One of thousands, most of them at the same level of fan/critic.
There’s not much in book form. Ignore pretty much everything published before about 2000; there are scattered insights but all of it is grievously flawed in one way or another. Work of the last 15 years is mostly found in papers - look for anything by Bill Patterson, Robert James or Marie Ormes. Anything published by Patterson (journals encompassing many writers) is also high-quality work.
It’s more of a survey and bibliography than a critical work, but this is established as the foundational reference for Heinlein’s work.
What I said was that it has been argued, perhaps most prominently by Alexei Panshin in Heinlein in Dimension, that some of Heinlein’s works were about solipsism. I never said that it was a particularly good book. I never said that it was the only place that this argument had ever been made. I said that it was the most prominent place that this argument had been made. Heinlein in Dimension came out in 1968. Name me a more prominent place where this argument has been made. The fact that thousands of bloggers in recent years have made the argument doesn’t mean that they are more prominent.
In doing a search on Heinlein in Dimension, I came across this SDMB thread from eleven and a half years ago:
So apparently there is some big, lingering fight between Heinlein fans and Panshin fans. I knew nothing whatsoever about this. I have no particular feeling about either Heinlein or Panshin. I read the book a long time ago. I remembered the claim about solipsism in it because it struck me as interesting. I never claimed to be an expert on Heinlein. I never claimed to have read a huge amount of science fiction criticism. I never claimed to particularly be a fan of Panshin’s criticism. When I said that it’s been argued that some of Heinlein’s stories are about solipsism and that Panshin most prominently made that argument, that’s all I meant. I never meant to make any other claim about Heinlein or Panshin.
Regarding solipsism, it is certainly true that that’s a theme that shows up fairly often in Heinlein. In his first published novel “Beyond This Horizon” (serialized in 1942), after the main character recovers from a period of unconsciousness, he is confused about which person in the narrative he really is, and perceives his life as a game that he has set up to entertain himself. “They,” “The Unpleasant Profession of Jonathan Hoag,” “Job: A Comedy of Justice,” and other stories also work this theme.
You missed the biggest one of all: the whole Lazarus saga, whose absurdities can be analyzed in this respect from the last chapter of TEFL. You can also ring in the nonsensical last chapter of NOTB for an alternate interpretation.
But these four stories - They, Hoag, Zombies and Job - form a fairly coherent thread, explicitly so in the last book.
Heinlein was fascinated with the concept in real life/outside of fiction. It… explains a few things, IMVHO.
I’ve recently read both volumes of Patterson’s Heinlein Biography (a must read for anyone interested in the man, btw). Heinlein is depicted as a person with more than a few demons, along with many very admirable traits. One of his (minor) faults with me was that he was a bit into Woo. He thought parapsychology was real, he latched onto fads like general semantics, and, while he was not overtly religious in any organized sense, he was to some degree a bit of a mystic in a kind of hard-boiled, scientistic sense. Solipsism was certainly something he thought about and which influenced his work, but that’s just one of the many possibilities he entertained, including the possibility that we’re just animals and will be gone when we’re dead.
That said, I don’t know that - All You Zombies - is necessarily solipsistic. I always felt it was a little more simple than that - a straightforward story about the logical consequences of time travel. You can create weird loops that exist forever. You can make multiple copies of yourself. It becomes a weird, contradictory universe. When the protagonist asks where all those zombies came from, he’s speaking specifically about the other copies of himself, not all the other people in that universe.
However, it’s perfectly reasonable to interpret it as a solipsistic story. And it would be consistent with Heinlein’s other work.
That’s not my interpretation of the sentence “I know where I come from, but where do all you zombies come from?” I interpret it as meaning that he/she understands his/her own existence. He/she is his/her own mother and father, and he/she knows how he/she created himself/herself using time travel. There is now a completely self-consistent story for his/her existence. What he/she wonders about is all those other people. That’s what makes this a great story. Time travel, loops in time, sex changes, and a person being their own mother and father aren’t enough in themselves. It’s the way it’s all put together that makes it great.
Heinlein thought it was, and says so, plainly, in correspondence. That doesn’t close the door to deeper interpretation and looking at it in light of a larger view of Heinlein’s thoughts and influences, but in his mind it was filed under S-for-. Time travel, sex change, etc. is just window dressing.
“I took a headache powder [note: archaic in 1963] once and you all went away.”
I don’t think there’s any question that the viewpoint character has good reason to think others are shadows, zombies, figments of his/her imagination. He’s not wondering what their lives are; he’s wondering where their nonexistence stems from.
Given that it’s made out of Australia instead of Hollywood, I’m tentatively hopeful.
I kinda enjoyed the first half of “The Puppet Masters”. That’s the part that attempted to follow the book, before the scriptwriters were fired and replaced, then later rehired and had to compete against some other movies that had tread the same territory. I think “Body Snatchers”, IIRC.
Glad to hear it - thanks for the brief review! Now I’m even more interested.
I will confess I kinda liked The Puppet Masters. As with Will Smith’s I, Robot, it had very little in common with the much-better book which inspired it, but it still worked as a sf action/adventure.
Loved it.
Haven’t read the short story for maybe 3 decades or more and didn’t know the film was based on it, so was delighted to realise this early on. Cannot remember enough of the story to know if it deviates by much.
Really really liked the kind of 50’s film noir with space travel look to a lot of it, and also the casual appalling sexism - women can’t be astronauts (because they are women) but they can do a 2 years stint as prostitutes in space if they are fit, attractive, and smart enough, with a guarantee of marrying a good husband afterwards - what an opportunity!
Sarah Snook was fucking AWESOME.
I saw a download of the movie but I enjoyed it so much I’m buying the DVD as soon as it’s available.
mozchron, TPWombat, where do you live and how did you see Predestination? Here’s a list of the places where it’s opened:
Now, presumably you didn’t see it in a movie theater in Australia, New Zealand, Vietnam, or Thailand, since it opened there more than a month ago and presumably isn’t still playing there. Presumably you didn’t see it at one of the seven film festivals it’s showed at either, since those were at least a month ago. So that leaves . . . um, seeing it on DVD in Hungary? Really, how could you have seen it in the past couple of days? I mean this question sincerely. What’s going on that allows you to see it?
Saw this movie and liked it except for the impossibility of the plot thing. John could not have dropped baby Joan off at the orphanage to kick things off unless John existed independently of Joan. John could not exist independently of Joan because they are the same person.
John could not have impregnated older Joan because John couldn’t exist without Joan’s existence which would not be possible without John which would not be possible without Joan ad infinitum.
Other than that it was a pretty good - if somewhat slow moving - movie.
Of course I read that sentence. The question is how could a film be available for download before it’s released. The IMDb webpage of the distribution of this film says that it’s only been released in theaters in four countries, in DVD in one other country, and at seven film festivals. Are you claiming that movies are released months (or years or whatever) for download before they are released in theaters? Are you claiming that any film I see in a theater on the day it’s released has already been watched by millions of people by downloading it?
Incidentally, the “impossibility of the plot thing” that you mention is the whole point of the original story and the whole point of the movie. If that (admittedly impossible) ideas wasn’t there, there would be no story. Read the story if you get a chance.
While I personally have never, and would never, pirate a movie or anything else, I’m told that often copies are available for download well in advance of general release. I’ve even heard of some things called “screeners” or some such that are advance copies meant for dissemination only to critics, distributors, awards etc finding their way into public hands. This is of course all 2nd hand.
I realize that without that impossibility happening there is no story. I also realize that suspension of disbelief depends upon internal cohesion - this film lacks that. The story may not have the same faults.
And Before Sunset, Before Sunrise, Daybreakers (also directed by the Spierig Brothers) Waking Life, Training Day, Before The Devil Knows You’re Dead, and Chelsea Walls, among others?
Hawke looks very likely to get an Oscar nomination. Predestination gets a limited release in the US on January 15, 2015. Coincidentally (or not), the nominations are announced that same day. I can see the ads now.
Zeke N. Destroi, as far as I can tell, the story and the movie have the same “impossibility of the plot thing.” It’s the whole point of both the story and the movie, and it’s why the story is one of the greatest science fiction stories of all time. That time-travel idea where everything is neatly wrapped in one character is why the story works at all.
I agree, Equipoise, that Ethan Hawke is an underrated actor.
So we’re getting some comments from people who’ve seen a pirated copy of the film, I guess.
I guess I’ll have to track down a copy of the story - though I’m loath since I’ve become completely disenchanted with Heinlein save for a select few of his books.
I don’t see how a story predicated upon something that is impossible under its own rules could qualify as one of the best sci-fi stories ever - but I’m open to the possibility.
Add my voice to the chorus of Hawke is underrated.