# Ask the guy who's rereading all of Heinlein **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [July 27, 2006, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-guy-whos-rereading-all-of-heinlein/366311 "2006-07-27T19:13:59Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2006, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-guy-whos-rereading-all-of-heinlein/366311/21 "2006-07-28T20:30:38Z")
> [@Lemur866](#): > > But it really is an interesting book for a Heinlein fan, to see some of Heinlein’s hobbyhorses on display so early. Even more interesting is that the BTH utopia seems to be based on a form of [technocracy](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technocratic_movement) – everybody is born an equal shareholder in the global economy and is paid an annual dividend based on its output (control naturals get a larger dividend, enough to live on, to compensate for their disadvantages), and the leaders are “encyclopedic synthesists” chosen for their superior intelligence and eidetic memories. Very interesting that Heinlein later developed into a libertarian with militarist tendencies. BTH, with its (male) citizens who carry pistols on their hips in public and are ready to duel over a slight, is also notable for being the source of the Heinlein aphorism most beloved of gun nuts: “An armed society is a polite society.” ('Tain’t so IRL. Really bad urban neighborhoods are heaviliy armed but not known for their politesse.) ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2006, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-guy-whos-rereading-all-of-heinlein/366311/22 "2006-07-28T20:56:38Z")
“Militarist”? I’ll punch anyone who dares call Heinlein a militarist! Seriously, I don’t think Heinlein could be called a militarist, despite all the electrons spilled over the subject. He certainly wasn’t opposed to civilian control of the military, he didn’t think veterans were smarter than civilians…and besides, how can you be a “libertarian” militarist? Seriously, that’s a contradiction in terms. There’s no way Heinlein approved of militaristic Prussia or Japan, however much he approved of the soldier’s virtues. Look at “The Revolt of the Colonels” in the short story “The Long Watch”. Interesting article about this story on wikipedia: > **[The Long Watch](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Long_Watch)** > > "The Long Watch" is a science fiction short story by American writer Robert A. Heinlein. It is about a military officer who faces a coup d'état by a would-be dictator. > Originally titled "Rebellion on the Moon", the story originally appeared in an edited version in the December 1949 American Legion Magazine. It also featured in April 1955 Nebula Science Fiction Number 12, illustrated by John J. Greengrass. It appears in Heinlein's short story collections The Green Hills of Earth and The Past Thro... ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2006, 11:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-guy-whos-rereading-all-of-heinlein/366311/23 "2006-07-28T23:21:15Z")
> [@](#): > > If you want to rank them [the juvies], I’d put them in order from best to worst: > > Have Space Suit—Will Travel (1958) > Tunnel in the Sky (1955) > Citizen of the Galaxy (1957) > The Star Beast (1954) > Time for the Stars (1956) > Starman Jones (1953) > The Rolling Stones (1952) > Space Cadet (1948) > Red Planet (1949) > Farmer in the Sky (1950) > Between Planets (1951) > Rocket Ship Galileo (1947) I’m a bit miffed that you’ve ranked my least-favorite of the juvies ahead of my favorite. In _Time for the Stars_, he completely, painfully botched the relativity. OK, he did that in a lot of books: Sadly, Heinlein’s conceptual grasp of special relativity was not nearly as good as his Newtonian physics. But in most cases, I can suspend my disbelief enough to skip on to the rest of the story. In _Time for the Stars_, though, the relativity was the basic premise for the story, so you really **couldn’t** skip over it. And I seem to be the only person on the planet to think so, but I think _Space Cadet_ was the best of his juveniles. I liked watching Matt training to become a member of the Corps, and I liked the idea of society as a whole making such a concerted effort to make sure that their guardians were civilized and just. It also has one of the best examples of contrast between the Boy Scout and the Spoiled Brat in Heinlein’s work, and showed that the Boy Scout really does win in the end. Everyone always seems to say that _Have Spacesuit, Will Travel_ is the best, but I’ve never been able to see that. Maybe it was just the fact that I was relatively old when first I read it, but it seemed rather too much _Deus ex Machina_ for me. Personally, I’d rank the juvies more like this: _Space Cadet_ _Tunnel in the Sky_ _The Rolling Stones_ _Farmer in the Sky_ _Podkayne of Mars_ _Citizen of the Galaxy_ _The Star Beast_ _Orphans of the Sky_ _Have Spacesuit, Will Travel_ _Starman Jones_ _Between Planets_ _Red Planet_ _Rocketship Galileo_ _Time for the Stars_ (yes, I know that _Podkayne_ and _Orphans_ are sometimes considered not technically juveniles) ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2006, 11:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-guy-whos-rereading-all-of-heinlein/366311/24 "2006-07-28T23:33:59Z")
It’s pretty clear from _Farmer in the Sky_ that Heinlein had a shaky grasp of relativity. The chief engineer of the torchship is talking with some of the scouts and someone asks why the ship can’t go past the speed of light. The chief engineer says it can’t, just trust him. Then the kid asks, “See here, then what would happen if the ship were traveling at 99% of the speed of light, and the captain ordered the engines to full thrust?” And the chief engineer admits he doesn’t quite know what exactly would happen but it would be an interesting experiment. Of course, even in 1950 a physicist would know what would happen, the time/mass contraction equations are pretty clear. And I’m not sure why \*Time for the Stars \* is ruined…Heinlein didn’t quite get relativity, but as presented it makes sense…the twin on earth experiences time faster and faster and eventually telepathy doesn’t work anymore…then the ship decellerates and they gradually get back in touch. ---
**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:** [July 29, 2006, 3:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-guy-whos-rereading-all-of-heinlein/366311/25 "2006-07-29T03:50:23Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Even more interesting is that the BTH utopia seems to be based on a form of [technocracy](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technocratic_movement) – everybody is born an equal shareholder in the global economy and is paid an annual dividend based on its output Early in life, Heinlein was a believer in [Social Credit](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_credit), and it’s really Social Credit theory he’s describing in the book. It’s also nonsense, and thank goodness Heinlein came to his senses later. Alberta had probably the most successful Social Credit government in the world, lasting 36 years. But it abandoned all resemblance to actual social credit theory fairly early on. For which Albertans should be grateful. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2006, 4:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-guy-whos-rereading-all-of-heinlein/366311/26 "2006-07-29T04:45:23Z")
> [@](#): > > Heinlein didn’t quite get relativity, but as presented it makes sense…the twin on earth experiences time faster and faster and eventually telepathy doesn’t work anymore…then the ship decellerates and they gradually get back in touch. It doesn’t work because he’s assuming a privelidged frame. Why does the twin in the ship stay young, while the one at home ages? Why not the other way around? In actual relativity, until somebody turns around to come back, each twin ages while the other one stays young: Each one is, in his own frame, the old twin. Heinlein, in _Time for the Stars_, tries to answer the question “But who’s _really_ the older one?”, but the proper response to that question is to un-ask it. ---
**Author:** ![K364](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k364/32/5_2.png) [@K364](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/K364)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2006, 7:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-guy-whos-rereading-all-of-heinlein/366311/27 "2006-07-29T07:20:33Z")
In this recent [thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=380358), the discussion was about “Gang of Four” being a standard character lineup of: 1. Hero, conflicted - typically the true protagonist of the situation/story 2. Hero, not conflicted - typically more of a pure “hero ideal” 3. Contrarian or emotionally more complex 4. Comedy relief Would you say RAH follows this? I haven’t read the novels recently but I seem to remember he usually has: 1. young (usually) male hero, wet behind the ears, idealistic and naive. 2. slightly older (usually) female hero with pure conviction. 3. crusty old male, maybe initially enigmatic/unapproachable but ultimately sage. 4. comic relief… can’t think of any! So, am I on the right track? p.s. - your ranking of the juvies was bang on! ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2006, 10:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-guy-whos-rereading-all-of-heinlein/366311/28 "2006-07-29T10:44:45Z")
> [@K364](#): > > In this recent [thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=380358), the discussion was about “Gang of Four” being a standard character lineup of: > > 1. Hero, conflicted - typically the true protagonist of the situation/story > 2. Hero, not conflicted - typically more of a pure “hero ideal” > 3. Contrarian or emotionally more complex > 4. Comedy relief > > Would you say RAH follows this? I haven’t read the novels recently but I seem to remember he usually has: > > 1. young (usually) male hero, wet behind the ears, idealistic and naive. > 2. slightly older (usually) female hero with pure conviction. > 3. crusty old male, maybe initially enigmatic/unapproachable but ultimately sage. > 4. comic relief… can’t think of any! > > So, am I on the right track? > > p.s. - your ranking of the juvies was bang on! Look up “Alexei Panshin” and the “Heinlein Individual” – but beware; it’s a hot-button issue! ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2006, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-guy-whos-rereading-all-of-heinlein/366311/29 "2006-07-29T18:58:21Z")
> [@Lemur866](#): > > It’s pretty clear from _Farmer in the Sky_ that Heinlein had a shaky grasp of relativity. Henlein, for all his brilliance, had a shaky grasp of a **lot** of things. E.g., in the last chapter of [url=]_Expanded Universe,_ “The Happy Days Ahead,” he argues for a return to the **gold standard!** Mainly to prevent inflation, the supply of gold being naturally fixed and limited; and I guess we should make allowances, since he was writing in 1980 after the U.S. had been through several years of disastrous hyperinflation, and, as he recounts in the chapter, he was old enough to remember the even worse devaluation of the German mark after WWI. But it goes deeper than that. Heinlein seems to have thought that there is something fundamentally unnatural and illegitimate about “fiat money.” A lot of economic cranks think the same way. They seem to be oblivious to the indispensable role low-rate inflation and a flexible money supply play in economic expansion. Same with government debt, which RAH decries in the same chapter. Too much government debt is a bad thing, of course, but that doesn’t mean Keynes was wrong, nor that deficit government spending cannot sometimes be the best thing for a country’s economy. Here’s another gem from the same chapter: > [@](#): > > One chink in the armor of any democracy is that, when the Plebs discover that they can vote themselves Bread & Circuses, they usually do . . . right up to the day there is neither bread nor circuses. At that point they often start lynching the senators, congressmen, bankers, tax collectors, Jews, grocers, foreigners, anyh minority – take your choice. For they know that _they_ didn’t do it. The citizen is sovereign until it comes to accepting blame for his sovereign acts – then he demands a scapegoat. Sounds profound, until you reflect that the sequence of events here described has **never** happened in any real-life republic or democracy in all of recorded history. The Roman Republic did not fall because of the grain dole or the public games; it fell because of an impoverished, marginalized, drive-off-the-land Italian peasantry, combined with infexibility in adapting the old city-state constitution to the needs of governing a vast empire, combined with, most of all, a clash of wills between ambitious aristocrats. What’s RAH talking about here, the American welfare state? (Which was at its all-time height in 1980, but even then was a pale, feeble, bloodless thing compared to most democracies’ welfare states.) The American welfare state did not exist because the poor voted themselves a place at the public teat. Only a minority of the population ever qualified for food stamps or ADFC, and they rarely voted anyway. In fact, I can’t think of a single real-life instance where the Plebs ever **have** voted themselves Bread & Circuses, let alone where such led to disastrous consequences. ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2006, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-guy-whos-rereading-all-of-heinlein/366311/30 "2006-07-30T21:24:55Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > It doesn’t work because he’s assuming a privelidged frame. Why does the twin in the ship stay young, while the one at home ages? Why not the other way around? In actual relativity, until somebody turns around to come back, each twin ages while the other one stays young: Each one is, in his own frame, the old twin. Heinlein, in _Time for the Stars_, tries to answer the question “But who’s _really_ the older one?”, but the proper response to that question is to un-ask it. Hmmmm…I suppose I understand the objection…but I guess I really don’t. We know for sure which twin is going to be younger. We know for sure that an atomic clock on an airplane is going to run more slowly than the one on the ground. I suppose I’ve misunderstood the twin paradox then. I understand there’s no priveleged frame of reference. But how could both twins “really” be old? And anyway, if we accept the simultaneous telepathy of the book, then there all that becomes moot, right? OK, how about this. One twin jets off to Tau Ceti. When he gets to Tau Ceti he sends a radio message saying what time was on his clock when he arrived. 8 years later the twin on earth gets the message, subtracts 8 years, and figures out the Tau Ceti twin is younger. He radios this message back to Tau Ceti, so after 16 years the Tau Ceti twin has confirmation that he’s the young twin. He doesn’t even have to fly back to earth. So what’s the contradiction? ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2006, 11:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-guy-whos-rereading-all-of-heinlein/366311/31 "2006-07-30T23:19:34Z")
The thing is, they don’t have to agree until and unless they come back into direct contact. If they end up on the same planet again, then something happened to get them back on the same planet, and we can use what that something was to decide who’s older. If they don’t, then we can’t, short of some piece of magic that has a preferred frame (like any sort of “instantaneous” communication). > [@](#): > > OK, how about this. One twin jets off to Tau Ceti. When he gets to Tau Ceti he sends a radio message saying what time was on his clock when he arrived. 8 years later the twin on earth gets the message, subtracts 8 years, and figures out the Tau Ceti twin is younger. He radios this message back to Tau Ceti, so after 16 years the Tau Ceti twin has confirmation that he’s the young twin. He doesn’t even have to fly back to earth. So what’s the contradiction? Well, if one twin packs up and moves to tau Ceti, and then settles in there, he has two different reference frames he switches between: First he’s in the travelling frame, then in the tau Ceti frame. That introduces an asymmetry. But suppose instead that he’s going on the Grand Tour of the Universe: He passes tau Ceti, but just keeps on going with the same velocity. And let’s suppose that both twins send each other messages: The travelling twin sends a message home just as he’s passing tau Ceti, and at the same time, he happens to receive a message from the homebound twin. The homebound twin eventually gets the message, knows it was sent eight years ago, and compares the ages to find that the traveller is younger. But, the travelling twin can make the same calculation. He gets the message from the homeboy, and knows it was sent a time ago corresponding to the distance from tau Ceti to Earth. But that distance, for him, is going to be less than eight lightyears, due to the length contraction. As a result, when the travelling twin compares ages, he finds that the stay-at-home fellow is younger. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2006, 1:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-guy-whos-rereading-all-of-heinlein/366311/32 "2006-07-31T01:11:53Z")
I always thought the “twin paradox” was based on one twin being subject to **accelerated** motion while the other is not – and acceleration isn’t relative, you can feel its effects; so the unaccelerated twin’s frame of reference is, indeed, “privileged.” Have I misunderstood that? Of course, the whole plot of _Time for the Stars_ was based on the assumption that there is at least one form of information-signal – telepathy – that is truly instantaneous and not constrained by lightspeed, which violates the rules of relativity in itself – doesn’t it? ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2006, 3:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-guy-whos-rereading-all-of-heinlein/366311/33 "2006-07-31T03:30:06Z")
> [@](#): > > I always thought the “twin paradox” was based on one twin being subject to accelerated motion while the other is not – and acceleration isn’t relative, you can feel its effects; so the unaccelerated twin’s frame of reference is, indeed, “privileged.” Have I misunderstood that? You could put it that way. I think it’s clearer, though, if you point out that an accelerated observer doesn’t have a reference frame; he has at least two. If you change instantaneously from the outbound reference frame to the returning one, such that you don’t have to worry about the details of the acceleration, then the traveller has two different reference frames. Either one of them is just as good as the Earth reference frame, but you can’t say “the traveller’s frame”… Which one do you mean? Note that this is only an issue if the traveller returns to Earth: If he just keeps on going, then you don’t need to change reference frames, and nobody therefore needs to accelerate, so the symmetry still holds. > [@](#): > > Of course, the whole plot of Time for the Stars was based on the assumption that there is at least one form of information-signal – telepathy – that is truly instantaneous and not constrained by lightspeed, which violates the rules of relativity in itself – doesn’t it? Hence why I referred to it as “magic”. ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2006, 3:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-guy-whos-rereading-all-of-heinlein/366311/34 "2006-07-31T03:53:08Z")
But even if there is no privileged reference frame, you CAN tell whether you are accelerating or not, right? I understand that if two objects are traveling at a constant speed you can’t say one is moving and the other is not moving. But if one object is accelerating, you CAN say which one is accelerating and which one isn’t. So the younger twin is the one which did the accelerating, right? ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2006, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-guy-whos-rereading-all-of-heinlein/366311/35 "2006-07-31T15:58:30Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > The Roman Republic did not fall because of the grain dole or the public games; it fell because of an impoverished, marginalized, drive-off-the-land Italian peasantry, combined with infexibility in adapting the old city-state constitution to the needs of governing a vast empire, combined with, most of all, a clash of wills between ambitious aristocrats. The bread and circuses were 1)a mechanism by which the ambitious aristocrats built up factions more loyal to themselves than to the Republic and 2)a means of papering over problems in order to burnish the reputation of whichever ambitious aristocrat was in power at the moment. ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2006, 3:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-guy-whos-rereading-all-of-heinlein/366311/36 "2006-08-01T03:57:03Z")
Well, I completed “To Sail Beyond the Sunset”, Heinlein’s last book before his death. What a slog. What’s up with all the incest, incest, incest? Seriously, what’s up with that? I just don’t get it. Now I’m digging in to “For Us, The Living”, Heinlein’s first novel. And it’s just as described…a Hugo Gernsback story, where we have a “modern” guy (from 1939) magically transported to the future. And the entire books is about how he wanders around talking to the future people as they explain their future ways of the future, and express surprise (or condescending understanding) about his primitive ways of the past. Kind of funny that in 1939 Heinlein was expecting the US to stay out of WWII. And to see his early quasi-socialist ideas, which also permeate “Beyond this Horizon”. But you can see his career-spanning hobby horses on display as well. Nudism for instance. Well heck, I can take a little nudism myself, perfectly normal, perfectly healthy. Just for Og’s sake stop with the incest already! Actually I think I’m done with the incest novels. Let’s see, what do I still have to read…wow, more than I thought. I’ve still got ahead of me: The Puppet Masters (1951) Double Star (1956) The Door into Summer (1957) Methuselah’s Children (1958) Stranger in a Strange Land (1961) Podkayne of Mars (1963) Farnham’s Freehold (1965) The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress (1966) I Will Fear No Evil (1970) Time Enough for Love (1973) Friday (1982) Tramp Royale So the only incest novel I’ve gotta slog through is “Time Enough for Love”. Not bad. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2006, 4:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-guy-whos-rereading-all-of-heinlein/366311/37 "2006-08-01T04:06:29Z")
> [@Steve MB](#): > > The bread and circuses were 1)a mechanism by which the ambitious aristocrats built up factions more loyal to themselves than to the Republic and 2)a means of papering over problems in order to burnish the reputation of whichever ambitious aristocrat was in power at the moment. See? If it were a case of the plebs **voting themselves** bread and circuses, the aristos could’ve been cut out of the process. The real tragic flaw of the Roman Republic was that it wasn’t democratic **enough!** ---
**Author:** ![silenus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/silenus/32/166_2.png) [@silenus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/silenus)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2006, 4:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-guy-whos-rereading-all-of-heinlein/366311/38 "2006-08-01T04:42:27Z")
> [@Lemur866](#): > > I’ve still got ahead of me: > > The Puppet Masters (1951) > Double Star (1956) > The Door into Summer (1957) > Methuselah’s Children (1958) > Stranger in a Strange Land (1961) > Podkayne of Mars (1963) > Farnham’s Freehold (1965) > The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress (1966) > I Will Fear No Evil (1970) > Time Enough for Love (1973) > Friday (1982) > Tramp Royale You’ve got some good ones coming up. Only one dog in the bunch, and 6 of my favorites. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2006, 4:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-guy-whos-rereading-all-of-heinlein/366311/39 "2006-08-01T04:46:15Z")
> [@](#): > > It’s pretty clear from Farmer in the Sky that Heinlein had a shaky grasp of relativity. The chief engineer of the torchship is talking with some of the scouts and someone asks why the ship can’t go past the speed of light. The chief engineer says it can’t, just trust him. Then the kid asks, “See here, then what would happen if the ship were traveling at 99% of the speed of light, and the captain ordered the engines to full thrust?” And the chief engineer admits he doesn’t quite know what exactly would happen but it would be an interesting experiment. Of course, even in 1950 a physicist would know what would happen, the time/mass contraction equations are pretty clear. I just reread this book and I was also struck by how Heinlein weaseled on the answer. I thought he should have just given a simple true answer - “Sorry boys, that wouldn’t work because the faster you’re going the more energy it takes to increase your speed. Even if we somehow got up to 99% of lightspeed, it would take an infinite amount of energy to push the ship that last one percent.” ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2006, 4:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-guy-whos-rereading-all-of-heinlein/366311/40 "2006-08-01T04:57:27Z")
> [@](#): > > So the scenes where Hamilton Felix avoids or gets involved in duels work, because they show the author’s theories about dueling. Actually, the dueling issue was the source of one of the biggest annoyances I had with Heinlein’s works. Heinlein and his protagonist Hamilton talked about how legalized dueling made for a better society because it engendered respect. People who chose to duel were expected to respect the form. But when Hamilton was challenged to a duel by the female protagonist (can’t remember her name) he simply dismissed her challenge. He refused to honor her decision to go armed and give her the respect he would have given an armed man. It was blatently sexist. Now I realize that it’s wrong to judge an author by the actions of his characters and to judge the past by the standards of today. But Heinlein did choose to set up Hamilton as his mouthpiece in this book. And he did recognize the issue of sexual equality by raising the issue and then dismissing the idea that a woman was equal to a man. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-guy-whos-rereading-all-of-heinlein/366311.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-guy-whos-rereading-all-of-heinlein/366311.md?page=3)