Heinlein’s “first novel”, thought to be lost, and just published, with forward by Spider Robinson and an afterword by a Heinlein scholar.
Pretty good – it’s not true that it’s “just a series of lectures” – it is a novel, and things happen, but there’s an awfully high lecture-to-occurrences ratio. Heinlein didn’t start out knowing the proper balance. On the other hand, I strongly suspect that he was really heavily influenced by Bellamy’s Looking Backward, and that “novel” has exactly the same faults.
Actually, the book this most reminds me of is Jules Verne’s Paris in the Twentieth Century, Verne’s first novel, first published long after his death, and similarly wordy and plot-thin. Both novels were discovered late, published after their author’s death, are the first novels they wrote, and are basically guided tours of an idealized future. Both authors got a lot better (you’d expect that), and aren’t as preachy later. Both of them returned to the themes and ideas of their first novels late in their career (I’m disappointed that Verne scholars don’t seem to notice the similarities between “Paris” and “Hier et Demain”)
Heinlein’s method of getting his hero into the future is the same that Robert Sheckley used in Immrtality Delivered/ Immortality Inc., although I suspect that’s pure coincidence. Heinlein also manages to work in a companionable naked lady right at the start, always a plus for us horny male fans. At least it grabs your attention so you’ll pay attention to the sociology and economics lectures.
I haven’t read it yet but I’m sure I will.
I figured, base from the title, that Heinlein was riffing on Ayn Rand and ‘We the Living’. And if that’s the case it wouldn’t surprise me that the ‘lecture to novel’ ratio is way in favor of the lecture. I swear that woman couldn’t really write a novel with a gun to her head.
Maybe ‘Anthem’. I liked that one.
I doubt it. “We the Living” came out in 1936, and, while the nominal date of “For Us the Living” is 1938, it seems pretty clear to me that Heinlein must have started it in 1936 (it’s set in 2086, which is 150 years after 1936, and utopias always seem to be set distances in the future that differ by multiples of 50). Besides, the title derives from Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address, and it’s a Heinlein characteristic to use partial quotes as titles when the whole quote is relevant to the work. I don’t think it’s a riff on Ayn Rand at all. If it is, it’s far down on the list of importance.
Cal, I respectfully disagree.
I read it back in December, and damned if I can remember a plot–he visits a few places, that’s it, and people show up to tell him things and they talk (LECTURE) and talk and talk, ad nauseum. The economic lectures are barely readable. Heinlein even puts character exposition in footnotes.
Having said that, I love it as a glimpse into the formation of notions that Heinlein would do better, later (Rolling Roads spring to mind).
I also appreciate the intro and outro, and so ol’ Bob and Leslyn were nudists who had an open marriage–edgy brave people considering they could probably have gone to jail for life for such personal matters in the 1930s. Hell, you can still get hurt for your personal private choices.
R/S
Sir Rhosis