things I’ve found in Jim Gifford’s _Robert A. Heinlein: A Reader’s Companion_ is a full listing of what they are. I’ve always known they were American Army bugle calls, but not which ones specifically all of them were. It’s obvious that the one at Coda III is Taps, perfectly appropriate to the content of the chapter in which Ted Bronson is “killed.” I’m not a musician, but that’s one I learned to play on the Japanese bugle my uncle brought home from the Pacific–the only tune I can play.
At page 197 of RAH:ARC are the following:
Da Capo V “To Arms” or “Call to Arms” (if you’ve a copy of John Wayne’s “Rio Grande,” the black and white one in which Wayne plays the Cavalry Colonel and Maureen O’Hara plays his estranged wife, who travels to Texas to rescue her son who has enlisted in his father’s regiment after busting out of West Point, you can hear it played when the Apaches attack to break out the captives being held by the cavalry.)
Da Capo VI “Mess Call” (I can’t recall whether this one is played in any of the Wayne cavalry epics. It’s the one that you might recognize if you remember the unofficial words: “Porky, porky, porky, without a bit of lean. Soupy, soupy, soupy, without a bit of bean.”)
Da Capo VII “Fix Bayonets” (a call I’ve never heard performed). Gifford notes it may be a risque joke.
Coda I”To Horse” (which IIRC is sometimes known as “Boots and Saddles”). I’ve heard it, but cannot remember where it might be recorded in the Wayne epics, if at all.
Coda II”Recall” (aka “Retreat”). IIRC It’s what you’ve heard a thousand times when they take the flag down at sunset. Used to hear it in school all the time, and I think this still play this on all U.S. military posts when the flag comes down at 5 PM. (Even if it is just a recording.)
Coda III”Taps” used for military funerals and also at 10 PM every evening to mean “lights out” in military barracks. (E.g. “Day is done. Gone the sun. … etc.”).
Coda IV “Reveille” used to wake you up in the morning and herald the raising of the flag for a new day. (“You can’t get ’em up, you can’t get ’em up, you can’t get ’em up in the morning. …. “). At West Point they play a truly awesome jazzed up version of this thing known as “Hellcats Reveille” which is designed to (1) get you out of bed in a shot, and (2) keep you apprised of how much time you’ve got to get dressed and into proper formation — i.e., it’s timed. After you hate it the first twenty or so times it’s played blasting you out of your dreams, if you’re a little weird, as I am, you learn to love it.
If, and I suspect you’re right, Heinlein has hidden meaning in clear sight, I hope this helps. Thanks also to Jim and his sources for the proper identification and order.
—
David M. Silver
“I expect your names to shine!”
——————————————————————————
Subject: Re: Posting for the AIM RAH Readers Group on TEFL
Date: Sat, Oct 21, 2000 4:27 PM
On 18 Oct 2000 06:56:37 GMT, AGplusone <>wrote:
>One of the nice things I’ve found in Jim Gifford’s _Robert A. Heinlein:
>A Reader’s Companion_ is a full listing of what they are. I’ve always
>known they were American Army bugle calls, but not which ones
>specifically all of them were. It’s obvious that the one at Coda III is
>Taps, perfectly appropriate to the content of the chapter in which Ted
>Bronson is “killed.” I’m not a musician, but that’s one I learned to
>play on the Japanese bugle my uncle brought home from the Pacific–the
>only tune I can play.
Several of them confused me for quite a time, because the American bugle calls are not always the same tunes as the British ones of the same name. Reveille, for instance, is quite different (and is often confused by name with “Rouse”).
>Da Capo VI “Mess Call” (I can’t recall whether this
>one is played in any of the Wayne cavalry epics. It’s the one that you
>might recognize if you remember the unofficial words: “Porky, porky,
>porky, without a bit of lean. Soupy, soupy, soupy, without a bit of
>bean.”)
I know it as “Come to the cookhouse door, boys”. Same tune, different (unofficial) words.
>Da Capo VII “Fix Bayonets” (a call I’ve never heard
>performed). Gifford notes it may be a risque joke.
One I didn’t know at all.
>Coda II”Recall” (aka “Retreat”). IIRC
>It’s what you’ve heard a thousand times when they take the flag down at
>sunset. Used to hear it in school all the time, and I think this still
>play this on all U.S. military posts when the flag comes down at 5 PM.
>(Even if it is just a recording.)
I hadn’t heard this one until I was visiting a USAF base, I don’t know if it’s used (either by that name or the tune) in the UK military.
>Coda III”Taps” used for military
>funerals and also at 10 PM every evening to mean “lights out” in
>military barracks. (E.g. “Day is done. Gone the sun. … etc.”).
Probably the most well-known of the bugle calls among non-military people in Britain, it’s often used here by the Scouts and Guides at camp as well as at the Cenotaph “Remembrance Day” service (which here is held on the Sunday closest to November 11th).
>Coda IV “Reveille” used to wake you up in the
>morning and herald the raising of the flag for a new day. (“You can’t
>get ’em up, you can’t get ’em up, you can’t get ’em up in the morning.
As I found out the hard way, it is not a good idea to play this at 7am at an SCA camp where most of the members are US military . Several of them apparently got confused and thought they were back in boot camp, even though I was playing it on recorder instead of bugle…
>If, and I suspect you’re right, Heinlein has hidden meaning in clear
>sight, I hope this helps. Thanks also to Jim and his sources for the
>proper identification and order.
Indeed, and thanks for posting them. I really must get round to ordering RAH:ARC…
Chris C
——————————————————————————
Subject: Re: Posting for the AIM RAH Readers Group on TEFL
Date: Sat, Oct 21, 2000 10:25 PM
Thank you for identifying them. I can pick them out on my guitar by sight reading. By ear I only know two of those tunes; one of them is Reveille, the other isn’t.
Dehede.
——————————————————————————
Subject: Re: Posting for the AIM RAH Readers Group on TEFL
Date: Sun, Oct 22, 2000 4:24 AM
Chris Croughton wrote:
>
>>Coda III “Taps” used for military
>>funerals and also at 10 PM every evening to mean “lights out” in
>>military barracks. (E.g. “Day is done. Gone the sun. … etc.”).
>
>Probably the most well-known of the bugle calls among non-military
>people in Britain, it’s often used here by the Scouts and Guides at camp
>as well as at the Cenotaph “Remembrance Day” service (which here is held
>on the Sunday closest to November 11th).
>
“Taps” used in the USA and “Last Post” used in UK and some European countries for the same sorts of ceremonies are, I think, not the same tune.
—
Mike Dworetsky
——————————————————————————
Subject: Re: Posting for the AIM RAH Readers Group on TEFL
Date: Mon, Oct 23, 2000 12:32 PM
On Sun, 22 Oct 2000 12:24:21 +0100, Mike Dworetsky <>wrote:
>>Probably the most well-known of the bugle calls among non-military
>>people in Britain, it’s often used here by the Scouts and Guides at camp
>>as well as at the Cenotaph “Remembrance Day” service (which here is held
>>on the Sunday closest to November 11th).
>
>”Taps” used in the USA and “Last Post” used in UK and some European
>countries for the same sorts of ceremonies are, I think, not the same
>tune.
‘Taps’ is definitely the same tune (same words as well) in both countries, “Last Post” is different. However, it’s used at a different time. We have Taps at sundown (and the lowering of the flag) and then often nothing at “lights out” (this may depend on which service, I know more about Navy and Scouting use). For funerals, we don’t use Taps but do use “Last Post”. I suspect that this is the cause of some confusion.
(Usage almost certainly does depend on which branch of the military as well, and in some cases smaller sections. For instance, on active Navy vessels the lowering of the flag at sundown will generally just use ‘Still’ on a bosun’s whistle (a single note held for 8 beats) rather than Taps. Shore bases, while still Navy, may be different as may vessels at anchor.)
Chris C
——————————————————————————
Subject: Re: Posting for the AIM RAH Readers Group on TEFL
Date: Sun, Oct 22, 2000 7:38 PM
>As I found out the hard way, it is not a good idea to play this at 7am
>at an SCA camp where most of the members are US military . Several
>of them apparently got confused and thought they were back in boot camp,
Ooooh….mean trick. I’da found you…and you wouldn’t have liked it….
JenO.
Actually, Drill Sgt, I am having fun!
——————————————————————————
Subject: Re: Posting for the AIM RAH Readers Group on TEFL
Date: Mon, Oct 23, 2000 12:33 PM
On 23 Oct 2000 02:38:35 GMT, JenOMalley wrote:
>>As I found out the hard way, it is not a good idea to play this at 7am
>>at an SCA camp where most of the members are US military . Several
>>of them apparently got confused and thought they were back in boot camp,
>
>Ooooh….mean trick. I’da found you…and you wouldn’t have liked it….
Oh, they found me …
It did its job, though, got them out of bed …
Chris C
——————————————————————————
Subject: Re: Posting for the AIM RAH Readers Group on TEFL
Date: Mon, Oct 23, 2000 9:19 PM
>>Ooooh….mean trick. I’da found you…and you wouldn’t have liked
>it….<eg>
>
>Oh, they found me …
>
>It did its job, though, got them out of bed …
>
>Chris C
Was this at Pennsic, by any chance? I heard something about somebody doing bugle calls…..
JenO.
Stick Jock on Board
——————————————————————————
Subject: Re: Posting for the AIM RAH Readers Group on TEFL
Date: Tue, Oct 24, 2000 11:17 AM
On 24 Oct 2000 04:19:33 GMT, JenOMalley <>wrote:
>>>Ooooh….mean trick. I’da found you…and you wouldn’t have liked
>>it….
>>
>>Oh, they found me …
>>
>>It did its job, though, got them out of bed …
>
>Was this at Pennsic, by any chance? I heard something about somebody doing
>bugle calls…..
No, I’d learnt by then. It was at a local SCA camp in Flintheath (East Anglia, in England); at the time almost all of the SCA members in Britain were either US military or dependants (with a few US civilians working here, and myself as the only ‘native’). It’s changed a lot now, with a lot of the US bases closing and more British people joining the SCA.
I was at Pennsic in ’89, the only time I’ve been, and didn’t hear any bugle calls there.
Chris C
——————————————————————————
Subject: Re: Posting for the AIM RAH Readers Group on TEFL
Date: Tue, Oct 24, 2000 5:46 PM
>Was this at Pennsic, by any chance? I heard something about somebody doing
>>bugle calls…..
>
>No, I’d learnt by then. It was at a local SCA camp in Flintheath (East
>Anglia, in England);
Oh okay….For a minute I was worried…
JenO.
So I swing a sword…
——————————————————————————
Subject: Re: Posting for the AIM RAH Readers Group on TEFL
Date: Wed, Oct 18, 2000 7:26 AM
>TEFL is a *musical* composition. Of great complexity.
Actually, this is the subject of the second bit of correspondence I had with RAH while he was still alive. I pointed out that the book was structured like a rondo — a piece with a repeating structure, like ABACADACABA
The music in the Table of Contents is bugle calls — Reveille, Retreat, Mess Call.
Bill
——————————————————————————
Subject: Re: Posting for the AIM RAH Readers Group on TEFL
Date: Mon, Oct 23, 2000 10:45 PM
In article <>, (BPRAL22169) wrote:
>>TEFL is a *musical* composition. Of great complexity.
>
>Actually, this is the subject of the second bit of correspondence I
>had with RAH while he was still alive.
Reminds of my younger son, again. Comes home and says his friend, Wade’ father can talk to the dead. Then he gets all pissy when I tell him there’s no trick to that at all; it’s getting the dead to talk back.
>I pointed out that the book was structured like
>a rondo — a piece with a repeating structure, like ABACADACABA
>
>The music in the Table of Contents is bugle calls — Reveille, Retreat, Mess Call.
>Bill
>
LNC Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.
——————————————————————————
Subject: Time Enough For chat
Date: Sun, Oct 15, 2000 5:16 AM
I hope to discuss Time Enough For Love with reading group tonight. “Excerpts from the notebooks of Lazarus Long” have been reliable channel markers for me through lots of changes. Along with applying the scientific method to everyday situations- See “Guest of Honor Speech, 3rd World Science Fiction Convention, Denver, 1941”, from “Requiem”. Hot Jets!- Tom
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
——————————————————————————
Subject: Re: Time Enough For chat
Date: Sun, Oct 15, 2000 1:04 PM
>
>I hope to discuss Time Enough For Love with
>reading group tonight. “Excerpts from the
>notebooks of Lazarus Long” have been reliable
>channel markers for me through lots of changes.
>Along with applying the scientific method to
>everyday situations- See “Guest of Honor Speech,
>3rd World Science Fiction Convention, Denver,
>1941”, from “Requiem”. Hot Jets!- Tom
>
Hi, Tom,
The above post came through on my server this morning on Sunday, at 5:16 AM. We met to discuss Time Enough For Love yesterday and last Thursday, so we missed you–that’s the bad news. The good news is: we decided last Thursday to meet again on TEFL for two more meetings, because we felt we hadn’t scratched more than the surface. Those meetings will be two weeks from yesterday and last Thursday, regular times, October 26 and 28, so we hope to see you then.
—
David M. Silver
“I expect your names to shine!”
——————————————————————————
Subject: Book discussions
Date: Thu, Oct 19, 2000 6:53 PM
Hi, David — thanks for the update on the book discussions. I’ll miss Time Enough for Love, as I’m in the pre-Farnham’s Freehold camp; I think his famous style change came with that book. I’d love to participate in discussion of the early ones, including the much-neglected Star Beast.
Phebe
——————————————————————————
Subject: Re: Book discussions
Date: Thu, Oct 19, 2000 9:37 PM
>I’ll miss Time Enough for Love, as I’m in the pre-Farnham’s
>Freehold camp; I think his famous style change came with
>that book. I’d love to participate in discussion of the
>early ones, including the much-neglected Star Beast.
Just wait for the wheel to come round again Phebe, although there is usually plenty of opportunity to tie in earlier works with his later ones at the discussions.( I’m also not sure how long the wheel takes for one full revolution?) Like yourself, I am also a big fan of his earlier stories, however I must admit that his “World as Myth” series has grown on me with time. I would also mention that after Farnham’s Freehold came tMiaHM, which still has at least one foot firmly placed in Heinlein’s earlier style.
Sean
***************
…. and now for something completely different:
Too fall apart, I trap all afoot.
****************
——————————————————————————
Subject: Re: Book discussions
Date: Fri, Oct 20, 2000 7:20 AM
I don’t think there is such a thing as a “style change” in Heinlein, at least not after Stranger. He tried to make every book very different from the books that preceded it, and succeeded in that aim. You can make a case for there being a break of some kind at ST and Stranger, because he was getting out of the juveniles biz– but the case is not strong, because he had always been writing “for adults” during the juveniles period. However, starting with Stranger, everything was suddenly a lot more complex — i.e., he was no longer writing for “SF-reader adults,” but just for adults, period. And gradually that worked its way into a huge audience of non-SF-readers. The case for the “break” at that point has to do with his abandoning genre conventions entirely.
Bill
——————————————————————————
Subject: Re: Book discussions
Date: Fri, Oct 20, 2000 12:55 PM
In article <>, (BPRAL22169) wrote:
>I don’t think there is such a thing as a “style change” in Heinlein, at least
>not after Stranger. He tried to make every book very different from the books
>that preceded it, and succeeded in that aim. You can make a case for there
>being a break of some kind at ST and Stranger, because he was getting out of
>the juveniles biz– but the case is not strong, because he had always been
>writing “for adults” during the juveniles period. However, starting with
>Stranger, everything was suddenly a lot more complex — i.e., he was no longer
>writing for “SF-reader adults,” but just for adults, period. And gradually
>that worked its way into a huge audience of non-SF-readers. The case for the
>”break” at that point has to do with his abandoning genre conventions entirely.
>Bill
>
Bill (et alia) —
Here’s what I think about this topic. (Whoopee… <grin>)
The break isn’t a stylistic break, although that is a possible *symptom* of what happened. And, IMHO, what happened was that…
…Heinlein stopped writing for “the market(s)” (whatever the heck that is) and started to *write only for himself.* I.e., he wrote what he wrote the way he wanted it to be written because only *he* wanted to do so.
And then trusted that he’d be fiancially secure enough to be able to either take a hit, and/or the book would make money.
By then he’d had published enough of a back catalog, all kept in print, that them royality checks kept on comin’ every quarter. He also was making investments (I assume), and he’d have those to be able to help keep him and Virginia in groceries. (Plus, Virginia, it seems to me, is and always has been one heck of a businessman. Wasn’t any way that they’d lose money, it seems to me, if she were doing the financial work — and I assume that she was.) (SA, you needn’t answer…it’s none of our business anyway…)
Anyway, that’s my theory. A-hem. <grin>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.
——————————————————————————
Subject: Re: Book discussions
Date: Fri, Oct 20, 2000 7:41 PM
Bill wrote:
>I don’t think there is such a thing as a “style change” in Heinlein, at least
>not after Stranger. He tried to make every book very different from the books
>that preceded it, and succeeded in that aim. You can make a case for there
>being a break of some kind at ST and Stranger, because he was getting out of
>the juveniles biz– but the case is not strong, because he had always been
>writing “for adults” during the juveniles period. However, starting with
>Stranger, everything was suddenly a lot more complex — i.e., he was no longer
>writing for “SF-reader adults,” but just for adults, period. And gradually
>that worked its way into a huge audience of non-SF-readers. The case for the
>”break” at that point has to do with his abandoning genre conventions entirely.
……Which makes me wonder about Podkayne of Mars, which was written and published in 1962. Sure, it was the very first of his novels (not short stories) to be wriiten in the female first person, but for all intents and purposes it is a “juvenile” novel. And he wrote this after both ST and Stranger, but before Glory Road, Farnham’s Freehold and tMiaHM. I wouldn’t like to suggest that after Stranger he was unsure of his future direction or “style”, however PoM does seem to me to be an anomaly (and to a lesser extent also Glory Road), if we consider what came after. As far as “style change”, I guess if he was trying to make every book very different from preceding books, then this could be regarded as a style change in itself, and I think that most people accept that a change took place (but might disagree as to when it actually happened).
Sean
***************
…. and now for something completely different:
Too female, lame foot.
***************
——————————————————————————
Subject: Re: Book discussions
Date: Fri, Oct 20, 2000 9:43 PM
Gaeltach () arranged the electrons thusly…
>
> >Bill wrote:
>
>>I don’t think there is such a thing as a “style change” in Heinlein, at least
>>not after Stranger. He tried to make every book very different from the books
>>that preceded it, and succeeded in that aim. You can make a case for there
>>being a break of some kind at ST and Stranger, because he was getting out of
>>the juveniles biz– but the case is not strong, because he had always been
>>writing “for adults” during the juveniles period. However, starting with
>>Stranger, everything was suddenly a lot more complex — i.e., he was no longer
>>writing for “SF-reader adults,” but just for adults, period. And gradually
>>that worked its way into a huge audience of non-SF-readers. The case for the
>>”break” at that point has to do with his abandoning genre conventions entirely.
>
>……Which makes me wonder about Podkayne of Mars, which was written and published
>in 1962. Sure, it was the very first of his novels (not short stories) to be
>wriiten in the female first person, but for all intents and purposes it is a
>”juvenile” novel. And he wrote this after both ST and Stranger, but before Glory
>Road, Farnham’s Freehold and tMiaHM. I wouldn’t like to suggest that after Stranger
>he was unsure of his future direction or “style”, however PoM does seem to me to be
>an anomaly (and to a lesser extent also Glory Road), if we consider what came
>after. As far as “style change”, I guess if he was trying to make every book very
>different from preceding books, then this could be regarded as a style change in
>itself, and I think that most people accept that a change took place (but might
>disagree as to when it actually happened).
I don’t think Heinlein started writing more complex stories all of a sudden; the juveniles were every bit as complex to children as his adult novels were to grown-ups. Heinlein knew his audience. As far as breaking with convention goes, I really don’t think that there was much of a convention left in science fiction by the early Sixties. Van Vogt and Sturgeon had already started the revoloution that Ellison, Aldiss, Brunner, Haldeman and Heinlein finished. I think what you both are trying to characterize is a change in Heinlein’s marketing strategy. I doubt he was ever uncertain about anything he did; what Sean is sensing as uncertainty in the direction his writing was to go was probably just Heinlein testing which way the market wind was blowing. Heinlein was nothing if not shrewd. The kids who bought his stories in the Fifties would be adults in the Sixties, and when one has a loyal following, one sticks with them. _GR_ was Heinlein trying (and succeeding) to capitalize on the sudden popularity of _LotR_ among people who no doubt enjoyed Heinlein’s juveniles when they were kids. I’m not sure I can fit _PoM_ into this hypothesis, but I may not need to. It is entirely possible _PoM_ was practice for _IWFNE_.
-Randi
——————————————————————————
Subject: Re: Book discussions
Date: Fri, Oct 20, 2000 11:13 PM
>..Which makes me wonder about Podkayne of Mars
I have a theory that Podkayne was a gesture of appreciation to Putnam’s for taking on the risk of Stranger — there was no way of telling whether it would have had any market at all. Putnam’s wanted the Scribner’s juvenile line; Heinlein gave them a quasi-juvenile. I say “quasi” because it’s really not addressed to teenagers — it’s addressed to parents, particularly young parents, it seems to me.
Bill
——————————————————————————
Subject: Re: Book discussions
Date: Sat, Oct 21, 2000 12:35 AM
Randi, Sean, and Bill P have been conversing about the early sixties novels, and Randi noted:
>what Sean is
>sensing as uncertainty in the direction his writing was to go was
>probably just Heinlein testing which way the market wind was
>blowing. Heinlein was nothing if not shrewd. The kids who
>bought his stories in the Fifties would be adults in the Sixties,
>and when one has a loyal following, one sticks with them. [snip following]
I’ve always looked at _Starship Troopers_, _Glory Road_, and _Double Star_ (1956, four years before the 1960s) as a unit, the “immature adults” I call them, aimed at the ‘kids who bought his stories in the Fifties,’ that ‘loyal following.’ I’d happily add _Podkayne of Mars_ to this batch, since it does the same thing–aimed as it is at young adults, not an euphemistic term for juveniles, who are still looking for full maturity. _Double Star_ fits in there when you consider actually some of the early juveniles were written in the late Forties and, by 1956, older readers were adults.
—
David M. Silver
“I expect your names to shine!”
——————————————————————————
Subject: Re: Book discussions
Date: Sat, Oct 21, 2000 8:47 AM
AGplusone () arranged the electrons thusly…
>Randi, Sean, and Bill P have been conversing about the early sixties novels,
>and Randi noted:
>
>>what Sean is
>>sensing as uncertainty in the direction his writing was to go was
>>probably just Heinlein testing which way the market wind was
>>blowing. Heinlein was nothing if not shrewd. The kids who
>>bought his stories in the Fifties would be adults in the Sixties,
>>and when one has a loyal following, one sticks with them. [snip following]
>
>I’ve always looked at _Starship Troopers_, _Glory Road_, and _Double Star_
>(1956, four years before the 1960s) as a unit, the “immature adults” I call
>them, aimed at the ‘kids who bought his stories in the Fifties,’ that ‘loyal
>following.’ I’d happily add _Podkayne of Mars_ to this batch, since it does the
>same thing–aimed as it is at young adults, not an euphemistic term for
>juveniles, who are still looking for full maturity. _Double Star_ fits in there
>when you consider actually some of the early juveniles were written in the late
>Forties and, by 1956, older readers were adults.
Hmmm. Yes. That would be consistent. What an interesting idea: An author that acknowledges that his audience will grow and mature. I wonder if anybody has attempted an analysis of an author’s work by proceding from the assumption that her target audience remained the same, changing only in age or maturity? Hemingway would be an excellent author to analyze from that standpoint. Kerouac too, and maybe even Fitzgerald. Thanks, David; I think I just found a thesis for my American Lit term paper. 🙂
-Randi
——————————————————————————
Subject: Re: Book discussions
Date: Sat, Oct 21, 2000 12:47 PM
[Snip good stuff preceding]
>standpoint. Kerouac too, and maybe even Fitzgerald. Thanks,
>David; I think I just found a thesis for my American Lit term
>paper. 🙂
If you build it around RAH [and get a good grade on it ;->], be sure to submit it to BPRAL22169 {aka Bill Patterson} for The Heinlein Journal. <VBG>
OJ III
——————————————————————————
Subject: Re: Book discussions
Date: Sat, Oct 21, 2000 4:00 PM
Ogden Johnson III () arranged the electrons thusly…
>
>[Snip good stuff preceding]
>
>>standpoint. Kerouac too, and maybe even Fitzgerald. Thanks,
>>David; I think I just found a thesis for my American Lit term
>>paper. 🙂
>
>If you build it around RAH [and get a good grade on it ;->], be sure
>to submit it to BPRAL22169 \{aka Bill Patterson\} for The Heinlein
>Journal. <VBG>
>
>OJ III
Yeah, right. 🙂 /Randi deploys claws and takes a swipe in OJIII’s general direction.
-Randi
——————————————————————————
Subject: Re: Book discussions
Date: Sat, Oct 21, 2000 8:03 PM
>Ogden Johnson III () arranged the electrons
>thusly…
>>>standpoint. Kerouac too, and maybe even Fitzgerald. Thanks,
>>>David; I think I just found a thesis for my American Lit term
>>>paper. 🙂
>>If you build it around RAH [and get a good grade on it ;->], be sure
>>to submit it to BPRAL22169 {aka Bill Patterson} for The Heinlein
>>Journal. <VBG>
>Yeah, right. 🙂 /Randi deploys claws and takes a swipe in
>OJIII’s general direction.
Hey! I was serious. Ask Jane. She did both a short informal one and a longer, formal paper for Issue 6. Good pieces, both. The longer one has me seriously looking for Rudyard Kipling HBs that I’ve left too long unread.
OJ III
——————————————————————————
Subject: Re: Book discussions
Date: Sun, Oct 22, 2000 12:58 AM
OJ, III:
>Hey! I was serious. Ask Jane. She did both a short informal one and
>a longer, formal paper for Issue 6. Good pieces, both. The longer
>one has me seriously looking for Rudyard Kipling HBs that I’ve left
>too long unread.
I thought OJ was serious, too, Randi. You don’t have to agree with Bill to get published in The Heinlein Journal, simply write a well-reasoned paper on the subject — part of the fun of such Journals is the arguments back and forth.
One reason I asked for a copy was in the event I felt it was worth publishing … if I did I’d have conveyed (and will convey) that assessment to both you and Bill.
—
David M. Silver
“I expect your names to shine!”
——————————————————————————
Subject: Re: Book discussions
Date: Sat, Oct 21, 2000 12:58 PM
Randi Patterson:
>What an interesting
>idea: An author that acknowledges that his audience will grow
>and mature. I wonder if anybody has attempted an analysis of an
>author’s work by proceding from the assumption that her target
>audience remained the same, changing only in age or maturity?
>Hemingway would be an excellent author to analyze from that
>standpoint. Kerouac too, and maybe even Fitzgerald. Thanks,
>David; I think I just found a thesis for my American Lit term paper.
My pleasure. Send me a copy of the paper (as an attachment to e mail if you wish). I’ve enjoyed reading other writings by you and would appreciate reading it.
—
David M. Silver
“I expect your names to shine!”
——————————————————————————
Subject: Re: Book discussions
Date: Sat, Oct 21, 2000 4:09 PM
AGplusone () arranged the electrons thusly…
>Randi Patterson:
>
>>What an interesting
>>idea: An author that acknowledges that his audience will grow
>>and mature. I wonder if anybody has attempted an analysis of an
>>author’s work by proceding from the assumption that her target
>>audience remained the same, changing only in age or maturity?
>>Hemingway would be an excellent author to analyze from that
>>standpoint. Kerouac too, and maybe even Fitzgerald. Thanks,
>>David; I think I just found a thesis for my American Lit term paper.
>
>My pleasure. Send me a copy of the paper (as an attachment to e mail if you
>wish). I’ve enjoyed reading other writings by you and would appreciate reading
>it.
Ok.
-Randi
——————————————————————————
Subject: Re: Book discussions
Date: Sat, Oct 21, 2000 2:08 PM
Randi wrote:
>
>
> Hmmm. Yes. That would be consistent. What an interesting
>idea: An author that acknowledges that his audience will grow
>and mature. I wonder if anybody has attempted an analysis of an
>author’s work by proceding from the assumption that her target
>audience remained the same, changing only in age or maturity?
>Hemingway would be an excellent author to analyze from that
>standpoint. Kerouac too, and maybe even Fitzgerald. Thanks,
>David; I think I just found a thesis for my American Lit term
>paper. 🙂
>
>-Randi
The Harry Potter books are doing that; the first book had a hero of 11 and was written in a style which was attractive to 11 year olds (well, a lot of other age groups liked it too!). Subsequent books, with the hero ageing a year each book, have been written in a progressively more mature style. By the time the final book is reached ( I think it’s a projected seven parter) they will be aimed at 18 year olds. Should be interesting….
Of course the author can still scoop up new 11 year old readers who can read the series at their leisure and stop if the books get too adult for them, though I have to say I can’t see this happening much.
Jane
——————————————————————————
Subject: Re: Book discussions
Date: Sat, Oct 21, 2000 4:13 PM
On Sat, 21 Oct 2000 17:08:22 -0400, ddavitt <>wrote:
>Randi wrote:
>
>> Hmmm. Yes. That would be consistent. What an interesting
>>idea: An author that acknowledges that his audience will grow
>>and mature. I wonder if anybody has attempted an analysis of an
>>author’s work by proceding from the assumption that her target
>>audience remained the same, changing only in age or maturity?
>>Hemingway would be an excellent author to analyze from that
>>standpoint. Kerouac too, and maybe even Fitzgerald. Thanks,
>>David; I think I just found a thesis for my American Lit term
>>paper. 🙂
>>
>>-Randi
>
>The Harry Potter books are doing that; the first book had a hero of 11
>and was written in a style which was attractive to 11 year olds (well,
>a lot of other age groups liked it too!). Subsequent books, with the
>hero ageing a year each book, have been written in a progressively more
>mature style. By the time the final book is reached ( I think it’s a
>projected seven parter) they will be aimed at 18 year olds. Should be
>interesting….
Several series for children have done that, especially authors who wrote one (main) series like Arthur Ransome (“Swallows and Amazons”) and Malcolm Saville (the earlier books; at some point he decided not to ‘age’ the characters any further which spoilt it), but I can’t think of authors offhand who have done it further into adulthood of their readers, for instance 30 years later writing about the characters as new grandparents. I’m sure that someone (apart from RAH) has done so and I’m just blanking on the memory.
>Of course the author can still scoop up new 11 year old readers who can
>read the series at their leisure and stop if the books get too adult
>for them, though I have to say I can’t see this happening much.
It seems quite a probable thing to happen, unless you meant that the stopping was what you couldn’t see happening much. I agree that most kids I know who read aren’t too bothered about reading books designed for adults, although they may find some subjects uninteresting or skip parts they don’t understand.
Chris C
——————————————————————————
Subject: Re: Book discussions
Date: Sun, Oct 22, 2000 5:48 AM
Chris Croughton wrote in message … <snipped some discussion of the “ageing” of children’s book series characters>
>Several series for children have done that, especially authors who wrote
>one (main) series like Arthur Ransome (“Swallows and Amazons”) and
>Malcolm Saville (the earlier books; at some point he decided not to
>’age’ the characters any further which spoilt it), but I can’t think of
>authors offhand who have done it further into adulthood of their
>readers, for instance 30 years later writing about the characters as new
>grandparents. I’m sure that someone (apart from RAH) has done so and
>I’m just blanking on the memory.
Outside of children’s books, some detective novel series have different approaches. Ed McBain’s 87th Precinct books barely age the characters, so that in the first book, Cop Hater, the cops are just a few years out of military service in WWII, whereas in later books the same cops seem to have done their military service in Vietnam. (Presumably, if the series continues much longer, they’ll begin to claim to have been young soldiers in the Gulf War.) Lead character Steve Carella has twin children, who were born in the late 1950s, yet are still, even now, only about ten years old. To his credit, Ed McBain/Evan Hunter is well aware of this problem, and in one book has Carella have the feeling that an awful lot of years seem to have gone by, and that the twins should really be in their thirties.
Whereas, in Robert B Parker’s Spenser novels, Spenser really ages. (Robert Urich is way too young for the part in the TV series/TV movies.) The first-person narration doesn’t specifically state Spenser’s age, but he does mention that he did his military service in the Korean War, which would make him in his early 40s in the first books, and would have him approaching his 70th birthday round about now.
——————————————————————————
Subject: Re: Book discussions
Date: Mon, Oct 23, 2000 5:59 AM
>Chris Croughton wrote in message …
>
><snipped some discussion of the “ageing” of children’s book series characters>
>
>>Several series for children have done that, especially authors who wrote
>>one (main) series like Arthur Ransome (“Swallows and Amazons”) and
>>Malcolm Saville (the earlier books; at some point he decided not to
>>’age’ the characters any further which spoilt it),
Quite a lot of _British_ juvenile sf has done this. Frex, Patrick Moore did a series about the colonisation of Mars, whose hero Maurice Gray, is 16 in the first book and in his 30s by the last one
Similarly, Angus MacVicar’s “Lost Planet” series begin with a 16-yr-old hero, Jeremy Grant who finishes up as a “Space Agent” in his 20s iirc. I think something similar happens to Chrsi Godfrey, hero of Hugh Walters “Blast-off at Woomera” et seq who was 17 when we first met him
Fimally, there is the much-maligned “Kemlo” series by EC Eliot. His exact age is never given, but in the first book, “Kemlo and the Crazy Planet” he appears to be about 14. By the last one (I think it was called “Kemlo and the Masters of Space”) he comes over more like an 18-year-old. If so, he has had a very eventful four years
—
Mike Stone – Peterborough England
“The English people are like the English beer.
Froth on top, dregs at the bottom, the middle excellent” – Voltaire
——————————————————————————
Subject: Re: Book discussions
Date: Mon, Oct 23, 2000 11:20 AM
On 23 Oct 2000 12:59:37 GMT, mike stone <>wrote:
>Quite a lot of _British_ juvenile sf has done this. Frex, Patrick Moore
>did a series about the colonisation of Mars, whose hero Maurice Gray,
>is 16 in the first book and in his 30s by the last one
I’ve only ever found the first two books in that series. However, in his other series about the colonisation of the moon it is similar, the young people age normally.
>Similarly, Angus MacVicar’s “Lost Planet” series begin with a 16-yr-old
>hero, Jeremy Grant who finishes up as a “Space Agent” in his 20s iirc.
Possibly even a little older, although IIRC it isn’t stated.
>I think something similar happens to Chrsi Godfrey, hero of Hugh
>Walters “Blast-off at Woomera” et seq who was 17 when we first met him
And in the last books is in his 40s, I think, director of the space agency and sending kids out to do the work while he flies a desk.
>Fimally, there is the much-maligned “Kemlo” series by EC Eliot. His
>exact age is never given, but in the first book, “Kemlo and the Crazy
>Planet” he appears to be about 14. By the last one (I think it was
>called “Kemlo and the Masters of Space”) he comes over more like an
>18-year-old. If so, he has had a very eventful four years
And the even more maligned Captain W.E. Johns (of ‘Biggles’ fame) space series, where they definitely age although that’s about the only thing remotely believable about the books (his ‘science’ is totally screwy, and I knew it when I first read them as an early teenager; I’m still rereading them and collecting them, though, because they were fun in spite of the errors). For that matter Biggles and co. age through the series.
One reason I mentioned Arthur Ransome specifically is that, unlike most of the others, the internal chronology is completely consistent. Everything happens in the school holidays (or round them) and it’s almost trivial to draw up a timeline of which holidays the books describe, including the holidays which are just mentioned (“Peter Duck”, for instance, is a story which the kids made up with “Captain Flint” over the winter holiday after “Swallows and Amazons”; this is shown in “Swallowdale” where they refer back to both the real holiday and to the story). That always made that series especially real to me; in contrast, the Enid Blyton “Famous Five” series was very difficult for me to swallow because there was no such sense of chronology (and there was so much action that it would have taken the kids 20 years to have all those adventures, without even having time to go to school between them!).
Offhand, the only non-British authors I can think of who ‘age’ their characters over a series are Diane Duane (in the “Young Wizards” series) and Anne McCaffrey (if that counts with a 2500 year timeline!). Surely there must be more?
Chris C
——————————————————————————
Subject: Re: Book discussions
Date: Tue, Oct 24, 2000 7:27 AM
>>I think something similar happens to Chrsi Godfrey, hero of Hugh
>>Walters “Blast-off at Woomera” et seq who was 17 when we first met him
>And in the last books is in his 40s, I think, director of the space
>agency and sending kids out to do the work while he flies a desk.
The first kid was introduced whilst Godfrey himself was still flying. He was called something Hale, but the first name escapes me.
This was a common way of handling the situation – bring in a new young hero for reader identification, as the original one began to get too old. In Patrick Moore’s “Mars” series, a teenager named Richard Rawn (“Prawn” to one of his elders) appears in a later book to fill the niche vacated by Maurice Gray. I can’t remember if the same happened in the Lunar series (I was ageing myself by then, and starting to drift away from the juveniles) but I shouldn’t be surprised if it did
—
Mike Stone – Peterborough England
“The English people are like the English beer.
Froth on top, dregs at the bottom, the middle excellent” – Voltaire
——————————————————————————
Subject: Re: Book discussions
Date: Tue, Oct 24, 2000 10:51 AM
On 24 Oct 2000 14:27:01 GMT, mike stone <>wrote:
>>And in the last books is in his 40s, I think, director of the space
>>agency and sending kids out to do the work while he flies a desk.
>
>The first kid was introduced whilst Godfrey himself was still flying. He was
>called something Hale, but the first name escapes me.
Tony Hale, and he was introduced in about the 4th book (the first one with all three of the others together, I think, the one setting up a lunar base). Chris Godfrey didn’t retire until a lot later, Tony accompanied the others on flights to (at least) Saturn and Uranus, as well as several by himself (“Terror by Satelite” and one involving a murder on Mars, as I recall).
>This was a common way of handling the situation – bring in a new young
>hero for reader identification, as the original one began to get too
>old. In Patrick Moore’s “Mars” series, a teenager named Richard Rawn
>(“Prawn” to one of his elders) appears in a later book to fill the
>niche vacated by Maurice Gray.
Ah, I never got that far.
>I can’t remember if the same happened in
>the Lunar series (I was ageing myself by then, and starting to drift
>away from the juveniles) but I shouldn’t be surprised if it did.
I don’t think so, but since I don’t have all of that series (and can’t guarantee if I even read all of them) it could have been done.
I suspect that there are only two real ways of dealing with that problem, either accept that your audience is going to get older along with the characters and move to more ‘adult’ themes, or introduce new young people to retain the interest of the young readers. Either is valid, in my opinion, which one is chosen is a matter of stylistic preference.
Chris C
——————————————————————————
Subject: Re: Book discussions
Date: Sat, Oct 21, 2000 6:17 AM
Randi wrote:
>I’m not sure I can fit _PoM_ into this hypothesis, but I may not need to. It is
>entirely possible
>_PoM_ was practice for _IWFNE_.
I think Bill’s theory about _PoM_ being a gesture of appreciation to Putnam’s is closer to the mark, and perhaps explains the “anomaly”. I just can’t see any real connection or genesis from _PoM_ to _IWFNE_.
Sean
***************
…. and now for something completely different:
Evil era stack cats are live.
***************
——————————————————————————
Subject: Re: Book discussions
Date: Sat, Oct 21, 2000 8:54 AM
Gaeltach () arranged the electrons thusly…
>
>
>Randi wrote:
>
>>I’m not sure I can fit _PoM_ into this hypothesis, but I may not need to. It is
>>entirely possible
>>_PoM_ was practice for _IWFNE_.
>
>I think Bill’s theory about _PoM_ being a gesture of appreciation to Putnam’s is closer
>to the mark, and perhaps explains the “anomaly”. I just can’t see any real connection or
>genesis from _PoM_ to _IWFNE_.
Yes, at the time I couldn’t see any *real* connection either; I was just trying to find a place for something that didn’t quite fit in my theory. However, David managed to fit _PoM_ in neatly by applying my hypothesis about Heinlein’s audiences in the Fifties to Heinlein’s audiences in the Forties. Check his reponse to my post.
-Randi
——————————————————————————
Subject: Re: Book discussions
Date: Mon, Oct 23, 2000 10:38 PM
In article <>, (BPRAL22169) wrote:
>I don’t think there is such a thing as a “style change” in Heinlein, at least
>not after Stranger. He tried to make every book very different from the books
>that preceded it, and succeeded in that aim. You can make a case for there
>being a break of some kind at ST and Stranger, because he was getting out of
>the juveniles biz– but the case is not strong, because he had always been
>writing “for adults” during the juveniles period. However, starting with
>Stranger, everything was suddenly a lot more complex — i.e., he was no longer
>writing for “SF-reader adults,” but just for adults, period. And gradually
>that worked its way into a huge audience of non-SF-readers. The case for the
>”break” at that point has to do with his abandoning genre conventions entirely.
>Bill
>
Bill, are you in, like, denial or what? The old lech started selling sex. Further, where in the hell did you come up with “abandoning genre conventions entirely”(?) Name the ones he “abandoned” and see if your long list and your short list don’t have just that one word on them: sex.
Now, you can write about wanting to screw your minor daughter(s) but you can’t sell books to a juvenile market that have that content. There’s a term for that and publishers shy away from committing crimes.
LNC
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
——————————————————————————
Subject: Re: Book discussions
Date: Tue, Oct 24, 2000 2:58 AM
>Bill, are you in, like, denial or what? The old lech started selling
>sex.
I know this is adressed to Bill but …….This is way too simplistic and therefore quite wrong. Do you honestly believe that Heinlein’s later works were only selling sex? Perhaps you do, but if that were the case I doubt if he would have been as successful as he was. Sure, sex sells, and good sex sells even better. But IMO Heinlein didn’t write good sex, but he did write good stories. If anyone were to read Heinlein purely for the sexual content I think they would be sadly disappointed. However, you wouldn’t be disappointed if you were looking for a wide variety of topics, from politics to relationships, from leadership to medicine, from survival to economics etc. etc…… All contained in fantastic futuristic multiverses where almost anything was possible. But *all* you say is he “started selling sex”. Take off the blinkers if that is all you can see.
Sean
***************
…. and now for something completely different:
Sex at noon taxes. ***************
——————————————————————————
Subject: Re: Book discussions
Date: Tue, Oct 24, 2000 8:12 AM
In article <>, Gaeltach <>wrote:
>
>
>
>>Bill, are you in, like, denial or what? The old lech started selling
>>sex.
>
>I know this is adressed to Bill but …….This is way too simplistic and
>therefore quite wrong. Do you honestly believe that Heinlein’s later works
>were only selling sex? Perhaps you do, but if that were the case I doubt if
>he would have been as successful as he was. Sure, sex sells, and good sex
>sells even better. But IMO Heinlein didn’t write good sex, but he did write
>good stories. If anyone were to read Heinlein purely for the sexual content
>I think they would be sadly disappointed. However, you wouldn’t be
>disappointed if you were looking for a wide variety of topics, from
>politics to relationships, from leadership to medicine, from survival to
>economics etc. etc…… All contained in fantastic futuristic multiverses
>where almost anything was possible. But *all* you say is he “started
>selling sex”. Take off the blinkers if that is all you can see.
>
>Sean
>***************
>…. and now for something completely different:
>Sex at noon taxes.
>***************
>
Okay. That’s cool. Take out the sex and tell me how much saleable content or, for that matter, length you’ve got left. Lemme see…there goes all of TEFL, half of NOTB, all of TSBTS and even all of JACOE. I’m leaving ISFNE out of this because it’s just laughable.
Now, as for whether the sex was good sex. You say it wasn’t, I didn’t say, I’ll say now it was lousy, unimaginative, Puritanical sex that derived it’s tittilation from the forbidden. Missionary position, oh- yes-now-now-mommy stuff that took 300 pages to set up the first time and wasn’t worth the effort if the sex was all there was.
Next, those good stories you mention. Tell me one of them without the sex, please. Huh? They’re about people and people have sex so the sex has to stay? Okay. Tell me one where the sex isn’t the whole point and the business about “politics to relationships, from leadership to medicine, from survival to economics” aren’t just little imbedded lectures between the most recent copulation and the next.
Don’t get me wrong. I like Heinlein’s work. I’ve read all the fiction he’s written. I’ll read some of it again. Craft-wise he was pretty sound and I’ve seldom read anybody who could make the technical details necessary for a tale and weave them into the storyline in a way that would make me want to keep reading them–most of the time.
You know people, though. They’re quick to criticize something they can’t do themselves and they always want more than they deserve.
LNC
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
——————————————————————————
Subject: Re: Book discussions
Date: Tue, Oct 24, 2000 11:11 AM
On Tue, 24 Oct 2000 15:12:33 GMT, <>wrote:
>Okay. That’s cool. Take out the sex and tell me how much saleable
>content or, for that matter, length you’ve got left. Lemme see…there
>goes all of TEFL, half of NOTB, all of TSBTS and even all of JACOE. I’m
>leaving ISFNE out of this because it’s just laughable.
Wrong (except for IWFNE, possibly). Unless by ‘sex’ you mean everything involving a male-female relationship, in which case you can reduce almost any book about adults in the same way (almost anything on the bestseller list, certainly).
>Now, as for whether the sex was good sex. You say it wasn’t, I didn’t
>say, I’ll say now it was lousy, unimaginative, Puritanical sex that
>derived it’s tittilation from the forbidden. Missionary position, oh-
>yes-now-now-mommy stuff that took 300 pages to set up the first time
>and wasn’t worth the effort if the sex was all there was.
“EF, or FF?”
Exactly, the sex did not sell the books because it wasn’t particularly well written sex. In fact, there was very little graphic sex at all, mostly it was the same sort of level as on TV where the camera fades to gray just before you see anything. That’s why your whole thesis of “he was just selling sex” doesn’t hold water. No way would the books have sold at all just for the sex.
(It’s revealing just which aspects of the sex and relationships in his books people pick on. It reveals more about the person who complains than about the author…)
>Next, those good stories you mention. Tell me one of them without the
>sex, please. Huh? They’re about people and people have sex so the sex
>has to stay? Okay. Tell me one where the sex isn’t the whole point and
>the business about “politics to relationships, from leadership to
>medicine, from survival to economics” aren’t just little imbedded
>lectures between the most recent copulation and the next.
TNotB, tCWWTW. I’m hard pushed to remember any sexual scenes in either (as opposed to relationships). Oh, there’s the bit where Hazel is in the bath with Lazarus in tNotB. OK, tSBtS has a fair bit (which is why it’s one of my less favourites, I think there’s too much ‘waffle’ and not enough ‘meat’). Job has an amount, but again it’s mostly not at all explicit.
Your emphasis on sex reminds me of I girl I knew years ago who refused to read Fred Hoyle’s books because of “all the sex” – there was (in the book about which she was complaining) one scene where the protagonist met a girl at a party and they went back to her flat. That was it, no statement even of whether he slept on the couch or whatever.
>Don’t get me wrong. I like Heinlein’s work. I’ve read all the fiction
>he’s written. I’ll read some of it again. Craft-wise he was pretty
>sound and I’ve seldom read anybody who could make the technical details
>necessary for a tale and weave them into the storyline in a way that
>would make me want to keep reading them–most of the time.
He was good at that, certainly. The best? I can’t comment, I can’t think of anyone noticably better at that aspect of the craft…
>You know people, though. They’re quick to criticize something they
>can’t do themselves and they always want more than they deserve.
I don’t understand this comment in context. Since it’s you criticising the quality of the sex in the books, is this meant to imply that you can’t do it yourself? Surely not …
Chris C
——————————————————————————
Subject: Re: Book discussions
Date: Wed, Oct 25, 2000 11:17 AM
In article <>, (Chris Croughton) wrote:
>On Tue, 24 Oct 2000 15:12:33 GMT,
>>Okay. That’s cool. Take out the sex and tell me how much saleable
>>content or, for that matter, length you’ve got left. Lemme
>>see…there
>>goes all of TEFL, half of NOTB, all of TSBTS and even all of JACOE.
>>I’m
>>leaving ISFNE out of this because it’s just laughable.
>
>Wrong (except for IWFNE, possibly). Unless by ‘sex’ you mean
>everything
>involving a male-female relationship, in which case you can reduce
>almost any book about adults in the same way (almost anything on the
>bestseller list, certainly).
>
Pick one. Pick TEFL since that’s the next pick for discussion, leaf through it and mentally recast the stories without the inclusion of sexuality. Is there any point to any of them then? For that matter, is there any point to the book then since the whole thing’s a set up to get Woody (great nick, no, considering the context?) into the bed on Benton Boulevard boffing the beautiful babe who bore his body before?
There are plenty of mentions in the posts on these boards about the politics and economic theories of RAH but make no mistake, he was as much a determinist as Engels and Marx–only the feature on which he lighted to explain human behavior was sex, not economics. Frankly, I’m attracted to it. It’s more basic than greed and more universal. Most greed’s probably motivated by the goal of obtaining economic advantage in order to acquire sexual favor or desirability. I think he actually hit on something but just didn’t articulate it as fully as he could have in the form of an organized, non-fiction thesis. He did what he could which was support the proposition by fictional example.
>>Now, as for whether the sex was good sex. You say it wasn’t, I didn’t
>>say, I’ll say now it was lousy, unimaginative, Puritanical sex that
>>derived it’s tittilation from the forbidden. Missionary position, oh-
>>yes-now-now-mommy stuff that took 300 pages to set up the first time
>>and wasn’t worth the effort if the sex was all there was.
>
>”EF, or FF?”
>
You know what the old pragmatist would say. “FF unless you need to EF so we can FM.”
>Exactly, the sex did not sell the books because it wasn’t particularly
>well written sex. In fact, there was very little graphic sex at all,
>mostly it was the same sort of level as on TV where the camera fades
>to
>gray just before you see anything. That’s why your whole thesis
>of “he
>was just selling sex” doesn’t hold water. No way would the books have
>sold at all just for the sex.
That’s a little naive, Chris. You know as well as I do that he had to stay mainstream to keep selling. Further, you’re presuming he knew how to write a good sex scene but just didn’t. I don’t think he knew how to do it because he wasn’t a particularly good writer when it came to crafting believable scenes showing the way that actual people–not demigods with agendas and prepared lectures–behave when they’re in an informal setting. It just wasn’t his way, his style, it wouldn’t have fit the pace of his work, and it wouldn’t have sold. Invariably, when he throws a couple of characters together in the comfort of a dwelling place’s living room for dinner and light conversation the reader winds up getting a discourse on morality, politics or religion. That’s what his readers wanted and that’s what they got: escapism from the reality that the last time they had friends over for dinner maybe .001% of the conversation was anything remotely like that.
>
>(It’s revealing just which aspects of the sex and relationships in his
>books people pick on. It reveals more about the person who complains
>than about the author…)
>
I’ve got an elipsis key around here someplace and I’m not afraid to use it, if I can find it… Oh, yeah. There it is… Now what was that bullshit? Oh, yeah… I’m superior because I can “accept” screwing your mother, father, daughters, sons and any other relative who’s available. Right… Good key, that…
>>Next, those good stories you mention. Tell me one of them without the
>>sex, please. Huh? They’re about people and people have sex so the sex
>>has to stay? Okay. Tell me one where the sex isn’t the whole point
>>and
>>the business about “politics to relationships, from leadership to
>>medicine, from survival to economics” aren’t just little imbedded
>>lectures between the most recent copulation and the next.
>
>TNotB, tCWWTW. I’m hard pushed to remember any sexual scenes in
>either
>(as opposed to relationships). Oh, there’s the bit where Hazel is in
>the bath with Lazarus in tNotB. OK, tSBtS has a fair bit (which is
>why
>it’s one of my less favourites, I think there’s too much ‘waffle’ and
>not enough ‘meat’). Job has an amount, but again it’s mostly not at
>all
>explicit.
I didn’t include “Cat.” I don’t like it and probably won’t ever read it again. “Beast” is all about sex–when it’s not setting up the, what do you call it here? Reality as fiction or something like that? That elaborate mechanism for plausible deniability of charges that the old man’s just gone wanker happy. Someone suggest that there’s a deep game afoot. That “666” isn’t six to the sixth to the sixth but rather “sick, sick, sick” and a giggle from the grave. Job? Crap. I read it once. Lost it. Bought another copy, read it and immediately gave it away.
I’m from Missouri, Chris. Literally. I lived in Kansas City for awhile and worked for years a block from the house on Benton Blvd. where the Smiths were supposed to have lived. I lived on Rockhill Road two blocks from Maureen’s last residence. I grew up in Joplin. I got enough goddam biblethumping, come to Jesus, don’t look now but there’s a rapture about to happen bullshit (and am still, in Kansas, close enough to experience its effects–remember us and the teaching of evolution?– just by looking out the window) to give everyone in this ng all the fundamentalist party-line evangelism she or he could take and still have enough left over to pitch a tent and speak in tongues. Job stinks.
>
>Your emphasis on sex reminds me of I girl I knew years ago who refused
>to read Fred Hoyle’s books because of “all the sex” – there was (in
>the
>book about which she was complaining) one scene where the protagonist
>met a girl at a party and they went back to her flat. That was it, no
>statement even of whether he slept on the couch or whatever.
>
My emphasis? I didn’t write the damn books. Bubbly Boy did that. Hey, you still know that “girl?” See what she thinks about a little group incest spread out over four novels.
Maybe I should make clear that I’m not bothered by the Heinlein sex. I don’t give a rats ass who he shows his characters FF or EF (gotcha) or whether they’re related by blood, marriage or not. To deny that he was obsessed is what gets me. Sure, you think my concentration on the sex disregards his forwarding such valuable human skills as memorizing tables of natural logarithms in order to be able to mentally calculate the number of nanoseconds before your next haircut (cough) or how to properly outfit a traveling party for a six-month trek across hostile wilderness taking into account the necessity that you might have to munch on your favorite mule and still wind up crawling back in disgrace with only half your limbs and chalk it up to another ruby slipup. Okay, those are nice, interesting science-fictiony–sort of–things to read and I expect them to be there. Expect him to put them there. He wrote like that and I liked it. Still do. Don’t tell me, though, that the sex was just another one of those. You’re fooling you, not me.
>>Don’t get me wrong. I like Heinlein’s work. I’ve read all the fiction
>>he’s written. I’ll read some of it again. Craft-wise he was pretty
>>sound and I’ve seldom read anybody who could make the technical
>>details
>>necessary for a tale and weave them into the storyline in a way that
>>would make me want to keep reading them–most of the time.
>
>He was good at that, certainly. The best? I can’t comment, I can’t
>think of anyone noticably better at that aspect of the craft…
>
Asimov.
>>You know people, though. They’re quick to criticize something they
>>can’t do themselves and they always want more than they deserve.
>
>I don’t understand this comment in context. Since it’s you
>criticising
>the quality of the sex in the books, is this meant to imply that you
>can’t do it yourself? Surely not …
>
Yes, regretfully. I can’t get it up anymore and I could never get it up over a Heinlein novel. I’ll ask mom why that is.
You know, don’t you, that that, up there–not the “get it up crap”– was my deference to others’ opinions and RAH’s writing skills, right? This is discussion and criticism. I can criticize but I can’t write as well, yet, as he did. I won’t wind up writing just like he did, either, because I’m not him. My commentary suggests that I’m entitled to more than he gave but I don’t deserve any more than there is. I’m sorry I don’t have a snide ellipsis with which to leave you… I’m such a liar.
>Chris C
>
LNC
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
——————————————————————————
Subject: Re: Book discussions
Date: Thu, Oct 26, 2000 12:23 AM
LCN muttered, quite mistakenly: <snip>
>That’s a little naive, Chris. You know as well as I do that he had to
>stay mainstream to keep selling.
This is a purely bullshit argument. In the 50’s, there were many “mainstream” novels being written that had much more sex in them than anything RAH wrote 20 years later. Ever hear of a little tome titled “God’s Little Acre”? That one was not unusual, and was even made into a movie in the same time period. I happen to have been around, and quite literate, in those days, so what I’m saying is certainly not hearsay or speculation, but gleaned from personal experience.
Steve
——————————————————————————
Subject: Re: Book discussions
Date: Thu, Oct 26, 2000 10:24 AM
Steve observed, replying to Mr. Collier, who said:
>>That’s a little naive, Chris. You know as well as I do that he had to
>>stay mainstream to keep selling.
>
>This is a purely bullshit argument. In the 50’s, there were many “mainstream”
>novels being written that had much more sex in them than anything RAH wrote
>20 years later.
Quite correct. In my high school, it was a mark of ‘sophistication’ among some to carry the best-selling and readily recognizable from its cover paperback novel _Peyton Place_ atop your schoolbooks from class to class my junior year, which was in the late 1950s. There were quite a few other popular novels less well-publicized but just as obsessed with sex at Mrs. Metalious’ opus was. I know, I probably read every one of them, as I was just as obsessed with sex as any other teenaged boy. Thoughtout that period, I read RAH–adult and juvenile works, old and new, over and over again.
Had someone suggested that I was attracted to RAH because of his portrayal of sex in his works during that period, I’m sad to say I’d have laughed in that someone’s face and rattled off a list of ‘favorites’ in which sex is far more obvious a focus. “Sexy” is, of course, in the mind of the beholder. But if you see sex as a predominate theme in Heinlein’s works during that period, then perhaps you should question whether your perceptions should be grouped with those of dear Miss Dalgliesh, who seems to have been so hypersensitively attuned to “sex” as to have seen it as a predominate theme in Red Planet, referring to the manner in which the little bouncer Willis participated in the reproduction of his species.
The situation changes in 1961 of course with SiaSL, which deliberately set out to *satirize* mid-century viewpoints on sex (and religion), but by the time SiaSL had beome a popular favorite in the middle and late Sixties Terry Southern among others were themselves writing far more salacious [and much poorer IMO] satires on the same subjects — we have all read the almost forgotten but then sensationally popular Southern’s _Candy_, haven’t we? To say Heinlein “went along” with that “mainstream” is, to put it mildly, a misperception of the popular literature of the era. More likely I think, some popular writers came along and then went along with Heinlein’s lead in a ‘genre’ many didn’t read started taking up subjects he had raised in a restrained manner to discuss and carrying on the conversation to excess, not in itself a bad thing, but something quite different in emphasis and quality of thought than what Heinlein was doing. All you need do is consider the extensive discussion in TEFL concerning the classical aspects of love (agape, eros, etc.) and ask whether that was ‘mainstream’ for the times. If it was it was buried so deep in the sand that I never saw it beneath the white water of the ejaculations of far too many more ‘popular’ writers.
—
David M. Silver
“I expect your names to shine!”
——————————————————————————
Subject: Re: Book discussions
Date: Thu, Oct 26, 2000 2:03 PM
AGplusone wrote:
>
>Quite correct. In my high school, it was a mark of ‘sophistication’ among some
>to carry the best-selling and readily recognizable from its cover paperback
>novel _Peyton Place_ atop your schoolbooks from class to class my junior year,
>which was in the late 1950s.
Good Heavens, what a liberal high school you went to. I had to read Peyton Place literally in the closet, and I was very shocked indeed, I can tell you. But hey, one must find these things out some way!
[:-)
Phebe
——————————————————————————
Subject: Re: Book discussions
Date: Thu, Oct 26, 2000 8:19 PM
() arranged the electrons thusly…
>AGplusone wrote:
>
>>
>>Quite correct. In my high school, it was a mark of ‘sophistication’ among some
>>to carry the best-selling and readily recognizable from its cover paperback
>>novel _Peyton Place_ atop your schoolbooks from class to class my junior year,
>>which was in the late 1950s.
>
>Good Heavens, what a liberal high school you went to. I had to read Peyton Place
>literally in the closet, and I was very shocked indeed, I can tell you. But hey,
>one must find these things out some way!
>
I used to dangle a Harold Robbins novel out of the back pocket of my jeans just to provoke a response. Interestingly, most teachers said if I was going to read that kind of trash, I should try X, where X ran from Jacqueline Susann to D. H. Lawrence to (since my appetite for SF was well known to most of them) Theodore Sturgeon and (gasp) Robert Heinlein.
-Randi
——————————————————————————
Subject: Re: Book discussions
Date: Thu, Oct 26, 2000 6:17 PM
In article <>, (AGplusone) wrote:
>Steve observed, replying to Mr. Collier, who said:
>
>>>That’s a little naive, Chris. You know as well as I do that he had to
>>>stay mainstream to keep selling.
>>
>>This is a purely bullshit argument. In the 50’s, there were many “mainstream”
>>novels being written that had much more sex in them than anything RAH wrote
>>20 years later.
>
>Quite correct. In my high school, it was a mark of ‘sophistication’ among some
>to carry the best-selling and readily recognizable from its cover paperback
>novel _Peyton Place_ atop your schoolbooks from class to class my junior year,
>which was in the late 1950s. There were quite a few other popular novels less
>well-publicized but just as obsessed with sex at Mrs. Metalious’ opus was. I
>know, I probably read every one of them, as I was just as obsessed with sex as
>any other teenaged boy. Thoughtout that period, I read RAH–adult and juvenile
>works, old and new, over and over again.
>
>Had someone suggested that I was attracted to RAH because of his portrayal of
>sex in his works during that period, I’m sad to say I’d have laughed in that
>someone’s face and rattled off a list of ‘favorites’ in which sex is far more
>obvious a focus. “Sexy” is, of course, in the mind of the beholder.
>But if you
>see sex as a predominate theme in Heinlein’s works during that period, then
>perhaps you should question whether your perceptions should be grouped with
>those of dear Miss Dalgliesh, who seems to have been so hypersensitively
>attuned to “sex” as to have seen it as a predominate theme in Red Planet,
>referring to the manner in which the little bouncer Willis participated in the
>reproduction of his species.
>
>The situation changes in 1961 of course with SiaSL, which deliberately set out
>to *satirize* mid-century viewpoints on sex (and religion), but by the time
>SiaSL had beome a popular favorite in the middle and late Sixties Terry
>Southern among others were themselves writing far more salacious [and much
>poorer IMO] satires on the same subjects — we have all read the almost
>forgotten but then sensationally popular Southern’s _Candy_, haven’t we? To say
>Heinlein “went along” with that “mainstream” is, to put it mildly, a
>misperception of the popular literature of the era. More likely I think, some
>popular writers came along and then went along with Heinlein’s lead in a
>’genre’ many didn’t read started taking up subjects he had raised in a
>restrained manner to discuss and carrying on the conversation to excess, not in
>itself a bad thing, but something quite different in emphasis and quality of
>thought than what Heinlein was doing. All you need do is consider the extensive
>discussion in TEFL concerning the classical aspects of love (agape, eros, etc.)
>and ask whether that was ‘mainstream’ for the times. If it was it was buried so
>deep in the sand that I never saw it beneath the white water of the >ejaculations of far too many more ‘popular’ writers.
>–
>David M. Silver
>”I expect your names to shine!”
>
Well I’m glad you boys agree with me, Steve and Dave. You’re writing mainstream scifi in the ’50’s you do rocketships and that’s as phallic as you get. You’re not saying RAH wrote some mainstream non-scifi I don’t know about are you?
LNC
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
——————————————————————————
Subject: Re: Book discussions
Date: Fri, Oct 27, 2000 1:33 AM
>Well I’m glad you boys agree with me, Steve and Dave. You’re writing
>mainstream scifi in the ’50’s you do rocketships and that’s as phallic
>as you get. You’re not saying RAH wrote some mainstream non-scifi I
>don’t know about are you?
>
>LNC
In the first place, neither of us is a “boy,” or has been for years. Unfounded condescension is a ploy of those who have nothing else of merit to say.
Secondly, wouldn’t a story about space exploration be a bit awkward without space ships and “rocketships?” Rocket research was all the thing then. I suppose you believe that Goddard was only living out his sexual fantasies in his work, eh?
Steve
——————————————————————————
Subject: Re: Book discussions
Date: Fri, Oct 27, 2000 2:44 AM
In article <>, (PrinceOfBaja) wrote:
>
>In the first place, neither of us is a “boy,” or has been for years.
>Unfounded
>condescension is a ploy of those who have nothing else of merit to
>say.
>
So, like, that “baja” isn’t the one in North American where folks know that guys call guys “boy,” colloquially, sometime, eh, Steve? Wherever your baja is tell the folks there that in the Heinlein novels, when the 2,000-year-old guy was referred to as “buddy boy,” they weren’t condescending, okay? I presume you’re less than 2,000? Good.
>Secondly, wouldn’t a story about space exploration be a bit awkward
>without
>space ships and “rocketships?” Rocket research was all the thing
>then. I
>suppose you believe that Goddard was only living out his sexual
>fantasies in
>his work, eh?
Over there, in that baja, they’ve got a keen sense of irony, I see, but aren’t too big on content. There a point here, dude, or are you agreeing but don’t know it?
>
>Steve
>
LNC
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
——————————————————————————
Subject: Re: Book discussions
Date: Wed, Oct 25, 2000 12:30 PM
In article <t7842$nhu$>, wrote:
>>On Tue, 24 Oct 2000 15:12:33 GMT,
(snip of a long post)
LNC
If you think that all of TEFL, IFWNE, TNOTB and TSBTS are nothing badly written sex novels, If I have understood you correctly, then I really feel sorry for you, but heck, its your life. Live it the way you want and see what you want to see. Especially, I cannot for the life of me see how you can consider *all* 300 pages of TEFL nothing but leading up to getting LL into bed with Maureen. Amazing!
As for me, *ALL* mention of sex could have been eliminated from the books and I would have enjoyed them just as much. But then, I’m just a person who enjoys a story which *I* consider well told, so what do I know?
My second favorite section of TEFL, ‘The Man Who Was Too Lazy To Fail’ has no explicit mention of sex whatsoever. Of course, there had to have been some, after all, David Lamb got his girlfriend pregnant, but *the reader* saw none of it.
David Wright
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
——————————————————————————
Subject: Re: Book discussions
Date: Wed, Oct 25, 2000 12:53 PM
>
>If you think that all of TEFL, IFWNE, TNOTB and TSBTS are nothing badly
>written sex novels, If I have understood you correctly, then I really
>feel sorry for you, but heck, its your life.
I can safely say that if you lads think Heinlein has sex in his books then you’d get your socks knocked off by some of the bodice rippers I’ve read :-))) Compared to even the mildest of those there is no sex in Heinlein at all…….there’s certainly no reticent, ” and that’s all anyone will know about our wedding night” in those books I can tell you!
Jane
——————————————————————————
Subject: Re: Book discussions
Date: Thu, Oct 26, 2000 10:37 AM
In article <t7ccu$ri6$>, wrote:
>>>On Tue, 24 Oct 2000 15:12:33 GMT,
>
>(snip of a long post)
>
>LNC
>
>If you think that all of TEFL, IFWNE, TNOTB and TSBTS are nothing
>badly
>written sex novels, If I have understood you correctly, then I really
>feel sorry for you, but heck, its your life. Live it the way you want
>and see what you want to see. Especially, I cannot for the life of me
>see how you can consider *all* 300 pages of TEFL nothing but leading
>up to getting LL into bed with Maureen. Amazing!
DW, where did I say anything but the sex was written badly? What, you think I slogged through thirty some odd books by one guy just in case someday there’d be a place to come and whine about what a crappy writer he was–so bad I had to read that much to prove it to myself?
Now, he’s not the greatest writer I’ve ever read; his hero, Sam Clemens, has my vote there. He writes well, though. Believable, likeable characters, sound storylines with satisfactory resolutions, good pace, technical accuracy and attention to detail (sometimes too much) in the science, humor a notch above homespun but seldom jaded, clean prose uncluttered with extraneous description for the sake of attempting to evoke more of an aesthetic response than the genre can bear. You fill in anything you think I’ve missed. He wrote well, not great but well.
As for the entire point of TEFL being to pop LL in the sack with Maureen, yeah, what about it? You ashamed of it or something? It starts with poor old broken down Woody without a reason to go on and everybody pining away over how if we lose the Senior who’ll write us anymore? It winds its way through this and that anecdote, each one of them a lesson in how sex mends and what else it does (like, explain the entirety of human history) and lands in Kansas City in time for the Zimmerman note to enable Bunky to be in bed with mom. Here’s a little hypothesis for you: RAH was stuck for an ending of this novel. Sure, there’s sex and then there’s sex with your mother. What do you do after you’ve shown your guy getting what he wanted and what you wanted him to get but you still believe that not everbody’s as “open minded” as you are, your profuse explanations about “consenting adults,” contraceptive precautions and not changing history, notwitstanding? Kill his ass. It’s the only thing you can do. He done sinned. You know that last letter to Laz and Lor? I’d have made it say “pecavi.”
It’s no big deal that the whole point of the book was what it was unless there’s a reason to be ashamed of it and, face it, you’re as ashamed and guilty feeling as the old coot himself was; that’s why he offed himself at the end of TEFL.
It’s ironic, dude, don’t you think, that a guy here can ask, “FF or EF” and everybody knows instantly what that means but you can scour each and every post in this newsgroup and nobody, not a single one of the prudes will spell out that first F? Yet, they’ll seemingly freely swallow their explaining to each other that it’s an okay F, even for little sister, and the big boy didn’t say it, why should we? The last irony is, of course, that if you were to walk down Benton Boulevard right now the most frequently uttered imprecation cum endearment (in come subcultures) is a twelve-letter word that sussinctly sums up the nature of the biological and final interpersonal relationship between Woodrow Wilson and Maureen Smith. A fine lot of rugged, individualistic, daring freethinkers this is. Not a motherfucker in the lot of you.
>
>As for me, *ALL* mention of sex could have been eliminated from the
>books and I would have enjoyed them just as much. But then, I’m just a
>person who enjoys a story which *I* consider well told, so what do I
>know?
>
Not squat so far, Dave. At least you haven’t shown it. You’ve displayed your recollection and expressed some unsupported opinions. You just made the air-headed remark that removing the sex would make you happy with the resulting prose. You’ve got no theories, no real opinions other than “I like it,” and are occupying bandwidth without an apparent purpose. You seem to be a nice enough guy but a little repressed.
>My second favorite section of TEFL, ‘The Man Who Was Too Lazy To Fail’
>has no explicit mention of sex whatsoever. Of course, there had to
>have
>been some, after all, David Lamb got his girlfriend pregnant, but *the
>reader* saw none of it.
>
Like, yawn. Make that lamer book-length and see how many copies it sells. It does raise an interesting point, though: how Lamb engineered his retirement. This isn’t sex for a change but it’s just as stigmatizing as wanting to do mom although not criminal. Remember Tom Eagleton on the McCarthy ticket in ’72? Remember why he had to quickly withdraw and Shriver stepped in? Remember Eagleton was from Missouri? RAH knew that even the hinting that you’d once talked to somebody about whether counseling might be beneficial for third parties would brand you a headcase. Why would he let Lamb take this route? My theory (you knew I had one) is that he was laughing through his hat at the entire community of mental health professionals, showing how easily they could be fooled–if you were lazy enough to put your mind to it. The corollary is, of course, he had nothing but contempt for something he thought wasn’t subject to empirical analysis. Now, to me, that’s intellectually lazy; but I won’t expand on it now.
LNC
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
——————————————————————————
Subject: Re: Book discussions
Date: Thu, Oct 26, 2000 2:08 PM
>
>It’s ironic, dude, don’t you think, that a guy here can ask, “FF or EF”
>and everybody knows instantly what that means but you can scour each
>and every post in this newsgroup and nobody, not a single one of the
>prudes will spell out that first F?
I have absolutely no idea what these acronyms stand for, or the other permutations. I hope to continue in this ignorance indefinitely.
Phebe
——————————————————————————
Subject: Re: Book discussions
Date: Thu, Oct 26, 2000 2:11 PM
>
>
>>
>>It’s ironic, dude, don’t you think, that a guy here can ask, “FF or EF”
>>and everybody knows instantly what that means but you can scour each
>>and every post in this newsgroup and nobody, not a single one of the
>>prudes will spell out that first F?
>
>I have absolutely no idea what these acronyms stand for, or the other
>permutations. I hope to continue in this ignorance indefinitely.
>
>Phebe
I don’t know either, and was starting to get the slightest bit curious.
Stan
——————————————————————————
Subject: Re: Book discussions
Date: Thu, Oct 26, 2000 2:32 PM
Stanislaw Kansiewicz wrote:
>>
>>
>>I have absolutely no idea what these acronyms stand for, or the other
>>permutations. I hope to continue in this ignorance indefinitely.
>>
>>Phebe
>
>I don’t know either, and was starting to get the slightest bit curious.
>
>Stan
Well, I’ll tell you with a spoiler space for Phebe 🙂
s
p
o
i
l
e
r
s
p
a
c
e
It’s “E.F or F.F” and it’s just “Eat first or fuck first?” I don’t recall anyone ever asking me that exact question but when Dora answers, “both”, I flash on pineapple yoghurt…but that’s another story…..&lr;bg>
No mystery about it; it’s one of the FAQ’s on Jim Gifford’s page. No prudery involved either; when used correctly (as another word for sexual intercourse) I don’t think anyone on the group would raise an eyebrow. OTOH, if a poster uses it as an insult there might be a comment or two as we tend to be polite and proud of our extensive vocabulary; lots more challenging to attack without once using a swear word 🙂
Jane
——————————————————————————
Subject: Re: Book discussions
Date: Thu, Oct 26, 2000 11:56 AM
On Wed, 25 Oct 2000 15:53:18 -0400, ddavitt <>wrote:
>I can safely say that if you lads think Heinlein has sex in his books then
Please leave most of us out of the “you lads” .
>you’d get your socks knocked off by some of the bodice rippers I’ve read
>:-))) Compared to even the mildest of those there is no sex in Heinlein at
>all…….there’s certainly no reticent, ” and that’s all anyone will know
>about our wedding night” in those books I can tell you!
And that goes for some written in the 50s, not just the modern ones. Now, as far as I can see there is no point to those apart from the sex…
Chris C
——————————————————————————
Subject: Re: Book discussions
Date: Fri, Oct 27, 2000 1:35 AM
>And that goes for some written in the 50s, not just the modern ones.
>Now, as far as I can see there is no point to those apart from the
>sex…
>
>Chris C
Which isn’t automatically a “bad thing,” right?
Steve
——————————————————————————
Subject: Re: Book discussions
Date: Fri, Oct 27, 2000 2:49 AM
In article <>, (PrinceOfBaja) wrote:
>>And that goes for some written in the 50s, not just the modern ones.
>>Now, as far as I can see there is no point to those apart from the
>>sex…
>>
>>Chris C
>
>Which isn’t automatically a “bad thing,” right?
>
>Steve
>
So, Chris comes back and says, “right,” and you say, “then even if the whole point of some latter-day Heinlein novels was sex, that wouldn’t automatically be a bad thing, right?” Then Chris says, “I suppose that’s right…”
You’re welcome, Bob. You opened their eyes but they still had to be dragged from underneath the bed. No charge.
LNC
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
——————————————————————————
Subject: Re: Book discussions
Date: Fri, Oct 27, 2000 5:38 AM
<snip Steve to Chris>
>So, Chris comes back and says, “right,” and you say, “then even if the
>whole point of some latter-day Heinlein novels was sex, that wouldn’t
>automatically be a bad thing, right?” Then Chris says, “I suppose
>that’s right…”
>
>You’re welcome, Bob. You opened their eyes but they still had to be
>dragged from underneath the bed. No charge.
So? That’s that? …… and I thought there was a discussion going on about the emphasis of sex in Heinlein’s last novels? But apparently you deem it necessary to put words in other’s mouths and declare victory. Thus far you have been most prolific in espousing your view that “the whole point of some latter-day Heinlein novels was sex”. While I disagree, I see this as a defendable POV, with no need for jerky half-witticisms that you obviously gain lots of pleasure from. You admit that Heinlein did not write good “sex” (I assume you mean sex scenes, rather than discussion about relationships in general), yet show remorse at having to read 300 pages to get to a sex scene. I might add, you do this while showing great admiration for other aspects of these *same* novels, and go to great pains to declare yourself a big Heinlein fan. Ok, have it both ways if you want, but I can’t see how you can stand by your prime statement, and ignore the plethora of other ideas/plots/scenarios which have nothing to do with sex at all (and which you have stated admiration for). Others here (including myself) have encouraged you to remove your sex-blinkers to see a wider picture, and have given you ample examples to back up such a position. Sure, no one denies that sex was not a factor, but to claim that it was “the whole point” needs to be backed up with more than selective memory and smugness. To me, your recent spree here seems like a good way for you to entertain yourself, at the expense of intelligent discussion. I think you have lots to offer this newsgroup. I just haven’t seen it yet.
Sean
**************
…. and now for something completely different:
Eros? Sis is sore.
**************
——————————————————————————
Subject: Re: Book discussions
Date: Fri, Oct 27, 2000 10:37 AM
Gaeltach wrote:
>I thought there was a discussion going on
>about the emphasis of sex in Heinlein’s last novels?
>
>**************
>…. and now for something completely different:
>
>Eros? Sis is sore.
>**************
Loved this last palindrome.
Well, I’d like to say something on the subject of sex in late Heinlein. I think it’s a very important issue (apart from it being a VERY popular one!) because of the amazing breadth of the change in his fiction from about Farnham’s Freehold on.
The early work was inspirational for young people, and sincerely so: Heinlein was genuinely benign in his plot-clothed advice. It was good advice, and we took it, and we were better for it.
We haven’t taken advice from the later novels: if we had, we’d be in jail!
Now, some of the sex is playing with limits to the imagination, and that was Heinlein’s business, it was what he was supposed to do as a scifi writer. The question of mating with distant decendants, the issue of how long marriage should last given immortality — those are legitimate scifi questions and I have pondered them occasionally through the years since he raised the questions. There are a lot of sexual politics issues Heinlein raised, too, such as the “place” of women and our proper functions; given the focus on just that of the entire feminist movement, it’s fair that Heinlein explored these ideas from his very different perspective.
But some of the sex doesn’t seem to go into any of the above categories. It is frankly pederasty and close-relative incest. What in the world was going on here? I assume a kink, a kick in his gallop, since the pederasty surfaced as early as Door Into Summer and Glory Road. I also assume he never acted on this sexual taste. The close-relative incest was purely late-stage Heinlein, and my opinion is one I’ve recently stated, that he just didn’t have the family experience to develop emotional inhibitions to writing that, so he just — did! Why, I don’t know. That’s the question.
Could it have been the neurological illness that laid him low for a year? Brain damage very certainly can (it doesn’t always, but it *sure* can) disinhibit people sexually. I spent years working in the National Head Injury Foundation and that is my favorite explanation. I think the quality of writing generally suffered, too, after the neurological problem, as well as there being a lot of obsessive and unusual sex in his books. But he kept a lot of his audience anyway, because he was — Heinlein.
Or maybe he simply backed the wrong horse! Sex freed up incredibly in the 60s, oh, yeah, and maybe he supposed certain perversions would free up (hopefully favoring ones he liked, perhaps) —- but he guessed wrong! It was homosexuality that freed up, not incest or child sex.
At least not here in the U.S. I just read in the Economist that in Cambodia, where the Khmer Rouge murder of some two million people has totally destroyed all traditional family structure, that children are routinely abandoned and thus there is a thriving market in pedophile tourism, far larger than Thailand’s sex tourism, because you can get children of any age to do anything with. So there IS a market for such appetites, Heinlein was right, but it just didn’t develop that way here in the U.S. and now his books with those topics are an embarrassment, because of course the opposite happened — much more attention in criminal law has been given to both incest and child sex and so his ideas have become countercultural.
He should have backed homosexuality. His late books would have sold better these days.
Phebe
——————————————————————————
Subject: Re: Book discussions
Date: Fri, Oct 27, 2000 12:59 PM
>He should have backed homosexuality. His late books would have sold better
>these days.
>
>Phebe
I don’t believe it was about “selling books”. His later books merely explored, to logical conclusion, the concept of ridding one’s self of all non-productive taboos. I still say they’re damn fine books too.
Filly
http://hometown.aol.com/merfilly8/myhomepage
“You can’t depend on your eyes when your imagination is out of focus.”
–Mark Twain
——————————————————————————
Subject: Re: Book discussions
Date: Fri, Oct 27, 2000 1:55 PM
>Well, I’d like to say something on the subject of sex in late Heinlein. I think
>it’s a very important issue (apart from it being a VERY popular one!) because
>of the amazing breadth of the change in his fiction from about Farnham’s
>Freehold on.
>
>The early work was inspirational for young people, and sincerely so: Heinlein
>was genuinely benign in his plot-clothed advice. It was good advice, and we
>took it, and we were better for it.
>
>We haven’t taken advice from the later novels: if we had, we’d be in jail!
> How do they let you stay in here? You make too much sense.
>Now, some of the sex is playing with limits to the imagination, and that was
>Heinlein’s business, it was what he was supposed to do as a scifi writer. The
>question of mating with distant decendants, the issue of how long marriage
>should last given immortality — those are legitimate scifi questions and I
>have pondered them occasionally through the years since he raised the
>questions. There are a lot of sexual politics issues Heinlein raised, too, such
>as the “place” of women and our proper functions; given the focus on just that
>of the entire feminist movement, it’s fair that Heinlein explored these ideas
>from his very different perspective.
Yeah, his perspective (which is the subject of my forthcoming tempest for this electronic teapot: why did Roberta A. Heinlein want so badly to be Roberta Heinlein?)
>
>But some of the sex doesn’t seem to go into any of the above categories. It is
>frankly pederasty and close-relative incest. What in the world was going on
>here? I assume a kink, a kick in his gallop, since the pederasty surfaced as
>early as Door Into Summer and Glory Road. I also assume he never acted on this
>sexual taste. The close-relative incest was purely late-stage Heinlein, and my
>opinion is one I’ve recently stated, that he just didn’t have the family
>experience to develop emotional inhibitions to writing that, so he just —
>did! Why, I don’t know. That’s the question.
Beats the hell out of me why he’d go nuts like that but it’s not hard to see why he stayed that twisted. It’s the “old guy” phenomenon. I’m an old guy and I know how this works. You women can turn 65 and decide to get a new hairstyle. You can turn 75 and don’t think a thing about going out and buying new cloths that are this year’s fashion. Turn 90 and decide you’ve waited long enough for that tattoo. Take a guy and the minute he turns, say, 30, he’s frozen in a particular historical/philosophical/emotional era: the one he was in when he hit that age.
So, Bob gets this really wild hair (hare?), acts on it and the rest is history because he can’t change it. What’s a talented guy to do? Why, pretty it up the best he knows how and sell it. He makes it fit right in and here, decades after TEFL there are people grimly defending perversion.
>
>Could it have been the neurological illness that laid him low for a year? Brain
>damage very certainly can (it doesn’t always, but it *sure* can) disinhibit
>people sexually. I spent years working in the National Head Injury Foundation
>and that is my favorite explanation. I think the quality of writing generally
>suffered, too, after the neurological problem, as well as there being a lot of
>obsessive and unusual sex in his books. But he kept a lot of his audience
>anyway, because he was — Heinlein.
That he was and he probably wouldn’t be–it’s certainly not possible to think of him otherwise–if he didn’t have all the strange, abberant sex in his later works.
>
>Or maybe he simply backed the wrong horse! Sex freed up incredibly in the 60s,
>oh, yeah, and maybe he supposed certain perversions would free up (hopefully
>favoring ones he liked, perhaps) —- but he guessed wrong! It was
>homosexuality that freed up, not incest or child sex.
I think you’re forgetting here how hard a sell that is, what an immense risk that would have been–career-wise–how there’s so much human history of persecution and where the boy grew up.
Sure, he writes examples all over the place. From Ishtar and Galahad’s first discussion and their agreement that it would matter to either of them if they were the same sex but they’re sure glad their not. To a “Notesbooks” quote Jane put up a couple of days ago to Jake’s account of a college tennis match with a little this and that between sets. He tips his hat but it’s gratuitous and cursory. I don’t think he guessed; he knew what dog would hunt if you gave him his nose.
>At least not here in the U.S. I just read in the Economist that in Cambodia,
>where the Khmer Rouge murder of some two million people has totally destroyed
>all traditional family structure, that children are routinely abandoned and
>thus there is a thriving market in pedophile tourism, far larger than
>Thailand’s sex tourism, because you can get children of any age to do anything
>with. So there IS a market for such appetites, Heinlein was right, but it just
>didn’t develop that way here in the U.S. and now his books with those topics
>are an embarrassment, because of course the opposite happened — much more
>attention in criminal law has been given to both incest and child sex and so
>his ideas have become countercultural.
Sorry, I think this is a little off the wall and flawed for this place. If your point’s that he was a real, no-holds-barred pervert I’m doubtful you’ll find a lot of supporters here. I don’t even think he was that and that his appetites were satisified by writing about these practices and selling lots of copies. >
>He should have backed homosexuality. His late books would have sold better
>these days. >
Can’t go with you there, Phebe. Maybe there’d be a niche market but he’d have had to sacrifice immediate sales and nobody’s about to do that.
>Phebe
>
LNC
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
——————————————————————————
Subject: Re: Book discussions
Date: Fri, Oct 27, 2000 1:10 PM
In article <>, Gaeltach <>wrote:
>
>
>So? That’s that? …… and I thought there was a discussion going
>on
>about the emphasis of sex in Heinlein’s last novels? But apparently
>you
>deem it necessary to put words in other’s mouths and declare victory.
You saw it as a victory? I appreciate your encouragement; however, I can only see it as articulation of the logical extention of the premise proposed by another group member. You see it as all that conclusive, enough to foam at the mouth like a rabid dingo choking on jerky, half- witticisms and dangling his prepositions for all the world to see? I only see it as the mildest of suggestions that the thesis I suggest has overt support and while I follow that statement with an abstract prayer for relief, simultaneously refusing compensation, the post taken as a whole is hardly that worthy of such powerful emotional display since it’s conceded to be mere syllogism.
>Thus
>far you have been most prolific in espousing your view that “the whole
>point of some latter-day Heinlein novels was sex”. While I disagree,
>I see
>this as a defendable POV, with no need for jerky half-witticisms that
>you
>obviously gain lots of pleasure from.
Now here, down-under dude, you express dislike for my writing style or my style of argument or both and I believe that a theory based on that foundation can’t stand when you build on top of it a case that writing style–Heinlein’s–is what’s at issue. You’re trying to boil it down to form over substance and I don’t think you can successfully separate them. Somebody around here pointed out elsewhere that an egg is merely a chicken’s way of making another chicken (in essence, it was shifted forward or back by one step but said the same thing) and the reminder’s appropriate here that you can’t any more separate mind and body than you can form and substance and produce a valid literary criticism.
>You admit that Heinlein did not write
>good “sex” (I assume you mean sex scenes, rather than discussion about
>relationships in general), yet show remorse at having to read 300
>pages to
>get to a sex scene. I might add, you do this while showing great
>admiration
>for other aspects of these *same* novels, and go to great pains to
>declare
>yourself a big Heinlein fan. Ok, have it both ways if you want, but I
>can’t
>see how you can stand by your prime statement, and ignore the plethora
I’ll get to your main point in a minute but wanted to inquire at this time: plethora to whose disadvantage? Yours or mine? I believe you intend this to mean “whole lot of,” when, if fact, what you’re saying is “there are so many that I am hampered by their abundance.” I don’t think you’re drowning in examples of non-sex themes but rather they’re neatly arrayed, organized by volume and page, ready and accessible to draw and fire at your will. It’s not like they’re spilling all over you.
>of
>other ideas/plots/scenarios which have nothing to do with sex at all >
>(and
>which you have stated admiration for). Others here (including myself)
>have
>encouraged you to remove your sex-blinkers to see a wider picture,
>and have
>given you ample examples to back up such a position. Sure, no one
>denies
>that sex was not a factor, but to claim that it was “the whole point”
>needs
>to be backed up with more than selective memory and smugness. To me,
>your
>recent spree here seems like a good way for you to entertain
>yourself, at
>the expense of intelligent discussion. I think you have lots to offer
>this
>newsgroup. I just haven’t seen it yet.
>
Sean, baby, chickie, sweetheart, did I say the entire output of the man was nothing but a series of inept sex books? All the posts are here, go look. Briefly, I said starting with SIASL he changed his focus to sex. I tracked it through IWFNE (which I think I abbreiviated “ISFNE” since the form of “to be” used with the first person ought to be “shall” and not “will” but the generally accepted translation of the 23rd Psalm does say “will”), discount that work as almost pure crap and a failed experimental approximation. To TEFL, the best example of the thing he was looking to create and my favorite, adult Heinlein book. Factored TCWHTW and Friday as apologies, JACOE as a product of contemplation of mortality tinged by the habit he’d acquired of including sex as a main theme, mentioned NOTB as another exemplar of sex-driven-RAH-scifi and ended with TSBTS, Woody and mom’s final reunion. Maybe you haven’t seen it.
Now, as for the faultiness of my memory, yeah it’s not what it used to be but it was never that I could quote lengthy passages from HSWT in my cutesy Yoda-motherthing voice on demand. I just never wanted to do that, dude, any more than I wanted to memorize the Uniform Commecial Code’s Article 9 provisions (American law having to do with secured transactions) to be able to calculate the final filing date required for agricultural equipment transported to a state other than the original state of perfection of secured party’s interest.
You’re just flat reading me wrong, mistaking irony for affirmative assertion. I’ll allow that that’s probably pretty easy to do, given the manner in which I’ve presented some of my arguments; however, it’s not crystalline brilliance of persuasion at which I’m shooting. This is pop fiction not high literature or academic philosophy. There’s probably the reason I’m obtaining nearly universal disagreement here. I’m stepping on sombodies’ notions of how life ought to be lived as articulated by the sublime oracle of that worldview and maybe even on somebodies’ livelihoods. Sorry–but not very–if that’s what’s going on.
He was a good, entertaining writer with some interesting ways of expressing ideas he’d gathered and reassembled into a body of fiction that, generally, hangs together in a coherent fashion. However. The however, for me, is (1) some of it was just crap (fucking your mothers and fathers and daughters and sons is indefensible and if you want to start a nice, new thread to give it the old Canberra try, I’ll be there to watch and scrape you up); (2) some of it was cruel, intolerant and sexist; (3) much of it was in a haughty didactic style only made tolerable by the folksy sincerity of the narrator(s); and, (4) unlike you, I’m here where we know the boy, know he’s just another good ol’ boy who done good but he’s still just like us and we know none of us are nuthin’ special.
>Sean
And now for something off topic, my auditory palindrome of the day:
knitting
LNC
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
——————————————————————————
Subject: Re: Book discussions
Date: Fri, Oct 27, 2000 7:15 AM
>>And that goes for some written in the 50s, not just the modern ones.
>>Now, as far as I can see there is no point to those apart from the
>>sex…
>>
>>Chris C
>
>Which isn’t automatically a “bad thing,” right?
>
>Steve
:::Snicker:::: It’s mind candy. When you don’t really want to have to think about what you’re reading, and have some spare time…
JenO.
Soldier Grrrl
——————————————————————————
Subject: Re: Book discussions
Date: Thu, Oct 26, 2000 11:54 AM
On Wed, 25 Oct 2000 18:17:49 GMT, <>wrote:
>Pick one. Pick TEFL since that’s the next pick for discussion, leaf
>through it and mentally recast the stories without the inclusion of
>sexuality. Is there any point to any of them then?
Yes. The whole section on rejuvenating LL and trying to interest him in living stands without the sex (that between Galahad and Ishtar is irrelevant to that part of the story). The conversations with Ira about the society and how it’s deteriorating don’t have any sex. Nor does the tale of David Lamb (except for that which would be in any tale about the military; if it contained no mention of sex it would be very unrealistic, as would be any wartime story). “The Tale of the Adopted Daughter” is a love story, what do you expect? “The Tale of the Twins Who Weren’t” is a ‘Pygmalion’ type story, in the main, about bringing up a pair of slaves to become free people; again, the sex is irrelevant to the point of the story which is a political or sociological one (with a bit of medical tech stuff in there), except that it is a normal part of the life of adult humans.
Of course, the book as a whole has the theme of ‘love’, in many different forms, and about how it is not the same as ‘sex’. So there is inevitably going to be sex in the book…
>For that matter, is there any point to the book then since
Since you’re assuming that the answer is “no, there’s no point to the stories”? Assuming your own answer isn’t particularly clever…
>the whole
>thing’s a set up to get Woody (great nick, no, considering the
>context?) into the bed on Benton Boulevard boffing the beautiful babe
>who bore his body before?
I have no idea what meaning you’re attaching to ‘Woody’, since neither that nor the full name (Woodrow) are part of my cultural background (the only example I can think of is “Woody Woodpecker” from the cartoon series, which doesn’t seem to fit).
But no, that isn’t the ‘point’ of the book. In fact it’s a scenario which, had it been absent, would have changed the main story almost not at all. LL didn’t expect to get to go to bed with his mother, right up to when it happened, and long before that he had decided – for love – to go to war.
>There are plenty of mentions in the posts on these boards about the
>politics and economic theories of RAH but make no mistake, he was as
>much a determinist as Engels and Marx–only the feature on which he
>lighted to explain human behavior was sex, not economics. Frankly, I’m
>attracted to it. It’s more basic than greed and more universal. Most
>greed’s probably motivated by the goal of obtaining economic advantage
>in order to acquire sexual favor or desirability. I think he actually
>hit on something but just didn’t articulate it as fully as he could
>have in the form of an organized, non-fiction thesis. He did what he
>could which was support the proposition by fictional example.
It may be correct, or as correct as any of those theories. But a determinist? I don’t think so, his writings seem to reflect the opinions of Jubal Harshaw who was torn between determinism, free will and solipsism while admitting that there might be some outside force.
>>>Now, as for whether the sex was good sex. You say it wasn’t, I didn’t
>>>say, I’ll say now it was lousy, unimaginative, Puritanical sex that
>>>derived it’s tittilation from the forbidden. Missionary position, oh-
>>>yes-now-now-mommy stuff that took 300 pages to set up the first time
>>>and wasn’t worth the effort if the sex was all there was.
>>why your whole thesis of “he
>>was just selling sex” doesn’t hold water. No way would the books have
>>sold at all just for the sex.
>
>That’s a little naive, Chris. You know as well as I do that he had to
>stay mainstream to keep selling.
I know that by that time he /didn’t/ have to write juvenile novels with no mention of sex to sell. When was “Lady Chatterley’s Lover” published? D.H. Lawrence’s “Sons and Lovers”? There were plenty of book far raunchier by that time.
>Further, you’re presuming he knew how
>to write a good sex scene but just didn’t.
Where did I presume that? I have no opinion on whether he could have written a ‘good’ sex scene (for some subjective value of ‘good’, which will vary a lot depending who’s reading it).
>I don’t think he knew how to
>do it because he wasn’t a particularly good writer when it came to
>crafting believable scenes showing the way that actual people–not
>demigods with agendas and prepared lectures–behave when they’re in an
>informal setting. It just wasn’t his way, his style, it wouldn’t have
>fit the pace of his work, and it wouldn’t have sold. Invariably, when
>he throws a couple of characters together in the comfort of a dwelling
>place’s living room for dinner and light conversation the reader winds
>up getting a discourse on morality, politics or religion. That’s what
>his readers wanted and that’s what they got: escapism from the reality
>that the last time they had friends over for dinner maybe .001% of the
>conversation was anything remotely like that.
A discourse? I’d say a discussion (from the point of view of those at the dinner table). I don’t know about your friends, but the last time I was at the dinner table with some of my friends the subjects did range between politics, morality, religion and several other subjects, and I don’t find this at all uncommon. (Actually, it probably is uncommon in the population as a whole, but I’m talking about people who read – and write – for fun.)
>>(It’s revealing just which aspects of the sex and relationships in his
>>books people pick on. It reveals more about the person who complains
>>than about the author…)
>>
>I’ve got an elipsis key around here someplace and I’m not afraid to use
>it, if I can find it… Oh, yeah. There it is… Now what was that
>bullshit? Oh, yeah… I’m superior because I can “accept” screwing your
>mother, father, daughters, sons and any other relative who’s available.
>Right… Good key, that…
What are you on about? Or should it be “what are you on?”
>I didn’t include “Cat.” I don’t like it and probably won’t ever read it
>again. “Beast” is all about sex–when it’s not setting up the, what do
>you call it here? Reality as fiction or something like that? That
>elaborate mechanism for plausible deniability of charges that the old
>man’s just gone wanker happy. Someone suggest that there’s a deep game
>afoot. That “666” isn’t six to the sixth to the sixth but rather “sick,
>sick, sick” and a giggle from the grave. Job? Crap. I read it once.
Well, since you’ve just declared two of them to be not to your taste and thus eliminated them, it doesn’t exactly leave much to work on does it? That’s your opinion, though, I daresay there are books you like which I think are ‘crap’ or not worth reading.
>Lost it.
Ah, yes. It shows.
>Bought another copy, read it and immediately gave it away.
Your choice.
>I’m from Missouri, Chris. Literally.
Can one be from Missouri metaphorically? Fascinating concept…
>I lived in Kansas City for awhile
>and worked for years a block from the house on Benton Blvd. where the
>Smiths were supposed to have lived.
Fictionally.
>I lived on Rockhill Road two blocks
>from Maureen’s last residence.
Fictional
>I grew up in Joplin. I got enough goddam biblethumping, come to Jesus,
>don’t look now but there’s a rapture about to happen bullshit (and am
>still, in Kansas, close enough to experience its effects–remember us
>and the teaching of evolution?– just by looking out the window) to
>give everyone in this ng all the fundamentalist party-line evangelism
>she or he could take and still have enough left over to pitch a tent
>and speak in tongues. Job stinks.
In your opinion. I suspect that many of thos bible-bashers would agree with you.
>>Your emphasis on sex reminds me of I girl I knew years ago who refused
>>to read Fred Hoyle’s books because of “all the sex” – there was (in
>>the book about which she was complaining) one scene where the
>>protagonist met a girl at a party and they went back to her flat.
>>That was it, no statement even of whether he slept on the couch or
>>whatever.
>>
>My emphasis? I didn’t write the damn books.
Your emphasis. You are the one reading them as only being about sex. If you weren’t so obsessed then perhaps you might actually see the stories.
>Bubbly Boy did that. Hey, you still know that “girl?” See what she
>thinks about a little group incest spread out over four novels.
No, I don’t. She wouldn’t have gone near the books, to her anything with any sex (unless God approved it) was eternal damnation. Asking her about some of the scenes in the Bible was fun…
>Still do. Don’t tell me, though, that the sex
>was just another one of those. You’re fooling you, not me.
If you like.
>>He was good at that, certainly. The best? I can’t comment, I can’t
>>think of anyone noticably better at that aspect of the craft…
>Asimov.
I thought of Asimov and Clarke (two of my favourite SF writers), but I don’t think that they were actually any better at merging tech stuff seamlessly with a story. Both of them had a tendency to make the tech dominant and marginalise the characters, which Heinlein didn’t (with the exception of a couple of the early juveniles). Overall, I wouldn’t like to say that any of the three was better, they all had good stories.
>Yes, regretfully. I can’t get it up anymore and I could never get it up >over a Heinlein novel. I’ll ask mom why that is.
I don’t think I’ve ever got it up over a novel, words don’t turn me on in that way.
>You know, don’t you, that that, up there–not the “get it up crap”–
>was my deference to others’ opinions and RAH’s writing skills, right?
It was? If that’s what you meant, thanks for the explanation.
>This is discussion and criticism. I can criticize but I can’t write as
>well, yet, as he did. I won’t wind up writing just like he did, either,
>because I’m not him. My commentary suggests that I’m entitled to more
>than he gave but I don’t deserve any more than there is.
‘Entitled to’? I don’t believe that anyone is entitled to more than the paper they buy. If you don’t like it, don’t buy it, or sell it to someone else.
Chris C
——————————————————————————
Subject: Re: Book discussions
Date: Thu, Oct 26, 2000 6:02 PM
In article <>, ddavitt <>wrote:
>Stanislaw Kansiewicz wrote:
>
>>>
>>>
>>>I have absolutely no idea what these acronyms stand for, or the other
>>>permutations. I hope to continue in this ignorance indefinitely.
>>>
>>>Phebe
>>
>>I don’t know either, and was starting to get the slightest bit curious.
>>
>>Stan
>
>Well, I’ll tell you with a spoiler space for Phebe 🙂
>
>s
>p
>o
>i
>l
>e
>r
>s
>p
>a
>c
>e
>It’s “E.F or F.F” and it’s just “Eat first or fuck first?” I don’t recall
>anyone ever asking me that exact question but when Dora answers, “both”, I
>flash on pineapple yoghurt…but that’s another story…..&lr;bg>
>No mystery about it; it’s one of the FAQ’s on Jim Gifford’s page. No prudery
>involved either; when used correctly (as another word for sexual intercourse) I
>don’t think anyone on the group would raise an eyebrow. OTOH, if a poster uses
>it as an insult there might be a comment or two as we tend to be polite and
>proud of our extensive vocabulary; lots more challenging to attack without once
>using a swear word 🙂
>
>Jane
Oh the fuck they wouldn’t raise an eyebrow. I can just imagine the flurry of emails exploring the netcopping possibilities after one of my most recent posts. You know, it didn’t take 300+ pages to build up to that single apposite expletive either?
It’s hard to believe anybody here has to ask about FF/EF. Okay, maybe some really young subscribers or the abysmally dense. That it’s necessary to have it as a FAQ doesn’t clear up which group requires its spelling out. By way of clarification and reminder, you’ll notice the first mention was not mine.
With respect to discourse without profanity, I’m not all for it and I’ll use it once in a while. Overindulgence is laziness and although we’ve been recently reminded that it’s possible to be too lazy to fail, that was just hyperbole for the sake of characterization.
LNC
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
——————————————————————————
Subject: Re: Book discussions
Date: Thu, Oct 26, 2000 7:35 PM
>
>>Stanislaw Kansiewicz wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I have absolutely no idea what these acronyms stand for, or the
>other
>>>>permutations. I hope to continue in this ignorance indefinitely.
>>>>
>>>>Phebe
>>>
>>>I don’t know either, and was starting to get the slightest bit
>curious.
>>>
>>>Stan
>>
>>Well, I’ll tell you with a spoiler space for Phebe 🙂
>>
>>s
>>p
>>o
>>i
>>l
>>e
>>r
>>s
>>p
>>a
>>c
>>e
>>It’s “E.F or F.F” and it’s just “Eat first or fuck first?” I don’t
>recall
>>anyone ever asking me that exact question but when Dora
>answers, “both”, I
>>flash on pineapple yoghurt…but that’s another story…..&lr;bg>
>>No mystery about it; it’s one of the FAQ’s on Jim Gifford’s page. No >prudery
>>involved either; when used correctly (as another word for sexual
>intercourse) I
>>don’t think anyone on the group would raise an eyebrow. OTOH, if a
>poster uses
>>it as an insult there might be a comment or two as we tend to be
>polite and
>>proud of our extensive vocabulary; lots more challenging to attack
>without once
>>using a swear word 🙂
>>
>>Jane
>
>Oh the fuck they wouldn’t raise an eyebrow. I can just imagine the
>flurry of emails exploring the netcopping possibilities after one of my
>most recent posts. You know, it didn’t take 300+ pages to build up to
>that single apposite expletive either?
>
>It’s hard to believe anybody here has to ask about FF/EF. Okay, maybe
>some really young subscribers or the abysmally dense. That it’s
>necessary to have it as a FAQ doesn’t clear up which group requires its
>spelling out. By way of clarification and reminder, you’ll notice the
>first mention was not mine.
>
>With respect to discourse without profanity, I’m not all for it and
>I’ll use it once in a while. Overindulgence is laziness and although
>we’ve been recently reminded that it’s possible to be too lazy to fail,
>that was just hyperbole for the sake of characterization.
>
>LNC
>
My apologies for forgetting that reference, It’s been 6 months since I read the complete RAH, guess its time again. should take me about a week. It was the E that threw me off the first F was plain.
Thanks so much
Stan
——————————————————————————
Subject: Re: Book discussions
Date: Thu, Oct 26, 2000 9:26 PM
In article <>, (Chris Croughton) wrote:
>On Wed, 25 Oct 2000 18:17:49 GMT,
>
>>Pick one. Pick TEFL since that’s the next pick for discussion, leaf
>>through it and mentally recast the stories without the inclusion of
>>sexuality. Is there any point to any of them then?
>
>Yes. The whole section on rejuvenating LL and trying to interest him in
>living stands without the sex (that between Galahad and Ishtar is
>irrelevant to that part of the story). The conversations with Ira about
>the society and how it’s deteriorating don’t have any sex. Nor does the
>tale of David Lamb (except for that which would be in any tale about the
>military; if it contained no mention of sex it would be very
>unrealistic, as would be any wartime story). “The Tale of the Adopted
>Daughter” is a love story, what do you expect? “The Tale of the Twins
>Who Weren’t” is a ‘Pygmalion’ type story, in the main, about bringing up
>a pair of slaves to become free people; again, the sex is irrelevant to
>the point of the story which is a political or sociological one (with a
>bit of medical tech stuff in there), except that it is a normal part of
>the life of adult humans.
>
>Of course, the book as a whole has the theme of ‘love’, in many
>different forms, and about how it is not the same as ‘sex’. So there is
>inevitably going to be sex in the book…
Conversation, eh? Ishtar and Galahad, eh? Conversation? What was that first thing they talked about? Oh, yeah. You remember, right? “You come here often and would you like to come here, often?” Adopted daughter? You mean Rangy Lil? It’s your recollection the nickname came from her lankiness? Right. The twins who weren’t…
Objectively, doesn’t it strike you that this particular interlude is the readers’ introduction to the topic of incest and how the taboo can be intellectualized away? Tell me you don’t think it’s just a mental exercise in polyhybrid crosses with the proof left to the student. Ignore the introductory “objectively” if you believe it to be undully argumentative. Don’t tell me the point wasn’t sex, though. Don’t say that anybody reading it is going to come away with the principles of intersellar arbitrage in drygoods or gallactic restauranteurship as the things they remember the most.
>
>>For that matter, is there any point to the book then since
>
>Since you’re assuming that the answer is “no, there’s no point to the
>stories”? Assuming your own answer isn’t particularly clever…
>
Other than as a passing, gratuitous snicker, your point escapes me here since all you’ve done is hamhandedly answer a rhetorical question.
>>the whole
>>thing’s a set up to get Woody (great nick, no, considering the
>>context?) into the bed on Benton Boulevard boffing the beautiful babe
>>who bore his body before?
>
>I have no idea what meaning you’re attaching to ‘Woody’, since neither
>that nor the full name (Woodrow) are part of my cultural background (the
>only example I can think of is “Woody Woodpecker” from the cartoon
>series, which doesn’t seem to fit).
That was it. Woody Peckerwood, Ozark lad, from down around where they define “eligible woman” as “physically present.” Really, that’s all I mean and you don’t have to be hardon me.
>
>But no, that isn’t the ‘point’ of the book. In fact it’s a scenario
>which, had it been absent, would have changed the main story almost not
>at all. LL didn’t expect to get to go to bed with his mother, right up
>to when it happened, and long before that he had decided – for love – to
>go to war.
Ah, love! I’m going to war for love! You know, that’s not the way I remember it. Shame was more like it but lust was still there. Didn’t he tell gramps about his plan to cool his heels south of the border and make money on the war and didn’t gramps tell him he was a low-down, spineless, profiteering, anti-American, worthless, son-of-a-bitch and not to come around anymore? Didn’t bumbly boy then decide if he ever wanted to whiff mom’s musky aroma again he better get with the program? Love, is it? Nah, much more quantifiable emotions and, some say (not me), less noble.
>
>>There are plenty of mentions in the posts on these boards about the
>>politics and economic theories of RAH but make no mistake, he was as
>>much a determinist as Engels and Marx–only the feature on which he
>>lighted to explain human behavior was sex, not economics. Frankly,
>>I’m
>>attracted to it. It’s more basic than greed and more universal. Most
>>greed’s probably motivated by the goal of obtaining economic advantage
>>in order to acquire sexual favor or desirability. I think he actually
>>hit on something but just didn’t articulate it as fully as he could
>>have in the form of an organized, non-fiction thesis. He did what he
>>could which was support the proposition by fictional example.
>
>It may be correct, or as correct as any of those theories. But a
>determinist? I don’t think so, his writings seem to reflect the
>opinions of Jubal Harshaw who was torn between determinism, free will
>and solipsism while admitting that there might be some outside force.
Whatever but it’s a little tautological to say the writer got his opinions from the creation.
>
>>>>Now, as for whether the sex was good sex. You say it wasn’t, I didn’t
>>>>say, I’ll say now it was lousy, unimaginative, Puritanical sex that
>>>>derived it’s tittilation from the forbidden. Missionary position, oh-
>>>>yes-now-now-mommy stuff that took 300 pages to set up the first time
>>>>and wasn’t worth the effort if the sex was all there was. >
>>>why your whole thesis of “he
>>>was just selling sex” doesn’t hold water. No way would the books have
>>>sold at all just for the sex.
>>
>>That’s a little naive, Chris. You know as well as I do that he had to
>>stay mainstream to keep selling.
>
>I know that by that time he /didn’t/ have to write juvenile novels with
>no mention of sex to sell. When was “Lady Chatterley’s Lover”
>published? D.H. Lawrence’s “Sons and Lovers”? There were plenty of
>book far raunchier by that time.
I’m not going to look them up for you but they were earlier 20th century, Lawrence wasn’t American, he wasn’t mainstream, he was banned and he reads like taking castor oil. I tried to get through one of his stories, “A Modern Lover,” yesterday and I’ll swear you have to be living in rural England 75 years ago to get either any sense and certainly no tittilation out of him. As regards “mainstream,” elsewhere it’s been conceded that this statement is accurate and that the “mainstream” at issue here is mainstream scifi.
>
>>Further, you’re presuming he knew how
>>to write a good sex scene but just didn’t.
>
>Where did I presume that? I have no opinion on whether he could have
>written a ‘good’ sex scene (for some subjective value of ‘good’, which
>will vary a lot depending who’s reading it).
Well, formulate one. You’ve read him. You think he could have done it? Not in a backwoods minute.
>
>>I don’t think he knew how to
>>do it because he wasn’t a particularly good writer when it came to
>>crafting believable scenes showing the way that actual people–not
>>demigods with agendas and prepared lectures–behave when they’re in an
>>informal setting. It just wasn’t his way, his style, it wouldn’t have
>>fit the pace of his work, and it wouldn’t have sold. Invariably, when
>>he throws a couple of characters together in the comfort of a dwelling
>>place’s living room for dinner and light conversation the reader winds
>>up getting a discourse on morality, politics or religion. That’s what
>>his readers wanted and that’s what they got: escapism from the reality
>>that the last time they had friends over for dinner maybe .001% of the
>>conversation was anything remotely like that.
>
>A discourse? I’d say a discussion (from the point of view of those at
>the dinner table). I don’t know about your friends, but the last time I
>was at the dinner table with some of my friends the subjects did range
>between politics, morality, religion and several other subjects, and I
>don’t find this at all uncommon. (Actually, it probably is uncommon in
>the population as a whole, but I’m talking about people who read – and
>write – for fun.)
I know those guys. They’re, off and on, articulate and amusing. Sometimes things get a little heated. Once we had a guy who sat at the table and pontificated for two hours on individualism, the loss of identity attributable to the proliferation of technology, and how much money certain scifi writers could be making by internet serialization if they’ed had the chance, how they’re probably gnashing their teeth at the lost opportunity. We won’t have him back. Nobody else could get a word in edgewise and when he stopped to take a breath, each time, another guest left.
>
>>>(It’s revealing just which aspects of the sex and relationships in his
>>>books people pick on. It reveals more about the person who complains
>>>than about the author…)
>>>
>>I’ve got an elipsis key around here someplace and I’m not afraid to use
>>it, if I can find it… Oh, yeah. There it is… Now what was that
>>bullshit? Oh, yeah… I’m superior because I can “accept” screwing your
>>mother, father, daughters, sons and any other relative who’s available.
>>Right… Good key, that…
>
>What are you on about? Or should it be “what are you on?”
Bullshit again. You. If you’re going to include it to respond, read it more carefully.
>
>>I didn’t include “Cat.” I don’t like it and probably won’t ever read it
>>again. “Beast” is all about sex–when it’s not setting up the, what do
>>you call it here? Reality as fiction or something like that? That
>>elaborate mechanism for plausible deniability of charges that the old
>>man’s just gone wanker happy. Someone suggest that there’s a deep game
>>afoot. That “666” isn’t six to the sixth to the sixth but rather “sick,
>>sick, sick” and a giggle from the grave. Job? Crap. I read it once.
>
>Well, since you’ve just declared two of them to be not to your taste and
>thus eliminated them, it doesn’t exactly leave much to work on does it?
>That’s your opinion, though, I daresay there are books you like which I
>think are ‘crap’ or not worth reading.
More than a couple, betcha? Both ways? Our publishers are happy about it.
>
>>Lost it.
>
>Ah, yes. It shows.
Like, fuck off.
>
>>Bought another copy, read it and immediately gave it away.
>
>Your choice.
What I said, innit?
>
>>I’m from Missouri, Chris. Literally.
>
>Can one be from Missouri metaphorically? Fascinating concept…
Right there is where I believed you’re not from the US. Somebody tell the boy what “I’m from Missouri” means, please. Just in case nobody does, I’ll tell you, Chris.
It’s a famous American saying that comes from the nickname of the State of Missouri: “The Show-Me State.” There’s a split of opinion about why it got that name and what it means. One camp, the traditionalists, say that it refers to the native skepticism of the Missourian who demands proof instead of just a representation, i.e., “Show me before I’ll believe it.”
The other camp says the story goes that back in 1849, during the California gold rush days when people from all places poured into the State of California trying to stike it rich, the absolute dumbest were from Missouri. Not a one of them knew anything useful and were constantly asking for instructions about the simplest thing. They came to be known as “show me’s” as in “show me how to pan for gold,” “show me how to tie my shoes.”
Got it now? Fascinating…
>
>>I lived in Kansas City for awhile
>>and worked for years a block from the house on Benton Blvd. where the
>>Smiths were supposed to have lived.
>
>Fictionally.
No. I actually did work there. You see that “were supposed to have” part of the immediately preceding sentence? That mean “fictionally.”
>
>>I lived on Rockhill Road two blocks
>>from Maureen’s last
>
>Fictional
>
>residence.
You
got
it
now.
>
>>I grew up in Joplin. I got enough goddam biblethumping, come to Jesus,
>>don’t look now but there’s a rapture about to happen bullshit (and am
>>still, in Kansas, close enough to experience its effects–remember us
>>and the teaching of evolution?– just by looking out the window) to
>>give everyone in this ng all the fundamentalist party-line evangelism
>>she or he could take and still have enough left over to pitch a tent
>>and speak in tongues. Job stinks.
>
>In your opinion. I suspect that many of thos bible-bashers would agree
>with you.
Many would, probably most. You should see what the morons do with their time. Recently, the State Board of Education ordered a local school district to take the labels off some of its shelves, such labels saying “OK for Christians.” By the way, get the terminology right or you’re in for a surprise. A “bible-basher” would be one who criticises the bible, bashes it. A biblethumper’s a guy who stands in front of a room full of marks and shouts at them about how their souls are in peril unless they give until it hurts, dollar-wise, all the time pounding on the bible carried as a percussion instrument in the off- hand.
>
>>>Your emphasis on sex reminds me of I girl I knew years ago who refused
>>>to read Fred Hoyle’s books because of “all the sex” – there was (in
>>>the book about which she was complaining) one scene where the
>>>protagonist met a girl at a party and they went back to her flat.
>>>That was it, no statement even of whether he slept on the couch or
>>>whatever.
>>>
>>My emphasis? I didn’t write the damn books.
>
>Your emphasis. You are the one reading them as only being about sex.
>If you weren’t so obsessed then perhaps you might actually see the
>stories.
Cool stories. Tame sex, interesting plots, nice exposition, well paced, entertaining reading. I see the stories, you don’t see the sex, that’s the only place we diverge in viewpoint.
>
>>Bubbly Boy did that. Hey, you still know that “girl?” See what she
>>thinks about a little group incest spread out over four novels.
>
>No, I don’t. She wouldn’t have gone near the books, to her anything
>with any sex (unless God approved it) was eternal damnation. Asking her
>about some of the scenes in the Bible was fun…
No shit. RAH really got off dredging them up and throwing them in the faces of the sanctimonious, too. “Hey, Lot! Your daughter busy?” “No man. Go ahead, invite some friends, leave her clothes here and stop bothering me, I’ve got guests.”
>
>>Still do. Don’t tell me, though, that the sex
>>was just another one of those. You’re fooling you, not me.
>
>If you like.
Like, schmike. Doesn’t matter to me what you think. You’re somewhere on the other side of the world and I’ll never meet you.
>
>>>He was good at that, certainly. The best? I can’t comment, I can’t
>>>think of anyone noticably better at that aspect of the craft…
>>Asimov.
>
>I thought of Asimov and Clarke (two of my favourite SF writers), but I
>don’t think that they were actually any better at merging tech stuff
>seamlessly with a story. Both of them had a tendency to make the tech
>dominant and marginalise the characters, which Heinlein didn’t (with the
>exception of a couple of the early juveniles). Overall, I wouldn’t like
>to say that any of the three was better, they all had good stories.
I said Asimov thinking about some of the stuff he wrote that was fiction but not scifi. The stories about the Black Widows, the Wendell Urth stories, writing as Paul French doing the Lucky Starr series, in all those I thought his people were more real people. I think it’s difficult to dispute his technical qualifications were far superior to Bob’s. A Ph.D in biochemistry before you’re 21 is tough to match.
>
>>Yes, regretfully. I can’t get it up anymore and I could never get it up
>>over a Heinlein novel. I’ll ask mom why that is.
>
>I don’t think I’ve ever got it up over a novel, words don’t turn me on
>in that way.
I think you better think about that, please. I’m not trying to be presumptuous here. I’m thinking about the basic power of the word as compared with anything else I can imagine. If my snippy and inappropriately discourteous response, quoted above, has caused you to adopt this position without ample time for circumspection, I sincerely regret having made it.
>
>>You know, don’t you, that that, up there–not the “get it up crap”–
>>was my deference to others’ opinions and RAH’s writing skills, right?
>
>It was? If that’s what you meant, thanks for the explanation. And my regards to you, sir.
>
>>This is discussion and criticism. I can criticize but I can’t write as
>>well, yet, as he did. I won’t wind up writing just like he did, either,
>>because I’m not him. My commentary suggests that I’m entitled to more
>>than he gave but I don’t deserve any more than there is.
>
>’Entitled to’? I don’t believe that anyone is entitled to more than the
>paper they buy. If you don’t like it, don’t buy it, or sell it to
>someone else.
Well, yeah. I’m entitled to my opinion. I’m entitled to formulate and express one based on my appreciation of the work. Nobody has to like me, agree with me, read me, or respond to me. I’m still here and old enough to know what I like, what I think and that I can change that opinion if the facts are different that I believe them to have been.
>
>Chris C
>
LNC
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
——————————————————————————
Subject: Re: Book discussions
Date: Thu, Oct 26, 2000 9:32 PM
In article <>, Stanislaw Kansiewicz <>wrote:
>
>
>>
>>>Stanislaw Kansiewicz wrote:
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>I have absolutely no idea what these acronyms stand for, or the other
>>>>>permutations. I hope to continue in this ignorance indefinitely.
>>>>>
>>>>>Phebe
>>>>
>>>>I don’t know either, and was starting to get the slightest bit
>>curious.
>>>>
>>>>Stan
>>>
>>>Well, I’ll tell you with a spoiler space for Phebe 🙂
>>>
>>>s
>>>p
>>>o
>>>i
>>>l
>>>e
>>>r
>>>s
>>>p
>>>a
>>>c
>>>e
>>>It’s “E.F or F.F” and it’s just “Eat first or fuck first?” I don’t
>>recall anyone ever asking me that exact question but when Dora
>>answers, “both”, I flash on pineapple yoghurt…but that’s another story…..&lr;bg>
>>>No mystery about it; it’s one of the FAQ’s on Jim Gifford’s page No
>>prudery
>>>involved either; when used correctly (as another word for sexual
>>intercourse) I
>>>don’t think anyone on the group would raise an eyebrow. OTOH, if a
>>poster uses
>>>it as an insult there might be a comment or two as we tend to be
>>polite and
>>>proud of our extensive vocabulary; lots more challenging to attack
>>without once
>>>using a swear word 🙂
>>>
>>>Jane
>>
>>Oh the fuck they wouldn’t raise an eyebrow. I can just imagine the
>>flurry of emails exploring the netcopping possibilities after one of my
>>most recent posts. You know, it didn’t take 300+ pages to build up to
>>that single apposite expletive either?
>>
>>It’s hard to believe anybody here has to ask about FF/EF. Okay, maybe
>>some really young subscribers or the abysmally dense. That it’s
>>necessary to have it as a FAQ doesn’t clear up which group requires its
>>spelling out. By way of clarification and reminder, you’ll notice the
>>first mention was not mine.
>>
>>With respect to discourse without profanity, I’m not all for it and
>>I’ll use it once in a while. Overindulgence is laziness and although
>>we’ve been recently reminded that it’s possible to be too lazy to fail,
>>that was just hyperbole for the sake of characterization.
>>
>>LNC
>>
>
>My apologies for forgetting that reference, It’s been 6 months since I
>read the complete RAH, guess its time again. should take me about a
>week. It was the E that threw me off the first F was plain.
>
>Thanks so much
>
>Stan
About that “E,” what kind of “E” are we talking about here anyway?
Nevermind.
LNC
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
——————————————————————————
Subject: Re: Book discussions
Date: Fri, Oct 27, 2000 5:26 AM
>
>Stanislaw Kansiewicz <>wrote:
>>
>>My apologies for forgetting that reference, It’s been 6 months since I
>>read the complete RAH, guess its time again. should take me about a
>>week. It was the E that threw me off the first F was plain.
>>
>>Thanks so much
>>
>>Stan >
>About that “E,” what kind of “E” are we talking about here anyway?
>
>Nevermind.
>
>LNC
DINNER of course, They are honestly hungry.
StanMann
——————————————————————————
Subject: Re: Book discussions
Date: Fri, Oct 27, 2000 5:40 AM
>
>Oh the fuck they wouldn’t raise an eyebrow. I can just imagine the
>flurry of emails exploring the netcopping possibilities after one of my
>most recent posts. You know, it didn’t take 300+ pages to build up to
>that single apposite expletive either?
>
>
>
>
Paranoid as well as….no, mustn’t mock the afflicted…..
Have it your way; we’re a bunch of prudish piano leg dressers. (Where’s John A when you need him?!)
Jane
——————————————————————————
Subject: Re: Book discussions
Date: Fri, Oct 27, 2000 10:05 AM
Stanislaw Kansiewicz wrote:
>
>My apologies for forgetting that reference, It’s been 6 months since I
>read the complete RAH, guess its time again. should take me about a
>week. It was the E that threw me off the first F was plain.
>
>Thanks so much
>
>Stan
I take it you are willing to leave me standing alone in the category of the “abysmally dense.”
[:-)
Jane saying, ” (Where’s John A when you need him?!)” You’re right…I remember John A! He could have handled this — probably the only person who could, at least in the given style. But I gather he went to deal with Serbs, which is pretty advanced work, too.
Phebe
——————————————————————————
Subject: Re: Book discussions
Date: Fri, Oct 27, 2000 11:30 AM
On Fri, 27 Oct 2000 17:05:54 GMT, the estimable wrote:
…
>
>I take it you are willing to leave me standing alone in the category of the
>”abysmally dense.”
>
No – just waiting till we’re sure there’s company……
Cheers, N.
(who didn’t get the “E” or the “F” or the “F” or the “F”)
—
Nollaig MacKenzie
http://www.amhuinnsuidhe.cx/rahfan/
Oppose renaming Mt Logan!! http://www.savemtlogan.com
——————————————————————————
Subject: Re: Book discussions
Date: Fri, Oct 27, 2000 11:22 AM
In article <t9q4r$qts$>, wrote:
(snip)
[LNC] DW, where did I say anything but the sex was written badly? What, you think I slogged through thirty some odd books by one guy just in case someday there’d be a place to come and whine about what a crappy writer he was–so bad I had to read that much to prove it to myself?
[DW] ‘slogging’ sounds to me like you had to ‘force yourself’ to do it. I can’t imagine why you did it if that is the case. You said that the main point had to with sex and since the sex was badly written, I assumed that you meant the book was badly written. How do you have a ‘well-written’ book for which the part that carries the main point is ‘badly written’?
[LNC]Now, he’s not the greatest writer I’ve ever read; his hero, Sam Clemens, has my vote there. He writes well, though. Believable, likeable characters, sound storylines with satisfactory resolutions, good pace, technical accuracy and attention to detail (sometimes too much) in the science, humor a notch above homespun but seldom jaded, clean prose uncluttered with extraneous description for the sake of attempting to evoke more of an aesthetic response than the genre can bear. You fill in anything you think I’ve missed. He wrote well, not great but well.
[DW]About most everything except sex, I gather. You are entitled to your opinion. And, please note, that these are *your* unsupported opinions. Personally, I think he rivals or surpasses Twain. But that is only my opinion. {more on this below}
[LNC]As for the entire point of TEFL being to pop LL in the sack with Maureen, yeah, what about it? You ashamed of it or something? …..
[DW] I am certainly not ashamed of it. I simply don’t agree with you that that is the point of the entire novel. Nor would I be ashamed if it indeed were to be the main point!
[LNC]…. It starts with poor old broken down Woody without a reason to go on and everybody pining away over how if we lose the Senior who’ll write us anymore? It winds its way through this and that anecdote, each one of them a lesson in how sex mends and what else it does (like, explain the entirety of human history)
[DW] I think that I understand you finally. You are equating SEX with LOVE and apparently see no difference between the two. If that is a correct assessment of your thinking, then I really do feel sorry for you.
[LNC]…and lands in Kansas City in time for the Zimmerman note to enable Bunky to be in bed with mom. Here’s a little hypothesis for you: RAH was stuck for an ending of this novel. Sure, there’s sex and then there’s sex with your mother…..
[DW]Heinlein has always presented ideas that run contrary to accepted customs. I’ve always considered it an attempt to get people to think rather than simply accept. But, again, that’s my opinion.
[LNC]….What do you do after you’ve shown your guy getting what he wanted and what you wanted him to get but you still believe that not everbody’s as “open minded” as you are, your profuse explanations about “consenting adults,” contraceptive precautions and not changing history, notwitstanding? Kill his ass. It’s the only thing you can do. He done sinned. You know that last letter to Laz and Lor? I’d have made it say “pecavi.”
[DW] But they didn’t kill ‘his ass’.
[LNC]It’s no big deal that the whole point of the book was what it was unless there’s a reason to be ashamed of it and, face it, you’re as ashamed and guilty feeling as the old coot himself was; that’s why he offed himself at the end of TEFL.
[DW] He did *not* off himself. There are 2 more novels in which he plays a prominent part subsequent to his being wounded in WWI.
I have been assuming that the ‘you’ in the preceding refers to a writer, in general, or Heinlein in particular, and not to myself personally.But, in either case, what allows you to assume what is someone else’s head? Are you telepathic? or are you so intelligent and knowledgeable that you can automatically tell what everyone else is thinking?
[LNC]..It’s ironic, dude, don’t you think, that a guy here can ask, “FF or EF” and everybody knows instantly what that means but you can scour each and every post in this newsgroup and nobody, not a single one of the prudes will spell out that first F? Yet, they’ll seemingly freely swallow their explaining to each other that it’s an okay F, even for little sister, and the big boy didn’t say it, why should we?
[DW]. I don’t say it in public because that was the way that I was raised. Nor do I necessarly accept the concepts in the book just because Heinlein wrote them. As far as I can determine from all that he said and has been said about him by knowledgeable people, he wanted us all to make up our own minds about such things.
[LNC]…The last irony is, of course, that if you were to walk down Benton Boulevard right now the most frequently uttered imprecation cum endearment (in come subcultures) is a twelve-letter word that sussinctly sums up the nature of the biological and final interpersonal relationship between Woodrow Wilson and Maureen Smith. A fine lot of rugged, individualistic, daring freethinkers this is. Not a motherfucker in the lot of you.
[DW] I am a free thinker. There you go again. Telling us what is in our minds. It would appear that your definition of a ‘free thinker’ is one who agrees with you.
[DW](original post) As for me, *ALL* mention of sex could have been eliminated from the books and I would have enjoyed them just as much. But then, I’m just a person who enjoys a story which *I* consider well told, so what do I know?
[LNC]Not squat so far, Dave. At least you haven’t shown it. You’ve displayed your recollection and expressed some unsupported opinions.
[DW]All that you have shown so far are your own ‘unsupported opinions’ and theories.An opinion is just that. And even if you were to provide page after page of references and quotes to back up that opinion (which you haven’t done here), *none* of it would ‘prove’ that your opinion is correct. It would simply give more credibility to the validity of the opinion, but it remains still, your opinion.
[LNC]You just made the air-headed remark that removing the sex would make you happy with the resulting prose. You’ve got no theories, no real opinions other than “I like it,” and are occupying bandwidth without an apparent purpose. You seem to be a nice enough guy but a little repressed .
[DW] Now we are getting to it. ‘My’ opinions are air-headed, unreal, without any theoretical basis and wasting your precious bandwidth. If I am wasting ‘your precious bandwidth and I suppose, your precious time’ why did you even bother to reply. Could it be that you wish to try to impress me and everyone else with your intellect, real (supported) opinions, and theories. I’m not making assumptions about what you are thinking. That’s just what it ‘seems’ to me from what you’ve written. Much like what you have assumed about Heinlein from what he wrote.
As to your last comment, Wrong, on both accounts.
[DW](original post) My second favorite section of TEFL, ‘The Man Who Was Too Lazy To Fail’ has no explicit mention of sex whatsoever. Of course, there had to have been some, after all, David Lamb got his girlfriend pregnant, but *the reader* saw none of it.
[LNC]Like, yawn. Make that lamer book-length and see how many copies it sells. It does raise an interesting point, though: how Lamb engineered his retirement. This isn’t sex for a change but it’s just as stigmatizing as wanting to do mom although not criminal.
[DW]I see that you are changing the subject and thereby ducking the question. Then you must be conceding that at least some of the book is not part of the point of getting Woody in bed with Maureen.
[LNC]…Remember Tom Eagleton on the McCarthy ticket in ’72? Remember why he had to quickly withdraw and Shriver stepped in? Remember Eagleton was from Missouri? RAH knew that even the hinting that you’d once talked to somebody about whether counseling might be beneficial for third parties would brand you a headcase. Why would he let Lamb take this route? My theory (you knew I had one) is that he was laughing through his hat at the entire community of mental health professionals, showing how easily they could be fooled–if you were lazy enough to put your mind to it.
[DW] Your ‘theory’ could be right. But again, how does this fit in with your main thesis?
[LNC]…The corollary is, of course, he had nothing but contempt for something he thought wasn’t subject to empirical analysis. Now, to me, that’s intellectually lazy; but I won’t expand on it now.
[DW]Again, I am presuming that you are referring to Heinlein here and not David Lamb and that he, Heinlein, was intellectually lazy. Well, not surprisingly, I think that you are wrong again. Yes, his written works do seem to show contempt for ‘sciences’ that were on the ‘fuzzy’ side. It is my own opinion, based on his great admiration of Korzybski and his works that he, Heinlein, was hoping that such ‘fuzzy sciences’ would some day find the means of becoming less ‘fuzzy’ through the invention of mathematics and logics which would take them out of the realm of ‘theory’ and more into an ‘engineering’ realm rather than the pure realm of ‘art’. Yes, that’s my own personal, unsupported opinion. How does it differ from your own personal, unsupported opinions?
[DW] Actually, as far as your ‘theories’ go. Your ‘theories’ and your opinions are really one and the same. Neither is ‘provable’ since any such ‘proof’ depends strictly on *your* interpretation of Heinlein’s written works. An interpretation which you have not documented in any way and which seems to have little support from any other readers.
Yours very cordially, but disagreeingly so,
David Wright
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
——————————————————————————
Subject: Re: Book discussions
Date: Fri, Oct 27, 2000 1:29 PM
In article <>, ddavitt <>wrote:
>
>Paranoid as well as….no, mustn’t mock the afflicted…..
>
>Have it your way; we’re a bunch of prudish piano leg dressers.
(Where’s
>John A when you need him?!)
>
>Jane
>
Two things, please. First, I’m pleased the prolepsis worked and am taking your word that there are no such netcopping expeditions underway. I’m not at all put off at being characterized as paranoid or afflicted: I’m professionally paranoid and it’s surely clinical by now.
Next, what the hell is a “piano leg dresser?” Contextually, it has to be a Victorian device used to discretely cloak the unseemly limbs of keyboard instruments in order to avoid the evoking of impure mental images should the viewer recall the synonymity. That can’t be it, though. Nobody’s that, like, sick…are they?
With respect, though, to what you are, you are indeed all just that although you, personally, have written the word “fuck” in public and endorsed its substitution for the longer phrase “sexual intercourse” when the context confines the word to only that meaning.
John A…what? John A kickmymouthyopinionatedassdownthreeflightsofstairsforsomeoftheshitIsay? Go get him. Or you can coax Bill out of his hrumphing snit by telling him I’ve got his bildung right here and its “Bill dung.”
Seriously, though, this is a nice place and you’re a nice group of people and I’m having fun mercilessly taunting all of you. Well, you know what I mean.
LNC
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
——————————————————————————
Subject: Re: Book discussions
Date: Tue, Oct 24, 2000 8:09 PM
>Okay. That’s cool. Take out the sex and tell me how much saleable
>content or, for that matter, length you’ve got left. Lemme see…there
>goes all of TEFL, half of NOTB, all of TSBTS and even all of JACOE. I’m
>leaving ISFNE out of this because it’s just laughable.
I see Chris has provided a fairly good response to this point (and others following). I will just add that yours is a fairly common point of view, and not without some basis. I agree that Heinlein began to write *more* sex in his novels, but he also began to write more about lots of things that he previously had been unable/unwilling to write about. IMO, if you took out all mention of sex (including relationships) from the above titles, there would still be left a plethora of interesting sub-plots, ideas, action sequences and novel twists. Remember, all these novels are quite lengthy, and contain so much more than just sex.
>Now, as for whether the sex was good sex. You say it wasn’t, I didn’t >say, I’ll say now it was lousy, unimaginative, Puritanical sex that >derived it’s tittilation from the forbidden. Missionary position, oh- >yes-now-now-mommy stuff that took 300 pages to set up the first time >and wasn’t worth the effort if the sex was all there was.
Hmmm……. Yes, I guess if you were reading the book *only* for was the sex, then you would be very disappointed. Exactly my point.
>Next, those good stories you mention. Tell me one of them without the
>sex, please. Huh? They’re about people and people have sex so the sex
>has to stay? Okay. Tell me one where the sex isn’t the whole point and
>the business about “politics to relationships, from leadership to
>medicine, from survival to economics” aren’t just little imbedded
>lectures between the most recent copulation and the next.
I see NotB as a good example. Take out any mention of sex and what have you got left? A rather imaginative oddessy of flight through many different dimensions/universes, an amazing mode of transport, several twists on old themes/stories, an enigmatic alien adversary……. I could go on. And the same could be said of the other novels. You seem to place anything to do with sex on a higher level of importance/noticeability than any of the many other issues involved. Why is this?
>Don’t get me wrong. I like Heinlein’s work. I’ve read all the fiction
>he’s written. I’ll read some of it again. Craft-wise he was pretty
>sound and I’ve seldom read anybody who could make the technical details
>necessary for a tale and weave them into the storyline in a way that
>would make me want to keep reading them–most of the time.
Well, that’s nice to know.
Sean
***************
…. and now for something completely different:
Egad! No bondage! ***************
——————————————————————————
Subject: Re: Book discussions
Date: Wed, Oct 25, 2000 10:52 AM
>Next, those good stories you mention. Tell me one of them without the
>sex, please. Huh? They’re about people and people have sex so the sex
>has to stay? Okay. Tell me one where the sex isn’t the whole point and
>the business about “politics to relationships, from leadership to
>medicine, from survival to economics” aren’t just little imbedded
>lectures between the most recent copulation and the next.
>
……reminds me of a sophomoric, but interestingly appropriate, musing from my early developmental days:
“Did you ever consider that a chicken is just a device that an egg uses to produce another egg”
cheers
oz
——————————————————————————
Subject: Re: Book discussions
Date: Wed, Oct 25, 2000 12:01 PM
Major oz wrote:
>”Did you ever consider that a chicken is just a device that an egg uses to
>produce another egg”
>
Very nice.
Did you call these sophomoric musings? Richard Dawkins has built his entire intellectual career on this idea: we are only bottles for our selfish genes.
Phebe
——————————————————————————
Subject: Re: Book discussions
Date: Wed, Oct 25, 2000 3:08 PM
In article <>, (Major oz) wrote:
>
>……reminds me of a sophomoric, but interestingly appropriate,
>musing from my
>early developmental days:
>
>”Did you ever consider that a chicken is just a device that an egg
>uses to
>produce another egg”
>
>cheers
>
>oz
>
Monotony recapitulates a lot to me.
I/II
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
————————————————————————————————-
Subject: OT: But kinda on TEFL (Long)
Date: Sat, Oct 21, 2000 6:05 PM
Okay, some of the regular readers may have got this in ab email from Ebon, but when I read it, I got to thinking about the ongoing discussion of TEFL. They say wisdom comes from the young, so here is their version of Love’s definition. I don’t know where this came from originally, but it’s good.
This is long but worth reading.
<<
WHAT IS LOVE?
A group of professional people posed this question to a group of 4 to 8 year-olds, “What does love mean?” The answers they got were broader and deeper than anyone could have imagined. See what you think:
Love is that first feeling you feel before all the bad stuff gets in the way.
When my grandmother got arthritis, she couldn’t bend over and paint her toenails anymore. So my grandfather does it for her all the time, even when his hands got arthritis too. That’s love.
When someone loves you, the way they say your name is different. You know that your name is safe in their mouth.
Love is when a girl puts on perfume and a boy puts on shaving cologne and they go out and smell each other.
Love is when you go out to eat and give somebody most of your French fries without making them give you any of theirs.
Love is when someone hurts you. And you get so mad but you don’t yell at them because you know it would hurt their feelings.
Love is what makes you smile when you’re tired.
Love is when my Mommy makes coffee for my Daddy and she takes a sip before giving it to him, to make sure the taste is OK.
Love is when you kiss all the time. Then when you get tired of kissing, you still want to be together and you talk more. My Mommy and Daddy are like that. They look gross when they kiss.
Love is what’s in the room with you at Christmas if you stop opening presents and listen.
If you want to learn to love better, you should start with a friend who you hate.
Love is hugging. Love is kissing. Love is saying no.
When you tell someone something bad about yourself and you’re scared they won’t love you anymore. But then you get surprised because not only do they still love you, they love you even more.
There are two kinds of love Our love. God’s love. But God makes both kinds of them.
Love is when you tell a guy you like his shirt, then he wears it everyday.
Love is like a little old woman and a little old man who are still friends even after they know each other so well.
During my piano recital, I was on a stage and scared. I looked at all the people watching me and saw my Daddy waving and smiling. He was the only one doing that. I wasn’t scared anymore.
My Mommy loves me more than anybody. You don’t see anyone else kissing me to sleep at night.
Love is when Mommy gives Daddy the best piece of chicken.
Love is when Mommy sees Daddy smelly and sweaty and still says he is handsomer than Robert Redford.
Love is when your puppy licks your face even after you left him alone all day.
I know my older sister loves me because she gives me all her old clothes and has to go out and buy new ones.
I let my big sister pick on me because my Mom says she only picks on me because she loves me. So I pick on my baby sister because I love her.
Love cards like Valentine’s cards say stuff on them that we’d like to say ourselves, but we wouldn’t be caught dead saying.
When you love somebody, your eyelashes go up and down and little stars come out of you.
Love is when Mommy sees Daddy on the toilet and she doesn’t think it’s gross.
You really shouldn’t say ‘I love you’ unless you mean it. But if you mean it, you should say it a lot. People forget. >>
Filly
http://hometown.aol.com/merfilly8/myhomepage
“You can’t depend on your eyes when your imagination is out of focus.”
–Mark Twain
————————————————————————————————-
Subject: Heinlein wrote to shock as of FF, but why?
Date: Sun, Oct 22, 2000 11:38 AM
kyger saying, “…Heinlein stopped writing for “the market(s)” (whatever the heck that is) and started to *write only for himself.* I.e., he wrote what he wrote the way he wanted it to be written because only *he* wanted to do so.”
I think he started writing to shock as of Farnham’s Freehold. That’s actually QUITE a shocking book if you consider some of the things in it that are totally untouched in literature before Heinlein! And just continued from there. I have always wondered why he decided to write to shock…he was certainly playing with limits. Some he didn’t touch! Or some he postponed a long time: homosexuality, notably.
Phebe
————————————————————————————————-
Subject: Re: Heinlein wrote to shock as of FF, but why?
Date: Sun, Oct 22, 2000 12:28 PM
>I think he started writing to shock as of Farnham’s
>Freehold.
Not “shock” per se, I think — but he was trying to get people to step outside their boxes, and after about 1960 it took bigger and bigger 2×4’s to get a rise out of the American public. But this isn’t a “new” thing — just a continuation of a trend RAH started with Starship Troopers – which brings us back to Kyger’s thesis.
Bill
————————————————————————————————-
Here Begins The Discussion Log
<=”” a=””><=”” a=””>
<=”” a=””>
<=”” a=””>
[EDITOR’S Note:] Due to various problems, tonight’s session was pretty much OT for first hour or two. The following is mostly casual rambling conversation]
<=”” a=””>Skip Rambling if you wish
You have just entered room “Heinlein Readers Group chat.”
ddavitt has entered the room.
ddavitt: Hi Dave
SAcademy has entered the room.
SAcademy: Good evening
ddavitt: Hi there. Quiet tonight!
SAcademy: So it seems.
SAcademy: How are you these days?
ddavitt: I know David Silver will probably not be able to make it because of the sad news about his mother.
ddavitt: Fine thanks, just waiting for the baby. Due in a week and a half
SAcademy: Yes, and I think hhis sister was coming in–so he’s likely to be tied up, too.
ddavitt: Had a false alarm last week and raced off to the hospital but then it all went quiet again 🙁
ddavitt: How are you?
SAcademy: Oh, I’m in good shape, except I’m sleepy now. It’s late for me.
SAcademy: I almost went to sleep over the keyboard a few minutes ago.
ddavitt: Yes, i doubt I’ll make it to the end of the chat; I’m getting very tireed these days.
ddavitt: I’m typing with a cat waving his tail in my face 🙂
ddavitt: Do you get much seasonal change where you are?
SAcademy: My cat walks across the keyboard–and he waves his tail, too.
ddavitt: Our leaves are on the turn but the weather is crazy; warm one day, below freezing the next….
SAcademy: Yes, I get the weather reports even here in Florida.
Major oz has entered the room.
ddavitt: Hi Oz.
Major oz: small crowd?
SAcademy: Good e;vening.
ddavitt: Very! But select 🙂
Major oz: Hi, Jane…..How’s the pains ?
Major oz: Good evening SA
ddavitt: Coming and going..one false alarm last week
SAcademy: How did you find Butler?
ddavitt: Yes, are you going to write up your visit Oz?
Major oz: ….just drove north and there it was. Sorry, couldn’t resist. I expected the house to be a museum, but found much information at the library, including some photographs of a lovely lady.
Major oz: I also found some information at the county museum that has pictures of Robert as a high school ROTC cadet.
SAcademy: No, the house Robert was born in is occupied. I expect the owners find it rather a nuisance that R. was born there.
ddavitt: A younger version of the year book picture? or not much difference?
Major oz: Yes, Jane. When I get my pictures developed, David has told me there is a site where my information and the pics can be posted.
ddavitt: Great!
Major oz: Yes, SA; the lady who answered the doorbell was much more gracious than I would have been in the same circumstance. It must be irritating to have pilgrims at your door day and night.
SAcademy: Pictures of Robert seem to turn up all over the place.
ddavitt: I think it would be nice to live in a house with a history…but as you say it could get to be a burden.
ddavitt: I’m sure you were nice Oz:-)
Major oz: And there is a farily new pastel portrait of the two of you in the library.
SAcademy: People would come up to the door of our house in Colorado and ask to be shown around. Sometimes it was ready for inspection, but not always.
SAcademy: Oh, yes, The Kelly Freas portraait that jIM Cunningham ordered for them.
SAcademy: I’ve seen a picture of that one.
ddavitt: That’s one thing I’ve noticed about Canada; people don’t just pop in for coffee as we do in England.
Major oz: When I first became a fan, in Denver in the 60’s, I didn’t know you were in the Springs. I lived in CS from 88 to 94, but didn’t go to the house for the same reasons
Major oz: I think that is the signature, but I didn’t write it down.
ddavitt: Is David wright having problems? His logging alter ego isn’t on…
SAcademy: It’s Kelly Freas–the wellknown illustrator.
Major oz: That’s OK. We don’t want some ID’s on the log, anyway.
ddavitt: ?
SAcademy: I gave Robert a portrait of his of Nichelle Nichols for a birthday present once.
ddavitt: He was a fan of hers wasn’t he?
Major oz: We don’t want SA hounded, Jane.
ddavitt: I think SA disclosed her ID a few chats back….
SAcademy: It was done for the Space Museum in D. C. but I wanated it and Polly said that Kelly cold do another one. So he did.
Major oz: ….but we purged the log.
ddavitt: But david will always edit anything if asked
SAcademy: Oh, well, I haven’t been troubled by others.
ddavitt: Seems like a sad week on afh; Nuclear waste, Ebontress and dave Silver all with bad news 🙂
Major oz: Robert met the cast of Star Trek, didn’t he?
SAcademy: And I do live far from anything
Major oz: how, so, Jane?
SAcademy: Oh, yes, Well, at least some of them.
SAcademy: I only heard about David’s loss. Not about the others.
ddavitt: NW fell again and narrowly missed foot amputation, Ebon’s remission has stopped and she is in hospital and dave’s mother died on monday…
Major oz: I’m sorry to hear…..so much at once.
ddavitt: I’m surprised it’s just us though; labert was supposed to be co host I think.
Major oz: yes
SAcademy: Oh, I forgot to start a log.
ddavitt: I’m trying to finish an article on red planet for the next Journal
Major oz: David Wright…….are you there, or is that just the log running?
ddavitt: Never mind SA, none of this is TEFL relevant !!:-)
ddavitt: Dave hasn’t spoken so I assume it’s a log or he’s having problems as I did a bit ago
Major oz: I very much enjoyed the discussion you were having re: women in the H novels.
SAcademy: Well, I’ve seen some of this preliniminary talk on logs before.
Major oz: Congratulations on being civil in the face of temptation.
ddavitt: Hmm… reilloc and Randi in one week….
ddavitt: Oh yes, I enjoy this as a chance to chat as well as discuss the topic.
Major oz: Is Randi really as redneck as he appears or simply a provacateur?
SAcademy: Were you stationed at NORAD, Major?
ddavitt: I did get a tad worked up now and then….she is digging at me and cloaking it as compliments; I don’t like that subterfuge.
ddavitt: Randi is a she
Major oz: No — at Lowry. I was an instructor. My time at Colorado Springs was after retirement.
Major oz: I was at Lowry from 58 — 64
SAcademy: We lived there then.
ddavitt: And a lesbian so I assume childless, though that’s not necessarily true of course…
dwrighsr: Hi People. Sorry I haven’t been here. Was workin on a friend’s computer
Major oz: That was when I first discovered Robert, at the age of 23 or so.
SAcademy: Left in 65–too much altitude.
ddavitt: Hi dave
BPRAL22169 has entered the room.
ddavitt: Hi Bill.
SAcademy: Hello, Bill.
BPRAL22169: Hi, all.
Major oz: An I visited friends at Los Gatos, not knowing you were just down the road.
ddavitt: Have you been logging this dave?
BPRAL22169: Well — yes, only about 500 miles.
ddavitt: You Americans:-):-):-):-)
dwrighsr: Yes. It’s been on the whole time. I wasn’t here myself
ddavitt: Might need to edit here and there…
SAcademy: What? L:os Gatos is on the way to San Jose from Bonny Doon.
BPRAL22169: Yes, but I’m still in Los Angeles.
Major oz: …..right !!
BPRAL22169: You’re right at the archives.
SAcademy: Los Gatos is on Highway 17–Blood Alley.,
BPRAL22169: Have you been making a Heinlein circuit of the country?
Major oz: No. I was just remarking that I was always behind as the H’s moved around the country.
ddavitt: I’d like to recreate the Tramp Royale trip and do a comparison on how things have changed….
SAcademy: Major Oz was in Butler recently.
BPRAL22169: That would be very interesting — but a lot of work for a relatively small audience.
ddavitt: If I could get funding I’d make the effort:-)
dwrighsr: Yeah. but the trip would sure be nice.
Major oz: And, Bill, Bam’s parentage will have to be researched in Ohio.
SAcademy: They certainly change. The difference is sometimes marked. Such as Barrow in the 60’s and later in the 80’s.
BPRAL22169: How’s that?
Major oz: That is where her parents, Dr. Lyle and wife, are from.
Major oz: married there
BPRAL22169: Curious. Dr. Lyle must have moved around quite a lot. Bam was born in Iowa.
BPRAL22169: Do you remember what town in Ohio?
Major oz: beb
Major oz: brb
SAcademy: Blue Mound maybe?
BPRAL22169: Wasn’t that in Illinois?
SAcademy: Yes, you’re right about that.
BPRAL22169: It would be curious if that fact that floated up out of your memory was the key to the Lyles.
SAcademy: I don’t know–there was supposed to be a family Bible there with some genealogy
BPRAL22169: I checked quickly in with the alt.fan.heinlein posts and got the impression that Dave Silver’s mother had passed. is that correct?
Major oz: Dr. A.E. Lyle, born in 1858 in Perry county Ohio
ddavitt: Yes sadly.
BPRAL22169: Thanks, Oz. I’ll see what I can stir up.
SAcademy: Yes, I wrote you about that.
ddavitt: family bibles are an information source that is fast vanishing I would think; do people still use them?
BPRAL22169: It has been coming for some time.
ddavitt: Yes, he has mentioned her illness before but it’s always a shock when it happens.
Major oz: Parents, Robert and Anna (Evans) Lyle, born 1808 and 1811 in Muskingum County OH
SAcademy: It was before vital records were kept, Jane. Robert’s birth wasn’t recorded, and we had to get a letter from his mother about it, before he could get a passport.
Major oz: Anyhow, when AG sets me up with a page (and I get my photos developed) the whole visit will be posted.
BPRAL22169: Excellent information. Maybe I can track the Lyles to their lairs. I’m hoping there will be a family history somewhere.
SAcademy: Good. I hope the library was hospitable?
ddavitt: Yes, i suppose in a lot of cases it was the only record of births and marriages…but now things are more regimented. Neither my husband nor I have a recollection of our grandparents owning one.
Major oz: Could NOT find any allusion to “Anson”.
Major oz: …..but am looking at more g-g-grandparents, also in OH
SAcademy: Anson was a family name.
Major oz: more later………
Major oz: who?
dwrighsr: That could be similar to my family. Spencer is a big name in the family, but so far no one remembers where it came from.
SAcademy: I don’t remember that part. Just that it was a forebear of some sort.
dwrighsr: Once it got started it kept being passed down.
ddavitt: Yes; eleanor’s middle name is after her great grandmother
ddavitt: Similar tradsition in my husband’s family
SAcademy: Jane, can you remember all that stuff aabout ancestors? I can’t
ddavitt: Which stuff?
SAcademy: abot ancestors?
ddavitt: names and things?
Major oz: In answer to your Q, SA: yes the library people were exceedingly gracious and helpful, particularly Linda Hunter, the librarian.
SAcademy: Yes.
BPRAL22169: An acocmplished Southron can keep 7 or 8 generations of a family tree in his/her/its head.
ddavitt: I knew my great grandmother; died when I was 11
dwrighsr: Egad. I must not be a true Southron then, I have to have all mine written down 🙂
ddavitt: I don’t know much about anything further back than that
dwrighsr: I’ve got all my father’s family back to 1800, but don’t know much about my mother’s side yet.
ddavitt: Both my great grand mothers had about 12 kids apiece; LOTS of aunts and uncles and cousins
SAcademy: I sent you some info on the earliest Heinleins in this country–latest letteer.
ddavitt: Yes, it is something that seems more vital to Americans; back to the mayflower and all that.
ddavitt: We don’t make so much of it in the UK; unless you’re royalty or something 🙂
BPRAL22169: I don’t recall seeing that one yet.
dwrighsr: Genealogy is great fun. Like a giant puzzle.
Major oz: Out of the blue, ten years or so ago, I received, from a REALLY distant relative, a photo copy of a late eighteenth ship’s registry with my maternal gp’s forebearers names in ink….the trip from Oslo to Montreal
SAcademy: It probably hasn’t arrived yet.
ddavitt: The net certainly makes it easier
BPRAL22169: One’s relatives, I find, are always puzzles.
ddavitt: And the Salt lake City archives are supposed to be invaluable
Major oz: that is “////18th century…..”
ddavitt: I wouldn’t know which branch to go for; maternal or paternal
Major oz: Yes, the Mormons have opened it ALL to the public.
ddavitt: Must get hideously complicated
Major oz: ….not just part of it.
ddavitt: Really?
SAcademy: What I’ve seen of the Salt Lake stuff is likely to be unreliable.
dwrighsr: Start with what you know the most about.
Major oz: yes….and I am told you can access it on line
Major oz: haven’t tried, myself
ddavitt: Or want to know the most about….don’t like my paternal granny at all…
BPRAL22169: They do tend to make up the older genealogy for their own purposes — but theyhave also collected copiees of old records, and those are very helpful.
ddavitt: Couldn’t care less where she came from.
Major oz: I would really like to track down some family legends.
BPRAL22169: I feel most connected to the paternal side, but that stops with my (adoptive) grandmother and her family.
Major oz: …..to see if they are fact based.
BPRAL22169: The maternal side goes back to the Huguenots, but I don’t feel the urge to track that information down.
ddavitt: But I’d love to find out where my ancestors came from, if we’ve always been English..
Major oz: Isn’t that where you came from?
ddavitt: I can see how it would get quite addictive
ddavitt: Yes but who knows what happened in the past?
Major oz: true…..
SAcademy: The genealogy in the Butler library is a very active section.
ddavitt: People immigrated to England as well as from it.
Major oz: On some of the islands I lived on, there were only a few hundred people and hundreds of generations were the same people.
BPRAL22169: What was your maiden name?
SAcademy: Maybe Joane Rush would look it up for you, Bill.
ddavitt: Me? Ward.
Major oz: Terrible inbreeding……
ddavitt: Very common name.
BPRAL22169: That’s a solidly English name.
ddavitt: Yes, my mother is Jackson.
Major oz: Ah, but you are Norsk, by way of Normandy……..:-D
ddavitt: My married name. Davitt is Irish; Michael davitt was a famous Irish rebel.
BPRAL22169: Suggests petit bourgeois going all the way back to the 14th century. Jackson doesn’t have the petit bourgeois overtones, but it’s English going back to the 8th century.
ddavitt: Not that he’s related i think:-)
ddavitt: That’s probably why we don’t bother as much; we’ve all been around for so long it doesn’t matter anymore <g>
BPRAL22169: Oh, you English arrivistes!
ddavitt: 🙂
SAcademy: Ca’t trace it back to the nobility?
Major oz: I was recently filling out some paperwork to substitute teach in the local HS, and there was a box for “race”. I thought that was gone. I entered “various”
ddavitt: David and I still chuckle over a Canadian restaurant that we visited on our honeymoon, with a century old window as a decoration….
ddavitt: Our terrace house back in the UK was that old but we didn’t see it as a plus…
Major oz: Interesting how many people here brag about haveing Cherokee blood, but badmouth the Indians.
BPRAL22169: Anything that old in LA or San Francisco is, like, ancient.
ddavitt: In the UK, it’s barely due for it’s next paint job!
ddavitt: Yes, Cherokee princesses are cool i gather.
SAcademy: Ron has Cherokee blood–grandfather, I think
BPRAL22169: I had a strange sense of historicity the first time I went to Boston — quite different from New York. The Old North Church burial ground on Tremont put a chill on me — I paid homage to Samuel Adams.
BPRAL22169: And yet, those 300 year old things are only eggs by comparison to European buildings and sites.
Major oz: It’s quite a tragedy — the “trail of tears” Many were “adopted” along the way by locals.
ddavitt: Funny you mention Boston; I only discovered yesterday that it’s about level or even north of me…..i thought it was much further south….
ddavitt: Jane fails Geography 101
BPRAL22169: Trick of the map
Major oz: You must be in S Ontario.
SAcademy: We had a friend in Colo spgs who was pure Cherokee.
ddavitt: It sort of bends up….most peculair
BPRAL22169: Flat projections don’t give a good sense of things like that.
ddavitt: Thank you Bill; I’ll use that as an excuse 🙂
Major oz: Major trivia Q: What country is directly SOUTH of Detroit MI?
Major oz: Canada, of course
BPRAL22169: De Nada
dwrighsr: I live in the middle of the area that the Cherokees were evicted from. One of them, Chief Vann, built a fine brick house in 1804 which was stolen from him. It’s about a mile from here.
ddavitt: Yes; lots of the US is north of canada…
BPRAL22169: Lots of the US is north of the southernmost parts of Canada.
ddavitt: Hmm…are we going to have a TEFL discussion btw?
BPRAL22169: And Maine belongs to the Maritimes. I say, give it back.
Major oz: You are the volunteer hose, yes?
ddavitt: Uneasy feeling that I’m not being a good cohost here
BPRAL22169: You can have STephen King.
Major oz: host-host-host !!!!!!!!1
ddavitt: If you insist.
SAcademy: Maine’s all right. Used to go there to camp in the summers/
BPRAL22169: In the 20’s?
BPRAL22169: When you were a leader of fashion?
ddavitt: I’ve read lots of books set there but usually murder mysteries which may have given me a false impression.
SAcademy: Yes. Anything wrong with that?
BPRAL22169: not at all. Just placing it chronologically.
ddavitt: At least you got out alive SA 🙂
SAcademy: Come on, does everything have to be chronological?
BPRAL22169: Not at all — but my mind works that way.
dwrighsr: I’m being a lousy co-host. I have some other stuff going on another computer which keeps interrupting me. Sorry.
SAcademy: I got rid of the hot chats for a while, but it’s back again
BPRAL22169: Or at least, it often starts there.
BPRAL22169: I’ve forgotten what specific aspects of TEFL we were to discuss this week.
ddavitt: Anyone have any thoughts on TEFL?
SAcademy: It’s my bedtime. Nite all.
ddavitt: Well we did Lamb story and twins and touched on the Dora story
BPRAL22169: ciao.
ddavitt: Goodnight SA
dwrighsr: I’m still irritated by reilloc’s comments, so I’m not very objective.
SAcademy has left the room.
BPRAL22169: I do not have the impression that is a serious person, so I no longer even look at what he/she/it has to say.
Major oz: We left last Thurs (I missed the Sat session) talking about the unifying theme in all the separate stories.
ddavitt: He’s been on the group before i think
Major oz: who is reilloc?
ddavitt: Can’t remember if he was this abrasive though
BPRAL22169: L.N. Collier
ddavitt: Male or female?
BPRAL22169: This time, he/she has just been stupid.
Major oz: …..someone who came to the Sat session?
ddavitt: I did in part
dwrighsr: Maybe I shouldn’t take him/her/it serious, I just got riled and have been preparing a long reply to his last post to me, but I may just forget it.
ddavitt: Yes…I’m getting that way.
Major oz: someone on AFH ?
BPRAL22169: When he/she started passing comments (all of them completely wrong, btw) about me, I got the impression he/she has no respect for truth. What is the point in trying to conduct discourse.
ddavitt: Haven’t you been there this week Oz?Pretty lively
ddavitt: Acrimoniuos but lively.
dwrighsr: Yes. Claimed that the entire point of TEFL was to get woody into bed with maureen.
BPRAL22169: At least I believe Randi is sincere, if a little narrow.
Major oz: I concentrated mostly on the “women in Heinlein” threads. The education thread got boring.
ddavitt: Randi is supposed to be hosting the next chat btw.
Major oz: was that where it was?
ddavitt: i probably won’t be here but that’s baby not personal 🙂
ddavitt: Reilloc is everywhere…
ddavitt: Like a rash.
dwrighsr: You mean you won’t have a connection in the hospital ? :'(
ddavitt: 🙂
Major oz: was he the guy that was talking with the army woman about houskeeping, babies, etc.
BPRAL22169: That was Randi — a she, btw.
ddavitt: I think arguing with Randi in real time might be too much in my delicate condition:-)
Major oz: Randi is a she ?
ddavitt: Yes; told you, lesbain so definitely.
ddavitt: Not to be confused with nice randy and Cryo Randy
Major oz: I live such a sheltered life…….. ::sigh::
BPRAL22169: Jane, you can always exercise the privilege of the enceinte and have a fainting spell.
ddavitt: Well so far she’s refused to debate with me until i read three philosphy books, said i’ve been brainwashed into having a career break and described my posts as charmingly childish and naive.
Major oz: …..must be a liberal arts grad……
BPRAL22169: It used to be when women got the “vapours” they shut up.
Major oz: psych / soch major…..
ddavitt: I may faint from the pain of my gritted teeth; or the contractions i get from giggling…can’t decide
BPRAL22169: Hint: there’s a little button underneath the attendance list that says “Ignore”
ddavitt: Is that a hint Bill? <eg>
Major oz: But wears sensible shoes…….
Merfilly8 has entered the room.
dwrighsr: Are you sure that she and reilloc aren’t the same? 🙂
Major oz: yo, filly
dwrighsr: Hi filly.
ddavitt: Hi filly, how’s it going with Ebon?
ddavitt: Hmm…she has posted under 2 ID’s at the same time before…
BPRAL22169: The thought that reilloc might be a hoax has crossed my mind. Kind of pathetic, if you think of it.
BPRAL22169: Of course, it’s even more pathetic to think she might not be.
ddavitt: But Reilloc makes a lot of spelling mistakes which Randi doesn’t
dwrighsr: I noticed that. ‘susscintly’ IIRC was one.
Merfilly8: Hello all. Ebon is in the hospital, and I’m just getting my nerves in check..I’m just lurking tonight
ddavitt: Glad you could make it…
Merfilly8: thanks
Merfilly8: I’m job hunting, so I can get one that let’s me be home when Kevin isn’t
ddavitt: So far we haven’t done any TEFL stuff but we’re enjoying a gossip:-)
Merfilly8: ok
Major oz: Does anyone know the army woman <something>”O”?
dwrighsr: JenO?
Merfilly8: I do
Major oz: Has she been invited to these get togethers?
Merfilly8: My ex-roommate
ddavitt: She’s posted before i think.
Major oz: Yes, that’s her
Merfilly8: I introduced her to AFH last year
ddavitt: She’s posting now
Merfilly8: I noticed
ddavitt: Nice to have some more girls; Phebe is back too.
Major oz: Has she been invited by anyone?
Merfilly8: She and her husband, one of them, are in the Army
ddavitt: (I’m allowed to say girls aren’t I?)
Major oz: sure
ddavitt: Yes, sounds like she’s shipping out soon.
Major oz: …..but I’m not……
Major oz: shows the double standard
ddavitt: 🙂
Merfilly8: I say chicks, so you can too MAjor! I don’t carry a double standard
ddavitt: i don’t mind…but then I’ve bought into the male stereotypes of what a woman is
Major oz: hokay
Merfilly8: I was the only femme in my shop for a while…I’m also the only one who nearly faced an EO hearing
Major oz: ….does this affliction last approx nine months ?????
Major oz: 😎
ddavitt: On TEFL was anyone surprised that it starts a thousand years after Dora and he’s still upset over it?
dwrighsr: EO?
Major oz: equal opportunity
BPRAL22169: Just don’t anybody ask EO? or FO?
ddavitt: (Just tell me to shut up if you don’t want to talk about it)
dwrighsr: I would have been surprised if he hadn’t been upset.
Major oz: “Sensivity” training
Merfilly8: brb
Merfilly8 has left the room.
Major oz: how not to be a tailhook boor
Major oz: upset??????how so?
ddavitt: He cries when he tells minerva about it
BPRAL22169: When Minerva is tending him during one of his White Nights, she projects herself as Dora, and he breaks up.
Major oz: It’s his only marriage to an ephemeral
ddavitt: A thousand years is a very long time for the pain to be that acute
Major oz: So he must have loved her
ddavitt: Undoubtedly
Major oz: even more
Merfilly8 has entered the room.
Major oz: He violated his own rule, feeling must have been strong.
Major oz: And it was an idyllic adventure.
BPRAL22169: Contrast with the Twins Who Weren’t — another Chinese obligation.
ddavitt: I was also looking to see if having this incredible love half way through his life changed him. not sure it did.
Major oz: Probably the most heart wrenching adventure he EVER had
BPRAL22169: He loved them, but not the same way.
ddavitt: It should have done one feels…
Major oz: Eros / agape, Bill
BPRAL22169: Maybe he decided to die, ultimately, because he could never recapture that.
Major oz: It DID change him.
ddavitt: But in a way, all of his marriages were to ephemerals in that he is the Senior and outlived everyone
BPRAL22169: He had found something irreplaceable.
Major oz: He was not nearly as cynnical <sp>after
Major oz: But that is only a technical point, Jane.
BPRAL22169: With Woody Smith, you have to find a 2×4 to get his attention.
ddavitt: He tended to leave his wives anyway; in fact he probably had longer with Dora than with most of them if you think about it\\
Major oz: ……because the wives knew the “rules”
BPRAL22169: I think Dora knew the rules, too — but he made new ones for her.
dwrighsr: I think most of his wives left him.
Major oz: ALL HOwards divorced after a while
ddavitt: It annoys ne a bit that he seems to treat Dora as almsot crippled because of her short life span…
Major oz: …..spread the genes around……
ddavitt: Until he gets the point about us all living in the moment
ddavitt: A point echoed by minerva
Major oz: “treats her as crippled” or “speaks of her as crippled” /
BPRAL22169: That’s right — everybody lives the same length of time: now.
Major oz: ?
BPRAL22169: The present is where we live.
BPRAL22169: And the present is the same length of time for everyone.
BPRAL22169: The rest is just memory.
ddavitt: He treats her as special because she is short lifer; makes concessions, changes rules, all before he falls in love with her.
ddavitt: Form of arrogance
BPRAL22169: So I see the Boondock family as LL practicing finally what he learned from Dora.
Major oz: ….don’t follow your logic
ddavitt: Dora sets him straight; yesterday is gone, tomorrow may never come; you and i are both equal here today.
ddavitt: Interesting POV.
Major oz: “……….help me make it through the night…….”
ddavitt: Yes…
Major oz: “yesterday is dead and gone”
BPRAL22169: There is a single “cure” for all psychological problems: be present in the now.
Major oz: “and tommorrow’s out of sight”
ddavitt: Though i always want to kidnap her and drag her off to be rejuvenated…
Major oz: we have a meta-meta problem, here:
BPRAL22169: So whydidn’t LL use time travel to get Dora?
ddavitt: She turned it down twice
Major oz: His “arrogance” (you say) is the reason he changes the rules, makes concessions.
Major oz: ??
Major oz: But only if he does so, does she have the opportunity to “…set him straight”
BPRAL22169: Perhaps “arrogance” has wrong overtones: how about “noblesse oblige.”
BPRAL22169: Condescension.
ddavitt: At one point he says he wouldn’t really have wanted her to go to Secondus becasue shortlifers crack up arounf long lifers. Rubbish; she was with him wasn’t she?
Major oz: NEVER condescension
ddavitt: She was far better adjusted than Slayton Ford
Major oz: ….a crime worse than most.
BPRAL22169: But condescension used to be a term of approval.
ddavitt: Oz, i meant she turned down chance to go to secondus so wouldn’t want to be rescued a la Maureen
Major oz: but it ain’t now
BPRAL22169: true.
ddavitt: No it isn;t.
Major oz: she (dora) knew who she was — she didn’t want to be someone else
Major oz: And LL loved her for what she was
ddavitt: But she could have been her for much longer!
Major oz: She knew he wouldn’t have the strength of love if she went to Secundus
ddavitt: maybe…
Major oz: No, she would not have been herself
ddavitt: Needed the isolation of happy Valley to make it work; castaways.
Major oz: She knew, even if it took LL K years to figure it out.
ddavitt: See; all his long life and she was wiser than he…
ddavitt: So just why does Ira want lazarus?
Major oz: age don’t bring wisdom —— ask anyone who knows me
ddavitt: That never gets explained but I’m darn sure it’s not for his “wisdom’
ddavitt: It gives you longer to work on your ignorance huh? <bg>
Major oz: My opinion is “wisdom” is the second most missused word in English.
ddavitt: I see deep political shenanigans afoot….
BPRAL22169: The Howards — some of ’em, anyway — seem to have an almost mystical reverence for The Senior.
Major oz: <the first is “conseervative”>
Major oz: one “E”
ddavitt: Yes, he’s too valuable as a symbol; living god almost
BPRAL22169: Solar myth.
ddavitt: He’s proof that what they are works
BPRAL22169: Back to his beginnings — a capo
ddavitt: poor thing…they won’t let him die..
ddavitt: That’s cruel….
Major oz: I just, today, read that Agustus Ceasar, upon hearing that, since he was a god, temples were going up all over civilization. When a minion brought him the news, he mused: “When a peasant prays to me to cure his sick goat, what do I DO?”
Major oz: LL had that problem
ddavitt: That’s funny!
Major oz: It’s in Clancy’s new book.
ddavitt: I bought it as a present for someonbe but resisted reading it first.
Major oz: your loss
ddavitt: I’m only allowed to do that if it’s for my mum; we have an agreement on that.
Major oz: It starts slow (1000+ pages) but gets better fast.
ddavitt: I will get it from the library.
Major oz: anyhow……..LL had a real problem with being a god
Major oz: He could reveal it only to Minerva
ddavitt: He kind of liked being The senior tho…..
Major oz: …..his tears, that is.
Major oz: only the perks
ddavitt: Having a family let him relax i think.
Major oz: insulated him
ddavitt: well, he liked being the main man, bossing the discussion
Major oz: then he created two alter egos
ddavitt: Understandable i think
BPRAL22169: I don’t think he ever felt “complete” except in a family.
Major oz: and an AI lovely
Major oz: …..all to shield him from realityl
ddavitt: Lots of lovelies….
Major oz: THEN he went back the the rudest of realities
Major oz: go figure
ddavitt: Well, one thing reilloc said i agreed with was that Tertius would get dull
BPRAL22169: That’s one of the reasons I don’t really buy the “shield from reality.” i think it was his base, from which he could engage reality.
Merfilly 8 has left the room.
BPRAL22169: Boondock is a family. Family life is by definition dull. it’s supposed to be.
ddavitt: It is lotus eating and dream like despite the assertion that they all work really hard
BPRAL22169: The rest of Tertius is a colony like any other with farmers and so forth.
Major oz: I think we agree, Bill. It is his “escape” from the real world stresses, not an escape from “reality”.
ddavitt: The set up in cat and Sail is far removed from that; in TEFL it’s like hazel’s show without the Galactic Overlord; pointless
Major oz: And you are right — it is a launching pad for adventure.
Merfilly 8 has left the room.
BPRAL22169: So — a point of stabilty in an unstable cosmos.
ddavitt: Yes, LL’s house is a typical farmhouse !
Major oz: but the contrast between the sybaratic dining and Butler MO circa 1916 is pretty grim
BPRAL22169: Do I sense sarcasm?
ddavitt: Very probably 🙂
BPRAL22169: Was it Butler? I thought it was KC
Major oz: depends on what you “farm”
ddavitt: It’s excused because it doubles as the clinic but i can’t see LL in a shack at this point in his life
Major oz: It was Dade County, right next to Butler
BPRAL22169: “I’vebeen rich and I’ve been poor — and rich is better.”
Major oz: …where he arrived. Then he went to KC
ddavitt: I wish we saw more of Arabelle’s takeover,,,interesting to see LL scent blood and go to battle like the warhorse he is. instaed we get a few paragraphs about it.
ddavitt: I’m going to have to say goodnight now; this is the latest I’ve been up all week.
Major oz: Another thing I want to know: how his kids by Dora turned out — long lifers, any of them, etc.
ddavitt: Dave; please edit anything nasty i’ve said about anyone who isn;t fictional
BPRAL22169: I think that just indicated there’s politics as usual on Secundus.
BPRAL22169: It’s not a utopia.
ddavitt: See you all saturday unless events prevent.
Major oz: good luck, Jane
ddavitt has left the room.
Major oz: …..welllllllll, guys
Major oz: I think I’m outa here
Major oz: got an EARLY start tomorrow.
Major oz has left the room.
dwrighsr: Well Bill. I guess we are going to have to call it in early. I am not able to say much.
dwrighsr: Got too much on my mind tonight.
BPRAL22169: Ok. I was going to suggest an early retirement, also. Let’s leave it to the giant brains on Saturday.
BPRAL22169: Goodnight.
BPRAL22169 has left the room.
dwrighsr: Log Officially Closed at 10:46 P.M. EDT
Final End Of Discussion Log
