Robert Heinlein

[rgraham666]

My favourites by Heinlein are Starship Troopers and The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress.

Starship Troopers had an enormous effect on my political thought. Especially his observation that authority and responsibility must always be equal. And that citizenship should be earned.

The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress was fun. I especially liked the Prof, the snarly old heretic.

I stopped reading him after I Will Fear No Evil. The only thing I liked of Time Enough For Love was Lazarus Long's Notebooks. And I Will Fear No Evil was just silly.

Haven't read any of the stuff he wrote since then.

 

[Guest]

 

[Tom Collins]

My favourites by Heinlein are Starship Troopers and The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress.

Starship Troopers had an enormous effect on my political thought. Especially his observation that authority and responsibility must always be equal. And that citizenship should be earned.

The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress was fun. I especially liked the Prof, the snarly old heretic.

I stopped reading him after I Will Fear No Evil. The only thing I liked of Time Enough For Love was Lazarus Long's Notebooks. And I Will Fear No Evil was just silly.

Haven't read any of the stuff he wrote since then.

Actually, Sir Rob, it wasn't citizenship that he believed should be earned. It was franchise, which is not the same thing as citizenship.

Back in 1800 women were citizens, but did not have franchise. In the 1960s African-Americans had citizenship, but not franchise.

Basically, what he believed a person should earn is the right to vote, and even our founding fathers believed this. Not every white man was automatically granted franchise. You had to be a property owner, as well as many other things, in order to have the right to vote. No all you have to be is 18 and breathing. Sometimes you don't even need to be the latter.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Gmta again, Rob.

Edited to add that I did like Time Enough for Love as a story, but I do think it illustrates Heinlein's sexism.

Every single beautiful, successful, "genius" woman in the novel (and in almost all of his novels) has only one desire--to be impregnated by the "alpha male," Lazarus. Please. *ladylike gagging*

I thought that was sweet, actually- I DO like to see that fist a-bobbing...

 

[rgraham666]

Actually, Sir Rob, it wasn't citizenship that he believed should be earned. It was franchise, which is not the same thing as citizenship.

Back in 1800 women were citizens, but did not have franchise. In the 1960s African-Americans had citizenship, but not franchise.

Basically, what he believed a person should earn is the right to vote, and even our founding fathers believed this. Not every white man was automatically granted franchise. You had to be a property owner, as well as many other things, in order to have the right to vote. No all you have to be is 18 and breathing. Sometimes you don't even need to be the latter.

Oops! You're right, Tom.

But property owners weren't granted the franchise in Heinlein's book. You had to volunteer for Federal Service.

And too many people think that meant the Armed Forces, which it didn't.

But they did work you hard no matter what duty they assigned you so that you paid for the franchise. You had to be willing to sacrifice for the society.

As opposed to today where we have trouble even getting people to pay their taxes, never mind vote.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Oops! You're right, Tom.

But property owners weren't granted the franchise in Heinlein's book. You had to volunteer for Federal Service.

And too many people think that meant the Armed Forces, which it didn't.

But they did work you hard no matter what duty they assigned you so that you paid for the franchise. You had to be willing to sacrifice for the society.

As opposed to today where we have trouble even getting people to pay their taxes, never mind vote.

Kids today- WHAT the hell is wrong with them!

Heinlein's books often have the flavor of a real genuine "good old days" but- Rob, honey, don't forget it was fiction... Then as well as now.

 

[Tom Collins]

Gmta again, Rob.

Edited to add that I did like Time Enough for Love as a story, but I do think it illustrates Heinlein's sexism.

Every single beautiful, successful, "genius" woman in the novel (and in almost all of his novels) has only one desire--to be impregnated by the "alpha male," Lazarus. Please. *ladylike gagging*

PMSL...I don’t hold that against RAH, Jammies, cuz Lazarus was RAH himself and he was indulging in a hell of a lot of fantasizing. He was a horny, old man who desperately wanted to have children, but he and his wife never managed to get pregnant. It’s clear, to me at any rate, that he had a powerful need to pass on what he saw as wisdom to the next generation, but felt that he didn’t get the chance because he never had kids.

I frequently think that he might have died not realizing how incredibly influential he really was to all the generations that came after he started writing. As has been pointed out on this thread, many people’s opinions and thinking were at least partially shaped by him. I can’t help but feel very sad to think that he might have died not knowing the fullness of his influence on our culture as a whole.

I never saw him as sexist. I do believe that he had very definite ideas about certain aspects of male and female interaction, and that there were certain rolls that simply shouldn’t, not couldn’t, be shared because other rolls couldn’t be. He didn’t believe that women should be the first line of defense in any situation where a man was present to fill the roll. Not because women were incapable of doing it, but because they weren’t expendable for reasons of procreation. I never once saw any indication that he believed a woman wasn’t as capable as a man of doing anything what so ever, and in fact, I’ve seen many times where he said directly that they were more capable than a man was.

 

[Liar]

I see why you don't understand him. Heinlein never wrote science fiction.

Heinlein wrote characters dealing with real issues of politics, religion, relationships, taboos and so on. Ok, granted, he wrote them in sci-fi settings but his books were never about the technical details of Bug like vehicles for transportation on Venus. (Arthur C. Clarke) Even there there was plenty of sci-fi in his work. Time enough for love was about, secondarily anyway, time travel. As was The Cat Who Walks Through Walls.There is plenty of science in ALL his works. He just never saw fit to try and impress his readers with technical specs for everything.

All the best science fiction does that. Use technical science as a prop or a scenery in order to explore various social aspects. It's the great game of What If, and the science part of it is just another means to suspend the disbelief. And as such, the same principle applies here as in all storytelling. If you say "A forest", that's enough. Saying "1764 pine trees" till just make most readers go .

 

[SeaCat]

Oops! You're right, Tom.

But property owners weren't granted the franchise in Heinlein's book. You had to volunteer for Federal Service.

And too many people think that meant the Armed Forces, which it didn't.

But they did work you hard no matter what duty they assigned you so that you paid for the franchise. You had to be willing to sacrifice for the society.

As opposed to today where we have trouble even getting people to pay their taxes, never mind vote.

Rob,

My father intorduced me to Heinlein when I was 16 and in the hospital. I think he picked up the book, Starship Troopers in the hospital giftshop. (Prior to this he hadn't read any of Heinlein.) I read that book and talked with my father about it as I lay in my bed in damned near full body traction. When I finished the book he took it home and read it himself.

My father, a man who could wear multiple Enemy Marksmanship Medals, (Purple Hearts for those who don't understand my fathers sense of humor,) agreed with Heinlein on his concept as stated above. In his opinion, if you wanted to not just vote but to serve in public office you had to pay for that right. He took it one step further though. In his mind he thought that if you wished to serve in a position where you could be tasked with sending others into harms way, you should have been in those troops shoes. This would, as he put it, limit those with little dicks and big ego's from getting into areas where they could send our boys and girls into dangerous situations without good reason.

Cat

 

[Tom Collins]

Oops! You're right, Tom.

But property owners weren't granted the franchise in Heinlein's book. You had to volunteer for Federal Service.

And too many people think that meant the Armed Forces, which it didn't.

But they did work you hard no matter what duty they assigned you so that you paid for the franchise. You had to be willing to sacrifice for the society.

As opposed to today where we have trouble even getting people to pay their taxes, never mind vote.

Yes, quite right about the service thing. Apparently that's the book that he's gotten the most hate mail for because everyone thought that it was milataristic, because it never occured to them that you could be "in the service" while pushing papers in the DMV office. In point of fact, no one who was paying for their franchise was allowed to vote. You didn't get the right until you'd complete your term of at least two years. Hense, carrier Armed Forces personelle wouldn't vote before they were 40 and probably would never get to. The most likely wouldn't live long enough to exersise the franchise they'd earned.

Pssst...I love that book.

 

[rgraham666]

Kids today- WHAT the hell is wrong with them!

Heinlein's books often have the flavor of a real genuine "good old days" but- Rob, honey, don't forget it was fiction... Then as well as now.

I'm talking about my generation, Stella.

And hey, I disagree with most of what he said. He was waaay too Utopian for my liking.

But I do like the idea that the franchise should be paid for. It shows you're willing to sacrifice for society. An idea too many would shit their drawers if suggested to them.

I'm in a nasty mood tonight, aren't I?

 

[Xelebes]

I only read Sixth Column. the book was ok but didn't make me want to read his other books for some odd reason.

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

RAH started selling short Sci-Fi stories to magazines like FANTASTIC and GALAXY in the early 1940's at a time when the science couldn't explain the universes he was imagining. In some ways, later in life when science finally caught up with Sci-Fi, he never really grew up. Does it matter? Not to me. What matters is the way his writting changed over the decades. The science may have taken a long time to catch on, but the important this is his ideas grew starting with "Buck Rogeresk" tales and developing into long, complex universes where new rules worked for his societies and his characters came to life.

Yeah, I've read most everthing he ever wrote as well as a lot of other writers. Azimov said years ago, "Science Fiction writers can say anything as long as they can make the reader believe it." Regardless of his shortcomings, and political/social stances that's what RAH did.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

If I am ever so lucky as to even be mentioned in the same breath with Robert Heinlein, I will deem it an honor. That's all I have to say.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

So, has anyone ever met a person named "Podkayne?"

 

[SeaCat]

I'm talking about my generation, Stella.

And hey, I disagree with most of what he said. He was waaay too Utopian for my liking.

But I do like the idea that the franchise should be paid for. It shows you're willing to sacrifice for society. An idea too many would shit their drawers if suggested to them.

I'm in a nasty mood tonight, aren't I?

Only as nasty a mood as I am usually in Rob.

Can you see many of our politicians subjecting themselves to counting the hairs on a caterpillar for the right of being in office today? I can't.

Cat

 

[Stella_Omega]

I'm talking about my generation, Stella.

And hey, I disagree with most of what he said. He was waaay too Utopian for my liking.

But I do like the idea that the franchise should be paid for. It shows you're willing to sacrifice for society. An idea too many would shit their drawers if suggested to them.

I'm in a nasty mood tonight, aren't I?

nasty mood? Sure honey, if you want

However, even for YOUR generation it was fiction, I think... I mean you're really only a half-gen before me, I think... 29, right?
wannanotherbeer?

 

[Tom Collins]

So, has anyone ever met a person named "Podkayne?"

Did you know that Podkayne was originally his character Puddin' from the magazines? He slimmed her down, made her a bit younger as well as her obnoxious little brother, adn sent her to Mars under a different name.

 

[Guest]

 

[Tom Collins]

I didn't know that, and yes, it does make a difference. Thanks, Tommikins.

Welcome, Miss Jammiekins darling.*cuddles&es*

 

[AngeloMichael]

Exactomundo, Dran.

You hit the nail squarely on the head. The reason I've always hated Asimov and his ilk is because they explain in detail how all their gizmos and widgets work. It's dry as ten year old hay, and incomprihensible to me no matter how well they explain it because my eyes glaze over, literally, and I stop being able to read the story.

RAH, on the other hand, is writing about persons, pure and simple.

I'll second or third this. I love science fiction but get very bored when it gets too technical/dry. Science fiction should be about ideas, what if? You shouldn't get bogged down in how things work, it's a speculative genre most people will give you a lot of leeway as long as you tell a good story.

Some writers like to get technical though and some readers like to read that, that's completely understandable and that's perfectly fine, but I think one of the reasons Heinlein is so popular, as stated more succinctly by above posters, is that he forewent that.

I like Asimov about as much as Heinlein though. He does get technical, but he still has good ideas and interesting stories. Not too great on character development though. I'm a fan of the "Foundation" series and after Asimov died, some other science fiction writers took over writing stories in that universe. I tried reading a "Foundation" story by Greg Bear who is a serious technical writer and I could not get through it! It was just so incredibly boring I started falling asleep after trying to read one page. Contrast this with Asimov's stories which for the most part I found easy and fun to read through.

A funny story about Asimov, I think I might have posted it before, but he got so frustrated for having stories being nominated for Hugo awards but always losing out to Heinlein. His stories never had any sex in them but he finally decided to write one that did have a relatively steamy sex scene as a kind of shot at Heinlein. That story won him his first Hugo.

Back to the topic of discussion, I love Puppetmasters, SIASL, and TEFL. I also really loved that romance in TEFL with the girl who had a short life span compared to Lazarus'. Probably my favorite part in all Heinlein's work.

Also. even if it isn't too close to the book, Starship Troopers is one of the best satirical comedy movies of all times.

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

Some writers like to get technical though and some readers like to read that, that's completely understandable and that's perfectly fine, but I think one of the reasons Heinlein is so popular, as stated more succinctly by above posters, is that he forewent that.

As much as anything else it was the generation that RAH began writing. His first story was sold in 1939. In those days radios still had tubes and television was a laboratory plaything. The general reader didn't know about electronics. The view of the solar system was redimentary. And anything beyond our solar system was completely unknown to the general audiance.

By the 60's the reader had changed and become much more enlightened about Space, electronics and so on. Azimov's day had arrived. He could explain in his books orbital escape velocity and the reader would actually understand. It did bore some but the general feeling in Sci-Fi became one of getting "get the science right."

RAH simply went in another direction and said, "Get the story and the characters right." I don't think either view point is better than the other. I've read both with equal enjoyment.

 

[Belegon]

RAH was and remains one of my favorite writers. Although RAH and I don't see everything the same politically, I have to say that reading his thoughts on political science helped me come to a place where I felt it was always necessary to see what I thought about a political position first. Then look and see who thought in a manner similar to me, rather then just going with who sounded like they knew what they were talking about. For that alone he deserves my gratitude.

I devoured everything I could find. I still own most of it.

I enjoy a great many authors and artists. I adore only a few. Shakespeare, Tolkien, Rodin, Manet, Speilberg. Heinlein.

 

[AngeloMichael]

RAH simply went in another direction and said, "Get the story and the characters right." I don't think either view point is better than the other. I've read both with equal enjoyment.

Agreed. As I said, I like Asimov and some of Clarke's stuff as well. It's these science fiction writers that seem to be writing for engineers or scientists exclusively that give me a headache.

And I've gotten frustrated with Heinlein as well. I Will Fear No Evil have been brought up by quite a few people as one of Heinlein's lesser works and I don't care for it for much of the same reasons as others have stated.

 

[Huckleman2000]

As much as anything else it was the generation that RAH began writing. His first story was sold in 1939. In those days radios still had tubes and television was a laboratory plaything. The general reader didn't know about electronics. The view of the solar system was redimentary. And anything beyond our solar system was completely unknown to the general audiance.

By the 60's the reader had changed and become much more enlightened about Space, electronics and so on. Azimov's day had arrived. He could explain in his books orbital escape velocity and the reader would actually understand. It did bore some but the general feeling in Sci-Fi became one of getting "get the science right."

RAH simply went in another direction and said, "Get the story and the characters right." I don't think either view point is better than the other. I've read both with equal enjoyment.

Wow! I cannot believe how smokin' hot you are, Jenny Jackson.
Just had to say that.
Carry on.