Stranger in a Strange Land

July 6, 2007 10:35 PM

7/7/7 marks the 100th birthday of Grandmaster Robert Anson Heinlein, born July 7th 1907. Long live Lazarus Long! While any attempt at a tribute would but naturally turn into a passionate link infested paean to this visionary genius, one of the Big 3, along with Asimov and Clarke, one must honour his contribution with a pointer to the Heinlein Concordance, a portal of his stories, characters, concepts and timelines.

A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects. ~ Robert A. Heinlein 1907 - 1988
posted by infini (93 comments total)

tanstaafl.
posted by freebird at 10:47 PM on July 6, 2007

And yet when I hear the word "grok" I want to go on a killing rampage.
posted by Astro Zombie at 10:47 PM on July 6, 2007

.
posted by orthogonality at 10:55 PM on July 6, 2007

Why the period, orthogonality? We come hear to praise Heinlein, not to bury him. YMMV, especially if travelling FTL.
posted by Coaticass at 11:05 PM on July 6, 2007

Speaking of which, does anyone know when this is coming to DVD? It made me cry when I was 9, and was just as good when I was 20.
posted by metaldark at 11:23 PM on July 6, 2007 [1 favorite has favorites]

Thanks for this, infini. Lots of great Heinlein quotes in the links.

There's one quote I'd like to get right but no longer have the book. If memory serves, it's something Wyoming Knott repeats back to either the Professor or Mannie in _The Moon is a Harsh Mistress_ to explain why she dropped out of sight for a while, and it goes something like this:

"I remembered what you had said to me once, that in human affairs when faced with a choice of how to respond,
the harder choice is invariably the correct one."

Eg, if someone is in pain, you try to soothe their pain even if you're concerned you'll bumble, rather than assume they don't want to be bothered by your ministrations.

Can anyone nail it for me?
posted by mono blanco at 11:44 PM on July 6, 2007

Citizen of the Galaxy remains a great tale.
posted by longsleeves at 12:20 AM on July 7, 2007

"Specialization is for insects."

I like that quote but caution: don't ever use it in a resume ... doesn't go over well.
posted by Twang at 12:35 AM on July 7, 2007 [3 favorites has favorites]

Depends on who's reading the resume.
posted by IronLizard at 1:26 AM on July 7, 2007 [1 favorite has favorites]

Coaticass writes "We come hear to praise Heinlein, not to bury him. "

There's so much to say, so I'll just select a bit a random: Heinlein wasn't a perfect prognosticator by any means (he had far too much faith in America's will to make it to space, for example), but he did predict both the right-wing fundamentalist Christian resurgence and desire for theocracy ("Nehemiah Scudder") and the rise of the theology-lite mega-churches that market to parishioners' mundane needs with shops and entertainment integral parts of the "church" (the "Fosterites" in Stranger).

For a long time, being a fervent patriot (in some part due to Heinlein's influence), I was skeptical of Heinlein's predictions for the future of the American polity, that is, either absorption in a world government (Stranger, many of the "juvenile" novellas), despotism (Future History series, some of the juveniles), or Balkanization (Friday).

In particular, in Between Planets the Earth is a despotism in which subversive books are banned to the extent that "booklegger" is a recognized profession, science is suppressed, imperialist rule is enforced by a brutal military adventures abroad, while at home secret police routinely surveill, harass, torture and kill. In recent years, I fear, I've become convinced that the mistake was mine, not the so often prescient Heinlein's.
posted by orthogonality at 1:49 AM on July 7, 2007

this one's for you, orthogonality,

It is a truism that almost any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so, and will follow it by suppressing opposition, subverting all education to seize early the minds of the young, and by killing, locking up, or driving underground all heretics.
-Lazarus Long, Time Enough for Love
posted by infini at 2:01 AM on July 7, 2007 [1 favorite has favorites]

I've been lurking on Mefi for six or seven years (far too long) and almost joined scores of times. I guess today is the day. Heinlein is a member of my "Aesthetic Counsel". [These are (dead) artists from whom I draw profound inspiration.]

Starting from around 1995 or so, I decided to read all of his fiction chronologically. It took me seven years, occupying the center of my leisure reading. Time Enough for Love was the book that introduced me to him and gave me the idea to read all of his works. It's an amazing experience to progress through an artist's works like that. I would recommend it to anyone who has the patience.

While I was reading I started making little review summaries of each story or novel. I unfortunately stopped at "Beyond this Horizon" because of work demands and so forth, but for those interested in reading them, you can see them on the Wayback Machine. It includes a lot of his lesser known short stories, and I tried to avoid spoilers as much as possible.

Long live Lazarus Long!
posted by strangeguitars at 3:33 AM on July 7, 2007 [2 favorites has favorites]

I can't solve an equation, fuck, am I a failure Heinlein? Oh you only meant men. Well that's OK then.
posted by Wilder at 3:48 AM on July 7, 2007

No, he's wrong... you don't need to be able to butcher a hog. But everything else, check.
posted by DenOfSizer at 3:52 AM on July 7, 2007

> am I a failure Heinlein? Oh you only meant men. Well that's OK then.

Or, you could get to work.
posted by jfuller at 4:04 AM on July 7, 2007

I can't solve an equation, fuck, am I a failure Heinlein? Oh you only meant men. Well that's OK then.
posted by Wilder at 3:48 AM on July 7

Here you go. Don't blame Heinlein.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 5:04 AM on July 7, 2007

I was under the impresssion that for it to be a 100th birthday, one had to survive until such time. Otherwise it is the "anniversary of the birth of" at best. TNSTAaFHB!
posted by Eideteker at 5:28 AM on July 7, 2007

Heinlein was brilliant, yes.

But I've always had a hard time getting past his paternalistic creepy sex-vibe toward women. There's just something off about the women in his books, like he doesn't consider them wholly human.

It's one reason why he's my least favorite of the old guard, despite his prescience on many issues.
posted by miss tea at 5:50 AM on July 7, 2007

Miss Tea, that's exactly what I was getting at (I love his work too, but it seriously gives me the creeps to try to extrapolate his world view about women) Not that I don't accept the current evidence base on men generically being better at equations/math reasoning/spatial awareness than women. Not everything is about sexual politics, but Heinlein & women, that's kind of weird.
posted by Wilder at 6:26 AM on July 7, 2007

miss tea, wilder : i'm female too. I find that with most thoughtful speculative writers with a original worldview that has usually been extensively fleshed out such as Ayn Rand or Robert Heinlein, there will usually be a number of details that one does not accept or cannot swallow, but the big picture statement does make sense enough and can be thought provoking enough that one overlooks that. After all, there is no one on earth, no matter how close we are to them taht is a 100% match in values or thoughts or philosophy to us, we are each of us unique. imho
posted by infini at 6:31 AM on July 7, 2007 [1 favorite has favorites]

and for real problems with women character, check out ASimov :)
posted by infini at 6:31 AM on July 7, 2007

miss tea

Agreed; I've gotten the same vibe. Two of my favorite Heinlein books - the otherwise excellent Time for the Stars and The Puppet Masters - were marred at key moments by this failing.

Tunnel in the Sky, on the other hand, was relatively free of paternalistic misogyny, as far as I recall.
posted by The Confessor at 6:33 AM on July 7, 2007

One thing that I didn't expect when I read a bunch of Heinlein last year is how good he was at sentimental stories. Two pieces actually made me cry: the "Western" section of Time Enough for Love and the short story "The Man Who Traveled in Elephants". I was also pleasantly surprised at the really bizarre stuff like "All You Zombies".
posted by Lentrohamsanin at 6:40 AM on July 7, 2007

Heinlein?! Prescient?! Don't think so. That said, he wrote some great stories. A lot, lot of crap, but there's some great stuff in there. He's the old sf grandmaster I never find myself returning to. Maybe it's high time I do. I mean, currently I'm reading a book by Heinesen, Heinlein would make sense as the next author to read, if only for alphabetical reasons.
posted by Kattullus at 6:53 AM on July 7, 2007

Heinlein was a creature of his cultural environment. Keep in mind he became a professional writer in the late 1940s and had to write what the editors wanted. But misogyny? Heinlein HATED WOMEN? Seriously, WTF? Are we talking about the same guy?

There's just something off about the women in his books

I would say that for a small-town Missouri boy born in 1907, he was remarkably ahead of the curve when it came to respecting women as people. When popular thought had women stereotyped as homemakers who should never question their husband's authority (think Joan Allen in "Pleasantville"), Heinlein was writing about fiercely independent women who could do everything the men could, in high heels and backwards. He recognized the complementary natures of men and women, able to combine to make something better than either alone. I don't call that misogyny.

Heinlein's women characters were "special equals", being strong and competent without ever losing sight of the fact that they were women. I raised my daughter to fit that description, for which I owe RAH my undying thanks.

No, he's wrong... you don't need to be able to butcher a hog. But everything else, check.

You've never noticed how similar human anatomy resembles that of a pig, have you? Practice makes perfect, but practicing on the neighbors tends to draw unwanted attention.
posted by Enron Hubbard at 7:39 AM on July 7, 2007 [5 favorites has favorites]

Heinlein is certainly extraordinarily icky when it comes to women, I won't argue that -- but God help me, I still love his books, his messages, the stories he tells. He's one of those handful of people where I can get past disagreeing with the human and what he/she does and is (included in this group is Sailor Jerry, Miles Davis, and a very small selection of others), and love what they produce.
posted by kalimac at 7:39 AM on July 7, 2007

Meh. I've met way too many people who loved both Heinlein and Rand to even bother.
posted by Pope Guilty at 7:47 AM on July 7, 2007 [1 favorite has favorites]

Like Woody Allen, the early stuff was good
posted by A189Nut at 8:02 AM on July 7, 2007

One of my favorite Heinlein quotes:

There has grown in the minds of certain groups in this country the idea that just because a man or corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary to public interest. This strange doctrine is supported by neither statue or common law. Neither corporations or individuals have the right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped, or turned back.

-Robert Heinlein, Life Line, 1939
posted by Argyle at 8:21 AM on July 7, 2007 [3 favorites has favorites]

You've never noticed how similar human anatomy resembles that of a pig...

Uh, from the point of view of "So the warm blood flows with the red blood cells lacking nuclei through their large four-chambered hearts", yeah, but butchering is about as far away from useful hand to hand combat knowledge as a the Furniture To Go guys are from Paul Bunyan. Or is there some Basque knife fighting technique where you scrape all the hair off your enemy and remove his digestive tract in one piece?
posted by Kid Charlemagne at 8:54 AM on July 7, 2007 [2 favorites has favorites]

This seems like an appropriate way to honor one so significant in American SF. The logic is sound: Annapolis grad, (some) militaristic ficiton, futuristic ship, voila!

I've read Heinlein since 1967, mourned when he died, and enjoy his characterizations and humanity to this day. The parts of Citizen of the Galaxy concerning Thorby and Baslim still make me think about selflessness, charity, and the meaning of family. Icky? I don't think so.
posted by biosystem at 9:03 AM on July 7, 2007

Only his early stuff? I consider Job: A Comedy of Justice to be masterful... and for me, one of the all time greats. It should be required reading.
posted by eatdonuts at 9:12 AM on July 7, 2007

A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects. ~ Robert A. Heinlein 1907 - 1988


"For as soon as the distribution of labour comes into being, each man has a particular, exclusive sphere of activity, which is forced upon him and from which he cannot escape. He is a hunter, a fisherman, a herdsman, or a critical critic, and must remain so if he does not want to lose his means of livelihood; while in communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic."

Karl Marx, The German Ideology, 1845
posted by PeterMcDermott at 9:19 AM on July 7, 2007 [2 favorites has favorites]

I have mixed feelings on Heinlein. His philosphies and overarching stories are great and always got me thinking. It's the smaller details in his writing that bother me. His characters' dialogue never seemed authentic. Too much exposition I guess.
posted by bstreep at 9:22 AM on July 7, 2007

This all seems so familiar...

28, 2006 11:55 AM
"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly, specialization is for insects."

Robert A. Heinlein, "Time Enough For Love"
posted by sourbrew (89 comments total)

Smells Like Teen Doublepost, sorta kinda...

But here's the complete text of Heinlein In Dimension for ya!
posted by y2karl at 9:44 AM on July 7, 2007

January 28, 2006 11:55 AM, to be sure....
posted by y2karl at 9:45 AM on July 7, 2007

I've read a lot of Heinlein. He's okay. I hesitate to call him overrated, because when he was on, he was really on. But in my experience, that was rarely the case.

His short fiction is his best work, IMO. His novels, on the other hand, are always a bit of a slog.
posted by Reggie Digest at 10:10 AM on July 7, 2007

Pope Guilty
To bother what? Reading either of them? It seems silly to dismiss Heinlein out of hand without reading any of his works because some people you know read both him and Rand. He really was a great writer even if you don't agree with his ideology.
posted by Sangermaine at 10:38 AM on July 7, 2007

He really was a great writer even if you don't agree with his ideology.

ORLY?

...An obvious starting point is the treatment of sex, eg. in this subtle description of a kiss from the lady's viewpoint: "Our teeth grated and my nipples went spung." The usual, and not indefensible, coyness below the waist is balanced by every character's gross and grotesque obsession with breasts. Of the four lead players, one woman has vast breasts to which constant allusions are made and which she insists on calling teats (the OED is invoked to support this archaism: Heinlein insists that "teat" is pronounced "tit", possibly to avoid writing the latter word). The other woman has small breasts to which constant allusions are made (she's the one who goes spung). One man spends most of his waking hours watching or thinking about the large breasts mentioned above, while the other consoles himself with the reflection that even small-breasted women can be ever so good in bed. Sometimes the men switch roles by way of variety, and the women meditate on the same pervading subject too: "They do stick out, don't they?" "I'd be an idiot to risk competing with Deety's teats," etc. Finally, every character but our lady of the 95cm bust becomes accustomed to keep a weather eye on the nipples associated with said bust, since these "pretty pink spigots" go "up" and "down" with her emotions like -- this simile is used -- a barometer. Gorblimey.

Vulgarity and Nullity - Robert A. Heinlein "The Number of the Beast --"

Spung!
posted by y2karl at 10:54 AM on July 7, 2007 [1 favorite has favorites]

And yet when I hear the word "grok" I want to go on a killing rampage.

You and me both, Astro Zombie. You and me both.

There were a couple of the juveniles that I treasured as a kid-- the description of the workings of the internal combustion engine in The Rolling Stones, written from the point of view of an aghast member of the technologically advanced future I still remember as an eye opening moment. I loved the cleverness of his writing, the speed of it; he had some style, at least in those early books. By the time I was 16, Stranger in a Strange Land was, along with Even Cowgirls Get The Blues, on my Hate for Life list.
posted by jokeefe at 11:03 AM on July 7, 2007

Heinlein told some good stories. He was remarkably progressive in many ways, especially WRT racial relations and gay rights.

He was also, no denying it, absolutely convinced that women were and should be inately subordinate to men. Even his later works, or perhaps *especially* in his later works, this attitude is often jarringly apparent.

Heinlein's female characters were allowed to be strong, able, etc, but only if they were also obedient and quietly submissive to their husbands, lovers, etc. The uncut version of Podkayne of Mars is essentially a morality play with one message: "Women, the instant you have a kid you must immediately abandon *ALL* endevor and activity other than childraising, otherwise your children will end up dead and/or sociopathic". Ick indeed.

His whole "reproductive incest is kinda cool, actually" angle was always a bit off putting, and it intersected in highly disturbing ways with his "women, especially, married women, are submissive and allow their men to make all important decisions." In "The Number of the Beast", for example, when a third character proposes a father/daughter reproductive pairing the daughter says to her husband regarding the decision as to whether or not she'll fuck her father "this is necessarially up to you and Jacob [the father]" Yeah, no weird, creepy, submissive female character problems there *at all*.

Heinlein was able to see the central problem of our time (overpopulation), and unable to see a solution other than "everyone should breed like bunnies, and when a planet gets too overpopulated the smart people will leave and anyone who doesn't leave will die horribly, either that or a nasty dictatorship will tell everyone how many children they can have".

I still like some of his stories, but I'm no longer the somewhat rabid Heinlein fan I once was. Despite not being a real Heinlein fan any longer, I still resent the obnoxious Ayn Rynd worshipers who try to co-opt him as a spokesman for their nutbaggery.
posted by sotonohito at 11:18 AM on July 7, 2007

You do realize Number was an introductory manual for writing salable (not "good," but salable) science fiction, not a work of literature, right? Taken as a work of fiction, it's easily one of his worst, but that's obviously not the point of the thing. He's teaching the reader how to steal plots, giving some idea of what to steal, and sketching an outline of what the standard "fantasy chase" formula looks like.

The point of Dejah Thoris' breasts ought to be somewhat obvious. It's RAH telling the boneheaded young pulp writer that the paying customers want gratuitous flesh.

Having said that, despite it being hip to dump on Heinlein's depiction of women I actually know people who could pass for model Heinlein women (and would probably admit to it) and they're incredible people. Should every woman be that way? No, the world needs much, much more variety than that. But I'm damned grateful for those who are.
posted by majick at 11:20 AM on July 7, 2007

Of the twenty one things that Heinlein believes humans should be able to do, I've done 13, and probably could do five more.

When the post-apocalyptic world comes, I'll let you figure out the hard way, which of the remaining I'll fail at.

It will keep the whole experience a lot more fun for everyone.

And I like Heinlein a lot, but Number of the Beast is indefensible. It just wasn't good. The Puppet Masters and Starship Troopers on the other hand, are loads of fun.
posted by quin at 11:35 AM on July 7, 2007

I'm pleased to note that at least no one is indifferent, though Pope Guilty has tried, with a suitable "Meh" ;p
posted by infini at 11:40 AM on July 7, 2007

Y2Karl, whiff of a double post indeed, but this, methinks is a singular day, his one hundredth day of birth, so it is a tribute, the previous is on one book. Hairsplitting ;p
posted by infini at 11:41 AM on July 7, 2007

majick has nailed it WRT "The Number of the Beast".

Personally, I find Heinlein a fascinating author to study, but not necessarily to emulate. Placed in the context of his time and compared to much of the drivel that passed for SF literature in the period 1940-1960, he was clearly head and shoulders above the norm -- and interestingly, his writing and plotting has stood the test of time -- even though his characterisation of anyone who wasn't a white mid-western male hasn't.

(I'm currently working on a novel that I like to think of as being the sort of thing Heinlein would be writing today if he'd been born 35 years later and lived into the era of animé and the internet. Because, y'know, not writing a tribute novel in the centenary of his birth would be curmudgeonly ...)
posted by cstross at 11:44 AM on July 7, 2007 [1 favorite has favorites]

cstross writes "a novel that I like to think of as being the sort of thing Heinlein would be writing today if he'd been born 35 years later and lived into the era of animé and the internet."

"Starship Catmaidens"?
posted by orthogonality at 11:59 AM on July 7, 2007 [2 favorites has favorites]

orthogonality: no comment (it's not finished yet and it's not due out in hardcover until October 2008; even the eventual title is subject to change at editorial whim).
posted by cstross at 12:04 PM on July 7, 2007

Placed in the context of his time and compared to much of the drivel that passed for SF literature in the period 1940-1960, he was clearly head and shoulders above the norm -- and interestingly, his writing and plotting has stood the test of time --

C.L. Moore wrote Vintage Season in 1946, Jack Vance's The Dying Earth and Ray Bradbury's The Martian Chronicles were published in 1950, C.M. Kornbluth and Frederick Pohl's The Syndic and Space Merchants were printed in 1952 and 1954 respectively. Alfred Bester's The Stars My Destination came out in 1957, James Blish's whole Cities In Flight novels came out in the 50s and 60s. Arthur Clarke's Childhood's End was published in 1953. Then there was L. Sprague de Camp Krishna series, also published largely in the 50s--oh, one could go on and on providing examples of science fiction appoaching literature...

With only a very few exceptions, for the whole craft of writing, for depth, breadth, nuance, grace, and craft, Heinlein's, ahem, prose could never touch the hem of those garments. Those writers could write. Heinlein not so much.
posted by y2karl at 12:56 PM on July 7, 2007 [1 favorite has favorites]

y2kari: you're cherry picking exceptions. If you want some more, feel free to go read up on the 1954 retro-Hugo award (which went to Fahrenheit-451) runners-up. (Hint: you named at least one of them.)

Then go and read some of Lionel Fanthorpe's pseudonymous offerings (e.g. the deathless prose of "Pel Torro"), or even try and make sense of early to mid period Van Vogt, before you get back to me.

We don't remember how bad most of the 1940s and 1950s were for SF because we selectively remember the good stuff.
posted by cstross at 1:15 PM on July 7, 2007

We don't remember how bad most of the 1940s and 1950s were for SF because we selectively remember the good stuff.

I was alive then and reading science fiction. The crap to gold ratio has, if anything, worsened since. Heinlein wrote better prose than the crappiest writers then ? He beats L. Ron Hubbard ? Some contest. As for the better writers then...

With only a very few exceptions, for the whole craft of writing, for depth, breadth, nuance, grace, and craft, Heinlein's, ahem, prose could never touch the hem of those garments.

That statement still stands.
posted by y2karl at 1:41 PM on July 7, 2007

"It is utterly impossible that the United States will start a 'preventive war.' We will fight when attacked, either directly or in a territory we have guaranteed to defend."

Sigh.
posted by bac at 1:56 PM on July 7, 2007 [1 favorite has favorites]

orthogonality: Accelerando had at least one Hello Kitty on a starship.

* waves at cstross, mutters something about October 2008 being ages away, and pulls out his hobbling hammer.
posted by Freaky at 2:04 PM on July 7, 2007

Heinlein was a good writer, in fact, my favorite for some time. All of his early things are great, they're a bit alike but still different enough to be interesting.. and there's LOTS of them. It's quite amazing that he was able to write such a good volume of material while maintaining high quality without failing once. Except maybe for the Fifth Column. Later things I don't care so much for. I don't remember enough of Stranger to say, but I think it was good, partly, but lacked energy of the early work. Friday was probably the last good one. There were around 5-8 last novels that were crap, I remember The Cat that walked through walls, Number of beast, Lazarus Long. Oh, another one that I couldn't stand but that seems to be popular with fandom is The Moon is Harsh Mistress. My favorites are all juveniles, especially Citizen, but relally all of them; Troopers, The Door into summer. The only serious problem with Heinlein is that he was terribly smug. But he did a great deal of things right. One of my favorite things about Heinlein is that he'd be able to interest you in some more or less technical things like math or mechanics along the way. I would say he's the only one who wrote entertaining fiction that could be popular science/tech.

Nabokov would say he wrote books for boys and that's exactly right, he was the perfect writer of books for boys.

His work makes more sense if you know that he was a socialist at some point and ran for an office in California on a socialist ticket. IIRC.

He was a friend of Hubbard of Scientology at one point. They were both top SF writers at the time and he had respect for Hubbard. Later he put Scientologists in one of his books, probably Friday, where they're contrasted favorably with Krishnaites.

He wasn't a very good writer, he was teller of stories. He was driven by stories and various interesting science/tech things. If he tried to become a good writer, he'd be able to, but that wasn't his main interest.

In a way, I tend to think less of him because I used to like him more than he deserves. Heinlein is like a 15 year old me with all of the flaws a teenager might have.

Another really great thing about him is that he never made things seem easier than they are. That's the huge flaw with this type of books and SF and maybe books in general. Things never go very smoothly in his books and it's not easy to get something done and the hero isn't a math genius or the best natural fighter. Contrast this with terrible Ender's Game book where the hero aces a contest by playing dead. In a Heinlein-verse this would never happen because the enemies would inconveniently wonder "what if he's just pretending?". It's a great shortcut for a writer to have the enemy behave 'nicely' at some points. Heinein played fairly and he'd always do the legwork, and I bet he did much more work than is apparent from reading his books.
posted by rainy at 2:10 PM on July 7, 2007 [1 favorite has favorites]

"A human being should be able to..."

GROK THIS!

unfortunately yes, probably not, would much rather not, don't even know what 'conn' is, architecturally speaking not on your life, yes but not very well, not accurately, only with legos, ouchy ouchy no the thought of that gives me the willies, probably not effectively, ditto, occasionally, not well, only with creative answers, no but i can create them, oh most definitely, only if it involves inserting a CD in the drive and finding the install executable, only if it involves a microwave oven, only if it involves placing my jaw in the way of another person's fist and then rapidly passing out, I will most certainly intend to go kicking and screaming into that good night, sir!

Let the bugs have it. It's just a worthless mudball anyways.
posted by ZachsMind at 4:36 PM on July 7, 2007

Nabokov would say he wrote books for boys and that's exactly right, he was the perfect writer of books for boys.

I do so agree. Have Space Suit, Will Travel and Farmer In The Sky come to mind for me. And some of his earlier works--By His Bootstraps and Beyond This Horizon, most notably--will stand the test of time.

His later works on the other hand, are pitiful. When he began pontificate and opinionate via the Jubal Harshaw Get Off My Lost In Space Lawn crusty old men types, his prose became as what Lester Bangs once described Lou Reed's Berlin--gargantuan slabs of maggoty rancor. Farnam's Freehold, for example, is as bad as, if not more wretched than, the worst of L. Ron Hubbard.
posted by y2karl at 4:50 PM on July 7, 2007

Heinlein was an engineer in poor health who took up writing to support himself. His early work was juvenile fiction because that's what he could sell. Maybe Heinlein wasn't a great writer, but he was a great storyteller. It's like the difference between Stephen King and John Updike.

So maybe he wasn't very literary, but he was a great read who gave me many, many hours of pleasure growing up. He was also an influence on two other writers that I still read: Jerry Pournelle and Larry Nivens.

He is frequently slammed for sexism and crypto-fascism, but I think if you start with his core values of self-reliance and personal integrity you can grow into a pretty good person.
posted by RussHy at 4:51 PM on July 7, 2007 [1 favorite has favorites]

Oh, and I wasn't slamming either King or Updike. Anyway, thanks for the post, infini, I enjoyed remembering those great books.
posted by RussHy at 4:54 PM on July 7, 2007

ZachsMind : Let the bugs have it.

I for one, welcome our insect...

No. I won't go there.
posted by quin at 5:10 PM on July 7, 2007

I've enjoyed many of Heinlein's entertaining and thought-provoking books, but that "specialization is for insects" bit has always stuck in my craw. If that's not the stupidest thing he ever wrote or said, it's got to be close. The history of human civilization is the history of specialization. What a thing for a writer, of all people, to put on paper!
posted by Western Infidels at 5:36 PM on July 7, 2007

I was happily reading Heinlein's works until I got to The Number of the Beast, which was the literary equivalent of having a nice big bowl of chili and then finding a human finger at the bottom. Jarring, to say the least. Also killed my appetite for Heinlein, which is a shame, since there are other good Heinlein books that I never got to.
posted by Mr.Encyclopedia at 5:56 PM on July 7, 2007

I only remember fondly reading Stranger In A Strange Land. I'm sure I've read other Heinlein, but have apparently blocked out details. I get bits and pieces but I equate reading his work to something vaguely akin to "effort" and therefore don't spend much time reading him leisurely.

Actually Western Infidels, I gotta support Heinlein on that score. If I remember correctly ("Time Enough For Love" maybe?), in context he was saying that humanity can do a lot of things satisfactorily; whereas any given species of insect can do a smaller number of things comparatively better. Fly for example, or carry more than its own body weight, or kill, eat, defecate, any number of things humans can do bugs can do better, but we can do more things than a bug can do, and what we can't do with our own bodies we can adapt our environment to help do for us.

Evolutionary speaking, humans are a jack of all trades kinda design. Comparatively speaking, bugs are more specialized. Unlike some, more efficient species of bugs, we may not excrete toxins out of our own bodies, but we can take the extra time to go down to the corner market if we really need some. We can't fly like butterflies and moths and hornets and flies, but we can buy a ticket and get on a plane.
posted by ZachsMind at 8:37 PM on July 7, 2007

To be honest, I couldn't really swallow many of his big chaotic novels other than stranger in a strange land. I discovered Heinlein as a freshie engineering student in Bangalore when a ripped up copy of ALL his short stories set in chronological order of his future history timeline showed up at the local used bookstore for the equivalent of 20 cents.

Reading Lifeline, Methusalah's Children, "...If this goes On", the story of the polymath genius Libby something, opened my eyes to an entirely different form of speculative fiction than what I'd been exposed to until then - Asimov's foundation series, Clarke, Burroughs, Tolkien, Wyndham and Lewis... he brought in a flavour of what human interactions and society would be like in the future, with changes in customs, sexual mores and behaviour that the majority of straight up hard core sci fi writers, or "other world" writers didnt really touch upon.

It was my first exposure to "speculative" rather than "science" fiction. And as a female attempting to study engineering in a patriarchal society in the early eighties, it was an influential book for me, if only because he wrote about alternate lifestyles - which few other writers I had come across were doing.

You have to remember that sci fi wasn't available in all its glory as it is in the US. Little or no choice and you took what you could get.

Nitpick all you like, but if Nehemiah Scudder isn't prescient... what is?
posted by infini at 9:10 PM on July 7, 2007 [1 favorite has favorites]

Or is there some Basque knife fighting technique where you scrape all the hair off your enemy and remove his digestive tract in one piece?

There may indeed be, but that's not what I was thinking about. I was reminded of several Heinlein stories (Double Star) where a corpse was dismembered in a bathtub. Think it through. I'll wait here.

As far as the "man makes the final decision" point, I wonder if that wasn't his Naval Academy training talking. A ship only has one captain for a reason.

Now, if I could only get my wife to salute and call me "Sir"...
posted by Enron Hubbard at 9:12 PM on July 7, 2007

Doesn't "master storyteller" imply some degree of skill at writing plots? I admit I haven't read any Heinlein in well over a decade, but I loved his writing as a teenager--and even back then, I recognized that he couldn't do endings for shit. Beginnings and middles, yeah--I know I'm not the only one here who felt he could jump right in and share water with Valentine Michael Smith, or plot revolution with Mycroft--but endings? Nuh-uh.

Actually, the books of his I gravitated to were the more "sophisticated", adult-oriented ones: "Stranger", "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress", "Job"... one of these days I should read one or two of his juveniles, it strikes me as likely given the audience that he would have paid a lot more attention to keeping his plots in order, and would have left out the creepy and/or sexist stuff entirely.

We don't remember how bad most of the 1940s and 1950s were for SF because we selectively remember the good stuff.

Would there be some other period of SF you'd single out as being worthy of the praise goobers like me heap on that era?
posted by arto at 10:15 PM on July 7, 2007

rainy writes "Later he put Scientologists in one of his books, probably Friday, where they're contrasted favorably with Krishnaites."

As participants in an airport brawl, kind of a backhanded compliment.
posted by Mitheral at 10:20 PM on July 7, 2007

Enron Hubbard writes "I was reminded of several Heinlein stories (Double Star) where a corpse was dismembered in a bathtub. Think it through. I'll wait here"

And Friday, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress and The Number of the Beast (technically a Black hat).
posted by Mitheral at 10:25 PM on July 7, 2007

Unlike some, more efficient species of bugs, we may not excrete toxins out of our own bodies,

Ok, I'll just choose to not remark about my ability to clear a room after eating a really beany burrito.

and even back then, I recognized that he couldn't do endings for shit.

That is actually a quality assessment, and one that I was never able to articulate. He is a good writer, it's just that, at times, his stories just seem to end on a suck note.

I'm just surprised that Harrison, while born a bit later, hasn't been given more love in this thread.

I respect Heinlein's early work. I love Asimov's intellectual exercises, but if I want to really comment on a quality writing style, I have to pay my full respects to Harrison, who manages to bring good SciFi together with amusing and/ or quality writing (depending on the series.)
posted by quin at 10:42 PM on July 7, 2007 [1 favorite has favorites]

Would there be some other period of SF you'd single out as being worthy of the praise goobers like me heap on that era?

Well, I know you weren't asking me, but I'm a young goober of 26, and the eras which I find most fertile for quality SF are the late 60s and early-to-mid 80s. That may be entirely a matter of personal taste, of course. Also, lately, I've been getting into seventies feminist SF. Man, why did I have to grow up on an island devoid of the books of Joanna Russ?! Though I note, with joy, that the library where I got my SF education has acquired The Female Man.
posted by Kattullus at 11:37 PM on July 7, 2007 [2 favorites has favorites]

Mitheral: the idea was that both parties were attacked by someone and he wrote that scientologists were able to hold their ground because "they were used to having to defend themselves". Not terribly glowing but a good reference in the sense that it wasn't at all necessary to the plot or connected to anything else, so the only reason to put it there was to mention them in a good way. It may seem odd that Heinlein would think good of scientologists what with the whole "don't give me that cosmic debris" attitude, but he was really keen on the hidden abilities of mind tangent. Like developing photographic memory in Citizen or Nitzchean supermen in Void. I've read a book about Scientology, where the author says L Ron was such an accomplished liar he completely convinced Heinlein with any number of stories about his army life (which never really happened); Heinlein dreamed of an army career but had to get out of the army (navy actually) before he saw any combat, for medical reasons. So, he swallowed it all up. That's what the book said, anyway.

y2karl: yeah, except that I kind of liked Freehold. He does go over the edge at times but.. imagine for a second having Asimov or Clarke do an SF story where a good number of pages is developped to building an outhouse.. that was the spirit of Heinlein. When you're thrown across time and/or space to what could be an alien planet, as far as you know, when you get over with the first oohs and aaaaahs, you'll have to think of where to take dumps. But you're right. Farnham is still entertaining but that's possibly the one where he's beginning to go sour. Except that Friday was better and he wrote it after Freehold..
posted by rainy at 12:12 AM on July 8, 2007

Coming in very... very... late here.

But I had to chime in and say that Heinlein was incapable of writing a dull word -- I've read 95+% of what he wrote and even his worst stuff (e.g. I Will Fear No Evil) was a Good Read; and to say that his "right-wing" reputation shouldn't sully his legacy (I'm sure he'd have pissed in George Bush's face given half a chance).

(And that if you think that late Heinlein sucks, you should read Job, a true masterpiece in the spirit of Twain.)
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 12:33 AM on July 8, 2007 [1 favorite has favorites]

(and Robert Heinlein's Wikipedia page is top-notch -- I knew a lot about him and I still learned a lot from that page...)
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 12:37 AM on July 8, 2007

western infidels: Civilization is making more specialization *possible*, but Heinlein's point was that it's a lousy idea to go along with that blindly. If you write a sonnet and then wire an electrical system, that does not mean you're uncivilized. If you're a hunter at a time before civilization, you may be an excellent trapper and at the same time an excellent boat maker, but these skills are less diverse than writing sonnets and working with electricity. In a civilized setting you may say that you're more specialized in the sense that you can't cover 100% of all things, but in another sense you can say that you're less specialized as the things you do know may be much farther apart.

Or you can say that if you're specialized in only one thing after civilization, you could similarly be specialized in only one thing before it, keeping everything else to a bare minimum you can get by with. His point was pretty clearly to go against that instinct and to diversify as much as you can while being as specialized in one single thing as you have to be to do your job.

He did put this to practice - he worked in different fields, he was a politician, a driver, a sailor, and a number of other things I forget. As a writer he was the most diverse SF author I've read.

Which is not to say that he expressed an opinion, anywhere in his work, that civilization is a good thing.
posted by rainy at 12:41 AM on July 8, 2007 [1 favorite has favorites]

lupus_yonderboy: very true, I have forgotten to say that Job stands out from the rest of late novels. It is quite good although still I would not hold it up against juveniles or the better middle works.
posted by rainy at 12:43 AM on July 8, 2007

"Also, lately, I've been getting into seventies feminist SF."

Back in the early eighties I used to hang out in a feminist run bookshop in Manchester (UK) called Grass Roots - not for the feminism (I was a teenage nerd). For their SF section.
It had many if the things I was looking for (getting a copy of a Bester or Dick novel at the time was hard.

They also gently pushed me towards the feminist stuff - the easy ones, LeGuin (who I already knew), Joanna Russ and so on. Then they got me reading the rest of the bookstore ...

I was at the time a hard core SF reader, able to quote from Heinlein, but worried by the whole "the only women worth reproducing with are the ones related to you" thing.
rying to not
It was there in even such an early book as the otherwise excellent "The Door Into Summer" - a book that had time travel (both ways); invented computer aided design as a side plot; took the idea of unhappy cats seriously and (in the finale) had the hero marry the daughter of his business partner (who was around six when the novel began - see above about time travel).

I'm not really as good a feminist as I should be - I'm kind of in the dark and trying to not be an asshole to everyone, regardless of gender or race or religion or whatever. I still, however, feel a great debt to the kind ladies at Grass Roots. They showed me that SF didn't have to be an arena for talented but really badly damaged people - charitably, that's what the later Heinlein was. Some of the earlier stuff as well.

As y2karl pointed out above - the same time the big H was writing his best stuff (and I think "The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress" is one of the greatest SF novels) Pohl and Kornbluth, Bester, Dick were all writing.

P&K were more angry and imaginative and had a better view of what the future might look like from the bottom; Bester was a better writer (actually, Bester is one of the best writers in or out of any genre, but that's an argument for another day); Dick was more - I don't really know - capable of dealing with whatever his problem was by making his readers share it?

I think Heinlein is worth celebrating, really. Of the big three SF authors of his time though (Asimov, Clarke, Heinlein) he is perhaps more widely read than Asimov, but Asimov had more of an influence (even the folks in the New Wave in the 60's, who didn't actually like SF, bowed to the way the early Asimov dealt with the not being absolutely in control); Clarke has had a vast influence as well, mostly on English SF (not Scottish SF - that's massively influenced by Bester).

Heinlein has influenced people directly and positively - John Varley springs to mind immediately. He may well have influenced the military SF that Baen books put out - not something I read much, although Baen are one of the smartest publishing companies around.

Still - his later novels were so bad as to, for me, destroy my good feelings for his earlier ones. That and the eye-opening stuff I read at Grass Roots.
posted by thatwhichfalls at 1:22 AM on July 8, 2007

James Triptree Jr is probably right up there with powerful female protagonists in science fiction, not to mention the fact that she had write under this male pseudonym to get the geeks to listen to her back when the big three and all the rest named were writing.

The door into Woman's country stands out as a particularly good book, and I must say I like Barrayar by Lois McMaster Bujold for the socioeconomic set up for the Betans
posted by infini at 1:52 AM on July 8, 2007

I don't know why his "view on women" creeps people out. I'm sure a lot of people's views on either gender would freak a lot of people out. Everybody has their own fetishes and whatnot, but honestly, aside from his redhead fetish, we don't really know what his view toward women is per se.

Having read all of his fiction, I can say that his stories contain all sorts of views toward women, and that these views are the views of the characters, not of Heinlein himself necessarily. My own take on his view toward women is that he thought they were superior to men.

As far as writers go, there are better, but few with so many different ways of looking at things. He had a great imagination and a really inspiring spirit. If it wasn't for him I'd be who knows where, but definitely lacking the confidence I have now. he taught me more than I can ever say.
posted by strangeguitars at 2:29 AM on July 8, 2007

infini, I think you'll find that Alice Sheldon had specific issues that caused her to use a male pseudonym. You might want to dip into the recent biography ...

strangeguitars: Heinlein was quite capable of having his protagonists espouse views with which he disagreed, purely to conduct a thought experiment in human relations. It is very foolish indeed to assume that an author automatically agrees with what their characters are saying.
posted by cstross at 2:48 AM on July 8, 2007 [2 favorites has favorites]

cstross You are absolutely correct. However, when an author *consistantly* presents his heroic female characters as being submissive to their husbands that implies certain things, and when you read his personal notes in Grumbles From the Grave, especially WRT Podkayne it confirms those implications.

[In the context of the necessity of the death of Podkayne] "The true tragedy in this story lies in the character of the mother, the highly successful career woman who wouldn't take time to raise her own kids [...] if their mother gets away with neglecting her children's rearing without having it backfire on her [ie: by having one kid wind up dead, and the other as a sociopath] - then the story is just a series of mildly adventurous incidents [...] " [1]

That's Heinlein, in his own words, describing his goals explicitly. I think it rather justifies what I wrote earlier about the message of Podkayne, and lends quite a bit of support to the larger hypothesis that Heinlein was, for all his other good points (and they are numerous), convinced that the behavior he described for his female protagonists was both necessary and appropriate.

I think that his sexism tends to stand out because he was able to throw off so much of the rest of the emotional and intellectual baggage that resulted from the time and place of his birth. Despite being raised in the Old South he had no difficulty at all with portraying intelligent, able, and fully equal black characters, or even with interracial marriage. He later added sympathetic gay and bisexual characters (and even retconned Lazerus Long to turn him into a bisexual). In light of all that his atttudes towards women and their "proper" role in both society and family are stunningly retrograde, and thus they stand out.

[1] Excerpted from a letter to Lurton Blassingame published in Grumbles From the Grave, page 88 of my copy.
posted by sotonohito at 4:07 AM on July 8, 2007 [1 favorite has favorites]

metaldark - I swear I saw and rented that from my local stupid Rogers Video store about three years ago. I tried searching on their pages (and a bunch of other places) but no go, nor amazons .com or .ca.
posted by porpoise at 4:28 AM on July 8, 2007

cstross: thanks for the tip, would you have a name for this biography?
posted by infini at 6:17 AM on July 8, 2007

Re Podkayne, he also called her desire to captain a spaceship ridiculous, being that she was a girl and all. She should have been home with her mom learning to sew, and then all would have been well. THEN her expectations would have been sensible and suitable to her gender.

These comments, and others Heinlein made about women, has really made it tough for me to like him. Aside from the fact that I find his prose rather clunky and that I have never been able to make it all the way through Stranger in a Strange Land.
posted by OolooKitty at 6:43 AM on July 8, 2007

Very late to the party. I'm similarly troubled by Heinlein's women, who seem to either be punished for, or glorified for, being imitation men. Very few of them actually act like I think women act. (I really liked the female protag of Moon is a Harsh Mistress, though - the co-conspirator, can't remember her name.)

My first Heinlein was Stranger, which I read at 12, and it influenced my worldview enormously - mostly in opposition to it, but what an amazing book for getting a kid thinking. I am grateful to him for that. I've since read every Heinlein, but when I immigrated to the US and had to pare down my collection, I sold them all, except for Moon, which is my favourite and which I still reread. I think it's the best of his works, if only because the customized language of the dialect turned his writing flaws into a strength.
posted by joannemerriam at 8:09 AM on July 8, 2007

sotonohito writes "when an author *consistantly* presents his heroic female characters as being submissive to their husbands that implies certain things"

I'm reminded of the ongoing debate in BDSM/DS community on who is in charge, tops or bottoms.

OolooKitty writes "he also called her desire to captain a spaceship ridiculous, being that she was a girl and all. She should have been home with her mom learning to sew, and then all would have been well. THEN her expectations would have been sensible and suitable to her gender."

On the other hand all pilots and navigators in Starship Troopers are women.
posted by Mitheral at 8:16 AM on July 8, 2007

joannemerriam: Her name was Wyoming Knott. She was one of his better female characters.

Mitheral: Yup, they were, though the MI was strictly male (which makes less than zero sense, the armor supplied all the strength you'd need and he argued that the women were pilots because they had better reaction times, so you'd think they'd make ideal cap troopers). He had his moments.

re: BDSM stuff. There's something to that line of reasoning, however, when you arbitrarially decided that 50% of the human race can only exercise authority/power/independence/whatever by means of subtle manipulation and trickery, its still not what I'd call a fair deal. That "Men control everything, but women control men" line a) isn't true, and b) wouldn't be right even if it was true.
posted by sotonohito at 8:39 AM on July 8, 2007

All this talk of Heinlein and Scientology. And here I thought Stranger in a Strange Land was a critique of money-making pseudo-religions like Scientology.
posted by eye of newt at 12:26 PM on July 8, 2007

eye of newt: I always got more of a Mormon vibe from the Fosterites than a Scientologist vibe...

Also, not to really start a fight or anything, I'll point out that it seems likely the Catholic Church makes vastly more money per annum than the Scientologists do [1]. This is, unfortunately, unprovable as neither entity is required to make its finances public and neither entity seems likely to do so unless compelled.

None of the small religions have a chance at making as much money as the big religions do; not even if they can convince their followers to give all their money.

"History does not record anywhere at any time a religion that has any rational basis. Religion is a crutch for people not strong enough to stand up to the unknown without help. But, like dandruff, most people do have a religion and spend time and money on it and seem to derive considerable pleasure from fiddling with it." - Lazarus Long

[1] For that matter, I'll bet that the RCC makes more money per annum than all the religions you'd term "money-making pseudo-religions" do combined. You want to see money making, look at the big players, not the little guys.
posted by sotonohito at 2:45 PM on July 8, 2007

Thanks, sotonohito, that'sexactly who I was thinking of.
posted by joannemerriam at 2:45 PM on July 8, 2007

It's like the difference between Stephen King and John Updike.

Stephen King may have made it difficult for me to sleep through the night once or twice, but he never made me feel icky.

Any of you who are defending Heinlein as some defender of gay rights or women's rights or enlightened thinking or whatever -- form the works of his that I've read, I basically get that he's a perv that wanted to have sex with everybody.

I'm glad he had a positive effect on people, and I agree he had the ability to peel out a decent yarn. But if I ever open another book featuring a handsome, intelligent, heavily muscled man sporting little more than a g-string I will rip it in half (okay, obviously I can't since I'm a sniveling weakling, but you can bet if I were a Heinlein man I could and I would, then I would ride off with my intensely-breasted woman off into the sunset).
posted by Deathalicious at 7:15 PM on July 8, 2007

He was remarkably progressive in many ways, especially WRT racial relations and gay rights.

I read a fair amount of Heinlein when I was a kid, and enjoyed it, but I recently read Stranger in a Strange Land for the first time and it was pretty homophobic. The hero, who is pretty much portrayed as enlightened throughout the book says a number of times that sex with other men is unnatural and just plain wrong.
posted by biffa at 2:10 AM on July 9, 2007

biffa: Stranger is the exception, not the rule. In his novels published after Stranger many of his characters are bisexual and he tended to write from the standpoint that a) this was a good thing, and b) to hell with anyone who wants to tell you how to have your consensual sex life.
posted by sotonohito at 4:08 AM on July 9, 2007

Feh. Keep your Heinlein, give me more Sturgeon.

Canned or fried.
posted by Twang at 5:46 PM on July 9, 2007

Aaah Sturgeon!
posted by infini at 10:04 PM on July 9, 2007