Which Robert Heinlein Books Are The Best?

Cafe Society
61

I really liked Time for the Stars. I found it quite moving in parts - both the way in which the one brother dominated the other, and how the passage of time on Earth affected the relationships of the two.

I think it’s disliked to a certain degree by some because it’s one of the few Heinlein novels that doesn’t get the physics quite right - I don’t think Heinlein ever quite got his head around some of the nuances of relativity.

But other than that, I’m not sure what the deal is, because it’s a perfectly fine Heinlein juvenile that can stand with the rest of them.

62

I’m a lover of (some) science fiction, but am woefully science-ignorant: an author could feed to me stuff which was scientifically ludicrously wrong, and I wouldn’t know from nothing. It’s basically the overall flights of fancy, and the human dynamics, that I enjoy in sci-fi. Am glad, anyway, that Time For The Stars has some champions.

63

That’s an interesting question in and of itself – is it easier for those of us relatively unencumbered by a great deal of scientific knowledge to enjoy certain science fiction than it is for the more knowledgeable folks?

64

I don’t think first-rate storytelling depends on a factual basis. Whether it’s the most prosaic life-in-Manhattan-June-2013 story or the wildest Vonnegut fantasia, a good story is a good story.

I think “playing by the rules” is essential, though, whether the author chooses common, factual rules or makes up his own. Authors that just make up irrelevant stuff to fill a gap will never write a first-class story. Heinlein did better than most on this count, most of the time, even with his straight-out fantasies.

If you’re going to hate, say, “All You Zombies” because your knowledge of physics precludes time travel, so be it. But don’t blame the writer.

65

Red Wiggler writes: “That’s an interesting question in and of itself – is it easier for those of us relatively unencumbered by a great deal of scientific knowledge to enjoy certain science fiction than it is for the more knowledgeable folks?”

I’d feel that for the scientifically erudite, a lot depends on the famous and oft-quoted capacity for the “willing suspension of disbelief”. People are variously-and-assortedly better or worse at that manoeuvre, and it depends IMO on the way you happen to be made or “wired”.

66

That’s it for me. I can get past the bad relativity in Citizen of the Galaxy or Methuselah’s Children, because in both of those, the relativistic bits are basically incidental to the plot. In Time for the Stars, though, the relativity is front-and-center, and so it’s jarring when he again gets it wrong.

67

Can someone explain what wasn’t “quite right” about the physics of TFTS?

68

He had the correct formulas. However, absolutely everything about the application of those formulas was twisted beyond recognition. Basically, he so deeply misunderstood relativity that he used the formulas associated with it to come to conclusions that are exactly opposite of the very fundamental principles from which those formulas are derived.

69

What I enjoyed most about that book is the literary picture of life in the American rural Midwest in the late 19th and early 20th Centuries. Heinlein’s nostalgia for his own childhood, no doubt.

70

Probably depends on where the story falls on the Mohs Scale of Science Fiction Hardness.

71

I, too, will feed the zombie.
I think these are this best:
The Moon is a Harsh Mistress
Double Star
Glory Road
The Past Through Tomorrow
The Unpleasant Profession of Johnathon Hoag
Of the juveniles I think: Tunnel in the Sky, Farmer in the Sky, Citizen of the Galaxy, The Rolling Stones, and *The Star Beast *are the best. I also like Space Cadet, Between Planets, and *Have Space Suit – Will Travel *quite a bit.
*Starship Troopers *is pretty good and it’s rare that a novel is still controversial 50 years after publican. *The Puppet Masters *is decent and has one of the best lead paragraphs ever written.
The first half of *Orphans of the Sky *is “Universe,” a Science Fiction Hall of Fame novella. It’s well worth reading.
“Waldo” sucks canal water, but “Magic, Inc.” is pretty entertaining.
*Assignment in Eternity *contains “Lost Legacy,” which is his take on Atlantis and a pretty good fantasy, and “Jerry Was a Man,” which is a hoot

72

I’d say it’s Heinlein’s best, and certainly one of the best SF novels ever.

But I gotta admit that as I grow older and crankier (who, me? ;)), his botch of basic probability in The Moon is a Harsh Mistress bothers me more and more.

They start off with a one-in-seven chance of pulling off The Revolution, but the odds against them get steadily steeper for no apparent reason. Heinlein’s explanation, through Mike, is that the fact that they’re taking necessary risks doesn’t change the fact that they’re risks.

Nice, but: either those risks were baked in from the beginning, in which case the fact that they’re about to roll the dice in a way they would have expected to have to do, even if all went well, which shouldn’t change the current odds against them; or they’re having to take additional risks due to things having gone wrong along the way, which should have been reflected in the plot.

But the only thing that goes badly for them between the time Manny, Mike, Prof, and Wyoh declare the Revolution, and the time Manny, Prof, and Stu go to Earth is their failure in finding Earthside contacts, which their friendship with Stu rectifies.

But instead of the odds having been somewhat shorter than 6-1 against (another gripe: Heinlein has his characters use “one in seven” and “seven to one” interchangeably) at the point where they’re readying their trip to Earth, which would have made sense, they’re over 100-1 against. This of course makes no sense at all, probabilistically speaking.

And this is from a guy who famously said, “Anyone who cannot cope with mathematics is not fully human. At best, he is a tolerable subhuman who has learned to wear his shoes, bathe, and not make messes in the house.”

Oops.

73

My libertarian friends kept telling me I needed to read ScFi books by Robert Heinlein. “Start with The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress. You’ll love it!”

So I bought The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress and started reading it. God, how awful. The author spends *way *too much time explaining technical crap and ignores the story. I made it half way through the book and gave up on it.

Guess I’m just not a Heinlein fan. :stuck_out_tongue:

74

Yeah, the probability thing in Mistress bothers me, too. I can only really give it one of two different fanwanks:

1: The original calculation had baked into it a chance of a miracle happening, some sort of sudden unexpected event which would greatly improve the Loonies’ situation. The longer they went without seeing such a miracle, the less likely it was to happen. On the other hand, though, it should also have baked in the chance of bad miracles, and every day that goes by without one of those is a good thing.

2: Mike was lying to the others, to motivate them. He knew enough human psychology to figure that they’d try harder once they became 100-to-1 underdogs than they would if they knew the true odds. Still annoying that none of the intelligent characters called him on it, though-- Maybe Prof was in cahoots in tricking Manny that way, but Manny was no slouch on mathematics, either.

75

I was bored by The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress. A reaction which I ascribe to Heinlein having been fascinated by politics and politicking, which I am not.

76

Time For the Stars didn’t grab me. I don’t know why. It’s a perfectly fine story, but somehow lacks flavor.
Maybe because the lead is a telepath, and not the everyboy more common to the other juveniles. I can relate to being Kip Russel, but not a telepathic twin.

77

That one is a tough read. I finished it but I’m looking forward to re-reading it at some point. I read Heinlein’s books all out of order and missed a few “important” ones, so I think that it will be more enjoyable the second time around after I’ve filled in the gaps.

I’m sorry to hear that. It really is one of his best books. Maybe you’ll give it a chance again some day.
I had trouble reading “Time Enough for Love”. I started it probably six or so times and kept losing interest in the first chapter or two. Eventually, I pushed through and it clicked. I couldn’t put it down and I read it straight through. I actually cried at one point while reading it, which is something that’s never happened to me before while reading a book.

78

During the Tale of the Adopted Daughter, I assume. That book is like a very small painting set in a very wide and ornate frame… But the painting is a masterpiece.

And I’ve heard it posited (by Fenris, I think) that Number of the Beast was written deliberately bad, as an object example of all of the things not to do when writing.

79

When she died a part of me died. I stopped wanting to live forever.

80

*Time Enough For Love *is my favorite because the “Tale of the Adopted Daughter” does take a little time to try and explain what a thousand year old person would have to go through with relationships, again and again.

When Dora hears the geese over the house as she is dying, it brings a tear to my eye each time.