# A New Heinlein novel? **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [September 5, 2003, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-new-heinlein-novel/199813 "2003-09-05T21:13:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 18\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![tanstaafl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ba8739/32.png) [@tanstaafl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tanstaafl)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2003, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-new-heinlein-novel/199813/1 "2003-09-05T21:13:00Z")
Just came across [this](http://www.heinleinsociety.org/newsFUTL.html) which says that a long-lost copy of Heinlein’s first written but never published novel _For Us, The Living_ has been found and will be published this November. The claim is that the novel was too “racy” for publication back in the 1930s and so was shelved after a while and lost. I know I’m not _the_ most hard-core Heinlein fan on here, so has anyone else heard of this? Or is this an April Fool’s joke in September? ---
**Author:** ![Dreaming\_of\_Maria\_Callas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f14d63/32.png) [@Dreaming\_of\_Maria\_Callas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dreaming_of_Maria_Callas)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2003, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-new-heinlein-novel/199813/2 "2003-09-05T22:42:44Z")
It’s true. However, Heinlein would not have wanted it published, and his wife - who protected his reputation for many years after his death - recently passed away so there’s nothing they can do about it. Heinlein thought all copies were destroyed, and is probably rolling in his grave at the moment. UnuMondo ---
**Author:** ![Peter\_Doubt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/df705f/32.png) [@Peter\_Doubt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peter_Doubt)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2003, 6:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-new-heinlein-novel/199813/3 "2003-09-06T06:02:16Z")
I wonder if this is the “stinker” referred to in _Grumbles from the Grave_. I’ll probably get it anyway, just to round out the collection. ---
**Author:** ![Silentgoldfish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e36b37/32.png) [@Silentgoldfish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Silentgoldfish)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2003, 6:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-new-heinlein-novel/199813/4 "2003-09-06T06:07:59Z")
Blah. Heinlein published some very very good stuff, and some very very bad stuff. If he thought it was unpublishable than it’s got to be worse than his worst. I’ll pass. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2003, 6:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-new-heinlein-novel/199813/5 "2003-09-06T06:24:45Z")
From what I understand, he did NOT think it was unpublishable. He shopped it for some time, but it has sexual themes in it that just couldn’t be published at that time. Eventually, he gave up, and the manuscript was lost at some point, probably during one of his moves. I haven’t read anything anywhere that suggests that Heinlein didn’t want this novel published. The ‘stinkeroos’ were short stories. ---
**Author:** ![My\_Darn\_Snake\_Legs](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f14d63/32.png) [@My\_Darn\_Snake\_Legs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/My_Darn_Snake_Legs)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2003, 1:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-new-heinlein-novel/199813/6 "2003-09-06T13:54:00Z")
More sexual than “Stranger in a Strange Land,” I Shall Fear No Evil" and “Number of the Beast?” It must be like those romance novels that I usually refer to as “girl porn!” ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2003, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-new-heinlein-novel/199813/7 "2003-09-06T16:20:58Z")
Those novels were published in the 60’s and 70’s. This novel was written in the 1930’s. A MUCH different era. The manuscript was lost sometime thereafter. ---
**Author:** ![obfusciatrist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/4af34b/32.png) [@obfusciatrist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/obfusciatrist)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2003, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-new-heinlein-novel/199813/8 "2003-09-06T17:19:52Z")
Definitely a different era. It is interesting to read in \Grumbles from the Grave\ of the Freudian analysis that his juveniles of that era went through. ---
**Author:** ![Sir\_Rhosis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d9b06d/32.png) [@Sir\_Rhosis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sir_Rhosis)\ **Post date:** [December 25, 2003, 12:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-new-heinlein-novel/199813/9 "2003-12-25T00:20:55Z")
Well, I have read FUTL, and as Spider Robinson says in the intro, it really is not a novel, per se, rather a series of lectures–social, sexual, political, and most of all, economics, economic, economics, connected by the thinnest of “Buck Rogers wakes up in a future land” plots. I will give no spoilers because, really there are no spoilers, the above is pretty much it. Probably the most interesting bit (and the most casual Heinlein fan probably coud have easily inferred this from his other writings), Heinlein had no problems with open marriages and nudity, and it is revealed that he and his second wife, Leslyn,\* had such a marriage and were nudists. No big deal nowadays, but they were married from 1932–1947, so they had to keep low-key, I would imagine. Heinlein fans will love seeing the genesis of many later famous stories–rolling roads, Coventry, etc., but most others will certainly be able to see why the book was never published (apart from the “racy” content), and will realize that it is being published now pretty much solely because of who the author was and as a historical oddity. And boy does everybody smoke like a chimney in 2086! Sir Rhosis \*Yes, Leslyn McDonald was his second wife. Virginia “Ginny” Gerstenfeldt, who is often referred to as his second, was actually his third. Heinlein was married for about a year in the late 1920s. ---
**Author:** ![Qadgop\_the\_Mercotan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/qadgop_the_mercotan/32/83_2.png) [@Qadgop\_the\_Mercotan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qadgop_the_Mercotan)\ **Post date:** [December 25, 2003, 1:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-new-heinlein-novel/199813/10 "2003-12-25T01:13:01Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Sir Rhosis \* > \*\* \*Yes, Leslyn McDonald was his second wife. Virginia “Ginny” Gerstenfeldt, who is often referred to as his second, was actually his third. Heinlein was married for about a year in the late 1920s. \*\* If you can tell us the full name of his first wife, _then_ I’ll be impressed. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Sir\_Rhosis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d9b06d/32.png) [@Sir\_Rhosis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sir_Rhosis)\ **Post date:** [December 25, 2003, 1:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-new-heinlein-novel/199813/11 "2003-12-25T01:19:44Z")
I suppose I do sound Ultra-Geeky tossing around names like that, don’t I? I could have said Virginia Doris “Ginny” Gerstenfeldt, couldn’t I? But to answer seriously: Sorry, from what I’ve gathered on the net and in the James Gifford afterword to FUTL, there’s a fellow named Patterson who is writing a Henlein bio and he and George and Deb Rule dug up the info on Wife #1, but are guarding it until the bio is published (if and when). Sir Rhosis ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [December 25, 2003, 4:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-new-heinlein-novel/199813/12 "2003-12-25T04:57:15Z")
[Deb Rukle’s essay on the origin of _For Us the Living_](http://heinleinsociety.org/news/newsFUTL.html). [Spider Robinson’s review of the book](http://heinleinsociety.org/rah/works/novels/spidersFUTL.html) ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [December 25, 2003, 5:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-new-heinlein-novel/199813/13 "2003-12-25T05:06:52Z")
Hm. Well, certainly mention it when it’s published. There’s a lot of things about his life I’m interested in… not least being his governmental work with the space/defense program, and his medical issues in later life. ---
**Author:** ![Adamcomic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/977dab/32.png) [@Adamcomic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Adamcomic)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2003, 2:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-new-heinlein-novel/199813/14 "2003-12-28T14:04:44Z")
In 1969 Robert Heinlein was a guest commentator on CBS, along with Walter Cronkite, for the Apollo 11 mission that landed a man on the moon. DOES ANYONE KNOW IF THERE IS ANY TAPE OF THIS? I would treasure a copy of that more that my signed 1st of Assignment in Eternity. ---
**Author:** ![BrotherCadfael](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@BrotherCadfael](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrotherCadfael)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2003, 2:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-new-heinlein-novel/199813/15 "2003-12-28T14:19:01Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Adamcomic \* > \*\*In 1969 Robert Heinlein was a guest commentator on CBS, along with Walter Cronkite, for the Apollo 11 mission that landed a man on the moon. DOES ANYONE KNOW IF THERE IS ANY TAPE OF THIS? I would treasure a copy of that more that my signed 1st of Assignment in Eternity. \*\* I regret to say that, if I recall correctly, the guest comentator was Arthur C. Clarke. ---
**Author:** ![Sir\_Rhosis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d9b06d/32.png) [@Sir\_Rhosis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sir_Rhosis)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2003, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-new-heinlein-novel/199813/16 "2003-12-28T16:40:33Z")
^^^Clarke may have been a commentator as well, but the poster is correct-- Heinlein was indeed a guest commentator with Cronkite. Bradbury was as well, iirc. Sir Rhosis ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2003, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-new-heinlein-novel/199813/17 "2003-12-28T22:28:11Z")
Dude… Does there exist a transcript? ---
**Author:** ![Sir\_Rhosis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d9b06d/32.png) [@Sir\_Rhosis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sir_Rhosis)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2003, 10:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-new-heinlein-novel/199813/18 "2003-12-28T22:36:00Z")
I have heard an excerpt on the net, only a minute or so long, in which Heinlein says future man will base the calendar on July 20, 1969 being the first day of the new age. I believe it is on the “official” Heinlein site, plus it may be on George and Deb Rule’s Heinlein site. That’s all I know of for sure. Legend has it that Heinlein vouchsafed that women should have been the first astronauts (mainly because they, on average, weigh less, iirc), and he and Cronkite debated this. Sir Rhosis