I’m pretty sure–I’m rereading Job now (very, very early into it. Alex has just firewalked)…I’ll try to skip ahead, but I’m about 90% certain that Jerry’s world mentions Friday’s beanstalk.
Taken as a character study, …Sunset is actually quite good. As science fiction it sucks donkey balls.
It’s a nice capstone to the Future History series, IMO, and it’s fun to see some of the more famous Future History events from Maureen’s POV. (Although the bit where he wedged Lazarus into “The Man Who Sold The Moon” was just…sad.)
Could be. In other discussions I have found that my once-eidetic recall of the material is faring… poorly.
Huh. Cuz it ain’t got enough ray guns and rocketships?
Whatever faults it has, judging it as bad sf isn’t one of them. IMHO. Now…
…completely rewriting the FH, including moving Harriman’s moon shot back another full decade to trump Apollo… that’s a flaw.
Wait–what???
I thought LaCroix’s flight was always in the '50s.
Now I gotta go look at the timeline, dammit!
Well, there are five of them plus some minor variants. The story was written in 1950, virtually the last piece of the original Future History. (Its real capstone, by some ways of looking at it.)
In the original published timeline the Harriman flight was around 1976. It disappears from later editions. Then Sunset moves it back to 1966.
Wasn’t the “The Roads Must Roll” strike in 1976 and “Man Who Sold The Moon” two stories later with “Blowups Happen” between the two? If so–realistically, “Moon” had to be originally set in the late 80s to give some time after “Blowups Happen”
You’re conflating two or three versions of the FH chart, as is the author of the link you provided. It’s easy to do since not all who have written about the FH are aware of the many changes, and various late editions have chosen an insert chart at random.
The strike was originally in 1960, later moved forward to 1976.
I am not sure there is any one, completely consistent timeline even if the dates are allowed to slide forward and back. No matter where you date things on any version, there are anomalies and gaps.
ETA: Like the little inconsistency of my quoting you before you edited your comment. 
He ties it all in with his silly-ass “World As Myth” booshwa, which makes it Bad SF. IMHO. 
This should help in sorting out the inconsistencies: The FH Chart History
Mmm. I’ll reserve judgment except to say that I think Bill Patterson has made a convincing argument that Heinlein’s body of work ties together far earlier than the first appearance of WAM, and that he had at least some intention of it doing so from the very beginning. Cabell was a very, very significant influence on RAH before he started writing seriously.
Whether a reader *likes *any particular phase of RAH’s writing is for reasons other than “Heinlein changed.” When you look past the most superficial levels, Heinlein did not change very much - not in ability, interests, or social, sexual or political viewpoints. The venues changed; the world changed; the audience changed. Heinlein was a rock amidst all that, for good or bad.
I knew there were two versions (or three) of the chart–but I wasn’t aware that there were five of them.
The link I removed (you responded before my edit was completed 
) is here
And looking at it, as far as I’m concerned, it’s not a “valid” chart. Whether Heinlein (or whoever) liked it or not, if “Let There Be Light” isn’t part of the timeline, the timeline is incorrect. There’s too many mentions of the Douglas-Martin sunstones later on for that story to be excised. 
That’s the fifth version, modified to fit the peculiarities of TPTT as Damon Knight thought it should be. It’s also the one used in most reprints from 1967 on.
There’s probably room to do a fully “corrected” and annotated version of the chart but I never got to it.
Doth I detect a publishing opportunity, AB? The SDMB Heinlein Aficionados take on the Master? 
Anyway, I don’t have much problem with rewriting the timeline as RAH did. He knew going in that time would obsolete him. Therefore rewriting it to suit his needs is an expected result. It’s not like we don’t all know that fans are less willing to accept changes to canon as authors are to cause them.
Hell, the way Arthur C. Clarke changed and refitted the 2001 timeline was great and he publically stated that he was doing it for his own convenience in storytelling. More power to him!
A more complicated question than appears at first. It would be worthwhile compare/contrasting female/feminist characters in Heinlein body of work. The important thing is to look for characters who take charge of their own lives.
I haven’t done ‘The Star Beast’ yet, but it will be an interesting contrast between John Thomas Stuart XI - a very passive and basically ineffectual character - and his girlfriend Betty - who is anything but passive. That’s a woman who knows how to define her goals and works to achieve them.
Yes, but all of them sold their Heroine-ism for a pot of marriage, or planned to. All of them planned to make a right-angle change in life plans to accommodate a Mah-yun.
Can’t think of any men who put their redheaded wives first and their own Hero path second.
Star Beast is an interesting problem; you have to strongly consider that John Thomas giggle giggle isn’t the protagonist or of very much importance at all. It all makes more sense to consider him a literary maguffin.
Indeed, though I think there’s an argument to be made that Maureen didn’t do that. She lived her live through the 20th century becoming MORE actualized and self-reliant as she aged, regardless of the men in her life.
In any event, Hit Girl would just kill them all if they irritated her.
I’ll tell you to get the JT giggles out of your system when I get to it. I know it’s out there waiting to happen. But yes, there’s a strange narrative and character structure to the Star Beast in terms of who the damn story is actually about. JT? Lummox? Kiku? Tough call.
Morgan Freeman as Mr Kiku, plz.
After expending more than a normal lifespan as a housewife and mother. One thing I see distort a lot of Heinlein commentary is a failure to acknowledge and account for the multiple-normal-lives of Howards. “Yes, but a thousand years later he…” and so forth. Cheating. At best you have to regard them as linearly descended characters.
I have a fairly radical notion about the “protagonist” that I’ve developed in recent idle years. I’ll share it if you like, or I can wait until you’ve had your swing at it. Hint? “None of the Above.”
And I will NEVER stop giggling. Heinlein’s finest jest in a long list of them.
Yep. Right up there with Frank Cho (cartoonist of Liberty Meadows fame) when he had a beaver pick a fight with a bear and the bear yelled (in a newspaper!), “I’ve never met a beaver I couldn’t lick!”
Oy.
But yeah, tell you what, I’ve just started NWTC. I’ll abandon that and hit The Star Beast. It’s a quick read. And we’ll kick that around next.
Gotta beat slogging through Waldo again.