Indeed, my first reaction, after reading the expanded text in 1991 was ‘so?’. There just wasn’t enough changed to make the extra effort worth it. That and it’s not quite as tight as the original release.
This has always been one of my favorite of RAH’s books, but not for the usual reasons. I love the secondary characters: Becky, the crew that “rescued” Mike, the Fosterite escort and the description of how the back of the altar turns into the world’s largest 3-D set for football after the services…all of them are just perfect. That and Jubal is such a perfect curmudgeon.
I just finished reading Heinlein’s account of a round the world trip he made in the 1950’s-sorry, forgot the title. very entertaining-read his chapter about new Zealand hotels and “restaurants”-hilarious!
Tramp Royale
One of two for me. The second time I tried reading it I got as far as the second chapter.
At least with Job I made it about two-thirds of the way through the book…
I just peeked at the uncut version - Caxton turns away from Jill and Mike for second, and when he turns back they’re naked and about to have sex, “like monkey’s in a zoo,” in front of a room full of people including Ben. Ben departs, “so shocked I almost lost my breakfast.”
I don’t have the original text at hand, and it’s been many years, but my recollection is it was far less clear why Ben flipped and ran. I first read the book in my teens, and found that passage confusing as hell.
Thanks for checking…
I’ve got SiaSL on audiobook, and one of the things that struck me on listening to it rather than hearing it is a bit of chiasmus I’d missed when I read it in print (more than once).
When Michael is at Jubal’s house, early on, Jill says something about having to get him dressed, and Jubal retaliates by asking why, saying that they shouldn’t warp him by our social norms. “next you’ll be having him carry a briefcase”.
At the end, as Mike prepares to go out and meet the Mob for the final time, he takes his time getting very properly dressed in a white suit, all the way down to a Panama hat. He certainly has learned the social norms, and adheres to them – when he wants to. He asks “Do I need anything else?” and someone suggests a briefcase. He asks if he needs a briefcase. He is told that he doesn’t
The two mentions of dressing to satisfy society’s expectations and being told he doesn’t need the briefcase bracket his Miracle Man career. It first occurs just before he demonstrates his levitation and other skills to Jubal, the last after he has demonstrated again, but before he conspicuously doesn’t use them (except perhaps for some stage-setting) before he is killed. An interesting bit of opening and closing from a writer who claimed he didn’t plan things out.
I read SIASL in high school and just didn’t take to it. Finished it, and liked the bits about ancient Martian culture and religion’s role in modern society, but it’s nowhere the top of my personal Heinlein-favorites list. It wasn’t too long afterwards that Nancy Reagan’s use of an astrologer for scheduling some of her husband’s political activities thrust the book back into the public eye, as the president of the North American Confederacy (or whatever the polity was) in the book did the same.
You see, I would value those contributions, Xap. We’ve certainly discussed such things in the past and I think your knowledge and opinions would be much valued here.
So don’t be shy. The thread could use you.
Yes, I thought about making the Batman comparison. It’s possible for Batman/The Green Hornet/The Shadow to do all that cool stuff…provided he has the crutch of unlimited wealth to support his hobby.
Still, I avoided do so to avoid the whole ‘dirty hippy’ sidetrack in my initial discussion. In the end, it’s a book, and not a guideline to a lifestyle any more than any reader should believe they can conquer their panic by reciting ‘I will not fear, fear is the mindkiller…’
Still, that’s twice you’ve hinted that you have more to say and have failed to say it. Spit it out, man.
And, AB, I’d like to take you to task a bit.
This is, if I recall correctly, the second time you’ve tried to classify a Heinlein reader by some sort of ‘code’ or cladistic system. A few minutes searching the web did not find any links to such a system, though it’s possible I missed it. It is, at a minimum, rude to do so and can potentially turn off very worthwhile contributions from other posters. Xap certainly has a great deal that he can contribute to any discussion of science fiction and the authors and book thereof. His is one of the opinions that I would take seriously.
Thank you for the support, but I wouldn’t enjoy the experience. My outdated memories wouldn’t be reliable and I refuse to reread the stories for pleasure. I’ve had to reread some for various odd reasons and they mostly infuriate me. I did read everything of his up until the mid-1970s when I stopped cold turkey so I can say I came to my opinions honestly.
Stranger was the turning point, or perhaps it’s more accurate to say that college was. I had a terrible high school English program. Once I started reading literature, including the portion of science fiction that was actual literature, there was no turning back. I understand the historical importance of Heinlein (or Asimov or Doc Smith or whoever), though, and I pay attention to people who can approach them at the proper level.
I have a ton of snappy comebacks to AB, but instead I’ll just say that it never occurred to me that Heinlein had all the answers. He’s probably thinking of Vonnegut: we were all Bokononists once. 
Well, I never was. Vonneguts a brilliant writer, but never entirely clicked with me. Perhaps I’m more gourmand than gourmet.
Who would you consider literary? Clarke? Bradbury? Frankly, Bradbury has some of the best turns of phrase I’ve ever read.
Umm… well. Okay.
There is no official taxonomy of Heinlein reader, no.*
It’s a joke, a bit of meta-humor from other continua where the participants have seen the same cycle of comments and participation style a number of times. Kind of like “Cecil’s Rule Number 47 of Online Posting” or, much older, “The Fifth Rule.”
A Heinlein discussion rarely has to go very long before someone pops in to say some form of “I was crazy about RAH, but then _________ and I burned all his books in a pile while dancing around them and chanting.” I am always fascinated by the things that fill in that blank. And the range of people who say this goes from teenaged dweebs to some very well-established literary figures.
I threw it at Exapno because I figured he’d get the joke; from reading his posts the last year or so I’ve become convinced that if we don’t actually know each other in real life, we’re close - we have a long list of named mutual acquaintances and interests.
BTW, Xap, I don’t see a lot of kneepadding, here, and I have see whole stadia full of prostrated believers. If the tone of the discussion is too… positive, then throw in your observations, even if they are rusty. You’re right in that most discussions of Heinlein tend towards the admiring and could use some salt; if you review my comments in this long thread you’ll find that most tend towards the salty and not the saccharine - and I am very much holding back because this is a fairly casual discussion that would not take a more unvarnished viewpoint very kindly… as witness the reaction to a mild bit of funning that wouldn’t have attracted notice in a dedicated RAH stream. So do comment on what you see comment-worthy, even if it’s contrarian as all hell.
As long as you don’t barge in as a Class 5 Heinlein Reader, that is… but I’ll stop there. 
- I think one group started working one up, once, but it would be long-lost by now.
SIASL is famously the one book Heinlein spent decades planning and writing, with great deliberation. Which puts it in a category of three works, the other two of which are weak candidates. Stranger does not compare with anything else in Heinlein’s body of work, in any way past being written in English. It’s different because he completely intended for it to be different.
Er, no. I meant only that bringing this point up too early could undercut other discussion, a bit like making a stage magician do his act without any curtains.
Most of the thread participants are fans, but I don’t think there’s anything unrealistic in the general tone. Comments about Farnham’s Freehold and *Friday *upthread pretty much illustrate what I mean.
We respect his work but it’s not all great. Same situation with the works of say, Shakespeare, some are better than others. I’m not comparing Heinlein to Shakespeare! Just that they each have a body of work.)
I use the Litany Against Fear in real life when needed. You don’t??
Nah, I just tell myself not to be a punk-ass and move on. I suppose one could consider that in a similar vein, though.
Again, hell, AB, toss it out there. No sense holding back. You may be thinking of prior Heinlein-focused discussions but this is the Straight Dope, where contrarianism is a way of life. Toss out some revealed wisdom and see if it gets ripped to shreds here.
^^^agreed, lay the Straight Dope on us!