Then you have no idea what you’ve talking about. The movie was an abomination of the great man’s work by a Dutch artiste (!) who gave us such culturally-enlightening gems as Robocop and Flesh+Blood. Your criticism of the book based upon the movie presupposes that the movie is an honest interpretation of the book. Which it is not. It is practically slander.
I Will Fear No Evil, as has been noted, gets downright silly. I don’t hate it, but Eunice/Johann (and all the other characters) never get beyond being cardboard cutouts. RAH was really good at world creation and that’s what I like best about his stories. The Moon is a Harsh Mistress is probably the best, IMO, with Friday after that. (Yes, I criticized the main character, but I never said I hated the book.) When I was younger I really liked Have Space Suit, Will Travel but it seems to have worked better for me when I was a kid than it does now.
Regarding the importance of reading RAH and other Golden Age sf writers, I think it’s good for getting historical perspective on how sf has developed (I read the 30s stuff for the same reason, and let me tell you: that can be hard going) but if one only reads the Golden Age authors they’re limiting themselves, too. I can’t recall exactly where I read this, but I agree with it: while RAH pretty much pioneered the archtype of The Competent Man in sf, way too many sf readers think that that’s the only valid archtype. An awful lot of good sf has been written that follows an entirely different path. For a sample, I’d suggest reading Dangerous Visions, Again, Dangerous Visions, or Future on Fire.
**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. **
That was me. I thought it a clever joke, mainly because I was tired from typing so much. It is utterly impossible to read Ellison’s work and to believe him an anti-semite.
He tells a story whose name I forget about a group of 6 legged aliens with very strong jewish features. They speak in a sort of new york yiddish. I was going to go off on that for a bit to really drive home the irony, but I decided the post was too long already.
Suffice it to say that I am well aware that Ellison is not an anti-semite.
bashere: Sorry; didn’t realize you were kidding. if you substitute “heinlein” for ellison and racist for anti-semite, we have the definitive answer to tclouie. BTW, it was I’m Looking for Kadak. did you ever read the story about the guy who is being haunted by his mother’s ghost? lol
–Please pass the necro waiters.
Sure, I’ll check when I get home.
As to Jubal’s age, I think there’s a comment that gives a clue, but again…I’ll have to check.
BTW: Have you tried the uncut Stranger In A Strange Land? I actually liked it more than the cut version. The uncut Puppet Masters has a scene restored that gave me nightmares when I first read it. I understand why it was cut. I also liked the uncut Red Planet better. (Heinlein had massive fights with the editor of his Juvies on a regular basis, but the fight over Red Planet was the stuff of legends: Alice Dagliesh(sp) didn’t understand SF, didn’t like Heinlein and didn’t understand why so little of Heinlein’s juvies had “rocket ships”. Anyway, she thought that Willis’s extendable eyes were “too Freudian” and wanted Willis cut from the story or dramatically modified. Heinlein took exception to that and in a scathing letter explained A)What he thought of Freud and B)That he was doing something right since Heinlein’s books were his publisher’s best selling kid’s books and C)The “Freudian” nature of the ‘Girls and Horsies’ books that Dagliesh(sp) wrote) 
Fenris
PMFJI, but if this is about how we know that Jill is not the woman Mike sleeps with originally, this comes up in a discussion between Ben and Jubal, later in the book. Jubal had assumed that it was Jill, but Ben tells him that he’d assumed the same thing and Jill set him straight.
Jubal is apparently under 100 (since he’s sworn to committ suicide when his age reaches three digits) but beyond that I could never tell. I always guessed him as being in his 90s.
There’s also a later edition of Podkayne of Mars out that ends differently from the one originally published. I haven’t seen the uncut SIASL; I’ll have to look for that.
I think virtually everyone has made most of the points I’d have made in response to the OP quite well. However:
[li]I would comment that one is not obliged to make one’s tastes meet the majority’s, and this would include the OP. However, if one gets into a debate on the subject of why one dislikes a particular author, one is, I think, obliged to line up all one’s facts in support of one’s views and have them accurate to attempt to bolster one’s case. I personally have a number of authors whose work I understand to be quite insightful and worthy of my respect in the opinions of others, but whose prose is so turgid, dry, and/or boring to me as to turn me off to them. That is my privilege, but I would never attempt to express this as a general negative, just as a personal reaction, in a debate on them.[/li]
[li]Reason #2 for Hating Heinlein suffers in this regard. In two of the three examples, tclouie has bollixed up the facts of the story in such a way as to undermine the argument which he attempts to make on that basis. It is Dawn, the former Fosterite exotic dancer, who climbs into Jubal’s bed, for her own reasons. Barbara was not Duke’s girlfriend but Karen’s roommate. In the third, he fails to observe that (1) Deety is in a conspiracy with her father to attempt to get the help of “Dr. Z. Carter” (Zeb’s cousin, whom she thinks is him) in support of his work, to the extent that she is quite willing to seduce him. That they fall in love and decide to tie the knot immediately is “gravy” to her intent to get Zeb’s help for Jake by whatever means necessary. I admit that the jump-into-marriage-at-first-encounter is a weak plot point, but it adequately portrays the “go-for-broke” attitude of the protagonists (an attitude Heinlein clearly holds in high esteem, as evidenced by much of his other work) and therefore paves the way for them making rapid decisions later in the book, shortening plot development by a great deal. (2) And Hilda makes it quite clear that she has been attempting to tie Jake down for years, having been his late wife’s best friend and probably the Burroughs’ closest woman friend, so this is hardly a deus ex machina element.[/li]
[li]One point nobody seems to have addressed is that Sixth Column was in fact racist. It was designed as such by John W. Campbell Jr., who gave Heinlein the basic plot scheme to work up… a “Yellow Peril” story of the sort that were common in even realistic contemporary literature of just prior to World War II, when it was written. What Heinlein did was to make clear that it was the antihumanistic aspects of the invaders’ culture, not the irrelevant fact of their skin color, that was detestable, in relatively subtle ways. Which reminds me a great deal, to revive the parallel already drawn, of what Twain did in making “Nigger Jim” a strong and likeable character in Huckleberry Finn.[/li]
[li]Yes, Heinlein is quite sexist. He makes this clear in Expanding Universe. He does feel, however, that we males can make a worthwhile contribution to the ongoing future of the race and our own futures, despite our relative inferiority. ;)[/li]
Finally, most males (including me) find the motivations of adult women in deciding who they will fall in love with, and why, less than totally clear. But I would understand the idea that a woman may choose to love, and have sex with, a man who is not Mr. Buff Studmuffin to have been spelled out in, first, Jubal’s conversation with Ben, and second, Dawn’s remarks to Jubal, in Stranger. And it pleases me as I age that at least a small proportion of the human race does not find loveability to be contingent on degree of youthful beauty.
Fenris There is an uncut Puppet Masters? I’ll have to find it. IM(not so)HO, all of the uncut versions have been much better than the cut versions. I hated Stranger until I read the uncut version, and the original ending of Podkayne brought me to tears.
And how can you dislike Beyond this Horizon? The plot might have been a little weak, but his ideas around genetic engineering are good ones, even today.
Least favourite RAH book is definitely I Will Fear No Evil. I didn’t even believe it was by RAH at first.
Favourites are The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, Glory Road and…well, most of his near-future in-solar-system juvinelle stories. ( Space Cadets, Red Planet, Podkayne ).
Togepi no Miko Thanks for understanding. I handled the joke poorly, so the failure was on my side. I think I’ve read the story you’re talking about, but when I try to remember it, I keep getting the plot to the one where the main character’s aunt’s laugh is on a laugh track. You know the one I’m talking about?
Two Ellison facts: 1) I’ve eaten at Pinks. I find it unlikely that somebody can have 3 pinks dogs ( Prince Mishkan, hold the Relish ). 2) An ex-GF of mine was a PA, assigned to drive Ellison around. She had no idea who he was, but she finds him extremely annoying. She confirmed the reputation about his ego is true.
tclouie, you know the idea of a SF degree is interesting. If you post what you feel would be appropriate in the course you mentioned, I’ll let you know what RAH books would be appropriate (and Fenris will correct me. I thought I know a lot about RAH until I started reading his posts). You still don’t have to read them, and you certainly don’t have to like them, but it might give you a better feel for the importance of RAH’s books, and where they stand in the grand scheme of things.
toadspittle: How about a Philipina heroine? Or two? CRYPTONOMICON, Neil Stephenson.
Alessan asked:
>How about Heinlein’s attitude towards Jews?
Uncomfortable but positive in Revolt in 2100, back in the 40’s…
and tclouie flamed:
> Was Heinlein an escaped German who came over here after the war to put some blood and iron into our sci-fi?
When an OP goes out of their way to use offensive and inflammatory language, it’s stereotypical that they haven’t done their homework, as is the case here. RAH was born in Missouri in 1908 and graduated from the US Naval Academy. Some of his ancestors were German; some of mine were black; both are irrelevant. tclouie should show some manners and apologize on this point.
I read FF in 1964, sneaking it out of the ‘adult’ section of the Deep South library where I spent most of my youth. (Really relevant, as the Cuban Missile Crisis had Hawk missile batteries out in the watermelon fields.)
It opened my eyes on how racism becomes institutionalized, and helped me understand the racist subtext that adults would not talk about, but which was a dominant force in my life. Yes, I remember ‘colored only’ restrooms and water fountains.
Maybe we could give FF the ‘acid test’; give it to ten African-Americans who were from grade-school age to seasoned citizen in 1964, and ask them it they think it was racist? Suspect that they would find it written as an eye-opener for Southerners, which is how I read it then and read it now.
If a youngster who wasn’t alive then doesn’t understand, well, perhaps success in reducing racism has led him to believe a few things that ain’t so.
One aspect I’ve notted of 1950-1970s Science Fiction is that some authors tended to write stories that would illuminate a section of socail customs f the day in a way that made it clear how stupid or plain ridiculous they were.
In fact sometimes they would take an utterly mundane point and take to a logical or even illogical extreme. In fact Farnhams Freehold for me illustrated how stupid racism could be.
In fact one of the better proponents of the school was Robert A. Heinlein he did it pretty consistently and sometime subtly in his books.
(OT)I really should complete my Robert A. Heinlein collection but have been unable to do so. In fact I was hooked into Science Fiction clear back when I was in second grade primary. and among those who hooked me Robert A. Heinlein figures prominently.
fenris: thanks. Yes, I own the uncut stranger. OK, the line is something along the lines of, (caxton) “yeah, i thought that too, till Jill set me straight. She wouldn’t say who it was outright, but said that it was the one most suited to starting him off right, which if you know how Jill’s mind works, gives you a good idea…”
Jubal said he gave up trying to know how anyone’s mind worked. 
So we’re back to Anne, Dorcas, or Miriam.
bashere: Yes, you are thinking of “laugh track,” which is a favorite story in that collection. the one i’m thinking of is called logically enough, “Mom,” and can be found in the Essential Ellison (among other places). BTW, it was his aunt in “Laugh Track.” In “Mom,” she’s still being a nudj from beyond the grave…
That info about RAH’s editor and willis from red Planet is fascinating, and quite sad.
–There must be some way out of here, said the black mage to the thief.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Ankh_Too *
**
ahem.
Actually what I stated originally and then repeatedly was that it was possible that RAH was bigoted and sexist by “todays standards”, making a comparison to Clemens and also noting his recurring theme of strong female characters with particular traits (strengths and weaknesses) and also making specific not of the same opposite attributes in his male charachters. Heinlein wrote in the manner of thought which he was most familliar and this betrayed some opinions that viewed today seem either sexist (Women are typically in need of a man in his novels for example. This may even be true IRL but it is viewed as a sexist opinion) or bigoted (In much of his work with characthers that are of color there is a noticeable patronizing attitude. It is not a constant and in fact it is something which appears to vanish or nearly vanish as his work progressed as though he read some of his work and said to himself “hey, if I didn’t know better I would think that I was treating my black/asian/etc characters in such and such manner. I’ll learn from this insight and strive not to do so in the future”.) and bigoted more clearly in his treatment of homosexuality (referring to homosexuals as sad and misfortuned repeatedly in the internal diolouge of some of his heroes thoughts). But this is all in the framing of todays mores and standards. While he had some opinions that are viewed as conservative and indeed possibly bigoted by today’s standards they were likely viewed as radical and extremely liberal at the time he penned them. Possibly the simplest to note that have not been noted are his thoughts of homosexuals who he often pitied in his writing but never vilified, which to me demonstrated a caring that was clearly not bigoted or rooted in antipathy but still something that by today’s standards would be viewed as a prejudice.
I would avoid even stating this much as it would appear to give some to the opposition by granting some ammunition, but it also seems to me that in some ways he is so beyond reason in his presumptions that it matters little what i offer to clarify. But I did not want to go on record os having stated such things without the opportunity to clarify a little bit where I was coming from.
*tclouie you keep stating that one need not read all of an author’s work to form such an opinion and I agree. Hypotheticaly I could have formed an opinion on Clemens by reading two works of his that he a) believed Native American people were murderous villains who routinely hid in caves b) Frogs should have lead shot poured into their bellies c) escaped black male slaves engage in homosexual activity with young boys on rafts (the often inferred homoerotic content of Huck Finn). These are certainly opinions that some people who don’t read much Clemens or don’t have much insight could (and in some cases have) come to. Not really my opinions, but then they could be and I would be just as justified in them as you are on RAH from your limited exposure.
tclouie asked:
can’t speak for anyone else, but I’ve only read a couple of books by each of these, so didn’t feel I knew enough to comment, one way or the other.
Actually, CalMeachum and I chatted about it on the first page of the thread. Cal doesn’t seem to think that it’s racist; I disagree, in part because of the supposedly sympathetic treatment of the Japenese-American gardener.
I remember reading it with this sinking feeling in my stomach that a favourite author was betraying me on a fundamental level. It’s easily my least favourite RAH book.
tclouie- For the record, I have read everything that Heinlein or his estate published. Some of it is good, some is mediocre, some may even be bad.
But he was/is commonly refered to by other Authors of all stripe as the Grand Master of Science Fiction.
Numerous Sci-Fi authors make references to him, and use very subtle things (a reference to “Robar Henling” as the Admiral of the Admirality in Smoke Ring by Larry Niven is one of my fav’s!) to pay homage to a man that did more to help legitimize Sci-Fi than any other author.
RAH was the first one to sign a “Standard Sci-Fi Book” contract with his publisher, just to set a precedence. The contract was immediatly ripped up and renegotiated upwards…
I’ve met a few folks that were lucky enough to know RAH, and not as an Author (they didn’t read Sci-Fi) but as a person. They found him clever, funny, and good company. They also liked his wife, who was just as good as he.
The fact that his peers lavish praise on him (even those that disagreed with him!) and would give him award upon award, should be an indicator of the quality of RAH’s work.
then again, at this point, I think our OP has left the building.
I’m not fond of that book either, particularly. Heinlein was offered a lot to write it at a time when he needed money and did his best to clean up the rascist content with limited success. He at least tried…unsuccessfully, IMO to give the Pan-Asians a motive and culture that made sense. (Not to propose this as a defense, but the Campbell story it’s based on is far worse…).
Personally, I liked the Chinese-American guy, Frank Mitsui (who wasn’t just a gardner, he was a farmer and/or ran a greenhouse for orchids): he’s the only person in the book. The rest of the characters seem to me to be more or less like cardboard. What didn’t you like about him?
Fenris
Ask the Black Guy!
… Just Kidding.
I am black, though, and I loved to plow through every Heinlein story I could get hold of.
And then I hit Farnham’s Freehold.
I didn’t know what to make of it. It wasn’t I reread it years later that I got the point. Heinlein, in making blacks the “bad guys”, was just showing that we could, given the chance, be as much a bunch of jackasses as white people could be. I mean, I saw white heroes and villians all the time. Why not black villians?
After that realization, I felt honored. Besides, I liked the “What do you mean we, white man?” bit that Farnham’s servant puts in at the end.
have you considered that ALL the sci-fi writers in the 50’s and 60’s were racists? i started reading sci-fi in '61, blacks virtually didn’t exist in sci-fi back then. how much is because of publishers vs writers i have no idea.
Dal Timgar
Opps, my bad. I meant to edit that part out when saw your second post. My apologies.
I don’t think a lack of charachters of color can make an author a bigot, just as a lack of women in a male authors’ works make him a sexist. There are two very logical reasons why an author might choose to omit ethnic diversity from his or her works that are particular to the time period you are referring to and specifically the Sci-Fi genre:
1) Publishers. A lot of original drafts are sent back to the writer with notes on re-writes and specific changes to be made. In the 50’s and 60’s Sci-Fi was just barely hatching into a business you could make the morgtage on and if you were an author making a penny a word from a publisher you were going to do what he told you to do. Publishers were could be the most liberal people but they had a business to run and some subjects were guaranteed to cause problems. Star Trek barely got away with the black/white white/black race war episode in the late 60’s and they were being subtle. What you find is that while a lot of authors didn’t say “Joe was an opressed black fella’” they might have said “GleepGlorp was a Venusian slave.” and made him green rather than brown and from Venus rather than Africa, but they still often tried to deliver messages. I think that if you go back and re-read some of that work you might see a lot of this that you had glossed over because maybe you were younger and unable to get the subtle suggestions.
2) Perspective. Most working writers even today are white males over 40. If you are a white male over 40 you might not want to or be able to think like a black 90 year old man or a white 20 year old woman (We have discussed Heinlein’s various attempts at this in this thread and how some of it has not come off all that well). You almost certainly cannot write plausibly as something so alien to you and I think we can somewhat safely assume that someone who was 40 in the 50’s and grey up before black was beutiful and when women were mothers and wives only is just not going to know what the hell he is talking about when it comes to either one. If he is smart he will only make minorities minor players in his work and play it safe. If he is very smart he will collaborate with someone who actually has this POV (some if not many authors collaborate with wives and friends discreetly for such groundbreaking work. Heinlein did so but seldom gave credit to Virginia for her insight but I think I recall some mention in “Grumbles From The Grave” on it and I do recall an interview with Niven on the subject.) but still for the most part unless you wanted to look like a fool you just wrote what you knew which was pretty much being a 40 year old white guy because if you were getting paid to write in the 1950’s or about then that is 90% likely to be what you were.
Now, that is only observed factor and certainly cannot disprove any assertation that “all of those guys were bigots” but i would hope that it merits consideration as a possible factor in the lack of ethnic and gender diversity you have noted in your reading.