Tclouie…we can stand you criticizing Heinlein…as long as you tell the truth. When you throw around accusations of FASCISM, and have them slapped down, then throw around accusations of racism, and have them slapped down, and now you throw around accusations of sexism, well, we’re gonna slap that down.
Why don’t you face facts that you were completely, utterly, and without question wrong about the fascism charge?
And the racism charge has been completely, utterly, and without question dismissed. I know you can’t face it, but Heinlein wasn’t a racist. You’re like the kids who think Swift wanted to kill Irish babies.
Now, sexism. Look, buddy. You’re going to have to work harder than this. There are dozens of people on this board who’ve read every Heinlein book four or five times. So, when you come in and say you’ve read 2 Heinlein books and saw a movie that had the same name and you just KNOW that Heinlein had such-and-such attitudes…well, since we know different, we’re gonna disagree.
You don’t have to read another stinking word Heinlein wrote, no skin off my nose, not everyone likes the same things. You don’t have to read Heinlein, fine. But, you cannot make statements about Heinlein’s views that are based in ignorance. You got the idea that Heinlein was a virulent racist by a complete misreading of his novel.
Perhaps you should consider the possibility that you’re doing the same thing with your other charges.
Or you could just shut up. Why do you have such an attachment to proving Heinlein was an asshole? Why is it so important for you to do this? My guess: you just can’t stand to be proven wrong. Well, that’s tough, but you are wrong. Don’t get mad at us for proving you wrong, we can’t help the fact that you are wrong. The only thing for you to do is admit you were wrong, and go home. I don’t care if you like Heinlein or not, but you are wrong and you should admit it.
Um, gee, have I not admitted I was wrong, anywhere on this board? Did I not admit I was wrong about the fascism?
Read the whole freakin’ thread. So many want me to read all of Heinlein before judging him, and yet so many are willing to judge me before reading all my posts.
Only a few of us have admitted we were wrong about something in this thread…wrong about fascism, wrong about intentional racism, wrong about Michael eliminating people in “Stranger,” wrong about Heinlein’s portrayal of Jews…
But only a few of us have had the guts to do that. You’re welcome to join our number anytime.
If I came here and started a thread saying that Tolstoy was a closet capitalist, or Jefferson was really a monarchist, based on my interpretation of a very small sampling of either’s writing, those who are more familiar would point out my obvious idiocy. No one is saying that you can’t have a valid opinion of Heinlein, just that you are disagreeing with virtually every person who actually is familiar with his work, which means that you have supernatural insight or are just plain wrong.
Others have posted here far stronger evidence that Heinlein was not a racist, fascist, or sexist, yet you hold on to your preconcieved notions until they are absolutely shattered. Hell, I’ve only read one of Heinlein’s books (Starship Troopers, nothing against Heinlein, who I rather like, I’ve just never really been interested in Sci Fi) and I have more of an idea of what’s going on here, because I accept the opinions of those best qualified to make them.
waterj2: your argument seems to be that calling Heinlein a sexist is as ludicrous as calling Tolstoy a capitalist or Jefferson a monarchist. That is a false analogy.
For that to be true, it would have to possible to pull out capitalism or monarchism from something they wrote. But it just isn’t there. ANYWHERE.
By way of contrast, you can definitely go into Heinlein’s writing and pull out sexism. It definitely is there. I and others have given examples. It may not be the most prevalent thing in his work, and it may not be in every novel, but it’s common enough to prevent me from enjoying his work.
A lot of people seem to think there’s only one kind of sexism, but there are several varieties. Sexism can be patronizing. Sexism can be objectifying women for their sexuality. Sexism can be woman-hating. I think Heinlein indulged in the first two. No woman-hater, he.
Is it possible for a novel that has a competent female hero to still be sexist? Yes. No matter how many counter-examples you offer, you cannot erase the examples I and others have given.
So it is a valid point of view to say that Heinlein was sexist.
By the way, why do people still think I am arguing that Heinlein was fascist? READ THE WHOLE DAMN THREAD, already. It is hypocritical to say I should read all of Heinlein’s writing when you won’t read all of mine.
uhh…how to put this gracefully so as not to be tattled on…
look you stuborn SOB no one is asking you to read every piece of material by RAH, but your presumption of being able to speak authoritatively about his work after reading 2.5 books (I won’t even get into the Starship Troopers mess) is akin to my reading a page or 2 of your diary and recite your life history. It’s ludicrous.
So let’s exchange shoes shall we. What would you say if I started to make wild assumptions about Sawyer after reading a chapter or 2 of his work? Me thinks you would hound me until I tossed my computer out the window.
oh and BTW, I have read the entire thread
**
A lie. I said that to presume to judge a man’s life, opinions or morals based on his writings, you need to read more than 2% of his work.
<snipping several examples that repeat the above arguement>
Straw-Man arguement. No one’s saying read them all.
When they take polls, they take a random sampling. You read two books written in a 6 year period out of a 6 decade career. (The fact that you read a few chapters of Number of the Beast written 10 years later is barely relevant). This is hardly a random sampling of his works in volume or in range. If you’d read a some of his stories from the 40s, a juvenile or two from the fifties, maybe one of his novels from the 50’s, and maybe read one of his novels from the '70s or the 80’s, yeah, I’d say you had an reasonable sample.
I will say this slowly in hopes that you’ll understand or read it this time it this time: No…One…has…said…that…you…have…to…read…ALL …his…works. I have said that reading 2% of his works and then judging the man’s entire life based on that is pathetic. I’ll say the same thing about someone who knows nothing about Clinton except for, say, 5 decision’s he’s made and presumes to judge Clinton’s entire life based on those 5 decisions.
To turn the tables a bit: I could judge your entire life from this thread and perhaps say you were a total wanker. But I wouldn’t. It wouldn’t be fair to judge your entire life based on this tiny fraction of what you’ve written.
You’re calling HIM a sexist. Implying that he treats women in a sexist manner. He doesn’t in his writing and he apparently didn’t in real life. I’ve presented evidence to the contrary, but, in your own words "
Once more: I don’t care if you don’t like him, but you don’t need to try to demonize him.
One of his two best known titles (Stranger). Farnham’s Freehold is one of his two least known. The next book that you read the first few chapters of (Number of the beast) was written 15 years later.
You read 2 books and looked at a chapter or two of another from a 15 year period of the man’s writing output which spans 6 decades (1939-87).
Hardly. I’d be happy to discuss any informed criticism. I simply haven’t heard any from you. (And as often as you run snivelling to the mods for any insult, perceived or otherwise, there’s more than a hint of irony in your last paragraph.)
I also note that your accusations of sexism didn’t show up until A)your original point was demolished and B)Someone else mentioned it. You could hardly have been all that offended by Heinlein’s alleged sexism, but it seems as though you desperatly need some excuse to hate the man as opposed to simply not liking his writing. Why, exactly, do you feel the need to demonize your opponent?
In any case, since I’ve presented evidence to the contrary regarding Heinlein’s alleged sexism and your only response has, in essence, been to put your fingers in your ears and sing “La-La-I-Can’t-Hear-You-La-He-Is-So-Sexist-La-La” I doubt I’ll be participating much more in this thread. It’s not really a debate at this point. For future note: If you’re not going to try to look at the evidence, it’s a Rant and Rants go in the Pit.
I find interesting the assumption that anyone who can possibly find anything wrong with RAH’s writing must either hate him on PC principle or has not read much of what he’s written. Over the past 25 years I, for one, have read and reread a great deal of what he’s written (both in the Boy’s Life era and in the post-1960 era) and I enjoy the books as fluff. But that doesn’t mean that I can’t see common elements in the book that in my eyes are sexist. Some have suggested that anyone finding elements of sexism in the books should reread them, or that they’re looking to be insulted. It’s equally possible that those who are convinced that the original examples mentioned are strong female characters haven’t read carefully or are blinded their own set of prejudices, isn’t it? (I explicitly mentioned Tunnel in the Sky as a counter-example that had some pretty good female characters in it, BTW. Jack’s not bad, either.)
[Incidentally, Jubal does not sleep with one of his secretaries, he sleeps with Dawn Ardent. Michael’s the one who sleeps with an unnamed secretary, whom we only know is not Jill. And yes, I agree that it’s implied that Eunice has dark skin and may be black. At one point she’s wearing off-white and it’s mentioned that the color sets off her skin well. You can’t really tell from the original book jacket, though: she just looks like a woman with full lips.]
By the way, I should have clarified: RAH does okay with very young and very old female characters, but make them of child-bearing age and my statements stand. The person who suggests that he didn’t really understand women has a point. I don’t think that he was deliberately dismissive or that he disliked women, but he’s too hung up on the sexual and emotional aspects of women to see them as people and characterize well.
Yippee! Finally! Finally, someone who is specific about the requirements for Heinlein-criticism! Four books! FOUR BOOKS and I qualify!
If I read those four things and still thought Heinlein was sexist, would you still jump all over me?
I noticed you didn’t mention anything from the 1960’s. Is that because you think they’re not representative, or something? You see, I have read a couple things from the’60s. Can I substitute one of them for one of those four things? And I already started “Number of the Beast.” Could I just finish that for the last thing?
Yippee! Two and a half books! 2-1/2 more books, and I qualify for Heinlein-criticism!
When we became members, we all agreed to abide by the rules. I for one agree with those rules and will do my best to enforce them. People who use debates to make personal attacks under cover of anonymity are the worst thing about the Internet.
Boy, oh boy.
Admitting you’re wrong is a great thing. It shows maturity and open-mindedness. I think someone who freely admits they’re wrong is even more likely to be right on the points where they stick to their guns. But some people in this thread seem to think of it as a sign of weakness. Kinda makes me think it would have been better not to admit anything at all. “Fascist! Racist! Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!” Would have gotten me more respect.
I think I have been very flexible in this debate. It’s the Heinlein-lovers who are seemingly unable to admit that there is any sexism at all in Heinlein, or even anything objectionable at all. I gave examples. Do those examples not exist? Do you think I made them up?
And no, slowhand53, I would not hound you for saying something about Sawyer, although I would be interested in why you’re saying it. I am particularly interested in why Reality Chuck says half the SFWA doesn’t like Sawyer. Does anybody have any more insight about this?
** Fenris. ** Have you ever admitted you were wrong in a thread?
And, did that automatically invalidate the remainder of your argument?
By the way, your above statement is untrue. (“A lie,” you would say.) Go back and read my OP. I didn’t use the word “sexist,” but I did call him a “dirty old man.” Does that qualify? I was glad when some posters said the same things about Heinlein’s attitude toward women that I had already been thinking. Thanks, eft. However, I made this statement BEFORE eft posted:
So stop lying about me. I did not make up the “sexism” in mid-stream.
Heinlein is my opponent?? I thought he was my subject!
I am not aware of “demonizing” any opponent who has posted to this thread. If I have done so, it was unwitting and I apologize.
I think part of the problem here is over-identification with the subject. Criticizing Heinlein is not the same as criticizing you personally, even if you do admire him. And there is no way Heinlein himself will ever be hurt or offended by anything I say here, being dead. If anybody here is an heir or a relative or a personal friend of Heinlein, well…that is something to consider, but so far nobody like that has popped up. Also, if Heinlein himself were a poster to these boards, I would have to be more circumspect, but he’s not, so I don’t.
Famous people who are not members of SDMB are fair game.
No, that’s you. I’ve presented evidence too, but your only response has been to attack the source. Do my examples not exist? Do eft’s examples not exist?
Byeeeeee
Oh, it’s my thread and I’ll stop when I want to, stop when I want to, stop when I want to…
[first, a brief aside]
You know, I’m a low-count poster on these boards, and hardly any one has heard of me. So you can ignore me if you want to, but…well, I doubt you are impressing anyone, even those people who agree with you, with your arguements. I’m not disputing that you have something to say, but, well…you might want to take a few deep breaths before posting next time.
[/aside]
One the reasons you hate Heinlein now:
#1
** many Heinlein supporters seem to support a Libertarian or possibly Ayn Rand-ish philosophy, and believe that Heinlein would also support it**
Well, I can’t speak for the posters, but I think you’d be wrong about RAH himself. You might want to read The Moon is a Harsh Mistress. In it, Professor De La Paz is talking to one of the many characters about economic systems, and specifically mentions “rand-ites”. Sort of funny, really.
Oh, this book is one of his better ones. I could have sworn it won both the Hugo and the Nebula, but my copy does not make reference to either. In answer to your question “nothing from the '60s”, this one was published in 66.
#2
** Heinlein’s dirty-old-man treatment of his female characters**. Yes, I have met people who feel he had a real fixation on this. I think he was making a pretty good arguement at the time: women have gotten the short end of the stick, sexually speaking, for about forever. Women can be as competent as men in any field and still be sexual creatures. This has been an ongoing arguement in certain parts of the feminist movement for the last 30 years. If interested in discussing this, open a new thread on the subject (since this one is about facism).
#3 I refuse to buy that Farnham’s Freehold was, somehow, an anti-racist novel or an allegory of white racism.
Well, you may try reading it again with this in mind. It shocks a lot of people the first time through.
Oh, in your OP, you mention: Was Heinlein an escaped German who came over here after the war to put some blood and iron into our sci-fi?
Well, maybe. That would explain the line (in To Sail beyond the Sunset) “There is something sick that goes to the core of the German culture”.
What constitues “hard” SF has changed a lot over the last 2 years. RAH’s discussion of the problems inherent to life on the moon; his discussion of recessive genetic defects (in Time Enough for Love), amoung others, qualify him. Is he Kim Stanley Robinson, or Neal Stephenson? No, he is not. But in a lot of ways, he was looking a lot further forward.
At the time of his writing, there were 3 authors who wrote passable characters, reasonable plots, and actually stopped to consider some of the problems with space travel. These 3 people are the trinity of modern SF. They changed SF in ways that are hard to discribe. There may be another long lived change (hey, a lot of people credit Gibson with making one), but these 3 authors haver stood the test of time. This isn’t about claiming that they were better writers than any one who came after them. This is about saying that they made a real change to the genre. The other names you mentioned have all written good stuff, and have made important contributions. Possibly, say, Robinson or Tepper will change the way SF is written or read. This will not degrade the importance of the original big three; that’s just not how it works.
It is fair for you not to like any or all of them, but when you start criticising their work, especially some place like this, you have to remember that a lot of extremely knowledgeable people will poke holes in any argument that is less than perfectly thought out.
Finally, you might note that for a long time, Heinlein and Ellison stood tied for the highest number of Hugos and Nebulas (I think a total of 9 apiece). This doesn’t mean that they aren’t facist antisemites (especially tht Ellison character - you should read some of his treatments of jews), but it is something to keep in mind when critiqing him.
tclouie: Well I, for one, didn’t get mad when you called Heinlein a fascist, a racist, or a sexist . I think you’re mistaken on all counts ( as you’ve partially admitted - with sexism the most open to debate and different interpretations - I think eft has some good points ), but I never knew the man personally so I can’t really say. And I just can’t get worked up sufficiently about these sort of debates to ever get “mad” anyway. I think the evidence is not in your favor and I think I ( and many others here ) have a better handle on the subject than you do. But hell, I could be wrong I guess - Though I really doubt it .
As to the others you mentioned:
Crichton can be a hack - he wasn’t always. Some of his earlier work was pretty decent.
2)Philip K. Dick was disturbed at times and it could show in his writing. But at his best he was both powerful and challenging.
I think you’re more off-base on Bradbury. Lyrical and vaguely hallucinatory at times? Yeah, I can see that. But a hippy? Ehhh…Not really .
I’m still interested in exploring the topic of how to consider someone well-read in science fiction.
You dispute that I am well-read in SF, but actually I didn’t use the term “well-read.” I originally said that someone only needs to have read a couple of books each by many different authors in order to be well-rounded. Well-rounded and well-read are not necessarily synonymous.
But does one need to read a lot of Heinlein to be either well-rounded or well-read in SF? Well…
Let’s say my local university offers a major in the field of Science Fiction. (Oooooo, what a fantasy!)
To complete the major, I might have to complete certain courses such as Science Fiction 101, Science Fiction 102, Elements of Science-Fiction Writing 150, Links With Other Genres 200, Science Fiction as Predictor of the Future 202, and so on.
As part of the major, I would have to read some Heinlein. But very few professors would require me to read a LOT of Heinlein as part of their course, unless the course was Heinlein’s Contribution to Science Fiction 250 (an elective course I could easily avoid).
There is just too much material in the subject matter to require a comprehensive review of any one author…unless it were for my thesis. And, boy oh boy, no academic adviser better try to make me write my thesis on Heinlein. I’d slit my wrists first. I’d organize a takeover of the dean’s office. I’d climb the Administration Tower to hang a banner. I’d start daily food fights. Or, I’d choose an author I like as the subject of my thesis.
I could probably manipulate this major so that I could graduate without ever having read very much Heinlein.
And, when I receive my Degree of Bachelor of Arts in the field of Science Fiction, I will be able to say that I am well-rounded and well-read.
Um, to the person who mentioned casually that “ellison is an anti-semite”, are you aware he IS jewish? But please cite an example of why you think he’s anti-jew.
tclouie, if you are willing to try one more heinlein, can I recommend double star? it’s short, it’s funny, and it’s very well-written.
I like heinlein, but in some of his books he did go a bit overboard, like number of the beast and time enough for love.
BTW, in Stranger, how do we know it wasn’t jill who is the first to sleep with VMS? There is IIRC no indication of who does seek him out. Could be Miriam, could be anne, could be dorcas, jill… I mean jubal couldn’t figure it out, and he knew three of them better than ayone else did. (Caxton had know jill for longer.)
OK, fellow heinlein fans, what is your least favorite book by him? I vote for I will Fear no Evil. While it has an intriguing premise, it was badly executed and could have used some editing/ another draft.
Hmmm… no one has mentioned Glory Road. Star is a very strong character. Always thought it would make a great movie. Anyone have any opinions on The door Into Summer?
Also, what’s the general consensus on how old jubal was in stranger?
Unfortunately, you’re missing a step there. Your complaint about Heinlein’s perceived sexism has not been ‘confirmed’ in any objective sense of the word. There have been a number of people who have agreed with your interpretation of his work. There have been more people who have disagreed with it, seeing it as a flawed interpretation, focusing on the fact that his female characters had a higher than average sexual appetite. If you notice, most of his male characters do so as well, (Jubal Harshaw is a notable exception and explained within the framework of Stranger in a Strange Land. If you feel he’s sexist, that’s fine. You are free to interpret the writings any way you wish. Don’t be surprised, however, when people who view things differently than you disagree. Repeating the same examples over and over again is not going to convince fans who have been reading R.A.H for 30 years (or more) that you’ve suddenly found the incontrovertible evidence of his supposed sexism. You are not the first to have interpreted his writing so as to be sexist; it’s a recurring discussion amongst both old-time fans and people who have recently discovered his work. The fact that so many people disagree with you should leave you with two main probabilities as a solution:
You’re wrong. If this many people who are so intimately familiar with his work disagree and can speak even more knowledgably about specific examples, it may cause you to reconsider your thoughts.
Everyone else is wrong but you. That’s always possible, as I am the first to admit. But what’s even more likely is that reasonable people can disagree about the interpretation of a book or even a series of books.
As has been pointed out by Eft, you’re wrong about your example. Dawn is not one of Jubal’s secretaries. I could argue about your interpretation of the sexy android with no will of her own, but it serves no point. You see in it that which you wish to see and adjust your interpretations accordingly.
And your point would be… what? In the entire book, that’s the only evidence for sexism that you could filter out was the fact that Hugh Farnham shags an attractive young woman who seems to be just as pleased by the arrangement as he is? Of course, we all know that no self-respecting 20-ish woman would be even the slightest bit interested in a middle-aged man when there’s a buff young stud her own age right there next to her. Is it impossible to believe that a smart, intelligent and strong woman might be attracted to Hugh over his whining son?
**
Since I’m one of the few who apparently likes The Number of the Beast I’ll take a crack at this one.
I’m confused by your argument, however. Are you objecting to Zeb and Deety deciding to marry on the night they meet? Are you objecting to the fact that Jake and Hilda get married the same night? If so, that seems much more a matter of plotting and has nothing to do with the charge of sexism. I’ve never met anyone who has married after such a short courtship, but then again, I’ve never met anyone who has a space/time twister that looks like a Singer sewing machine. Perhaps if they have one they’re more likely to do the other.
If on the other hand, you’re complaining that the women were walking around naked, bear in mind that casual nudity, particularly in small family groups is hardly the world-shaking aberration that you seem to think it is. Additionally, as R.A.H. seemed to take particular delight in skewering “useless” social convention, his predisposition for dispensing with clothing in many of his story settings is understandable. In a perfect world, wearing clothing in a small family group may be a matter of vanity but it shouldn’t be a matter of shame or taboo.
Once again, I, and a number of other including Fenris have pointed out our disagreement with your examples. Simply because you feel that they are so inherently sexist that the truth blazes like the torch of righteousness from through the darkness does not mean that simply by presenting them, they are ‘proven’. I happen to think that given his background, R.A.H. wrote extremely strong female characters, but if I were to list the relevant examples, you would not suddenly be convinced that my interpretation is the correct one. Please quit pretending that the reverse should be so.
For my part, I have no desire to erase them, since I don’t find your examples to be illustrations of sexism. You’re starting from a faulty premise and building a towering, albeit incredibly shaky, framework of logic from it. If that foundation is not valid, then the entire framework collapses as a means of convincing others.
And, as for your “others” who have agreed with you.
Dragon Phoenix called him a “sex maniac”, although I’m not sure that’s exactly synonymous with “sexist”. zen101 declares R.A.H. a bigot and sexist, although he provides no examples of the latter. Edward the Head said that he can "…kinda see the sexist part, but even that’s not that bad." Tamerlane starts off promisingly enough for you, but goes on to cite several examples of the opposite opinion.
Unfortunately for your support, zen101 returns and pretty thoroughly demolishes any reasonable support of blatant sexism in the work of R.A.H.
But, finishing on a high note for you, in a very well-written post, Eft does support your view of R.A.H. as a sexist author, although he does later limit it a bit more than you. Ironically, it came in the same post that should have illustrated to you that you need to do better research before hauling out examples that you feel bolster your claims. It can be so heart wrenching when they blow up in your face because they’re factually wrong, can’t it?
If you think R.A.H. is a racist, a fascist or a sexist, don’t read him. I don’t see anyone lining up to use the Ludovico Technique on you to modify your tastes. But don’t pretend that simply because you bring up an example that you think supports your theory, we are somehow bound to agree with you.
I’d love to sit here and argue your ideas about R.A.H. and racism, but needless to say, I find your interpretation and logic for that even more laughable than your ideas about his sexism. And anyways, I’ve got this… thing I have to do… over there.
Bear in mind we’re were seeing this through the eyes of Alexander, who started out as epitome of a Bible-thumping and more than a little bigoted fundamentalist preacher. Remember, he had to go to heaven and meet the nun in St. Peter’s office before he was convinced that Catholics could be saved. Additionally, he’s already left Heaven in what can only be described as a huff. I doubt that his trip to Hell would have made his views of the Trinity any more charitable.
Sorry to post off-topic, but that one gave me a chuckle. In the book Expanded Universe, the nonfiction portion of “The Happy Days Ahead” contains a scathing critique of the American educational system. Heinlein describes how a person can spend four years taking easy classes, and then get a useless degree. His strategy? Major in English literature, and then milk the fine print of the curriculum in the exact manner that tclouie describes. Heinlein was not very fond of ivory-tower academia.
tclouie, you may have more in common with Heinlein than you might want to admit.
You make a bunch of good points: Double Star, while not my fav. is an excellent recommendation. (It also won a Hugo, along with Moon is A Harsh Mistress, Stranger and Starship Troopers. Only Bujold has a chance of equalling Heinlein for “Best Novel” winners at the moment. She’s got three.)
My least favorite Heinlein is Beyond this Horizon. It’s his first novel…and it shows! I also don’t like Farnham’s Freehold much. It’s Heinlein’s only novel where I can’t find a single character who I like. My favorites are Moon is a Harsh Misteress, Puppet Masters (uncut version) and most of his juvies.
You exactly pegged the situation with “I Will Fear No Evil”. Heinlein was hospitalized (it was severe enough that he was unable to write for several years after) after the first draft was done, but before the editing and second draft had been started/completed. Since Heinlein was incapable of making a decision, his wife and/or his publisher decided that it was better to print his early draft ‘as-is’ rather than have someone else do the rewrite.
I’m pretty sure that there is some specific comment in the text of Stranger that Jill isn’t the one who slept with Mike, but I don’t remember what it was. I’ll check later if you care.
Not at all. The Number of the Beast- is actually a self-parody, and you probably shouldn’t be reading it until you’ve read more of his other works. What’s more, many (if not most) of the characters in that novel are from some of his earlier novels. Put this book aside, you’re not ready
for it.
Instead, try The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress, Have Spacesuit, Will Travel, and Expanded Universe at the very least. These are all readily available. If you can find The Rolling Stones, that’s good, too.
Fenris:
In fact, if you read the literature of that period, I think he was one of first (non-porn) writers, regardless of genre. In SF, he was definitely one of the first to write of women as PEOPLE, not just daughter/wife/mother/love interest.
For instance, look at The Rolling Stones which was written, IIRC, in the fifties, when all good American women were home baking cookies, and happy to be there. In fact, this was commonly regarded as the most fulfilling role a woman could have…but in this book, the mother of the protagonists was a dedicated, competent doctor. The grandmother was an engineer, and even gives a speech about how she was passed over for a promotion, in favor of a male. And Grandma is STILL pretty darn sharp, at her advanced age. This book, you must remember, was written specifically for the male teenage audience, it was part of a deal Heinlein had with the publisher. It was MARKETED to teenage boys, and Heinlein was doing his best to enlighten these kids. Grandma and Mother were both competent, attractive women, who were successful in having careers AND in raising kids. The kids suffered no ill-effects from Mom and Grandma going off to work. This was quite a contrast to what most fifties authors would say.
tclouie:
Actually, I’ve read quite a few course descriptions of SF-as-literature…and most all of them have, in their basic courses, mention of Heinlein. I’ve also picked up some of the course textbooks, and most of them have short stories and novel excerpts by Heinlein. So yes, you’d have to read a LOT of Heinlein, unless, of course, you managed to find a fantasy-as-literature course. It’s sort of like how every high school English course gets around to Beowulf, sooner or later. Heinlein shaped science fiction. Perhaps an English major can tell us if one can get away with not reading the basic authors and still get a degree in English. But I really rather doubt it.
It’s pretty clear here that you don’t know what I’m talking about when I say the Big Three. The Big Three doesn’t refer to the three biggest CURRENT SF authors. Again, it’s like I said earlier…if you’re gonna talk about SF TV or movies, you’re going to HAVE to know about Star Trek (at least the original series) or Star Wars. Whether you like it or not, those shows shaped SF TV and movies. Without knowledge of those shows, you can’t be considered well-rounded in those areas.
And to add to that, something I just found out about “Number” supports it being a self parody: the name of every “Black Hat” bad-guy in the book is an anagram of Heinlein or one of his pseudonyms. One that comes to mind is the first one we meet: “Neil O’Heret Brain”=Robert A. Heinlein.
Fenris: thanks for the kind comments. Could you look for the reference, please? it’s one of the things I always vaguely wondered about whenever I read that book. any guesses on jubal’s age?
Re farnham’s: yes, after all, look at catherine zeta-jones and sean connery in entrapment, or michael douglas and gwyenth paltrow in a perfect murder. it’s not like barbra was duke’s girlfriend to begin with, either. the part of that book that saddens me most is when (SPOILER!)
poor karen and her child die. Farnham will prob. never be even remotely considered for filming; can imagine the uproar it would generate? I can’t even think who’d try to take it on in the first place…
i hate to think what tclouie’s reaction would be to To sail beyond the sunset. (one of my fav. books). hehe
. I think you’re mistaken on all counts ( as you’ve partially admitted - with sexism the most open to debate and different interpretations - I think eft has some good points ), but I never knew the man personally so I can’t really say. And I just can’t get worked up sufficiently about these sort of debates to ever get “mad” anyway. I think the evidence is not in your favor and I think I ( and many others here ) have a better handle on the subject than you do. But hell, I could be wrong I guess - Though I really doubt it 
.