Again, old and possibly incorrect memories, but children barely exist in Heinlein's stories and the ones that do are generally either set-dressing or wise-beyond-their-years types for whom age is just a number (thinking of Lapis Lazuli and Lorelei Lee, the two "slippery teens" in Time Enough for Love who independently determined that oral sex was just another kind of kissing and thus no big deal). I didn't know that Virginia Heinlein was part of the free love phase. Somehow I'd always thought she was him growing out of those youthful urges. He reminded me of the famous author in Somerset Maugham's Cakes and Ale, who is presented as a staid Literary Person Of Note and gradually revealed to have been a wild freethinker and free lover in his youth.
Excellent research work @Xoic , this really gives a solid ground for me to understand where Heinlein is coming from. So that's a solid set of reasons for the why here. He is clearly projecting his own philosophies based on this quick research. I mean, I completely disagree with it on so many different grounds as a philosophy, but that's besides the point. Heinlein wanted to lay it all out here for the reader to understand, and argue his views.. That does somewhat make sense why we never see the God figure, and why all religions seem to be real in their own afterlives. Everything leads back to Heinlein, and the novel itself is more of a generated window for the reader to grasp his process. I hate it, but I can respect that. Good stance on the science fiction subject. I agree, there are more than enough elements of science fiction present to clearly place it there, but I do feel that it is more philosophical in nature. It utilized the science fiction as a seemingly more accessible vehicle to state Heinlein's views of humanity and government, allowing for societal overhaul in an explicable method. But science fiction is probably the best place for it to go, as someone searching for philosophy novels in the appropriate library section doesn't seem likely to pick up something based so much in the speculative realm. Agreed. I felt the same tone towards women in a number of novels to come out of the genre during the time. I remember getting highly irritated with Larry Niven for it, and almost put down the book for good. I'm wondering if listening to the audiobook would have been the better course for me. Jubal's explanations and speeches may have had a bit more life to them if they were spoken rather than read. Possibly I mentally put together the sound in a different tone, and having listened to it would have been more engaged. I may pull up some sections I did particularly enjoy and try to listen to them if I get the chance just for the audible change. After @Xoic 's history post on Heinlein, I'm not so sure. Comical, yes, as I think Heinlein enjoyed displaying a sense of wit through Jubal. But I'm not so sure on the satirical. Maybe in regards to the various venues of worship. I found it highly irritating mainly from it's suddenness. It drove me nuts to suddenly skip over from one train of thought being presented, sometimes not completed, and then an immediate dive to another. The omniscient third-person needs a few Adderall to tone it down, at least in my opinion. There was quite a bit of it I enjoyed as well. It certainly isn't my favorite Heinlein, as your next one up is, but it isn't completely terrible. As @Not the Territory talked about, once I knew what it was doing and where it was going, then I hated it. I was in the mood for a solid Heinlein science fiction novel on more of an adventurous par, not almost entirely philosophical. As a change of pace from the thematic elements of the story, what did you find most effective as a story-telling element here, and what did you find least effective. This could be in the sense of characterization, use of setting, tone, voice, diction, and so on. I heard @Not the Territory mention the world-building as excellent, though it only appeared every-so-often. Were these minor injection of world-building enough to sustain effectively? They also mentioned that the pacing was non-existent, at least in the version they read. It did have a sort of accordion effect I thought, getting bogged down at times in the philosophy, and ramping up quickly sometimes, as with section four (at least for me). Anyone else's thoughts here?
A warning to anyone who’s a Heinlein fan and/or doesn't want to see his dark side (and it’s very dark)—stop here. Seriously don’t read the rest of this. Spoiler The first part is from the same article I quoted previously: From Robert Heinlein Biography Is a Hagiography by William Patterson "Taken together, Heinlein’s books in his right-wing phase hardly add up to a logical worldview. How do we reconcile the savage authoritarianism of Starship Troopers with the peace-and-love mysticism of Stranger in a Strange Land? For that matter, how do those two books jibe to the nearly anarchist libertarianism of the Moon Is a Harsh Mistress? On a more practical plain, how could Heinlein have called for both limited government and a NASA committed to colonizing space (surely a big government program if there ever was one)? TANSTAAFL* went out the window when a space or military program caught Heinlein’s fancy. But all these books share one trait: They ignore the consequences of people's actions. Starship Troopers gives us war without PTSD and guilt over slaughter (the aliens are Bugs, so can be exterminated without remorse) just as Stranger in a Strange Land is a vision of sex without strings ("grokking" means never having to say sorry). In other books, Heinlein gave us incest without trauma." * “There ain’t no such thing as a free lunch”—a phrase he popularized As I said in my previous post, I think this is largely (but not entirely) explained by his solipsism. If the entire universe and everyone in it is an extension of his own all-powerful mind, then he's free to do what he wants, morality and consistency be damned. But I think there’s one more factor needed to fully explain it, and this next excerpt explains quite clearly what that is. From Heinlein Happens by Earl Kemp "In 1953 I became president of the University of Chicago Science Fiction Club and was completely involved with science fiction power politics at the time. This made me ostensibly the leader of the Chicago faction and, as such, always required to be on my best behavior especially as far as any visiting firemen were concerned. Heinlein qualified as a visiting fireman. I never felt free to deal with him in any manner I felt would be the least bit appropriate. It was essential that Heinlein (and all other significant science fiction people) appear to be a friend of Chicago fandom at all costs, and his costs were exceedingly high. I became aware then of the League of the Disremembered, the large, continuously growing number of people Heinlein had simply stopped remembering for causes more often than not totally unknown. Many of them told me privately and secretly to “be on my guard.” Forrie Ackerman was one of them, one of the disremembered and one of the people who tried to warn me about Heinlein’s habits. Forrie was also a long-time friend who proved his mettle to me on more than one occasion when Forrie stood alone at my side against unreasonable adversity. He tried to tell me in a nice way that Heinlein was a snake in the grass just waiting to strike. I told him that Heinlein had always been gracious and friendly with me (I wasn’t able to face the truth myself at that time), and Forrie told me to take special note of when and why it would happen to me, and he said that it would happen to me, and he was right. Forrie had been disremembered for some obscure “moral” reason many years earlier, but numerous decades had already passed without Heinlein once remembering him." "Heinlein had to be praised at all times. He would arrive in Chicago without prior notice, phone me with an order loosely translated as, “I have arrived; bring acolytes and worship me in my ordained manner.” He had this really peculiar tangentialness about himself as if he deliberately tried to set himself apart from all others. This was evident in his unusual choice of clothing (sitting around in silk pajamas and dressing robes), and in his imperial manner (never allowing anyone to sit higher than himself). He also paid fawning attention to females (with a sneer and a wink; they terrified him), and absolutely never ever permitted himself to hear a negative word associated with himself.” I’ll paraphrase a few more important bits—Heinlein had a habit of always winning Hugo awards, and of always showing up exactly at the moment the award was being given. He was actually hiding in another room each time, in a black-and-white tuxedo, and would wait until just the right amount of time had elapsed after his name was called, then he’d burst in as if only just arriving and all out of breath. In each instance, he had beforehand demanded that a spotlight pick him out and follow him up to the stage. And he always put on quite a spectacular show on the way. There was a good bit of rigamarole when he and Hugh Hefner both showed up to a convention. Both had endless demands about special treatment, and both wore silk pajamas and a robe and wanted spotlights. At the same convention was also millionaire H L Hunt. The 3 Big H’s. It honestly sounded like 3 divas vying for all the attention in the room and throwing temper tantrums if they couldn’t get it. This sounds suspiciously like Narcissistic Personality Disorder to me, and that’s a condition I'm quite familiar with. Narcissists believe the people close to them are extensions of themselves and so can be treated however they like. Anyone outside of that charmed circle is unreal or utterly unimportant, except for the ones they hate (who either got more attention, stood up to them, or saw through their facade)—those are the equivalent of monsters (or maybe Bugs)? Bad People, who can and should be disposed of with no remorse or guilt. Narcissists also engage very strongly in magical thinking—they believe if they wish hard enough special things will happen for them. Things like telekinesis, levitation, or simply the ability to make people they don't like disappear. Also, it strikes me that being Disremembered is a lot like being Disappeared. I’d say it’s the version that can be gotten away with in the real world without serious repercussions if you fall on the bad side of the narcissist. And if anybody wants to really go deep with this, there’s an author named Alexei Panshin who got more than disremembered—he and the amateur publisher he was working for got threatened with lawsuits for trying to write a biography about Heinlein, for which they sought his permission first and offered to let him have final say over what was included. Heinlein went full-on nutballs ballistic over this. I believe the technical term is narcissistic rage. But the thing about narcissists is, they're very Jeckyl and Hyde. They turn really nasty at times, frequently even, but in between they can be really great people. Well, in ways. Obviously Heinlein was a genius among the early Sci-Fi writers, and in many other ways too. Alexi Panshin wrote an excellent article called Heinlein and the Golden Age that reveals much about him, the good mixed with the bad this time. In part 1 you can see the genesis of Stranger in a Strange Land in some of his earliest (rejected) books, as well as in his childhood interests. Panshin also wrote a big tell-all book called Heinlein in Dimension, exposing his dark side completely. It's mainly the story, in great detail, of his attempt to write the first biography about an sf author (Heinlein of course) and the explosive results.
Quick thought on an above comment about Heinlein, libertarianism, and the space program. Isn't The Man Who Sold the Moon kind of a libertarian lament about big government coming in and stomping all over the dreams of the genius who made it all possible? And I'm asking that as a question because my memory of the story is sketchy at best, not staking out a position
That's half right. His previous wife (was it Leslyn?) had been left-wing, but Virginia was right-wing and re-educated him on economics. On marrying her he began his famed move to the right, except in the realm of sexuality, where he apparently maintained his free love attitude.
I'm really happy you mentioned them, as they were actually my favorite characters of the whole book, especially Anne. Their back and forth between Jubal was endlessly entertaining, and it shaped their characters well. I was pretty sad to see them get left behind for the most part as Michael moved on with Jill, and their individuality started to drown out by the end as well. Thank you for participating and bringing your views to the table on it. I believe this book is extremely polarizing, both on themes and on style. I find it overly preachy of a doctrine I really don't care for, but others seem to accept that whole-heartedly. I do like Jubal as a character, I just felt the narrative became extremely unbalanced by the consistent focus on the speeches of Jubal usually. Though they worked well to bring him out as a character, it also murdered the pacing for me. But again, I'm on one side of the coin, and a lot of you appear to be on the other. Nothing wrong with that, just not a style I would consider adopting in my own writing. However, I do enjoy the injections of world-building Heinlein put together, just not fan of his control of individual scenes. Thanks everybody for keeping this going and bringing your own opinions and research to the table. Of course, we shall continue, as I know a few more who are going to participate soon as they finish up the novel and collect their own thoughts, but I also want to let you all know the new poll is up and has a couple days left for voting for next month's novel. It can be found here: https://www.writingforums.org/threads/june-wf-book-club-poll.165851/
Didn't get a chance to reply yesterday. Re. death: The most egregious murder is contained in Ben's story to Jubal. Ben is awestruck at the bowls of cash, asks Pat if anyone had tried to steal it. She says that one did, and J-2.0 simply "sent him away." Arguably police just doing their job shouldn't be 90°ed either, but apparently those were particular 'gestapo' of a sort. Yes, the sting is lessened if that breezy tone is followed, but even in those hypothetical grounds I disagree that the victims are better off. Their loved and family will have to go the rest of their lives without them. They will create no more life. They will not experience anymore bodily life, which, IMO, is the most important kind. It circles back to the greatest contradiction in the book: it's cute because death isn't such a big deal, but as that point is stressed, the stakes and consequences diminish. So what if the Martians crack Earth? Harps are fun! Re. the children: The possibly trumped up charges that @MusingWordsmith referred to are on P. 299. Statutory rape is listed with public lewdness, conspiracy to defraud, delinquency of minors, and violation of state truancy. In fairness, Anne DOES say that the only law they technically violate that could be proven was the truancy one. But then Jubal idly wonders if Mike has "planted perfectly true rumors of himself" ones that "couldn't be proven in court" which seems to suggest that Heinlein thinks statutory rape is not a provable offense (I suppose that is indeed often the case in the real world). It's muddy. I still see the rape as implied, however, given that all water brothers have sexual freedom with one another. "Two slippery teens" is a lot different than a thirty-year-old and... well who knows how young? I really want to let that part of the book go, but it the implications seem too intentional.
Oh sure, just kissing to orgasm. And it sounds like he went to the same character naming school as Stan Lee.
Depending on what stage in your life you are at, a brief nip on the earlobe could do that. That's, umm, something I heard from, umm, one of my friends when I was in high school....
Accidentally closed down my WF tab and looks like I missed a lively bit of discussion! @Xoic thank you for that greater insight into Heinlein's character-- I hate the book even more now. That connection between 'Disremembered' and 'Discorporation' is... pretty freaky to me. I half-wish I'd never learned that. As far as the kids go... the way I see it if Heinlein was implying the worst, then this is a reflection of his personal views. And I, personally, am taking all the personal views I've picked up in the box, putting them in a box, and then setting fire to that box. As it is vague I'm going to choose to think that it didn't happen because it makes me feel better (even if all this is fictional). I think I've just about exhausted what I've got to say really, hoping next month's book will be a better one.
Yeah, I kinda wish I could disremember some of it myself, but I've gotten pretty stoic about that kind of stuff. If I knew how to put things in spoiler tags I would have done those posts that way. In a semi-related note, if anybody is interested, you can download Red Planet from Archive.org. It's a much earlier one by Heinlein, where he first created the Martian culture used in Stranger. Written much earlier, but set decades later, when the colony that was just starting in Stranger has grown considerably. It's from well before his late period, and is a much nicer story, one of his juveniles—no heavy-handed philosophizing. Maybe I shouldn't say that until I'm farther in... but definitely no free love stuff, though the Martians are very hippy-like, sitting around Grokking and water-sharing and meditating all the time. I'm re-reading it now, it was my second Heinlein after the short story Waldo and I enjoyed both of them when I was in grade school. The book is for borrow only though, so you'd need to download the free Adobe Digital Editions software (you can get it from the site, there'll be a link on the page for any Borrow book). After installing it you'll be able to read a borrowed book that will then be disappeared from your system in 14 days. I think you can just re-borrow if you want, but I've never tried that. Edit—just figured out how to Spoiler. Well, that's easy!
I remember running across the idea in something I read about Heinlein that, like Walt Whitman, he contains multitudes, which is a poetic way of saying he embodies seeming contradictions. And even though he does keep hammering away at the same ideas, it occurred to me as I was waking up this morning that he seems to embody both ends of the continuum, on several different fronts. We've already mentioned his conflicting ideas of big government programs against his libertarianism. But also his Competent Man types represent Rugged Individualism taken to its logical extreme. Jubal Harshaw was the ultimate Man Standing Alone against the entire government and bending it to his will—the polar opposite of Mike's Complete Communism. I also had a thought about the snakes, what they might represent. Keep in mind they were introduced after Mike had left Jubal's and started to rise toward his more adult state and total communism. Snakes form what are called mating balls. Dozens of them get together and intertwine until you can't tell them apart. It's a huge orgy that rolls around and ties itself into knots this way and that, and the females emerge pregnant. Well damn! I think that's a pretty good representation of what went on in The Nest (the name even seems to fit). No wonder there was a Python guarding the babies! Indiana Jones would love it:
Okay I said I was done but actually I have one more thing I would like to Expound on which was the idea of 'Sci-fi is, actually, sometimes a philosophical genre'. I mean look at Star Trek. Star Trek is loooooaded with political/social allegories, the whole backdrop is 'hey humanity has managed to solve all major issues'. Would anyone doubt that Star Trek isn't sci-fi? I can't think of who would. There's also plenty of sci-fi that's not philosophical, and I'm blanking on any other examples besides Star Trek to really back up my claim lol. I need to read/watch more sci-fi. But anyway yeah-- food for thought.
Both Gene Roddenberry and Rod Serling turned to science fiction because they wanted to dramatize social issues that were too touchy for the television networks of the 50's. So they used green-skinned people and other obvious allegories in order to make it just different enough to pass by the censors. It's been a staple of sci-fi. Asimov's I Robot series explores moral/ethical dilemmas through the idea of the 3 Laws of Robotics, which adds the factor of robotic literalism to the issues, allowing him to analyze them from a more interesting angle. And Planet of the Apes used apes against humans to reverse slavery in an imaginative way. I'm sure there are many more, these just came to mind. Adding another one that occurred to me later—Logan's Run is about a society that kills people @ age 30 to reduce the population problem and also separates children from their parents at birth to prevent a bond from happening, which makes the children much more malleable and dependent on the society itself. It also is built on the popular dystopian trope of a government enforcer suddenly finding himself on the other side, as an outlaw on the run from his former associates (same as in Minority Report, which shares a lot in common with Logan's Run).
I remember a quote about exactly this, but I don't remember who said it: "The best science fiction is always about Earth." I'm afraid I got sidetracked, and didn't get beyond loading Stranger onto my Kindle ...so I've had to sit out this discussion. But I must say I'm SO impressed by all the analysis that's been done here. Bodes very well indeed for the forum's Book Club. Thanks to @EFMingo for getting the ball rolling. I'll try to catch up for next time.
