# On Re-reading all of Robert Heinlein via The Virginia Edition **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [October 14, 2012, 11:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-re-reading-all-of-robert-heinlein-via-the-virginia-edition/637729 "2012-10-14T23:52:55Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 29
**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:** [September 23, 2013, 1:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-re-reading-all-of-robert-heinlein-via-the-virginia-edition/637729/561 "2013-09-23T13:43:54Z")
If it turns out that Virginia did all the writing and Bob was just her literary beard, you heard it here and I claim firsts! šŸ˜› ---
**Author:** ![Amateur\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/59ef9b/32.png) [@Amateur\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Amateur_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2013, 1:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-re-reading-all-of-robert-heinlein-via-the-virginia-edition/637729/562 "2013-09-23T13:51:55Z")
Itā€™s a lot more possible that Leslyn wrote some of the early works, or at least collaborated on them. No proof (such as drafts in her handwriting, or letters to that effect) exists, though. But of the three, she was the literate and talented one, and she even acted as RAHā€™s agent for a while. ---
**Author:** ![Amateur\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/59ef9b/32.png) [@Amateur\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Amateur_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2013, 1:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-re-reading-all-of-robert-heinlein-via-the-virginia-edition/637729/563 "2013-09-23T13:58:18Z")
> [@Jonathan\_Chance](#): > > Again, hell, AB, toss it out there. No sense holding back. > [@aNewLeaf](#): > > ^^^agreed, lay the Straight Dope on us! I am, actually, one work at a time and as the opportunities come up. But this is JCā€™s thread and I donā€™t want to tromp all over every sub-thread. Much of what I could add is also kind of esoteric and would mean little to an audience thatā€™s still got the basics of a work to kick around and think about. But I manage to find something to add to every work discussion and I can carry it as far as anyone wants to hear. šŸ˜ƒ ---
**Author:** ![Zakalwe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zakalwe/32/270_2.png) [@Zakalwe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zakalwe)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2013, 2:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-re-reading-all-of-robert-heinlein-via-the-virginia-edition/637729/564 "2013-09-23T14:09:34Z")
> [@Jonathan\_Chance](#): > > The one character - other than Mike - that isnā€™t a part of American culture is treated very well in the text. Dr. Mahmoud, linguist and devout muslim, is a character both respected by others in the text and respected by the text itself. Not entirely. Heā€™s presented as being pretty damn sexist (granted that was not unusual for the time). One of the things I found interesting about the book is that itā€™s one of the few times that RAH presents religion as a good thing. The book is generally favorable to the Fosterite Church with [del]RAH[/del] Harshaw going on at some length about why it can be seen as positive. Heā€™s pretty harsh on the ā€œtraditionalā€ Christian religions, but (other than the back-room fighting and the participation in the final martyrdom) considers Foster to have fixed many of those problems. Indeed, two of the ā€œfeminineā€ ideal characters (Dawn and Patti) are Fosterites who embrace Mikeā€™s philosophy. Patti is the secondary character who interests me. RAH seems to have an interesting relationship with her. There are (semi) derogatory comments about her (the snake handling and the full body tattooing are both presented in ambiguous almost negative tones), but yet she is presented as one of the most open-minded people in the book and, in spite of having no children of her own, is presented as the ā€œideal motherā€ in Mikeā€™s harem (along with Jill/Dawn - the ā€œideal wifeā€). ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2013, 2:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-re-reading-all-of-robert-heinlein-via-the-virginia-edition/637729/565 "2013-09-23T14:13:54Z")
> [@Jonathan\_Chance](#): > > ā€¦but this is the Straight Dope, where contrarianism is a way of lifeā€¦ No, it isnā€™t! ---
**Author:** ![MarcusF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/67e7ee/32.png) [@MarcusF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MarcusF)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2013, 2:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-re-reading-all-of-robert-heinlein-via-the-virginia-edition/637729/566 "2013-09-23T14:46:47Z")
> [@Zakalwe](#): > > Not entirely. Heā€™s presented as being pretty damn sexist (granted that was not unusual for the time). > > One of the things I found interesting about the book is that itā€™s one of the few times that RAH presents religion as a good thing. The book is generally favorable to the Fosterite Church with [del]RAH[/del] Harshaw going on at some length about why it can be seen as positive. Heā€™s pretty harsh on the ā€œtraditionalā€ Christian religions, but (other than the back-room fighting and the participation in the final martyrdom) considers Foster to have fixed many of those problems. Indeed, two of the ā€œfeminineā€ ideal characters (Dawn and Patti) are Fosterites who embrace Mikeā€™s philosophy. Jubalā€™s view of the the Fosterites was positive???šŸ˜• Not the way I read it. Jubal recognises and respects Foster as an effective confidence trickster who gave the marks what they wanted. He has no respect for the Fosterite Church (or any other church) as a religion. > [@](#): > > Patti is the secondary character who interests me. RAH seems to have an interesting relationship with her. There are (semi) derogatory comments about her (the snake handling and the full body tattooing are both presented in ambiguous almost negative tones), but yet she is presented as one of the most open-minded people in the book and, in spite of having no children of her own, is presented as the ā€œideal motherā€ in Mikeā€™s harem (along with Jill/Dawn - the ā€œideal wifeā€). I donā€™t think the references to Pattiā€™s snakes or tattoos are derogatory - they are just Jubal recognising her particular psychological type - the very need to ā€œgiveā€ that makes the ā€œideal motherā€. ---
**Author:** ![MarcusF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/67e7ee/32.png) [@MarcusF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MarcusF)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2013, 2:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-re-reading-all-of-robert-heinlein-via-the-virginia-edition/637729/567 "2013-09-23T14:52:15Z")
> [@Amateur\_Barbarian](#): > > I am, actually, one work at a time and as the opportunities come up. But this is JCā€™s thread and I donā€™t want to tromp all over every sub-thread. Much of what I could add is also kind of esoteric and would mean little to an audience thatā€™s still got the basics of a work to kick around and think about. > > But I manage to find something to add to every work discussion and I can carry it as far as anyone wants to hear. šŸ˜ƒ Come on, donā€™t tease! State your case. If you donā€™t want to de-rail JCā€™s threat start your own. Plenty of electrons to go roundā€¦ ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2013, 4:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-re-reading-all-of-robert-heinlein-via-the-virginia-edition/637729/568 "2013-09-23T16:00:23Z")
> [@Jonathan\_Chance](#): > > Who would you consider literary? Clarke? Bradbury? Frankly, Bradbury has some of the best turns of phrase Iā€™ve ever read. The 60s were the Golden Age for me. Zelazny, Delany, Silverberg, Ellison, LeQuin, Lafferty, Brunner, Sturgeon, Aldiss, Moorcock, Disch, Russ, Wilhelm, Spinrad, Cordwainer Smith. Those are just off the top of my head so Iā€™m leaving some out. Clarke was never literary. Bradbury was the best stylist the field has ever seen, but his heyday was the 50s. You donā€™t have to tell me about Heinlein worship. I was at the 1976 Worldcon, were Heinlein was Guest of Honor and people vied to carry him on their shoulders so his feet would never have to touch the dust. That was also the one in which his GoH speech turned that worshiping crowd against him to loud boos. I stood on the sidelines both times and just gawked. Which I will continue to do here, since I have no idea of what ā€œFosteritesā€ might be. ---
**Author:** ![Amateur\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/59ef9b/32.png) [@Amateur\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Amateur_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2013, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-re-reading-all-of-robert-heinlein-via-the-virginia-edition/637729/569 "2013-09-23T16:04:56Z")
> [@MarcusF](#): > > Come on, donā€™t tease! State your case. If you donā€™t want to de-rail JCā€™s threat start your own. Plenty of electrons to go roundā€¦ Itā€™s not a matter of knowing one or two Things that Iā€™m hoarding - Iā€™ve written millions of words about Heinlein and his works, mostly online and over the last 30 years. What Iā€™ve learned is that every discussion finds its level - from noobs who have read a few books making their first discoveries beyond the works to grizzled elders in their second decade of feuding over splinter issues. The threads are best when they stay within a few sigmas of their audienceā€™s interest, and die when invaded by someone of a different level. This is a good thread, with a good engine and a good purpose, and I contribute things that occur to me that are relevant to each work and in line with the level of the discussion. (Occasionally, I slip into Snarky Grizzled Elder mode, as above, and itā€™s misunderstood.) Iā€™m too tired to start anything new, but I will say that I canā€™t resist any thread with ā€œHeinleinā€ in the title, even this wearyā€¦ šŸ˜ƒ ---
**Author:** ![Zakalwe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zakalwe/32/270_2.png) [@Zakalwe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zakalwe)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2013, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-re-reading-all-of-robert-heinlein-via-the-virginia-edition/637729/570 "2013-09-23T17:40:01Z")
> [@MarcusF](#): > > Jubalā€™s view of the the Fosterites was positive???šŸ˜• Not the way I read it. Jubal recognises and respects Foster as an effective confidence trickster who gave the marks what they wanted. He has no respect for the Fosterite Church (or any other church) as a religion. No, I thought when he was talking to ?Jill? prior to attending Mikeā€™s first service that he basically said that the church fulfilled a need for a lot of people and did so in a less harmful way. It basically gave people an excuse (or reason) to feel good about themselves and have fun and didnā€™t ask that much in return. I could be misremembering. Iā€™ll have to try to check the text tonight. > [@](#): > > I donā€™t think the references to Pattiā€™s snakes or tattoos are derogatory - they are just Jubal recognising her particular psychological type - the very need to ā€œgiveā€ that makes the ā€œideal motherā€. Again, could be me, but I read the comments as being ā€œpoor Patti, she canā€™t help it, but we love her anywayā€. It seemed to me that they (Jubal and Ben) saw them as a flaw. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2013, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-re-reading-all-of-robert-heinlein-via-the-virginia-edition/637729/571 "2013-09-23T18:08:16Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > I have no idea of what ā€œFosteritesā€ might be. Itā€™s been awhile, but Iā€™m assuming theyā€™re the Church of the New Revelation in SIASL. ---
**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:** [September 23, 2013, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-re-reading-all-of-robert-heinlein-via-the-virginia-edition/637729/572 "2013-09-23T18:16:41Z")
Wait, werenā€™t the Fosterites the cult that got their members to name the cult in their will and then murdered them? That hardly seemed like a positive depiction to me. Someone tells me when Iā€™m going to Heaven, Iā€™m calling the cops on them. ---
**Author:** ![CalMeacham](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/calmeacham/32/35_2.png) [@CalMeacham](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CalMeacham)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2013, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-re-reading-all-of-robert-heinlein-via-the-virginia-edition/637729/573 "2013-09-23T18:52:05Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > Wait, werenā€™t the Fosterites the cult that got their members to name the cult in their will and then murdered them? That hardly seemed like a positive depiction to me. Someone tells me when Iā€™m going to Heaven, Iā€™m calling the cops on them. ā€œYou donā€™t understand, Junior. Theyā€™ve got there own system up here. Sure, you can put in for an action against the ones who retired you, but Iā€™m telling you itā€™ll be turned down. You donā€™t know how the system works yet.ā€ ---
**Author:** ![Fenris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fenris/32/498_2.png) [@Fenris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fenris)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2013, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-re-reading-all-of-robert-heinlein-via-the-virginia-edition/637729/574 "2013-09-23T19:06:41Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > Stranger in a Strange Land is the only Heinlein book Iā€™ve started but found myself unable to finish. Maybe I ought to try again one of these times. If you do try it again, Iā€™d recommend the restored, post 1991 edition. IMO, it just flows better. ---
**Author:** ![Zakalwe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zakalwe/32/270_2.png) [@Zakalwe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zakalwe)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2013, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-re-reading-all-of-robert-heinlein-via-the-virginia-edition/637729/575 "2013-09-23T19:10:19Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > Wait, werenā€™t the Fosterites the cult that got their members to name the cult in their will and then murdered them? That hardly seemed like a positive depiction to me. Someone tells me when Iā€™m going to Heaven, Iā€™m calling the cops on them. They did have the ā€œcalled to Heavenā€ thing, but IIRC the callees agreed to it (even asked for it) and were happy about it. I would call it assisted suicide more than murder. ---
**Author:** ![CalMeacham](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/calmeacham/32/35_2.png) [@CalMeacham](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CalMeacham)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2013, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-re-reading-all-of-robert-heinlein-via-the-virginia-edition/637729/576 "2013-09-23T20:12:48Z")
> [@Zakalwe](#): > > No, I thought when he was talking to ?Jill? prior to attending Mikeā€™s first service that he basically said that the church fulfilled a need for a lot of people and did so in a less harmful way. It basically gave people an excuse (or reason) to feel good about themselves and have fun and didnā€™t ask that much in return. I could be misremembering. Iā€™ll have to try to check the text tonight. > > Again, could be me, but I read the comments as being ā€œpoor Patti, she canā€™t help it, but we love her anywayā€. It seemed to me that they (Jubal and Ben) saw them as a flaw. Jubal definitely wasnā€™t making derogatory comments about her tattoos ā€“ he speaks lovingly of his tattoed Japanese friend. I canā€™t think of anything Ben said that was at all derogatory. I think youā€™re reading your own feelings into this. ---
**Author:** ![Zakalwe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zakalwe/32/270_2.png) [@Zakalwe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zakalwe)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2013, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-re-reading-all-of-robert-heinlein-via-the-virginia-edition/637729/577 "2013-09-23T23:29:57Z")
> [@CalMeacham](#): > > Jubal definitely wasnā€™t making derogatory comments about her tattoos ā€“ he speaks lovingly of his tattoed Japanese friend. I canā€™t think of anything Ben said that was at all derogatory. I think youā€™re reading your own feelings into this. šŸ™‚ Not that you could know, but I have one tattoo and I already plans for another. Not to mention that I think tats are hot. So it ainā€™t that. But it may be an overly sensitive read of the text. ---
**Author:** ![Jonathan\_Chance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jonathan_chance/32/701_2.png) [@Jonathan\_Chance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jonathan_Chance)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2013, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-re-reading-all-of-robert-heinlein-via-the-virginia-edition/637729/578 "2013-10-05T20:40:04Z")
**Time for the Stars** Volume XIX of The Virginia Edition One of the juveniles Heinlein wrote for Scribners, _Time for the Stars_ was published in 1956 between Hugo winner _Double Star_ and _Citizen of the Galaxy_. Itā€™s easy to think of TFtS as one of the weaker juveniles caught between two pretty damn good novels. Time For the Stars postulates that identical twins - some of them - can communicate through telepathy and that this talent operates in excess - or outside - the speed of light limits that control space travel and interstellar communications. This allows Earth to send out slower-than-light ships that travel at relativistic speeds to report back to home in a timely manner. Well and good. The story then sends one of a pair of twins - Tom and Pat - out on their merry way. Thereā€™s some exploration and other planets and such. Interestingly, though, this really isnā€™t a story of interstellar travel and new worlds and such. Once the story leaves Earth it becomes almost claustrophobically ensconced within the ship Lewis & Clark. Almost every event of note occurs there and even the ones that donā€™t are generally seen from the ship. In the end, the story takes place largely inside of Tom Bartlettā€™s head. Itā€™s written in first person as he thinks about himself, his situation and his relationship with his world and the people around it. This is far more than a standard science fiction taleā€¦this is a personal growth story with some serious character study within it. Still, this one stands out from most of the juveniles in how the main character is portrayed. Tom is a twin - like a lot of characters are in this novel. What makes him special in Heinlein lore is that heā€™s a protagonist who is clearly a beta-male in his relationship with his twin, Pat. Not only that but he knows it. Thereā€™s a whole bit there in the beginning of the book where Tom complains that Pat is always the winner in their relationship. However, thereā€™s real character growth for Tom during the book. During his time on board the Lewis & Clark, Tom finds time to examine his own life and behavior and decides thereā€™s no reason for him to be such a passive actor in his life. Even his failures - not being able to win a girl, failing to save his Uncle Steve from aliens and so forth - have him learning and acting over time. Tom finds the time to both observe himself as well as others and to apply lessons from their own behavior to himself. Thereā€™s a lot to be said for that. It is clear - to me, at least - that _Time for the Stars_ is a book that shows Heinlein again chafing at the limitations placed on him by writing for the juvenile market. However, unlike the juvenile rebellion of ā€˜John Thomasesā€™ in The _Star Beast_ or hiding a black character in _Tunnel in the Sky_, in _Time For the Stars_ Heinlein simply wrote a different kind of book than heā€™d written in the past. One without much action, but with some science - Iā€™m unsure whether any novel previous had time dilation effects at such a front and center position - and a lot of introspection out of the main character. Itā€™s as if RAH is saying to his developing audience (presumably adolescent males) ā€˜Yes, enjoy yourself. Have adventures. But donā€™t let that stop you from thinking about who you are and what youā€™re doingā€™. Thatā€™s a worthwhile effort in and of itself. Buried as the basis of an apparently juvenile novel thatā€™s quite the good thing. Note: Iā€™ve been told in the past that Heinlein blew the science in terms of how relativity is handled here. I admit, I donā€™t understand how. Anyone who wishes to educate, please do so. Books Completed: Vol 1: I Will Fear No Evil Vol 3: Starship Troopers Vol 5: The Door Into Summer Vol 8: Stranger in a Strange Land Vol 9: How to Be a Politician Vol 10: Rocket Ship Galileo Vol 11: Space Cadet Vol 14: Between Planets Vol 17: The Star Beast Vol 18: Tunnel in the Sky Vol 19: Time For the Stars Vol 20: Citizen of the Galaxy Vol 22: The Future History of Robert Heinlein Vol. I Vol 23: The Future History of Robert Heinlein Vol. II Vol 24: Friday Vol 26: Job: A Comedy of Justice Vol 30: Sixth Column Vol 32: Creating a Genre (short stories) Vol 35: Glory Road Vol 36: The Puppet Masters Vol 44: Screen Writing of Robert A. Heinlein Vol. I Up next: Time Enough for Love - which Iā€™ll do in pieces. ---
**Author:** ![aNewLeaf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ac91a4/32.png) [@aNewLeaf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aNewLeaf)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2013, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-re-reading-all-of-robert-heinlein-via-the-virginia-edition/637729/579 "2013-10-05T21:10:07Z")
Cool write up. It was never one of my favorites but I read it several time. Iā€™ve heard the same thing about the science, and had the same bafflement. Telepathy is instantaneous according to the book. ---
**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:** [October 5, 2013, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-re-reading-all-of-robert-heinlein-via-the-virginia-edition/637729/580 "2013-10-05T22:23:52Z")
> [@](#): > > Note: Iā€™ve been told in the past that Heinlein blew the science in terms of how relativity is handled here. I admit, I donā€™t understand how. Anyone who wishes to educate, please do so. Since you probably heard that from me, Iā€™ll sum up. Relativity starts with the premise that there is no preferred reference frame. Everything else is built up from that. One of the specific results you can derive from that is the time dilation equations. What Heinlein did, was he took the time dilation equations, and used them to describe a world with a preferred reference frame, thus missing the entire point of them. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-re-reading-all-of-robert-heinlein-via-the-virginia-edition/637729.md?page=28) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-re-reading-all-of-robert-heinlein-via-the-virginia-edition/637729.md?page=30)