Heinlein's Last Novel Coming in September

Scared, I am... by mythosaz · 2006-08-29 08:05 · Score: 2, Interesting

While I haven't had the chance (obviously) to go read the first eight chapters of the book, these always feel to me like I'm going to end up with something like the recent "Tom Clancy" books -- some sort of author-inspired but mostly-ghost-written things that, despite being written in the STYLE of the autor, will just fall short.

(Insert gratuitous joke about Tupac and Biggie albums here...)

Re:Scared, I am... by Anubis350 · 2006-08-29 08:13 · Score: 2, Informative

But unlike most ghost written crap, this is being finished by a very good author (and alumnus from my college :-p). I think Robinson's up to it, should be a good read (though it might contain some very bad puns)

--
"goodbye and hello, as always" ~Prince Corwin, from Zelazny's Amber series
Re:Scared, I am... by L7_ · 2006-08-29 08:28 · Score: 2, Informative

same with the new Dune book... Hunters of Dune.

We'll see if the authors can hold true to the Frank Herbert's legacy.
Re:Scared, I am... by Scrameustache · 2006-08-29 08:34 · Score: 1, Insightful

But unlike most ghost written crap, this is being finished by a very good author

Very good authors have their own names on their books, not a famous corpse's.

--
You can't take the sky from me...
Re:Scared, I am... by ajs · 2006-08-29 08:42 · Score: 4, Insightful

Very good authors have their own names on their books, not a famous corpse's.

No, very good authors have their own names on their books, though in some cases, a corpse's name may also grace the cover when said corpse worked on the book. Observe:

http://variablestarbook.com/images/variable-star.j pg

And if you're really digging into the history, such VGAs have existed before. Arthur C. Clarke is, for example, on that list, having co-written Richter 10 with the person that he initially farmed the idea out to, but who died before completing it.

To boot, there are many who would argue that Spider Robinson (on the merits of the books that are purely his) is a better writter than Heinlein. I'm not sure if I'm one of them or not, as I enjoy both authors for different reasons.
Re:Scared, I am... by mordors9 · 2006-08-29 08:43 · Score: 1

We don't have to wait. Kevin Anderson and Herbert's son have already done a trilogy. While it may have been okay, it was nowhere close to the original Dune Series.
Re:Scared, I am... by big-magic · 2006-08-29 08:54 · Score: 2, Informative

Not quite. The recent Dune books (prequels and sequels) were written by Brian Herbert (son of Frank Herbert) using notes left by this father. They do not claim to be written by Frank Herbert. Although I have not read them, my understanding is that the Dune books written by Brian Herbert received decent reviews.
Re:Scared, I am... by Scrameustache · 2006-08-29 09:07 · Score: 1

I might just speaking from the repeated frustration of piking up an "Asimov" book, starting to read it, and 30 pages in, realising it's crap, checking the cover more carefully to find the small print "based on" or "inspired by"... if you have faith in this author, and you really think the book idea was abandoned beacause of outside factors and not a good judgement call from the author, then by all means, go ahead and enjoy :)

--
You can't take the sky from me...
Re:Scared, I am... by fumblebruschi · 2006-08-29 09:10 · Score: 3, Informative

Especially since the reason Heinlein set aside the unfinished book and forgot about it was probably that he'd decided it wasn't any good. In the years after Hemingway died, his heirs kept publishing "new Hemingway novels" that were really just unfinished books he'd abandoned because he thought they weren't going anywhere. (The result being that future generations will think Hemingway didn't know the difference between his own good writing and his own bad writing.) In this case I can't see any grounds for optimism, since A) Heinlein abandoned the book, which suggests he didn't think much of it himself, and certainly means he never went back and edited it; and B) it's being "finished" by a guy who has shamelessly fan-wanked over Heinlein (see Robinson's embarrassingly bad article "Rah Rah R.A.H.") and who firmly believes Heinlein can do no wrong, so will probably not edit those parts of the unfinished story that need editing. Robinson is one of those people who confuse the "I like Heinlein's writing" school of being a fan with the "I embrace Heinlein as my personal savior" school. So, unfinished and probably subpar book + adoring and uncritical editor = waste of paper.
Re:Scared, I am... by moggie_xev · 2006-08-29 09:10 · Score: 3, Informative

Spider Robinson is an excelent author in his own right. I own atleast 5 of his books and he is known to be an old time Heinlein fan. He is the best choice I can think of to do the job and I suspect it will be a good book. I not sure if they have the names the right way round on the cover though :)
Re:Scared, I am... by DerekLyons · 2006-08-29 09:22 · Score: 1

But unlike most ghost written crap, this is being finished by a very good author (and alumnus from my college :-p). I think Robinson's up to it, should be a good read (though it might contain some very bad puns)

The words 'very good author' and 'Robinson' don't belong in the same sentence except where one is being indicated as not equivalent to the other.

Robinson once had great promise - but he's never lived up to it. Instead, he's merely been writing and rewriting the same story with the same wooden and forgettable characters. (Which is a real shame - because during the original Callahan's series, he had an excellent touch for creating memorable characters.) His later works are made even more tedious by his inability to go more than a page or two without repeating a cultural reference already made twenty seven times (either in that work or earlier) or superimposing his political or computer biases - even when such references or superimpositions have nothing to do with the story at hand.
Re:Scared, I am... by stevey · 2006-08-29 09:26 · Score: 2, Insightful

I have the same fear, and by way of example I'm going to present the Dune Prequels.

Good authors (apparently; I've not read their independant books) including the son of Frank Herbert, but the novels were just .. flat. Or outright "wrong".

In fact it is hard to think of a good example of an estate/relative finishing off novels once the primary creator had died. The only one I can think of is Christopher Tolkien - and he faired only poorly in some areas. (Mind you the amount of papers that J.R.R Tolkien left behind I think he was damn lucky to get anything coherant out of them - so this isn't meant as a criticism of him.)
Re:Scared, I am... by winkydink · 2006-08-29 09:35 · Score: 1

Those are "Tom Clancy" the brand, not Tom Clancy the author. The straight-to-paper books are more like designer clothing with the Clancy label.

--
"I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
Re:Scared, I am... by WillAffleckUW · 2006-08-29 09:50 · Score: 1

I agree, Spider's very good, and I think he can keep to the style. I remember competing in a pun contest with him in Vancouver BC, and I still feel a bit apologetic about that virus I gave his skinny Mac way back when (seriously, I did test the programs out on fat Macs and my dual floppy Mac SE, but ...).

He'd be on my short list of authors to do it.

Looking forward to it when it's in print!

--
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Re:Scared, I am... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-08-29 09:54 · Score: 2, Informative

FYI, Spider is as obsessive a fan of Heinlein as I have ever seen. If anyone could do this book, it would be him.
Re:Scared, I am... by roystgnr · 2006-08-29 09:56 · Score: 2, Informative

see Robinson's embarrassingly bad article "Rah Rah R.A.H."

It's up on the web here, for anyone who really does want to see for themselves. I think "embarassingly bad" is an undeserved insult, but "shameless fan-wanking" is pretty accurate so maybe I'm just splitting hairs.
Re:Scared, I am... by WillAffleckUW · 2006-08-29 09:58 · Score: 2, Insightful

Especially since the reason Heinlein set aside the unfinished book and forgot about it was probably that he'd decided it wasn't any good.

Not necessarily. Many times, authors start in on a book, or novella, and it just doesn't feel right, still unfinished, but one doesn't have a clue what to do with it. Best thing to do then is just put it on a shelf and let it sit for a while, IMHO. Sometimes, the time helps and you look at it again fresh, and it all comes together. Other times, as you suggest, you take it off the shelf, try to complete it, and realize it was a dumb idea in the first place.

One would hope Spider wouldn't waste his time if it were the latter.

--
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Re:Scared, I am... by fermion · 2006-08-29 10:49 · Score: 2, Insightful

I think for the people who long for the books of the successful Heinlein, say 60's and 70', Robinson will be a good choice. He is very familiar with the works and continues to write in the relaxed, almost trivial, style of this time. This is not a bad thing, I have read the vast majority of both authors book, if not all of them, and have enjoyed them immensely.
However, for those us who long for Heinlein's later works, I am not sure that Robinson can make these happen. These works tended to that of a extremely skillful person who no longer wrote to please anyone, and was willing to incorporate any style he thought appropriate. It was wonderful change from his kids books.

--
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
Re:Scared, I am... by phulegart · 2006-08-29 11:04 · Score: 1

Not true.

Very good authors just have the choice to put their name on what they like. In case you did not know, Richard Bachman is Stephen King. The better the author, the less concerned they are with popularity. Popularity does not decide how good an author is. Just how well his books sell.

--
"I love deadlines. I love the whooshing sound they make as they fly by." -D. Adams
Re:Scared, I am... by msuzio · 2006-08-29 12:00 · Score: 0, Flamebait

That's funny, because I thought everything after "The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress" blew donkey dongs. I got rapidly tired of the endless retelling of stories of randy old men and super-intelligent, pneumatic, horny women who loved to please them. Blech. "Friday" was barely tolerable, in that at least I felt like an interesting story was happening around the ridiculous sex scenes. By the time of "Number of the Beast", I gave up. I completely skipped "Time Enough For Love" and it's ilk, one I knew Lazurus Long was just an annoying twit who would prattle on while shagging his mother.

What I'm really mad about, though, is that I still gave the old bugger a chance and read "The Cat Who Walks Through Walls". I mostly was intrigued by the return to the setting of MiaHM, but the book (although not horrible) just left me feeling "eh". I wanted something more satisfying out of a "sequel" to one of my favorite books.

So, yeah... give me juvenile fiction Heinlein (and short-story Heinlein) any day over the stuff he churned out in the late sixties onward.

--
It's a strange world -- let's keep it that way
Re:Scared, I am... by wytcld · 2006-08-29 12:31 · Score: 2, Informative

Heinlein often moved notes and outlines to the back burner. Many of his strongest books, including Stranger in a Strange Land, were sitting in his files half-conceived for years before he finally wrote a finished draft and published. So when something was still in his files, it didn't always mean he thought it no good; sometimes he thought it so good that he felt himself not quite ready to do justice to it yet.

--
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
Re:Scared, I am... by kubrick · 2006-08-29 12:34 · Score: 1

Most of Clarke's books for the last 20 years or so have been collaborations which seem like the product of ACC meeting with the junior author for a week, then the junior author writing up a novel based on the notes. Better than nothing, but I wish he'd chosen better writers to work with.

--
deus does not exist but if he does
Re:Scared, I am... by sgt_doom · 2006-08-29 13:39 · Score: 1

While I've always been a major fan of RAH, unfortunately his last few books were none too good, probably written more to leave his wife in a better financial situtation. Also, I think his most lucid stuff was done up to and including, Friday. After that, he didn't really seem to be into writing that much. But he still left a major legacy of great stuff as all one need do is review The Green Hills of Earth, etc., to be impressed. And he still has the best idea on "responsible citizenship" via his work, The Starship Troopers (performing service in exchange for the right to vote, etc.) as is easily proven out by the returning Iraqi vets who are running for political office (49 total, 48 Democrat, and only one pathetic soul running as a Republican)....
Re:Scared, I am... by ltbarcly · 2006-08-29 14:00 · Score: 2, Interesting

inability to go more than a page or two without repeating a cultural reference already made twenty seven times (either in that work or earlier) or superimposing his political or computer biases - even when such references or superimpositions have nothing to do with the story at hand.

Sounds like Heinlein to me!

Seriously, did you ever read any of his books? TANSTAAFL and free love and cat's are good and let's have sex with our mothers by using a time machine, and then space some slavers. Next we'll talk like 30's gangsters because that's how people talk. After that we'll convince a bad guy to give up because we can prove him logically wrong. Wash, rinse, repeat for 500 pages * 20 books.

I own every one of his books and they are all fantastic.
Re:Scared, I am... by Dr.+Podkayne · 2006-08-29 14:08 · Score: 3, Informative

Scared, be not. Variable Star rocks, and reads like a classic juvenile. In the case of "For Us, The Living" (the only other posthumous Heinlein) after a couple of rejections Heinlein took it off the market. He then mined its ideas after he learned how to write stories and plot. While ultimately the author's intention was not to have the thing circulating, since he had submitted it at some point it was deemed morally fair game for the estate to publish. With Variable Star, there was a good half chapter with characters and plot trajectory fully fleshed out and some notecards. I don't know why Heinlein didn't finish it...when I first encountered the chapter, his widow told me he'd always intended to complete it but never did. Health reasons...? Anyhow, I've been lucky enough to read the final draft of Variable Star. While there were a few moments of gears ratcheting between Heinlein style and Spider style in the second chapter, thereafter either it became indistinguishable or I was so into the story I failed to notice. My husband and I ended up trading pages until a 2AM photo finish, when we both turned to each other and did Keanu Reeves impressions. ("WHOA!") It was so great I wish I'd saved it until I was bummed out or otherwise needed a lift. Granted, I love both Heinlein and Robinson independently, and am biased. This is a great fusion, though...and I recall only one pun. I'm trying to forget details, so I can savor the hardback as the last new Heinlein I'll ever get to read.
Re:Scared, I am... by Dr.+Podkayne · 2006-08-29 14:14 · Score: 1

Try "Very Bad Deaths". Excellent new characters, interesting premise, bad title to have lying around on your coffee table. Dark, though...scared, I was.
Re:Scared, I am... by ajs · 2006-08-29 14:54 · Score: 1

Most of Clarke's books for the last 20 years or so have been collaborations which seem like the product of ACC meeting with the junior author for a week, then the junior author writing up a novel based on the notes. Better than nothing, but I wish he'd chosen better writers to work with.

Fair criticism, and Richter 10 was one such book... or was supposed to be. Then the "junior" author in question died. So, ACC picked it back up, finished it (which apparently wasn't a lot of work, as he had been fairly far along) and published the result under both their names. It was sort of the reverse of the typical dead-author problem that Asimov and Heinlein had seen around the same time. I found it interesting enough to read the book, which I felt spent too long on the lead-in story to hook me with the real SF angle toward the end, but it still had all of the hallmarks of a Clarke story, and some fairly decent characterization.
Re:Scared, I am... by IronTeardrop · 2006-08-29 15:28 · Score: 0, Flamebait

Thank you for writing exactly what I feel about Heinlein. Lazarus Long and Jubal Harshaw were little more than thinly cloaked (and boring) fantasies of the author. I wonder if he ever met real women.
Re:Scared, I am... by shmlco · 2006-08-29 15:29 · Score: 1

I agree. Spider wrote one of my all-time-favorite short stories, "God is an Iron", and Stardance is still one of my top ten SF books, mostly because he has a knack for bringing his characters to life and making them real people. But like Heinlein in Number of the Beast, Job, and others, SR is definitely following in RAH's footsteps with each successive Callahan book being more and more implausible and "out there".

For a while I followed his work religously, and I rejoiced whenever I knew a new book was coming... up until I found out that each new book was yet another set of stories from "Callahan's Bar". I thought we'd gotten rid of 'em when he burned the place down, but no such luck. Enough is enough: SR needs to stretch his legs and explore some new worlds.

--
Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
Re:Scared, I am... by shmlco · 2006-08-29 15:38 · Score: 1

While I agree with your comments regarding "Beast", I thought Time Enough For Love was one of RAH's best works, even better that "Stranger", hsi best know work. Yes, LL was a self-centered randy old coot... but the book did extremely well illustrating the pathos and the ultimate price one pays for immortality, especially when that life is spent among the "short-timers".

The only other story to capture that feeling for me was the first Highlander film...

--
Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
Re:Scared, I am... by shmlco · 2006-08-29 15:47 · Score: 1

Dead on. Troopers is ENTIRELY about responsibility. Unfortunately, when that Robo-Turkey director picked up the script for the film, those issues and that moral background were the first things he tossed out the window. In that vein, I'm SO disappointed with the framers of the US constitution, who nattered on and on about the "rights" of an individual, with nearly nary a word said regarding the responsibilities those rights entail...

--
Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
Re:Scared, I am... by sethg · 2006-08-29 15:49 · Score: 1

Sign me up as "scared", too. From what I've read of his work, Robinson is at his worst when he is trying to imitate Heinlein. (Case in point: the last few chapters of Night of Power....)

--
send all spam to theotherwhitemeat@ropine.com
Re:Scared, I am... by DerekLyons · 2006-08-29 15:53 · Score: 0, Flamebait

inability to go more than a page or two without repeating a cultural reference already made twenty seven times (either in that work or earlier) or superimposing his political or computer biases - even when such references or superimpositions have nothing to do with the story at hand.

Sounds like Heinlein to me!

Umm.... No.

Seriously, did you ever read any of his books? TANSTAAFL and free love and cat's are good and let's have sex with our mothers by using a time machine, and then space some slavers. Next we'll talk like 30's gangsters because that's how people talk. After that we'll convince a bad guy to give up because we can prove him logically wrong. Wash, rinse, repeat for 500 pages * 20 books.

Yes, I have read Heinlein, and what you write above shows that either you haven't - or it's been so long you've forgotten them.
Re:Scared, I am... by msuzio · 2006-08-29 16:00 · Score: 1

Oh, RAH had a rich personal life. He got married three times, and his 3rd wife, Ginny, was very influential to his work, and I'd say his female characters suffered from too many of them being various recastings of his idealized views of her.

I don't know where the bad dirty old man writing came from. I just know I don't find it engaging at all, and obviously I've given numerous books of his a try (mostly because I love so many other bits of his work).

--
It's a strange world -- let's keep it that way
Re:Scared, I am... by DerekLyons · 2006-08-29 16:03 · Score: 1

I agree. Spider wrote one of my all-time-favorite short stories, "God is an Iron", and Stardance is still one of my top ten SF books, mostly because he has a knack for bringing his characters to life and making them real people. But like Heinlein in Number of the Beast, Job, and others, SR is definitely following in RAH's footsteps with each successive Callahan book being more and more implausible and "out there".

The key difference being that it took RAH thirty years - while it took Spider a little over a decade, to 'lose it'. RAH's 'out there' books are a scant handful out of nearly sixty, while for Robinson its well over half of thirty. (I agree "God is an Iron" ranks in the all time greats.)

For a while I followed his work religously, and I rejoiced whenever I knew a new book was coming... up until I found out that each new book was yet another set of stories from "Callahan's Bar". I thought we'd gotten rid of 'em when he burned the place down, but no such luck.
I remember 5-10 years back on alt.callahans, Spider complaining (via a proxy) about the poor sales of a collected version of the first three Callahan's books. My response was "what the hell did you expect Spider? It's not like they've been out of print or haven't been available".

Enough is enough: SR needs to stretch his legs and explore some new worlds.

That's my complaint - when he does stretch his legs, the result is wooden crap.
Re:Scared, I am... by Walt+Dismal · 2006-08-29 16:56 · Score: 2, Funny

Few people know that Isaac Asimov anonymously wrote an operating system but put Linus Torvald's name on it. Wait ... wait .. where's my ritalin. I'm always getting mixed up without it.
Re:Scared, I am... by farrellj · 2006-08-29 17:17 · Score: 1

I agree with you about Spider...I'm as much a fan of his work as I am of Heinlein's! This will be a must-have book!

BTW, are you a Forumite? I used to hang around the Forum myself...

ttyl
Farrell

--
CAN-CON 2019 - Ottawa's only book oriented Science Fiction Convention! October 18-20, Sheraton Hotel, Ottawa, Canada h
Re:Scared, I am... by farrellj · 2006-08-29 17:27 · Score: 1

I like to think that somewhere, out there, the universe's ultimate book lauch party is happening, where people like Heinlein, Baen, and a huge host of Fans, Writers, Editors and other such folk are having a great time. I am going to be looking forward to this book for many the same reasons you are...although I will be looking forward to that pun...:-)

ttyl

--
CAN-CON 2019 - Ottawa's only book oriented Science Fiction Convention! October 18-20, Sheraton Hotel, Ottawa, Canada h
Re:Scared, I am... by Anubis350 · 2006-08-29 17:43 · Score: 1

::grins::
I've been pegged.

Havent been down recently (not counting the summer, when I'm not on the island) to the 4m as much as I used to, but still there quite abit. Speaking of the 4m, stony, and Robinson, he was actually at ICON25 last year :-P.

Fall sem starts in a few days, you should drop by if you're on the island and say hi! (just noticed you're in Canada from your blog, you should still stop by if you're in the area though!)

--
"goodbye and hello, as always" ~Prince Corwin, from Zelazny's Amber series
Re:Scared, I am... by farrellj · 2006-08-29 17:43 · Score: 1

I know that many writers set a side stories and novels for a huge variety of reasons...yes, sometimes because they think it isn't working out, or that they didn't think it was any good. But I can tell you one thing that a number of editors and agents have told me...editors are the ones who decide if a work is good enough to publish or not. Many writers are too hard on their own works, and what a writer may think is a work that sucks, an editor may see as a new, brilliant work. Ultimately, the public will vote with their dollars. It may not be the best system to judge a work by, but it is the one we are working with.

Of course, sometimes the opposite is true, too! :-)

ttyl
Farrell

--
CAN-CON 2019 - Ottawa's only book oriented Science Fiction Convention! October 18-20, Sheraton Hotel, Ottawa, Canada h
Re:Scared, I am... by srmalloy · 2006-08-29 17:47 · Score: 1

FYI, Spider is as obsessive a fan of Heinlein as I have ever seen. If anyone could do this book, it would be him.

Reading the first two chapters (all that is posted at the moment) was bizarre. It was clearly Spider's writing, but it was also clearly Heinlein's story; if I wasn't familiari with Spider's ability as an author, I'd be worried that the book would be dreck. Instead, I look forward to being able to read the whole book.
Re:Scared, I am... by farrellj · 2006-08-29 18:16 · Score: 1

I wanted to make it to ICON, but didn't. :-(

I always drop by the Forum when I am out on the Island. I definitely want to get down soon to visit some friends (other Forumites Heidi and Gary), but it's the old time/money thing...you rarely have enough of both to do long trips!

ttyl
Farrell

--
CAN-CON 2019 - Ottawa's only book oriented Science Fiction Convention! October 18-20, Sheraton Hotel, Ottawa, Canada h
Re:Scared, I am... by rebelcan · 2006-08-29 21:19 · Score: 1

I have to agree with you there. Spider Robinson is by far the best sci-fi writer I've ever read. Ever since I read my first Callahan book ( Callahan's Key -- not the first one, I know ), I've been searching for a place just like it.

And yes, my grammar ( and possibly spelling ) are atrocious, but that's what I get for posting at 2am.

--
God is dead -- Nietzsche
Nietzsche is dead -- God
Zombie Nietzsche lives! -- Zombie Nietzsche
Re:Scared, I am... by rebelcan · 2006-08-29 21:23 · Score: 1

I would shout and rave and say Very Bad Things(TM), but I'm much too tired.

Spider rules. Period.

(so what if I'm a huge fan?)

--
God is dead -- Nietzsche
Nietzsche is dead -- God
Zombie Nietzsche lives! -- Zombie Nietzsche
Re:Scared, I am... by TheRaven64 · 2006-08-29 22:42 · Score: 1

One book about inventing a time machine to go back in time and have sex with your mother[1] I could possibly have forgiven. After all, everyone has the occasional bad day. After the second[2], however, you do start to wonder a bit.
Some of his earlier work was good. I enjoyed The Man Who Sold The Moon, and The Menace That Came From Earth was okay, but the later stuff was just pure drivel.

[1] 'Time Enough for Love,' which read more like it should have been entitled 'Time Enough for a Comprehensive Eugenics Program with Neo-facist Overtones and Regular Orgies.'
[2] 'The Number of The Beast,' which should have been called 'Oh God, I've Completely Run Out of Ideas and My Publisher is Complaining.'

--
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Re:Scared, I am... by vrai · 2006-08-29 23:49 · Score: 1

The film was never supposed to be true to the book. Verhoven was working on a bug blasting movie that satirised gung-ho militarism when someone pointed out the similarity between his plot and that of Starship Troopers. Verhoven read the first half of the book, hated it, then simply pasted the people and places from the novel in to his script. Given that the book is an essay on politics and social sciences, occasionally interspersed with hard science fiction; I found the movie's satirical take quite fitting. Not that I'm knocking the book, a must read for fans of hard sci-fi - along with The Forever War.
Re:Scared, I am... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-08-30 01:28 · Score: 0

As long as everyone is sleeping with everyone it's Heinlein.

'nuff said
Re:Scared, I am... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-08-30 02:03 · Score: 0

I think Penny Arcade summed up the "Dune" prequels pretty well.
Re:Scared, I am... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-08-30 04:46 · Score: 0

reads like a classic juvenile
Reads like a classic juvenile? "Baby making equipment", drinking, lewd dancing, premarital experimentation, stud bulls? Have you ever read a Heinlein juvenile?
Re:Scared, I am... by Profane+MuthaFucka · 2006-08-30 04:49 · Score: 1

That's now how to start an off-topic flame war. This is how to do it. Watch and learn.

The Dune books written by Brian Herbert were far superior to the Dune books written by his father, which were almost completely unreadable, with the exception of God Emperor of Dune. It's my recommendation that if you want to get into the Dune universe, you SKIP the books and watch the movies instead. Like almost all writing, the movie is far better than any of the books. This goes for Tolkien as well. You should probably skip this Heinlein stuff too, as it all sucks donkey balls. Heinlein was a lifelong communist, and I can't imagine how his reputation outlived that bankrupt system. Anyway, as great as the Dune series is, the genre of science fiction is actually degenerate in comparison to other literate genres, such as situational comedy on television. Just watch Golden Girls and enjoy your life. Most people haven't read all the way to the end of this paragraph, because they're skimming large blocks, and the things they've seen have then so enraged that they will probably just jump right to the punchline, which is all by itself after the whitespace. It doesn't actually matter what you write, somebody is going to take me seriously and flame the shit out of me, even though this was only a demonstration. I actually like the FH books much better, to be honest.

But yes, the Dune prequels written by Brian absolutely WERE far better than the originals.

--
Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
Re:Scared, I am... by DerekLyons · 2006-08-30 06:14 · Score: 1

I think for the people who long for the books of the successful Heinlein, say 60's and 70', Robinson will be a good choice. He is very familiar with the works and continues to write in the relaxed, almost trivial, style of this time. This is not a bad thing,

It is a bad thing - because the story outline was prepared in the 50's and thus is most likely intended to have been written in style of his [Heinlein's] 'juveniles' or his short stories of that time. By the 60's his style had changed considerably.
Re:Scared, I am... by ltbarcly · 2006-08-30 06:18 · Score: 1

TAANSTAFL - The moon is a harsh mistress.
Free Love - Stranger in a Strange Land, Friday, Number of the Beast, Time Enough for Love, etc etc
Cat's are Good - Door into Summer
Sex with mothers with time machine - Number of Beast, Time Enough for Love
Spacing Slavers - Time enough for love, Citizen of the Galaxy
Talking like 30's gangsters - Every Heinlein book that there is, Especially Job at the end where the various Gods are debating.
convince a bad guy to give up because of logical fallacy - The Roads Will Roll

Eat it pretender! Never question my heinlein bona fides!
Re:Scared, I am... by DerekLyons · 2006-08-30 09:57 · Score: 1

Eat it pretender! Never question my heinlein bona fides!

I have no need of questioning them - you prove your lack of them each time you write. Your original claim was that the themes you quote repeated through 20 books (though his actual total is over 50). Yet above, you identify only seven books, and one short story. One (talking like 30's gangsters) is demonstrably not present in 'Every Heinlein book that there is'. Another, 'convince a bad guy to give up because of logical fallacy' is patently absent from the short story. (He gave up because his 'army' had been defeated and the station he had gained control of had been cut out of the control circuits.)

If there is a pretender in this conversation - it is not I.
Re:Scared, I am... by ltbarcly · 2006-08-30 11:41 · Score: 1

I apologize if I offended your Heinlein sensibilities. Also, I'm sorry that your sense of humor is broken, jackass.

Since you claim that you can demonstrate that talking like a 30's gangster isn't in every heinlein book, please do so now. Saying 'demonstrably' is not a demonstration nor an argument.

Since you are such a dipshit you failed to see that my claim that 20 books * 500 pages was not meant to be an exact accounting of Heinleins works. Another way you might have determined that I was not trying to give a final accounting is that the length of my post was around 70 words (don't actually count them and give me a corrected number, asshat). You should also not point out that some of Heinlein's books have more than or less than 500 pages, in order to prove that I don't know the number of pages in Heinlein's books.

You claimed that I didn't know what I was talking about. I provided examples of each of my jocular claims about Heinlein. You have managed to dispute one, and even then I'll prove you wrong on that one. So the record so far is that I have given examples of each of my claims, without dispute, save one. You responded to my post by saying my claims were wrong, but now you are saying that my examples aren't good enough.

You said that my examples of Heinlein themes wasn't accurate. I have now pointed out the books that these examples come from! You are wrong. I know you can never accept that. Your world might implode if you ever were proven wrong. Well, guess what, I'm smarter than you are. You are wrong and I am right. Nanynany boo boo. You're trying to turn a little joke into some sort of heinlein dual, because my joke was a response to your post where you mock an author.

Now, as for "The Roads Must Roll", you say that the bad guy (Van Kleek) gives up because his army had been defeated and the station blah blah blah. You are completely wrong here, as Van Kleek doesn't give up, but rather is tackled and knocked out by Gaines, who goads him away from the self destruct switch he had set up by mocking him and poking at his insecurities. So, as it turns out, you're talking out of your ass, but I'm sure people say this too you all the time. "Derek is just talking out of his ass again" they probably say.

Please refrain from taking the microscope to my lighthearted banter in the future. Especially when the microscope is as cruddy as your memory.
Re:Scared, I am... by DerekLyons · 2006-08-30 12:40 · Score: 1

[snippage verbal diarrhea designed mostly to give 'ltbarcly' a sense of superiority]

You responded to my post by saying my claims were wrong, but now you are saying that my examples aren't good enough.

Your original claim was that the themes echoed throughout Heinlein's work - I never claimed anything about your examples beyond pointing out that they failed to support your initial claim.

You said that my examples of Heinlein themes wasn't accurate.

No, I said they did not echo, as you implied, through all his works. Your own examples bear out that I am correct.

You're trying to turn a little joke into some sort of heinlein dual, because my joke was a response to your post where you mock an author.

I didn't mock Robinson - but made a critical statement of his authorial capabilities. (And one not original with me either, it's a fairly widely held one. There's a reason why Robinson has dropped off the best seller lists you know.) Drop by your local bookstore and read the back cover of his "Very Bad Deaths " and you'll see a prime example.

Now, as for "The Roads Must Roll", you say that the bad guy (Van Kleek) gives up because his army had been defeated and the station blah blah blah. You are completely wrong here, as Van Kleek doesn't give up, but rather is tackled and knocked out by Gaines, who goads him away from the self destruct switch he had set up by mocking him and poking at his insecurities

In other words - we are both wrong. Because he was defeated by being tackled, even if it was the heckling that opened the opportunity.

Please refrain from taking the microscope to my lighthearted banter in the future.

You don't want your words examined closely - then don't utter them in public.
Re:Scared, I am... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-08-30 13:20 · Score: 0

Grow a sense of humor. Seriously.
Re:Scared, I am... by ltbarcly · 2006-08-31 04:19 · Score: 1

You don't want your words examined closely - then don't utter them in public.

lol

Frankly since we were both wrong on the only point you contended you are basically admitting my point. Besides, I was making a lighthearted joke. You decided it would be a good idea to try to knock my little joke down, probably because you don't know the difference.

ME: Heinlein is repeats themes... 20books * 500 pages.
YOU: If you knew anything about heinlein you would know that he wrote 50 books not 20!!!!!!

Come on. I mean, seriously.
Re:Scared, I am... by msuzio · 2006-08-31 06:54 · Score: 1

Wow, apparently disliking something is "Flamebait".

Good thing I have practically impregnable Karma. :-P

--
It's a strange world -- let's keep it that way

So this is not Heinlein's novel by roman_mir · 2006-08-29 08:05 · Score: 1, Insightful

Nice way to capitalize on the author's name though.

--
You can't handle the truth.

Re:So this is not Heinlein's novel by IflyRC · 2006-08-29 09:41 · Score: 1

Even worse to capitalize on Peter Parker's unfortunate accident and call yourself "Spider".

Worth Buying by neonprimetime · 2006-08-29 08:05 · Score: 5, Informative

The Variable Star project is intended to help the Heinlein Trust continue to fund the $500,000 Heinlein Prize for commercial manned spaceflight

It's worth buying just for that!

Great! by AltGrendel · 2006-08-29 08:06 · Score: 2, Interesting

I'm an unabashed Heinlein fan. I've read enough Spider Robinson to feel that he's up to the task.

I'm really looking forward to this.

--
The simple truth is that interstellar distances will not fit into the human imagination

- Douglas Adams

Re:Great! by nani+popoki · 2006-08-29 08:10 · Score: 1

I have to agree. If I can't read the Grandmaster's own words, Spider comes a close second.
Re:Great! by Anonymous Coward · 2006-08-29 08:11 · Score: 0

I'm an unabashed Heinlein fan. I've read enough Spider Robinson to feel that he's up to the task. I'm really looking forward to this.

I'm an unabashed Heinlein fan. I've read enough Spider Robinson to feel that he's not up to the task.
Re:Great! by Lovedumplingx · 2006-08-29 08:16 · Score: 1

Yeah...there's something about not reading Heinlein's actual thoughts and words that just turns me off to this idea.

Does that mean no sex scenes? by PhineusJWhoopee · 2006-08-29 08:08 · Score: 2, Insightful

Plot line over 50 years old? Does that mean no sex scenes?

ed

Re:Does that mean no sex scenes? by mythosaz · 2006-08-29 08:09 · Score: 1

If my parents and grandparents are any indication, people were *probably* having sex 50 years ago.
Re:Does that mean no sex scenes? by Escherial · 2006-08-29 08:13 · Score: 3, Funny

But were they having sex scenes?
Re:Does that mean no sex scenes? by Anonymous+Commando · 2006-08-29 08:13 · Score: 2, Insightful

You've obviously never read any Heinlein...

--
Corporate Jenga: You take a blockhead from the bottom and you put him on top...
Re:Does that mean no sex scenes? by jesdynf · 2006-08-29 08:14 · Score: 2, Interesting

Am I the only one who read Heinlein's later novels?

If Mr. Robinson stays "true to form", it's going to be all 12-year-olds trying to get into the grizzled old man's pants.

Look, nobody cares about Piers Anthony, he can get away with -- with -- with whatever he wants to, twice, chocolate-covered. It always amazes me that Heinlein gets a pass on the latter end of his Future History.

--
Yahoo! Pipes are awesome. How awesome? http://pipes.yahoo.com/jesdynf/slashdot
Re:Does that mean no sex scenes? by Anubis350 · 2006-08-29 08:15 · Score: 1

hmmm, I'm not so sure... havent you heard of viagra? Even a dead man will get stiff! The sex scenes may be forced underground in the book though...

--
"goodbye and hello, as always" ~Prince Corwin, from Zelazny's Amber series
Re:Does that mean no sex scenes? by Tackhead · 2006-08-29 08:15 · Score: 1

> But were they having sex scenes?
The moon is a harsh mistress.
Corollary: A mass driver respects no safeword.
Re:Does that mean no sex scenes? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-08-29 08:15 · Score: 0

You've obviously never read Heinlein's other works.
Re:Does that mean no sex scenes? by __aaclcg7560 · 2006-08-29 08:17 · Score: 1

Since this is 1950's science fiction, it's the petri dish version.
Re:Does that mean no sex scenes? by Moofie · 2006-08-29 08:17 · Score: 2, Funny

Yeah, because Heinlein never wrote about sex. Or drinking.

--
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
Re:Does that mean no sex scenes? by Chris+Burke · 2006-08-29 08:32 · Score: 5, Informative

Nobody seems to get the joke, which is that Heinlein's earlier books were more-or-less sex-free, or at least keeping it to a minimum, while his later books got more and more randy and referenced group sex, underage sex, incest, and other taboos. I'm not Heinlen-ologist, but it seems the turning point was Stranger in a Strange Land, which was an excellent book. Some of the later ones seem to be more dominated by the sex themes, and very light on substance. In other words he slowly transitioned from young serious author to mature exploratory author to dirty old man.

--

The enemies of Democracy are
Re:Does that mean no sex scenes? by Quadraginta · 2006-08-29 08:43 · Score: 5, Insightful

Heinlein put plenty of sex into his adult novels (his teen novels are another thing). But he didn't seem to feel the need to describe it. Perhaps he felt that if you were old enough you could supply the details from your own experience, and if you were young enough, encouraging your fantasies would only distract you from the novel.

He didn't even spend much time describing his men and women sexually. Few female characters were introduced with a description of their breasts, for example, although you might learn about their cup size by and by, somewhat incidentally. It's like the way you only learn late in the books and somewhat incidentally that Dr. Richard Ames is black and Lieutenant Rico is Hispanic.

Indeed, I think one of the reasons Heinlein is popular among geeky types is because he emphasized the sexual attractiveness of mind, character, and accomplishment. The fastest way to a Heinlein heroine's heart was witty repartee or a devastatingly clever and insightful argument...you know, the /. ideal for comments, +5 Sexy, that kind of thing.
Re:Does that mean no sex scenes? by jgrahn · 2006-08-29 09:24 · Score: 1

He didn't even spend much time describing his men and women sexually. Few female characters were introduced with a description of their breasts, for example, although you might learn about their cup size by and by, somewhat incidentally.

I take it you haven't read Number of the Beast ...
Re:Does that mean no sex scenes? by darklordyoda · 2006-08-29 09:32 · Score: 1

Oh dammit. I'll read the rest of the comments once I finish reading "The Cat who Walks Through Walls".
Re:Does that mean no sex scenes? by DerekLyons · 2006-08-29 09:53 · Score: 2, Insightful

Indeed, I think one of the reasons Heinlein is popular among geeky types is because he emphasized the sexual attractiveness of mind, character, and accomplishment. The fastest way to a Heinlein heroine's heart was witty repartee or a devastatingly clever and insightful argument...you know, the /. ideal for comments, +5 Sexy, that kind of thing.

Personally, across my 4+ decades spent going around the Sun - I've found that women who aren't attracted to witty repartee or a devastatingly clever and insightful arguments aren't worthing spending any time around.
Re:Does that mean no sex scenes? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-08-29 10:35 · Score: 1, Interesting

Few female characters were introduced with a description of their breasts, for example, although you might learn about their cup size by and by, somewhat incidentally.

The first two chapters of "Number of the Beast" are entirely about Deety Carter's breasts, with some references to intradimensional travel thrown in to move the plot along.

The illustrated version of that book is 100% surrealist eroitca.

Richard Ames being black really threw me because on the cover of my paperback of "The Cat Who Walks Through Walls" he's drawn as an old white guy looking a little like Mark Twain with an eyepach.
Re:Does that mean no sex scenes? by Quadraginta · 2006-08-29 12:18 · Score: 1

Sure I have. But I don't think this contradicts me. Remember, this book is unusually written, as interleaved first-person narratives. Zeb starts off talking, and he (not Heinlein as the omniscient narrator) is wowed by Deety's boobs. Later on, Deety narrates and says how she thinks Zeb is a real hunka hunk o' burnin' love, et cetera.

What Heinlein is doing is showing us how these people think about each other, and, yeah, they tend to notice each other physically. He felt intellectuals need not fail to get all steamed up about each other's parts.

But I think that's quite different from your generic supermarket paperback, where Miss Lyons the governess is introduced largely with a physical description mentioning her high, proud breasts and flashing eyes. If she says anything clever it happens paragraphs later, if at all. Heinlein in this book says how Zeb thinks about Deety's hooters. It's different. For one thing, he also tells us how Deety feels about 'em, and of course she doesn't feel the same.

And besides, Deety isn't described only or even mostly in terms of her tits. The first thing Zeb notices about Deety is that she says amusing, clever things and dances the tango beautifully. Then he looks down her dress. Well, fair enough. If I was dancing with a hot woman, that's about how I'd do things, too.
Re:Does that mean no sex scenes? by Quadraginta · 2006-08-29 12:27 · Score: 1

No argument here.

But...parenthetically, what I find odd is that the ability to be witty or make your partner laugh seems a good deal more valued by women than by men. That is, being witty and amusing is a big asset in a man but less valuable in a woman. (I'm aware there are plenty of anecdotes pointing both ways -- so I sure hope there aren't 12 replies saying 'But I'm not like that, and neither is my girlfriend' -- but in general this seems to be the case.)

What's up with that? Why would women value the quality of being amusing more than men?
Re:Does that mean no sex scenes? by AlHunt · 2006-08-29 13:41 · Score: 1

> the turning point was Stranger in a Strange Land, which was an excellent book. Some of the
> later ones seem to be more dominated by the sex themes, and very light on substance. In other
> words he slowly transitioned from young serious author to mature exploratory author to dirty
> old man.

I have and have read every one of Heinleins novels and your analysis is exactly correct - Stranger marked a turning point in his style of writing.

Bear in mind that much of his early work was for the youth market so it would of necessity be more conservative.

--
1 in 4 Maine children in struggle with hunger.
Re:Does that mean no sex scenes? by Venik · 2006-08-29 14:00 · Score: 2, Interesting

Speaking of Strange in a Strange Land, the original published version was some 60,000 words shorter than the manuscript. I wouldn't say that either version is dominated by sex, but sex does play a central role in the entire story.

Sex, group sex, homosexuality, cannibalism; not to mention satirical interpretation of every major and minor religion - this book was hardly the turning point you speak of. And that's what makes it one of the best sci-fi works in literature. If there was a turning point in Heinlein's work, it must have happened before Strange in a Strange Land.

It's difficult to call this book science-fiction. Put aside the obligatory Martians, teleportation, and hovercraft, and there is really no "science" left in Strange in a Strange Land. So what is left is the bare minimum of fiction and good two thirds of the book is taken up by Jubal Harshaw's lectures on religion, art, history, and psychology.

Strange in a Strange Land is Heinlein's version of the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus transposed to modern time and masterfully wrapped in the shiny "sci-fi" cover. It's a brilliant philosophical and literary work in every aspect.
Re:Does that mean no sex scenes? by sgt_doom · 2006-08-29 14:10 · Score: 1

Good points all, but I think RAH was simply a bit ahead of his time (as he usually was) in his evolutionary thinking (fairly widely held today, I suspect) that the advent of the human brain was simply for procreating (i.e., sex).

Speaking of forward thinking, wasn't his Puppet Masters the first modern secret agent story, replete with secret entrances and exits, etc.???
Re:Does that mean no sex scenes? by Frightened_Turtle · 2006-08-30 01:17 · Score: 1

Actually, Heinlein's earlier novels were fairly squeaky-clean not because he was trying to be the "serious young author", but because the publishers and censors would not allow racy material he kept trying to write to be put into print.

In the sixties, social mores began to change, which allowed Heinlein to push the envelope in character interactions in his stories. In other words, his stories got racier and more adult.

--

Whew! This water sure is cold!
Re:Does that mean no sex scenes? by spudgun · 2006-08-31 12:10 · Score: 1

Oh dammit. I'll read the rest of the comments once I finish reading "The Cat who Walks Through Walls".

I don't like the end of that one very much.......

want resolution !

--
Type unto others as you would have them type unto you.

What is coming next by UR30 · 2006-08-29 08:08 · Score: 3, Funny

A new play by Shakespeare? Poems by Poe? Nonfiction by Carl Sagan?

Re:What is coming next by nani+popoki · 2006-08-29 08:12 · Score: 1

Another Dune novel or three, of course! :)
Re:What is coming next by revlayle · 2006-08-29 08:13 · Score: 1

Non-fiction by Carl Sagan? *Now* you just joking.
Re:What is coming next by OzPeter · 2006-08-29 08:38 · Score: 2, Insightful

On a similiar note, one of the few sc-fi/fantasy novels that I have kept and re-read is "The witches of Karres" by James Schmitz. Recently I found out that there was a sequel wrtten by a bunch of writers (Mercedes Lackey, Eric Flint, and Dave Freer). When I saw it on the shelves I heard warning bells going off in my head which I should have heeded. They had the same characters and a similiar plot to the first book, but managed to totally miss what made the original (IMO) a great yarn. I also remember seeing a flame war between one of the writes and someone who told them to their face that the book was crap.

I have no idea what this Heinlein'ish book will be like as I haven't read andy of Spiders work, but I might sample the download to see if it stinks or not before I commit to giving money.

However I fear that the download stunt is only to drum up business for a book that may not deserve to exist.

--
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
Re:What is coming next by Captain+Splendid · 2006-08-29 08:44 · Score: 1

A new play by Shakespeare? Poems by Poe? Nonfiction by Carl Sagan?

Puh-leeze.
We'll get another Tupac album first.

--
Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
Re:What is coming next by leoPetr · 2006-08-29 08:48 · Score: 1

In 1994, we were blessed with a new Jules Vernes novel.:P

--
My other body is also not wearing any.
Re:What is coming next by myster0n · 2006-08-29 09:48 · Score: 1

A fact about French copyright law (as Verne was French) : as that Jules Verne novel was written in 1863 and first published in 1994, you'd think that the first time it was published it was already in the public domain, but it isn't.
In the case of posthumous works, copyright lasts always until 70 years after the death of the author. But if those works are revealed only after this lapse of time, the time of protection falls at 25 years from January 1 of the year it was published.

--
Nobody believes the official spokesman, but everybody trusts an unidentified source. -- Ron Nesen
Re:What is coming next by geekoid · 2006-08-29 09:57 · Score: 1

"... as I haven't read andy of Spiders work,"
I about sprayed soda. Your missing out. IMO.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Re:What is coming next by Anonymous Coward · 2006-08-29 10:25 · Score: 0

Quit bumping the table.
Re:What is coming next by david.given · 2006-08-29 10:52 · Score: 1

When I saw it on the shelves I heard warning bells going off in my head which I should have heeded.
If you thought that was bad, you should read Dragon Lensman some time. It's about the adventures of Worsel, our favourite Velantian, and it's one of the worst books I've ever read (and I've read some really bad books in my time --- anyone ever heard of Saul Dunn?). Hell, the author doesn't even get how many legs Worsel's got right.
Oh, god. I've just discovered that it was actually the first in a series. Now I'm going to have to find them and read them...
Re:What is coming next by identity0 · 2006-08-29 10:57 · Score: 1

Non-fiction by Carl Sagan? *Now* you just joking.

Why, of course not, dear sir!

With the help of my able assistant John Edwards and a Ouiji board, we at the Church of Christ, Scintificologist, have recovered Carl Sagan's last, lost book, "The One True Faith: Scientologism". In it, Saint Sagan through his chosen medium Mr. Edwards, describes how he met the late L. Ron Hubbard in Heaven and converted to his world-changing gospel, Scientificalism.

As St. Sagan describes it, "I realized I had been wrong all this time. It was not Science that was going to save man from the scourge of Space Aliens In LearJets, but rather Scientificationalism. How wrong I'd been in life to question the greatness of such a man as L. Ron Hubbard, who was unselfishly trying to save us from our own greed and money! Give him your money! Your faith shall be rewarded by 72 Cray supercomputers in Heaven!"

Carl Sagan's last book: Coming soon to a bookstore near you! Buy it or you'll burn in hell!
Re:What is coming next by Anubis350 · 2006-08-29 11:04 · Score: 1

The wonderful thing about anything published by Baen is that free samples are almost always available. For example, the book you are talking about, you could have read the first 9 chapters of to see if you liked here. baen.com will give you links to their publishing sched, samples from almost all their books, and a number of free books curtesy of Baen's Library (tm)...

--
"goodbye and hello, as always" ~Prince Corwin, from Zelazny's Amber series
Re:What is coming next by Anonymous Coward · 2006-08-29 11:18 · Score: 0

A new play by Shakespeare? Poems by Poe? Nonfiction by Carl Sagan?

"I am not Leonard Nimoy" by Dr Spock?

(Yes, I do mean Dr. Spock; yes, he is dead; yes, that is the joke)
Re:What is coming next by chromatic · 2006-08-30 12:39 · Score: 1

If you thought that was bad, you should read Dragon Lensman some time.

I thought you were joking, but it appears that such a book actually exists. My brain hurts now.

--
how to invest, a novice's guide

Same writing style? by OzPeter · 2006-08-29 08:12 · Score: 5, Funny

So it will be full of gratuitous sex in every possible combination of the following?

Hetrosexual
Homosexual
Incest
Self
2-way
3-way
Orgy

And occur with in the realms of:
This universe (now)
This universe (time travel, forward and backward)
Parallel universes

Between people who are:
Real
Imagined
Living
Life-After-Death
Multiple people sharing the same skull

And that's just with the human characters. Heaven knows what interpsecies liasons will occur.

Boy did I read too much Heinlein when I was young.

--
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?

Re:Same writing style? by $RANDOMLUSER · 2006-08-29 08:21 · Score: 1

LOL too true!
You can factor out most of the weirdest stuff by pretending that "The Number Of The Beast" and "To Sail Beyond The Sunset" were written by somebody else.

--
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
Re:Same writing style? by kalirion · 2006-08-29 08:28 · Score: 3, Funny

Wait, are we talking about Piers Anthony now?
Re:Same writing style? by tnk1 · 2006-08-29 08:30 · Score: 1

You can factor out most of the weirdest stuff by pretending that "The Number Of The Beast" and "To Sail Beyond The Sunset" were written by somebody else.

No... no, you really can't.
Heinlein wrote some good stories, but dude, his characters had a habit of fucking anything that moved (or were about to move, or might be moving in an overarching multiverse), and some things that didn't move. Kinda makes me glad I somehow missed his books when I was a teenager. My head probably would have spun off my neck like a top.
Re:Same writing style? by Red+Flayer · 2006-08-29 08:40 · Score: 2, Funny

Nah, he's referring to what would happen if William S. Burroughs had actually written everything written by Edgar Rice Burroughs. Except he left out the drugs.

--
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
Re:Same writing style? by sammy+baby · 2006-08-29 08:41 · Score: 4, Funny

Heinlein wrote some good stories, but dude, his characters had a habit of fucking anything that moved (or were about to move, or might be moving in an overarching multiverse), and some things that didn't move. Kinda makes me glad I somehow missed his books when I was a teenager. My head probably would have spun off my neck like a top.

Are you kidding? That's why I was thrilled to find his stuff as a teenager.
Re:Same writing style? by owlnation · 2006-08-29 08:42 · Score: 1

You forgot to add a little spanking too.
Re:Same writing style? by grappler · 2006-08-29 09:00 · Score: 1

Hetrosexual
Homosexual
Incest
Self
2-way
3-way
Orgy ...
Multiple people sharing the same skull

yikes!

--
Vidi, Vici, Veni
Re:Same writing style? by mdielmann · 2006-08-29 09:42 · Score: 1

Boy did I read too much Heinlein when I was young.

Too much? You make it sound like you read a lot of his stuff. You can complete that list in, what, 2 or 3 books?

--
Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
Re:Same writing style? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-08-29 10:14 · Score: 0

Don't forget at least on rape fantasy
Re:Same writing style? by C.+Alan · 2006-08-29 10:39 · Score: 2, Informative

You forgot with a Cat.
"The cat whom walked through walls"
Re:Same writing style? by Blakey+Rat · 2006-08-29 10:51 · Score: 1

It'll also star a man who looks and acts remarkably like Heinlein himself, yet is surrounded by millions of dollars and beautiful women at all times. Strange how that works in almost all his novels...

--
Comment of the year
Re:Same writing style? by msuzio · 2006-08-29 12:04 · Score: 1

Thank you.

I'm far (far) from a prude. In fact, my biggest beef with Heinlein's sexual obsessions in his works is that they seemed to make what should have been damn hot sex into really icky, kind of boring sex.

Oh, and the reply below about Piers Anthony -- I agree with that times ten. I can't read Xanth books anymore without seeing the same embarassingly bad sexual overtones. Blech. :-P

--
It's a strange world -- let's keep it that way
Re:Same writing style? by dan828 · 2006-08-29 12:25 · Score: 1

yet is surrounded by millions of dollars and beautiful women at all times. Strange how that works in almost all his novels...

Well, if you're going to have a fantasy, would it involve being broke and be lacking in nubile women? As a teen-ager I loved Heinlein's stuff (though I must admit the recurring incestous and homosexual allusions kind of weirded me out a bit).
Even his older stuff had sexual undertones in it. You just KNEW that Kip and Peewee were going to hook up when she was a little older....
Re:Same writing style? by dryeo · 2006-08-29 13:01 · Score: 1

Hey, at least they'll say that they're married first

--
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
Re:Same writing style? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-08-29 14:45 · Score: 0

(off topic here) forget xanth. that tongue in cheek stuff was mildly interesting for the first 30 or 40 installments.

for satisfyingly bleak, go for Battle Circle. it's good.

Also, Macroscope is quite good as well.

Heads up though: he has a knack for upsetting people with his endings. When Neq the Sword glues a goddamn Glockenspiel to his sword, you will likely want to fling Battle Circle across the room. But Sos the Rope, and Var the Stick are quite good.

If you think that Xanth=Piers, then you missed his best stuff.

cheers
Re:Same writing style? by msuzio · 2006-08-29 15:51 · Score: 1

He intrigues me with his ideas, but he also (horribly) has the habit of writing the same basic 3-4 stories with some small details changed. I could read Xanth, The Apprentice Adept, The Incarnations of Immortality, etc... and I get the feeling I got too few characters/ideas for the amount of pages read.

"Bio of a Space Tyrant" intrigued me (as much as the first book was a please-shoot-me-now downer), but then the pedophilic themes in the last few books tipped me over the edge. I stuck with him through rape, through incest (implied at least), but the 12 year old (possibly mentally retarded) girl seducing the 50 year old was just wrong, sorry.

So, yeah... tried him. Liked him in my youth. Wouldn't touch his books now, unfortunately.

--
It's a strange world -- let's keep it that way
Re:Same writing style? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-08-29 17:16 · Score: 0

Holy crap, I spend too much time on /.

So I misread this as: "So, yeah... tried him. Liked him in my mouth."
Re:Same writing style? by herwin · 2006-08-29 20:27 · Score: 1

Unlikely. We're talking about a novel outline from the 1950s.
Re:Same writing style? by smithmc · 2006-08-30 06:00 · Score: 1

I think "redhead" belongs in that list somewhere. As in, "3-way bisexual incest with an imaginary redhead from a parallel afterlife" or something. Heinlein looooooved hot redheads. (Hey, who doesn't?)

--
Downmodding is the refuge of the weak. Don't downmod, make a better argument!

The Heinlein Paradox... by __aaclcg7560 · 2006-08-29 08:14 · Score: 1

What's the odd of someone screwing up a relationship, going on a bender, and ending up on a starship?

Re:The Heinlein Paradox... by Maelwryth · 2006-08-29 08:33 · Score: 3, Funny

"What's the odd of someone screwing up a relationship, going on a bender, and ending up on a starship?"

They must be fairly low. I've never ended up on a star ship.

--
I reserve the write to mangle english.
Re:The Heinlein Paradox... by __aaclcg7560 · 2006-08-29 08:55 · Score: 1

I didn't realize that I just step into a pile of probability dog poo. I thought you needed time travel for that. :)
Re:The Heinlein Paradox... by farrellj · 2006-08-29 17:57 · Score: 1

Historicly, it was very common to be "pressed" into service on a ship...and if you were drunk and/or passed out, it made the job of the press gang that much easier. The chances of that happening in the future are good, since so many people know nothing of history, and are thus doomed to repeat it.

ttyl
Farrell

--
CAN-CON 2019 - Ottawa's only book oriented Science Fiction Convention! October 18-20, Sheraton Hotel, Ottawa, Canada h
Re:The Heinlein Paradox... by SamSim · 2006-08-30 05:13 · Score: 1

Isn't that the plot of Red Dwarf?

--
qntm.org

Here's hoping by $RANDOMLUSER · 2006-08-29 08:14 · Score: 2, Interesting

I'm the biggest Heinlein fan ever, but "To Sail Beyond The Sunset" left a pretty bad taste in my mouth as his last novel. Maybe this one (even though he wasn't really involved) will help me remember him more fondly. (although there's always Lazarus...)

--
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill

Re:Here's hoping by MasterThis · 2006-08-29 08:24 · Score: 2, Interesting

That's what I'm wondering -- is this the early/mid Scifi Heinlein, or the late (post "Moon is a Harsh Mistress") new age Heinlein?

*sigh*... by PhineusJWhoopee · 2006-08-29 08:16 · Score: 2

...there were very few sex scenes in his novels prior to about 1968-ish. Then, it was like he was on literary Viagra.

ed

Re:*sigh*... by Anonymous+Commando · 2006-08-29 08:20 · Score: 1

ah yes - I seem to mostly remember his later stuff, I guess - wonder why? :-)

--
Corporate Jenga: You take a blockhead from the bottom and you put him on top...
Re:*sigh*... by OzPeter · 2006-08-29 08:29 · Score: 1

I had the misfortune to read that first novel of his that was recently released (the one that kept getting rejected or what-not). That book was full of sexual tension all over the place and you can see the basis for all of his later stuff. After reading that I was more suprised that there wasn't any sex in a lot of his earlier works.

--
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
Re:*sigh*... by Nimey · 2006-08-29 08:40 · Score: 1

By that time he was probably famous enough that he could demand his works not be edited. Boy was he wrong.

--
Hail Eris, full of mischief...

E pluribus sanguinem
Re:*sigh*... by Demolition · 2006-08-29 08:56 · Score: 3, Interesting

...there were very few sex scenes in his novels prior to about 1968-ish.

Probably because his editor and/or publisher objected to them. Overtly sexual passages in fiction were frowned upon in the increasingly puritanical morality of the 1950s. Even subtle hints of sexuality were banished. This was done in the name of saving our innocent virgin minds from such filthiness.

But, then the swinging 1960s rolled around and it wasn't such a concern, anymore. That attitude prevailed until the 1980s, when Heinlein really began to cut loose. As an example, "Friday" is probably the best-known Heinlein novel from the 1980s, and it's not because it was an outstanding literary work.
Re:*sigh*... by Asahi+Super+Dry · 2006-08-29 19:48 · Score: 1

Heh, they had that one in my high school library. When I read it (which was, uh, several times) I was always amazed that it stayed on the shelves.
Re:*sigh*... by DerekLyons · 2006-08-30 06:19 · Score: 1

there were very few sex scenes in his novels prior to about 1968-ish.

Probably because his editor and/or publisher objected to them. Overtly sexual passages in fiction were frowned upon in the increasingly puritanical morality of the 1950s. Even subtle hints of sexuality were banished. This was done in the name of saving our innocent virgin minds from such filthiness.

But, then the swinging 1960s rolled around and it wasn't such a concern, anymore. That attitude prevailed until the 1980s, when Heinlein really began to cut loose. As an example, "Friday" is probably the best-known Heinlein novel from the 1980s, and it's not because it was an outstanding literary work.

"Friday" is his best known work from the 80's because its essentially the only readable work of his from that period. The 'sex scenes' are a very minor proportion of the total book - anyone who focuses on them is an individual with very deep problems. (Or who lacks the wit to examine and discuss the larger issues inherent in the book. Or wishes to avoid doing so because of the depth and difficulty of doing so. I suspect the latter is the real reason, as Heinlein didn't write simple easy-to-categorize books.)

wow yes by Quadraginta · 2006-08-29 08:20 · Score: 1

Thanks for the link! I did not know about this prize. What a worthwhile use of the old man's fortune. What a pity he did not live to see Rutan's SS1 and so forth.

Spider Robinson? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-08-29 08:37 · Score: 0

I've no great objections to Spider Robinson as an author, but completing Heinlein? I think I'd much prefer John Varley for the job.

Though I have the feeling this is going to wind up like E.E. "Doc" Smith's posthumous books (Family D'Alembert. IIRC): a scenario from Smith, with Smith's name prominently plastered over the book over, and a sneaking suspicion that 95% of the text was produced by the author "completing" the work.

Story outline is not enough... by aralin · 2006-08-29 08:37 · Score: 4, Interesting

The one thing I am afraid of is that the story outline is usually just 20% of why Heinlein books were so great. He used the story and the environment it created for the characters to really present some new ideas and concepts and make the reader think about it. Heinlein books are often filled by strong ideas and concepts one appearing right after another, keeping your brain working all the time. I often found myself not remembering what the last 5 pages were about, because my mind run away with one of those ideas. He is so unlike other authors in this aspect. For most authors, the story outline would be enough for another writer to finish the book, since the main idea is usually also the only idea in the book and the rest is just sauce and random words and maybe nice story.

So I am really sceptical this would reach the quality of other Heinlein's books.

--
If programs would be read like poetry, most programmers would be Vogons.

Re:Story outline is not enough... by dracphelan · 2006-08-29 09:30 · Score: 2, Informative

I completely agree with you. Some of his greatest novels dealt troubling or taboo subjects involving human nature. Some examples are: Farnham's Freehold - Racism A Stranger In A Strange Land - Religion The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress - Government Time Enough For Love - Mortality, Love The Long Patrol (may not be remembering the title right) - Duty What I have always loved most about Heinlein's work is that it was never really about the technology. It was about people and how they interact. It was about what it takes to be a human being who is worth more than the chemicals that make up the body. Even in his juvenile novels, he wrote about what it takes for a boy to be a man. The last unpublished Heinlein novel I tried to read (Requiem?) was horrible. I could see why he chose not to publish it. Hopefully, this one will be better.
Re:Story outline is not enough... by doobie · 2006-08-29 11:09 · Score: 1

Spider did a superb job. I wrote a review that's posted somewhere below. I was very skeptical myself and being a fan of Heinlein's works and less of of Spider, I always hated when Spider was called "the new Heinlein," but I feel very different after reading Variable Star.
Re:Story outline is not enough... by TempeTerra · 2006-08-29 11:36 · Score: 1

One can only hope that Heinlein's story outline consisted of a jumble of new ideas and concepts which he was trying to string together into a cohesive plot. It cerainly seems plausible; Heinlein strikes me as the kind of writer who would decide on a theme for each chapter and figure out how to make his characters expound the theme later.

--
.evom ton seod gis eht
Re:Story outline is not enough... by sgt_doom · 2006-08-29 14:15 · Score: 1

Outstanding post, Citizen Aralin!!!!

Only four movies to date, that ancient rocketship to the moon pix, plus Puppet Masters, Starship Troopers, and Truman Story (even though he wasn't credited for an obvious theft of his idea and story line). We need many, many more of those.....

Let's Make this Political! by spun · 2006-08-29 08:37 · Score: 2, Interesting

Heinlein was a right wing libertarian type. Spider is a lefty hippy anarchist type. Both are great writers, but if you can't stand reading political views that don't agree with your own, I suggest staying away from one or the other.

Just guessing, but you're a libertarian type, aren't you?

--
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton

Re:Let's Make this Political! by F1re · 2006-08-29 09:04 · Score: 1

Have you ever read 'Stranger in a Strange Land'?

--
...there is no sig...
Re:Let's Make this Political! by Anonymous Coward · 2006-08-29 09:30 · Score: 0

Wow... if you consider Libertarian views to be right-wing, you must come from waaaaaaay left... you anarchist :)

I do think that Libertarian is far more correct than right-wing.

Heinlein definitely did not believe that participation in our political processes should be given as a right, rather earned by service to the nation in whatever form. When you have contributed to something you tend to have more of a vested interest in its well-being.

He definitely didn't believe in the current form of "criminal rehabilitation" (HA!). In his views actions should have very direct consequences, not an adult version of "time-out" with cable and three squares a day. It obviously didn't work when they were children, what makes you think it will magically work on them as adults?

I realize that you were trolling for comments, but let's not lump moderates with right-wingers
Re:Let's Make this Political! by Lonewolf666 · 2006-08-29 09:31 · Score: 2, Insightful

I think Heinlein was a libertarian first and right-wing second. So the idea that unusual sexulal relations between consenting adults are OK is not surprising from him.
Besides, some libertarian ideas (like personal responsibility rather than a nanny state) are often associated with "conservative", correctly or not. That may make Heinlein look more right-wing than he really was.

--
C - the footgun of programming languages
Re:Let's Make this Political! by spun · 2006-08-29 09:31 · Score: 1

Yeah, and libertarianism is a form of anarchism. But 'Stranger in a Strange Land' does not make Heinlein a hippy left leaning anarchist. Spider is more along the lines of Ursala K. LeGuinn.

--
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Re:Let's Make this Political! by Millenniumman · 2006-08-29 09:51 · Score: 1

How is it a form of anarchism? It advocates a government.

--
Stupidity is like nuclear power, it can be used for good or evil. And you don't want to get any on you.
Re:Let's Make this Political! by spun · 2006-08-29 09:52 · Score: 3, Insightful

Anarchism comes in two basic flavors, for convenience I call them right wing and left. It all boils down to how property is treated. Libertarianism could more accurately be called propertarianism, espousing as it does very strong protection for property. Socialist anarchists (like anarcho syndicalists, for instance) believe in Proudhon's saying, "property is theft." They believe that natural resources and real property should be managed through collective, not individual ownership.

I call Libertarians right wing because it seems as though they value property rights over human rights. Before there were fences, anyone could go anywhere and use any resource. What gives one person the right to exclude all others from using that property? Is it because they have "mingled their work" with the property? Well, what gave them the right to mingle in the first place?

Propertarians bring up the tragedy of the commons, which is an unfair example because it compares managed private ownership with unmanaged collective ownership. A collective could excercise just as much responsibility as an individual, and it could even be done democratically.

In contrast, protection of real property (as opposed to personal property. I do believe in that, I'm not a communist!) requires initiation of force. You want to see sophistry in action, try to get a Libertarian to define initiation of force. You'll find it boils down to "any use of force I don't like."

Propertarians also hold the view that there is a mutual contract between property owners. You protect my right to private property, I'll protect yours. This does not address the vast majority of people who aren't a party to that contract because they own no real property. What compensation are they getting as recompense for having their rights abridged?

As for personal responsibility, that is common sense and just as many hippy leftists believe in that as do libertarians and right wingers. The right wingers and libertarians just like to claim they have a monopoly on it.

--
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Re:Let's Make this Political! by AuMatar · 2006-08-29 09:54 · Score: 1

THere's a large group of very vocal Libertarians who are anarchists. And with the Libertarian view on buisness regulation, I see very, very little difference between it and anarchy even from the non-anarchists.

--
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
Re:Let's Make this Political! by Millenniumman · 2006-08-29 10:01 · Score: 1

There's a very large group of very cowish cows who are deer. See, I can do that too! Libertarianism advocates a government, however limited, so it is not anarchism. Period. And L/libertarianism does advocate government-enforced laws against killing/stealing from people, taxes, and various other things, which apply to both individuals and businesses. Anarchism is when you don't have a government, and people magically never doing anything bad ^w^w^w^w^w^w^w^h^h.

--
Stupidity is like nuclear power, it can be used for good or evil. And you don't want to get any on you.
Re:Let's Make this Political! by spun · 2006-08-29 10:30 · Score: 1

Any sufficiently organized community is indistinguishable from government. You'll find most flavors of anarchism outside the safety-pin-through-the-nose-circle-A-street-punk variety actually advocate for a sufficiently organized community.

--
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Re:Let's Make this Political! by spun · 2006-08-29 10:36 · Score: 1

You have a very limited understanding of anarchism, but one that is sadly all too common. Anarchism isn't about no government, it's about no rulers. The wikipedia article is a fine place to start if you'd like to learn more about what anarchism really means.

--
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Re:Let's Make this Political! by AuMatar · 2006-08-29 11:30 · Score: 1

ANd there's a large number of Libertarians, particularly randists, who think that you can have no government at all and the market will magically make everyone be good to each other and punish those who are bad. Sorry if you don't like it, but you need to look at your own party. I'd say 3/4 of all libertarians I interact with are of the complete anarchy school these days. As is pretty much the Libertarian party.

--
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
Re:Let's Make this Political! by Millenniumman · 2006-08-29 11:34 · Score: 1

Thus "anarchism," in its most general semantic meaning, is the belief that all forms of rulership are undesirable and should be abolished.-Wikipedia

Government is a "form of rulership".

anarchism does not provide a world view beyond the idea that imposed authority is undesirable and unnecessary-wikipedia

Government is imposed authority. How is anarchism not opposition to government?

Millenniuman is right, hah!-wikipedia

--
Stupidity is like nuclear power, it can be used for good or evil. And you don't want to get any on you.
Re:Let's Make this Political! by Catbeller · 2006-08-29 11:39 · Score: 1

It's time to tear up the old left/right scale. William Randolph Hearst and his ilk are dead, and it's past time to throw out the trash.

The basic division are this: people who believe business is the path to freedom, and want no government interference, and those who believe business is as coercive as any government, and needs to be controlled by government. Corporatism is the ultimate expression of the first, and is an outgrowth of the worldview of the Gilded Age financiers of the 19th century. The other division is hard to define as a named group, as it merely expresses opposition to the corporatists' outlook.

Some people believe in a balance, a "moderate" split between the two positions, but in reality the "corporatist" model doesn't believe in compromise and thus war is joined. This has been the central conflict of the last 150 years.
Re:Let's Make this Political! by Millenniumman · 2006-08-29 12:03 · Score: 1

I don't claim to know the thoughts of 3/4 of all self labeled libertarians, but the United States Libertarian Party is not anarcho-capitalist. They support having a government, mainly for national defense and enforcement of safety and property rights.

--
Stupidity is like nuclear power, it can be used for good or evil. And you don't want to get any on you.
Re:Let's Make this Political! by wytcld · 2006-08-29 12:46 · Score: 1

Take a look at his first book, For Us the Living . It reflects his political background in California, where he'd been a candidate of the very radical (although not Marxist) left. To assimilate him to some flavor of current conservative thought ignores where he was coming from. It's generally a mistake made because the left isn't supposed to respect the need for a military, and he wrote Starship Troopers. Well, he wrote that in the same period as Stranger in a Strange Land and Glory Road - the first of which was distinctly against the sort of authoritarianism that characterizes our current conservative movement; the latter of which was among other things the first novel to take a strong stand against the absurdity of our adventure in Viet Nam. And don't even begin to think about his treatment of fundamentalist religion. It's just flat-out false to assimilate him to any normal conservative position, at any point in his career.

--
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
Re:Let's Make this Political! by squarooticus · 2006-08-29 13:10 · Score: 1

Any sufficiently organized community is indistinguishable from government.

False.

A government is merely a territorial monopoly of jurisdiction. (See Hans-Hermann Hoppe's summary of his own book, Democracy: The God That Failed.) If you own property and do not surrender your right to sever any contracts with other entities to whom you grant certain powers (e.g., over defense), you have not given over control to a government. Such was the state of the United States prior to the Civil War, when secession was viewed as legitimate. Unfortunately, the primary result of the Civil War was that the national government attained supremacy over the individual states, a reversal of the prior situation.

Cheers,
Kyle

--
[ home ]
Re:Let's Make this Political! by squarooticus · 2006-08-29 13:14 · Score: 1

What I always like to point out to those ignorant of anarchy is that anarchy implies a lack of compulsory government, but does NOT imply a lack of order. Order is achieved naturally through market forces: people provide for their own protection, which in most cases means they contract for it; but unlike the (questionable) protection we derive from our governments, those in anarcho-capitalist societies could voluntarily change protectors without ending up in prison for treason.

--
[ home ]
Re:Let's Make this Political! by Millenniumman · 2006-08-29 13:37 · Score: 1

That's fine, but it does not make my point any less true. Someone who advocates a government is not an anarchist. Libertarianism advocates a (limited) government. It is not anarchism.

On a side note, why would one of these "protector" companies let you change to another "protector"?

--
Stupidity is like nuclear power, it can be used for good or evil. And you don't want to get any on you.
Re:Let's Make this Political! by Gulthek · 2006-08-29 13:46 · Score: 1

Anarchism is lazy people wanting a free ride from the world. Let me see if I can boil it all down:

"I want all the stuff, but I don't want to work or pay for anything. And everyone should just get along. No one should be able to tell anyone else what to do, but all the menial labor will just get done because someone will do it."
Re:Let's Make this Political! by squarooticus · 2006-08-29 13:56 · Score: 1

Libertarianism advocates a (limited) government. It is not anarchism.
There are differing definitions of libertarian. Many anarcho-capitalists classify themselves as libertarian. I do not, because it leads to the confusion you point out. For the record, I believe limited government is folly, because all governments expand their powers indefinitely over time. The only way to avoid this trap is never to submit to a coercive force in the first place, and to preserve your rights as a free man or woman.
On a side note, why would one of these "protector" companies let you change to another "protector"?
For the same reason your plumber doesn't sabotage your water main when you decide to go with a different plumber. Are you really that paranoid?

Kyle

--
[ home ]
Re:Let's Make this Political! by sgt_doom · 2006-08-29 14:03 · Score: 1

Having read all of Heinlein's works, having read every bio on him, having met his late wife, and many years ago discussed him with the late Isaac Asimov (having once lived next door to his aunt), I can easily and readily state RAH was never right-wing. He wasn't as historically knowledgeable as he'd like to have been, but such historical knowledge comes to light only years later - and is much much more accessible now with the 'net.

I would postulate that he is/was the exact opposite of those neocons and theocrats now residing in office, most definitely so. He was also a very future-oriented thinker, placing little value in humanity's political institutions and having a personal philosphy many of us share, the necessity of self-reliance and lifelong self-improvement (I'd compare his philosphy more to Eric Hoffer - "the longshoreman philosopher" - than anyone else's)....
Re:Let's Make this Political! by Millenniumman · 2006-08-29 14:58 · Score: 1

If a plumber did something like that:
a. The customer would be able to report the incident and he would never be hired again.
b. He would probably incur legal penalties.
c. He would have to hope his customer was a peaceful person.

Your "protector":
a. Could and would stop the incident from being reported.
b. Would be under no law.
c. Would have nothing to fear from its customer.
d. Is a large group of people with little direct responsibility.

When you put a business in the position of a government, you can't expect it to be any better.

--
Stupidity is like nuclear power, it can be used for good or evil. And you don't want to get any on you.
Re:Let's Make this Political! by Anonymous Coward · 2006-08-29 15:47 · Score: 0

"I call Libertarians right wing because it seems as though they value property rights over human rights."

You would do well to actually study libertarian philosophy. Property rights are not greater or more important than human rights in the sense of two contrasting and competing categories, but instead they are themselves the foundation for human rights. Fundamentally, the most basic human right from which other stem, that you have ownership of yourself, is purely a property right.

In the Socialist anarchist world, whilst they surely have other rights to make sure bad things cant be done to people (i.e. say to make sure a community that is 51% men 49% women cant vote to rape the minority at will), when you look past the pomp you will see that most of those rights are property rights and they are hypocrits.

Secondly, it doesn't much in depth though about the subject of property to realize that there is indeed a difference between natural goods and man-made goods. Whilst socialists do not understand the difference (nor do many libertarians sadly, but you thankfully seem on the verge of grasping it by drawing a distinction), it is quite important. Everyone has as much claim to natural goods (like oxygen and land) as anyone else. But, things that you have invested your work in, such as growing crops or erecting buildings, are different - they required work, thought, and time, and that is why they can be owned.

Thridly, why dont you give me a socialist definition of "initiation of force" that doesn't boil down to " any use of force the group or its leaders don't like" before your rail against libertarianism?

Fourthly, as for:
"This does not address the vast majority of people who aren't a party to that contract because they own no real property. What compensation are they getting as recompense for having their rights abridged?"

Ahhh, and what compensation am I getting in a socialist world for having my "right" to own things restricted?

Think about it. What happens when I want to opt out of your socialist world and own my own house, my own pots, my own computer? Since I am taking away from the all-mighty collective, the only logical recourse is violence or deportation (which is hardly much better if the socialists control all the world).

But what happens if we go the other way, where in a libertarian world a group of socialists opt to share all their goods? Nothing. Its their right to share property as they see fit, so its no big deal.

Thus we can easily see how libertarianism accutally allows socialism (by peoples free choice) but socialism excludes (possibly violently) libertarianism. So much for being free to choose how to live your life ehh?
Re:Let's Make this Political! by spun · 2006-08-29 16:46 · Score: 1

It's not imposed if everyone agrees to it. And I said wikipedia was a good place to start, not the final definition. I'm just trying to state what I and other anarchists believe the word to mean. You can believe it means angel food cake if you like, but we'll keep on using as we have been for the last 150 years.

--
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Re:Let's Make this Political! by spun · 2006-08-29 16:54 · Score: 1

Having seen it in action, I can say this is not how it works. You must be thinking of libertarians.

--
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Re:Let's Make this Political! by spun · 2006-08-29 17:16 · Score: 1

Yes, false. And glib. Meant to illustrate a point made later. Would you care to argue the point that anarchists can, in fact, have a system of organization that is in some ways similar to government, and still fairly call themselves anarchists? Because that is the point I was trying to make.

--
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Re:Let's Make this Political! by spun · 2006-08-29 17:23 · Score: 1

I agree that personal property should be protected. Natural resources should be allocated democratically. But no one should steal the fruits of another's labor. Socialist anarchists such as myself believe as you do, that we should agree to share. But we also feel it is our right to deny the benefits of living in our society to those who don't want to share. I'm sure you will agree that this is not force or coercion.

You have no right to own things. You have the ability to take them and keep them by force, and you have the ability to convince others to do likewise. You have no natural rights at all, except for the right to do whatever it is in your power to do. Rights are derived from social contract. You agree to uphold a right for others because they agree to uphold that right for you. Rights are simply a special case of contract law.

So you cannot falsely argue from authority, and claim that the rights you would like upheld are "natural" and all others somehow less authentic. Rights must be justified in terms of benefit to the individual, not in terms of some arbitrary authority such as nature or God. I argue that the right to own natural resources cannot be justified to all individuals, because some will always be born with less. How do you convince those people that they should accept your arbitrary definition of rights when that definition deprives them of something they would have had, if only you, the owner, weren't around? They get nothing in return for giving up the right to go someplace and use some resource without someone using violence to keep them off. Only other property holders get something from this arrangement.

I agree with your claim that things produced can fairly be owned. But what gives you the right to own land or resources? You did not produce them, and anything you build on them you do without a fair rational for your ownership of them. If I build a house on someone else's property, is the house rightly mine? If not, then how can you justify ownership of land simply through putting labor into it? You didn't own it before you put the labor into it.

Libertarians are late comers to the anarchist game, they don't get to claim the whole of anarchist thought and philosophy as their own. Read some Proudhon if you care to investigate the line of thought I present here. He said property is theft, but he also said "the laborer retains, even after he has received his wages, a natural right of property in the thing which he has produced."

--
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Re:Let's Make this Political! by farrellj · 2006-08-29 17:47 · Score: 1

I used to be an anarchist, but it had too many rules, like having to hate government, own guns ,etc... :-)

ttyl
Farrell

--
CAN-CON 2019 - Ottawa's only book oriented Science Fiction Convention! October 18-20, Sheraton Hotel, Ottawa, Canada h
Re:Let's Make this Political! by wytcld · 2006-08-30 01:38 · Score: 1

In the two sample chapters, it's obvious Spider sees Variable Star as a close relative to Citizen of the Galaxy. The estate the hero is wisked to this time is similar to the estate where the hero ends up that time, this time moved northward from the Tetons (once actually a Rockefeller estate) into the Canadian Rockies - and in both cases there's a Surname of Surname construction to signify extreme upper class wealth and position. In both cases the dynastic family is engaged in space exploration modelled on the "age of discovery" when England and Holland were, for commercial reasons, exploring the seas.

What's interesting about the politics of Citizen, for those who place Heinlein on the "right wing," is that the central plot element concerns how a major American corporation can end up deeply complicit in the slave trade and other harshly abusive colonial practices. If Spider (and RAH's outline) has taken Star down a parallel path - since so far it looks like a set up for a reverse telling of the same story - no doubt those of the right who fancy Heinlein a compatriot will scream that Spider has perverted Heinleins vision, injecting left wing themes.

--
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
Re:Let's Make this Political! by squarooticus · 2006-08-30 01:41 · Score: 1

If a plumber did something like that:
a. The customer would be able to report the incident and he would never be hired again.
b. He would probably incur legal penalties.
c. He would have to hope his customer was a peaceful person.

If your protector did something like that:
a. You'd already have hired a different protector.
b. A protector is in the business of making money by providing a service, not fighting needless wars against other protectors, the latter of which would almost certainly result in him losing even more business as word got out of his abuse of power.
c. He'd be hoping that you had no recourse, but he'd be wrong, because there would be a market in protectors, so the chances of you being completely without protection would essentially be nil.

The situation you describe simply wouldn't happen, because it would not be in the interests of protectors to do "business" like the mob.

--
[ home ]
Re:Let's Make this Political! by squarooticus · 2006-08-30 01:41 · Score: 1

that is in some ways similar to government

Absolutely. But the primary distinction is that it would be voluntary, which is precisely what a real government isn't, and is the entire source of discontent with government by anarcho-capitalists.

If it looks like a wolf but acts like a dog, it isn't really a wolf, is it?

Kyle

--
[ home ]
Re:Let's Make this Political! by spun · 2006-08-30 02:00 · Score: 1

We anarcho-syndicalists want things voluntary, too. That's so like you anarcho-capitalists. You want to own all the best ideas for yourselves. :P

--
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Re:Let's Make this Political! by smithmc · 2006-08-30 06:05 · Score: 1

A collective could excercise just as much responsibility as an individual, and it could even be done democratically.

Recent history (at least American history) would tend to indicate otherwise.

--
Downmodding is the refuge of the weak. Don't downmod, make a better argument!
Re:Let's Make this Political! by spun · 2006-08-30 07:24 · Score: 1

Sad but true. At least for America. But look at the Mondragon Collective in Spain for an example of (IMHO) a good mix of private property, free enterprise, and collectivism. I mean, a 90% success rate for new businesses after 5 years is none too shabby. It kinda proves the old African saying, "Only free individuals can create a strong tribe. Only a strong tribe can create free individuals." Thus showing that individualism vs. collectivism is a false dichotomy.

--
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Re:Let's Make this Political! by squarooticus · 2006-08-30 07:35 · Score: 1

You want to own all the best ideas for yourselves.

No, I simply don't want to be associated with an ideology that is so illogical it makes my brain hurt.

Just like communism, anarcho-syndicalism denies a basic reality of human nature and economics that most people like to own things, and that since people are motivated to be happy, they try to acquire things non-stop.

If the means of production cannot be privately owned, then nothing can be privately owned, since everything is ultimately a means of production: even that sofa cushion under your fat ass is a means of production, because it provides you with the pleasure necessary in your off time to be able to slog back into work on Monday to earn money.

No private property => no motivation for personal gain => personal productivity in toilet => human race comes to a halt and nothing gets done.

Anarcho-syndicalism is pretty much what the Star Trek: TNG universe was based on, yet no one ever discussed how or why the motivation to get things from other people ("envy") was abolished. Perhaps it was done using psychotropic medication?

Cheers,
Kyle

--
[ home ]
Re:Let's Make this Political! by spun · 2006-08-30 09:08 · Score: 1

You are misinformed about the anarcho-syndicalist stance on private property. Personal property, those things that are created through labor, can be owned. Things that can't be created through labor, such as land and natural resources, cannot. You are also misinformed about human motivation. Most people are more motivated by the ideal of justice and reciprocity than by selfish gain. At least according to recent experiments in economics. Google "economic research reciprocity fairness" if you want to find out more.

The means of produciotn must either be managed collectively or limits must be placed on the amount that any one person can own. Otherwise, ownership will concentrate into fewer and fewer hands until one ends up with a dictatorship of the owners. Can you honestly claim your system would work if we switched today, without redistributing wealth?

You assume that envy is a basic human emotion, yet it is not one of the five universally recognizable human emotions. I would say that it is a learned emotion, not a natural one. In the polyamory community, we use the term cathexis (perhaps incorrectly, at least by Freud's definition) to mean the opposite of jealousy or envy. It is the good feeling that one gets when someone that one cares about is happy and secure. I would say this feeling (whatever the correct term) is more natural than envy.

In fact, your whole philosophy seems based on unnatural conditions. This constitutes a feedback loop, where your (and many other people's) beliefs actually serve to create and reinforce the conditions that are believed to be natural, but in fact are highly disfunctional.

Starting with false assumptions leads to false conclusions. Your false assumptions about human motivations and happiness can easily be traced to a self serving desire to justify a system that has worked for you. By blaming the people whom the system has failed instead of the system itself, you absolve yourself of any feelings of guilt and justify your own unfair advantage within the system. This is so illogical, hypocritical and self serving it makes my whole being hurt. See? Two can play at that game.

Backing away from the insulting and condescending language, I can see you are a person who honestly desires what's best for humanity. So do I. That doesn't make me any kind of saint. I just like being around happy humans, and desperate humans scare me. I want a world where as many humans as possible are happy, and as few as possible are desperate. I want that for entirely selfish reasons.

We just differ on the details. I can honestly say I have looked at your position and reject it not based on rigid dogma, but my own best thinking. Still, I could be wrong, and if that can be shown to my satisfaction, I will change my beliefs in a heartbeat. I've done it before and I'm sure I'll do it again. But claiming my ideas are "so illogical it makes your brain hurt" does not help win me over to your position.

--
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Re:Let's Make this Political! by squarooticus · 2006-08-30 09:36 · Score: 1

I'm honestly interested in how this philosophy is supposed to work, because evidently I am not smart enough to figure it out on my own. In contrast, anarcho-capitalism was perfectly logical to me within days of reading about it. Just as a bit of background: I used to be a small-government libertarian until I realized that permanently assigning powers to another authority (i.e., without the ability to get them back at will) will inevitably result in that authority growing unbounded over time.

Thus I question:

The means of produciotn must either be managed collectively

Who is going to enforce this?

limits must be placed on the amount that any one person can own

Who is going to enforce this?

The whole point of anarchy is that there can be no compulsory authority, i.e., one from which you cannot re-obtain any powers to which you assigned it. For example, if my posse and I decide to buy a massive amount of offensive chattel (i.e., guns), take over a plot of land in the southwest, and obtain monopoly ownership of the oil beneath that ground to sell to other like-minded people who aren't interested in the concept of public ownership of the means of production, what is the natural force that is going to stop us?

Cheers,
Kyle

--
[ home ]
Re:Let's Make this Political! by spun · 2006-08-30 10:45 · Score: 1

The means of produciotn must either be managed collectively

Who is going to enforce this?

The same people that would enforce private property. That is, whoever the people collectively decide will enforce it. The same people who enforce the prohibition against murder, for instance.

Next question, same answer.

Final question, same answer.

Conversely, what natural force would keep me and my posse from simply ignoring your unilateral decision that you own a certain natural resource?

I feel like I must be missing something here, this does not seem that complicated or hard to understand. Perhaps I haven't managed to discern what your real objections are? In any case, the dialectic is, as always, immensely interesting to me because I feel that arriving at the best possible answer to these questions is a very important goal.

Let me ask you a few questions. First, in your anarcho-capitalist world, how do you deal with the three major breakdowns of the free market: natural monopolies, imbalance of information, and externalities? Second, how do you keep wealth from concentrating into fewer and fewer hands, leading to an eventual dictatorship of the owning class over everyone else? Third, how do you fairly address the "original sin" of primitive accumulation? Fourth, what system of justice do you envision, is it equally available to the haves and have-nots, and who carries out the enforcement of decisions?

I've got a whole long list of questions, but I think that's enough for now.

--
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Re:Let's Make this Political! by squarooticus · 2006-08-30 11:42 · Score: 1

>> Who is going to enforce this?
> The same people that would enforce private property. That is, whoever the
> people collectively decide will enforce it. The same people who enforce
> the prohibition against murder, for instance.

This is a non-constructive answer ("non-constructive" as in "non-constructive proof"): you assert that someone exists to do this, but fail to delineate who that is or illustrate how this force would come into being/come to possess the power it wields. It sounds an awful lot like a "world government" if it possesses compulsory regulatory power regardless of physical domain.

> Conversely, what natural force would keep me and my posse from simply ignoring
> your unilateral decision that you own a certain natural resource?

The natural human desire to own property would result in my hiring a defense contractor who would keep you out.

Functionally, I assign a subjective value to the property; I consider what percentage of that value I am willing to pay to protect it; and I hire a defense contractor for less than or equal to that amount of money to perform the protective service.

It seems like anarcho-syndicalism relies on the existence of a non-local force (as yet merely hypothetical) to keep people from performing the "bad" act of appropriating natural resources. Conversely, anarcho-capitalism relies only on privately-owned local force to prevent coercive transactions.

> how do you deal with the three major breakdowns of the free market: natural monopolies

Natural monopolies can only exist when the cost of the appearance of a competitor outweighs the cost of living with the natural monopoly. If, for example, a monopoly in electricity were to exist in some area, and they proceeded to jack up prices, people would live with it until the point at which it would be worthwhile for them to form an electricity co-op, or until some company decided there could be extracted enough profit to make the venture worthwhile. Once public opinion against an abusive company got enough momentum, that company would lose enough credibility that even underselling their competitors would not be enough to make all of their competitors disappear.

You can also imagine that in the absence of government-enforced environmental regulation, small co-ops generating electricity for neighborhoods would be sufficient counterbalance to abuse of otherwise monopoly power.

This is not a "breakdown" in the market: it is precisely how you would expect the market to work.

> imbalance of information

Otherwise known as "people are foolish." I fail to see how this applies to anarcho-capitalism and not to anarcho-syndicalism.

But to address it briefly: using the example form the Wikipedia page, smart people today insist on taking used cars to their own mechanics for once overs; and the "lemon" problem has inspired a "certified pre-owned" market in which the car makers themselves put their quality reputations on the line in exchange for being able to command a higher selling price.

Again, not a "breakdown" in the market.

> externalities?

This is no different from any other kind of property dispute. If someone pollutes your air, for instance, you attempt to arbitrate with them using a mutually agreed-upon arbitrator; and if at the end of this process the accused decides not to abide by the decision of the arbitrator, your insurance company either pays you the damages and attempts to collect ("repo-man") from the accused or his insurance company, or you yourself collect or hire a repo-man to do the dirty work. Because you have engaged in an equitable process to attempt collection, your insurance company will support you in your efforts and defend you from any attempts at retaliation.

> how do you keep wealth from concentrating into fewer and fewer hands,
> leading to an eventual dictatorship of the owning class over everyone else

I reject the premise of this question. You ne

--
[ home ]
Re:Let's Make this Political! by spun · 2006-08-31 04:06 · Score: 1

The force that will keep you from monopolizing natural resources is whatever force society pays to do so, just like in your scenario. Here's the quick rundown of the logic. Land starts out useable by all. You don't own any land to start with, therefore mixing your labor with it is stealing from everyone. If you use force to try to keep the land you stole, that's initiation of force and we are justified in using force to take it back. If you want to mix labor with land and have some say over it, you need permission from the people you are taking it from.

I really don't see how you can postulate a capitalist enforcement system and not acknowledge the legitimacy of a socialist enforcement system. Non-local force? Where do you even get that idea? It certainly isn't inherant in anything I've written.

I also don't see how you will get the majority of people to go along with a system that screws them. If justice is not equally accessible to all, it isn't just.

I find myself becoming frustrated when you, as many anarcho capitalist types do, throw out years of economic science and state that economics works the way you say it should without any kind of science or research to back it up. The points I raised are acknowledged as real failures of the free market by the vast majority of economists. I know, appeal to authority, so let me explain.

Natural monopolies, lemons (and other cases of imblanace of information) and externalities represent an inefficiency in the market. By efficiency, I mean Pareto Efficiency. The fact that you don't understand what I'm getting at implies that you have little training in economics and base your economic ideas on things you've heard from one source: other anarcho-capitalists. Sorry, but that information is flawed. It is not based on science and research, but on the way certain people wish the world worked. You have no evidence to back up your position, I have years of economic science to back up mine. Tossing out a whole field of scientific endeavor is tinfoil-hat territory.

Hoppe doesn't address the major issue, that stealing land from others does not give you the right to mingle your labor with it in the first place.

Wealth is also power. Power to generate further wealth, and power to change the rules by which wealth is generated and societies are run. It's a positive feedback loop with no governor. I'm simply dumbfounded that you cannot see how wealth will concentrate in fewer and fewer hands. Do you not notice what's going on in the world? Or do you, like so many libertarian types, believe that is due to interference in the free market rather than a failure of the free market itself? If so, consider that the interference comes from power and wealth generated by the free market.

I'm getting the impression that you are some kind of social darwinist, that you think everyone should have the right to screw over everyone else. I think society's main purpose is to keep people from screwing over others. I am my brother's keeper. We inherited this world and all our knowledge of it from society. We owe society an incalculable debt for that. In addition, we are not permanent owners of anything, mortality ebing what it is, so we have a responsiblity to those who will come after. I think anarcho-capitalists see every individual as an island, capable of action without impact.Frankly, I find that disgusting and anti social and see no reason why that way of thinking should be supported, Thankfully, most of the world agrees with me.

--
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Re:Let's Make this Political! by squarooticus · 2006-08-31 05:37 · Score: 1

I'm going to ignore the moralizing and ad hominem in the rest of your response because frankly it isn't interesting. That, and the vast majority of economists are Keynesians, so using them to support your arguments in favor of any form of anarchism is a bit foolish. ;-) I'll just address feasibility and leave it at that. This will be my final response.

> The force that will keep you from monopolizing natural resources
> is whatever force society pays to do so, just like in your scenario.

(1) What makes you think that everyone will agree on a single set of rules and a single force? This is the core of the problem with both democracy and various forms of socialism, and one which you have not only not solved, but have actually made worse by virtue of requiring everyone everywhere to obey the same artificial rules and use a single standard of value for property. How is this anarchy?

(2) What if a group of people want to break off from your utopia and form their own anarcho-capitalist society, *and* have the resources to defend their decision? It will happen. What will you do then? A society based on anarcho-syndicalism doesn't sound very peaceful to me.

The reason why anarcho-capitalism works is that it is truly what Hoppe called it: the Natural Order. It is a stable equilibreum primarily because it is *not* mutually exclusive with other reasonable philosophies and does not require everyone---even in a small geographical region!---to participate in order for it to work.

*This* is what I mean by it requiring only local force vs. non-local force. If you want to get together some land and build yourself a socialist paradise, your anarcho-capitalist neighbor says, "Go for it, as long as you don't impose your will on me!" If you manage to gather enough power to yourself to take over a plot of land, enslave some natives, and generally run rough-shod over the people stupid enough to remain there, your anarcho-capitalist neighbor says, "Whatever, as long as you don't impose your will on me!"

Anarcho-capitalism is feasible precisely because it doesn't require everyone to agree to the same terms for running a society. It even works in the degenerate case, in which one individual decides he wants to engage in human sacrifice. The anarcho-capitalist says, "Fine by me: just stay the hell off my land or I'll shoot you in the head."

Anarcho-capitalism is not utopia: it is what one would expect to naturally occur if people were not foolish enough to permanently surrender their rights to a custodian. Anarcho-syndicalism simply does not have this property. Whether you find capitalism distasteful or not is entirely irrelevant to the question of whether it is the natural order or not, the latter being a much more interesting question to someone who wants to realistically promote liberty in a world filled with statists.

Cheers,
Kyle

--
[ home ]
Re:Let's Make this Political! by spun · 2006-08-31 06:07 · Score: 1

Sorry for the ad hominems, I didn't mean to insult you. Just your philosophy ;). As for the moralizing, that's how I feel, and you are perfectly free to ignore it.

I see now the root of our misunderstanding, and looking back on previous posts I should have caught it earlier. I'm not proposing any top down mandated social structure! That, as you say, is not anarchism. I'm talking about a local, bottom up structure. I would never want to force anyone to adopt my system, that is antithetical to anarchism.

But I don't agree that all such systems of anarchy must include a strict right to own natural resources, and I don't agree that any socialist anarchist system must respect an anarcho-capitalist systems property claims. You have demonstrated no moral imperative whatsoever for our little local anarcho-syndicalist community to respect your little anarcho-capitalist community's property claims. Your argument boils down to the outmoded concept of natural rights, and quite frankly, to naked force. That is a less than compelling argument in my book.

As for your second point, what is to keep a group of people in your anarcho-capitalist world from doing the same thing? You are judging these systems by two completely different sets of criteria, and that is what I find frustrating. In fact, it's garaunteed to happen in your system. People will amass wealth and power and use force to leverage even more wealth and power. It's the natural end-point of your system, just as the natural end-point of communism is dictatorship.

I do not see anarcho capitalism as any kind of natural order. It is not a stable equilibrium, and it does require that everyone subscribe to your notions of property and ownership. It invariably leads to wealth and power concentrating into fewer and fewer hands. It amounts to a tyranny of the strong over the weak, of the haves over the have-nots.

When everything is owned, how do people opt out of your system? Where do they go? Once every piece of land is owned, people who do not own become dependant on the owners for their means of survival, and they must give up their freedom simply to live. Your system is gauranteed to devolve into tyranny.

In contrast, anarcho-syndicalism, not being based on some artifical definition of property and the force necessary to protect that artificial definition is closer to a natural equilibrium. How is mediation of control through democracy less natural than meditation of control through money? Monetary transactions amount to a less fair version of democracy, where certain people have more votes than others. The tyranny of the majority exists in the free market, too. Just as functional democracies have constitutions that protect against that tyranny, markets must have regulations to protect against the same.

--
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton

Is it just me... by Robotech_Master · 2006-08-29 08:38 · Score: 2, Interesting

...or does this sound a lot like the premise behind the TV show Red Dwarf ?

--
Editor Emeritus and Senior Writer, TeleRead.org

Re:Is it just me... by AndyboyH · 2006-08-29 08:54 · Score: 1

Strangely, I thought that too. I wonder if Grant Naylor (well Rob Grant and Doug Naylor) read the original incomplete version?

Even so, given the popularity and brilliant humour of Red Dwarf (at least in the UK...) I don't think it's worth worrying about

--
Baka Drew
Re:Is it just me... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-08-29 08:55 · Score: 0

Thought so myself but didn't want to first-post that on a story about Heinlein.
Re:Is it just me... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-08-29 09:30 · Score: 0

Its not just you

after having a fallout with his girlfriend and going on a bender -- wakes up on a starship bound for the stars

All it needs now is a left luggage locker and a box of ouroborus batteries.
Re:Is it just me... by ultramk · 2006-08-29 11:03 · Score: 1

it's just you.

Red dwarf was about a guy already working on a spaceship who gets tossed into suspended animation for a very long time, just before a freak accident kills all the crew. He wakes millions of years later, to find he's all alone (more or less).

Not really anything like this at all.

m-

--
You catch enchiladas by picking them up behind the head and holding them underwater until they don't kick anymore -VeGas
Re:Is it just me... by Pinback · 2006-08-29 12:38 · Score: 1

Red Dwarf was inspired by Dark Star. Pinback and Lister are similar charcters.
Re:Is it just me... by Rob+Simpson · 2006-08-29 14:09 · Score: 1

In the TV series. The book starts earlier, with Lister having wound up on Mimas after going on a "Monopoly" pub crawl. He gets the idea to sign up on a ship heading to Earth (since his attempts at working and saving enough money to pay for a ticket fail miserably), but discovers too late that Red Dwarf will take years to get there. This is why he deliberately breaks quarantine regs by adopting the cat - knowing that the punishment will be being put into stasis for the rest of the trip.

Spider by KingEomer · 2006-08-29 08:39 · Score: 3, Funny

I guess that Spider Robinson truly groks Heinlein... Has anyone checked his corpse lately?

Must have been asleep by Anonymous Coward · 2006-08-29 08:44 · Score: 0

Even if it's for only my benefit, I have to say it - Heinlein who?

Sorry. Make fun of me if you feel the need to.

Re:Must have been asleep by nullChris · 2006-08-29 09:02 · Score: 1

Considered by many to be the father of "modern" science fiction.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinlein
Re:Must have been asleep by Anonymous Coward · 2006-08-29 09:11 · Score: 0

Ok, fine, I looked at the Wiki article.
I recognized many of the book names.

But I can honestly say I don't remember hearing his name before.

Boy Scouts by rjstanford · 2006-08-29 08:48 · Score: 1

Well, a lot of his early work (although not everything by any means) was aimed directly at the Boy Scouts, for publication in their magazine. And back then, they weren't out, so pretty much no sex scenes.

--
You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!

Re:Boy Scouts by soft_guy · 2006-08-29 08:58 · Score: 1

He did a juvenile novel every year up until his publisher (Scribner's) rejected "Starship Troopers". His editor at Scribner's was apparently difficult to put up with and when the rejected ST, it was the last straw. After that he focused on writing for adults and had several huge break-out novels including Stranger in a Strange Land, Moon is a Harsh Mistress, etc. and his editors basically stopped editing him.

--
Avoid Missing Ball for High Score

Oh no, not the hippy heinlein by VAXcat · 2006-08-29 08:50 · Score: 2, Funny

Of the dozen or so Heinlein style writers extant today, it's a shame they picked the feckless hippy of the lot, Spider Robonson. I'd have vastly preferred one of the hard science Heinlein style writers (such as Varley, or maybe VInge) to the hippy dippy, dated, peace love dove style of Robinson, who wouldn't know real knowledge of physics if it knocked the bong out of his hand and spilled it all over his hand knotted macrame rug, inside his dome house.

--
There is no God, and Dirac is his prophet.

Re:Oh no, not the hippy heinlein by Anonymous Coward · 2006-08-29 10:09 · Score: 0

Nonsense, Spider was thrilled to be asked to write this book. One of Heinlein's juvies was the reason why he started to write SF in the first place. You've got to believe that doing what he considers as his dream writing assignment means he's going to agonize over it. I think he's a good enough writer to pull this off. I'm looking forward to it.

BTW, it's not a dome house, just a regular nice little one on an island off the coast of BC. Last I saw it, there was no macrame rug, just a nice big fireplace mantle to put all his Hugos and Nebulas on...
Re:Oh no, not the hippy heinlein by MichaelSmith · 2006-08-29 11:10 · Score: 2, Insightful

Varley is a Heinlein fan but he only writes Varley books. I think its too late in his career for him to write a good Heinlein novel.

But the title of the article is wrong. This is not Heinleins last novel, its almost his first novel. That should make it easier to write because the early Heinlein had a much more stable, better understood (stereotyped?) style. This sounds a bit like Citizen of the Galaxy or Between Planets.

--
http://michaelsmith.id.au
Re:Oh no, not the hippy heinlein by VAXcat · 2006-08-29 11:14 · Score: 1

Just because Spider is Heinlein's number one fan, doesn't make him the best qualified person for the task...heck, I'm at least as big a fan and lifelong devotee, and I'd be a terrible choice. I actually enjoy Spider's work...it's just his style is not at all close in tone to Heinlein's...it's not even in the same solar system...and sometimes when he really tries to do it like the Grand Old Man, it comes out quite mawkish, especially if he tries to throw in some science & engineering...the result is...not good...I'm sure he was thrilled to get the task, but I still think it's a shame that one of the other "Heinlein" school writers that come closer to Heinlein's style didn't get to helm this one.

--
There is no God, and Dirac is his prophet.
Re:Oh no, not the hippy heinlein by mblase · 2006-08-29 15:11 · Score: 1

I actually just read an old paperback copy of the Spider Robinson collection "Time Travellers Strictly Cash", which included a pro-Heinlein speech (or essay, I forget, and the book's all the way downstairs) humbly entitled "Rah Rah R.A.H.!" It's hard to be more pro-Heinlein than this guy is, without actually crossing the line into insanity.

Spider Robinson is an unabashed fan -- not that those are a rare breed, but Robinson's reputation as an SF critic gives him a bit more weight in that regard.
Re:Oh no, not the hippy heinlein by Anonymous Coward · 2006-08-29 17:01 · Score: 0

can't speak to the hippy aspect of Spider R., but the one Spider R. book I tried to read many years ago had a 'borrowed' character in it from a Heinlein book and was all but unreadable. I didn't finish it and went back to the real thing. Lately I have found some great books from (since Gibson hasn't done much of anything in far too long - sniff!) in Dan Simmons, David Brin, KW Jeter, among others - I liked pretty much everything Heinlein up through Job and Friday - after that they aren't near as good or even good at all - but he's still 'the man' in my book, right up there with P.K.D. (for completely different reasons) and early (NOT anything recent) from A.C.Clarke, Damon Knight and others. Strong vote for Clark Ashton Smith and Lovecraft (for again, completely different reasons).

amigaboy
Re:Oh no, not the hippy heinlein by abb3w · 2006-08-29 17:18 · Score: 1

Varley is a Heinlein fan but he only writes Varley books. I think its too late in his career for him to write a good Heinlein novel.

More exactly, he isn't versatile enough to be able to do a Heinlein. Time in the career has little to do with it (onset of senility aside). Being able to convincingly copy another's literary style is relatively rare. P.J. Farmer is the only SF name that comes to mind with a demonstrated knack, and I wouldn't want him to have tried at this point; I've felt his marbles have been getting badly worn since the late 80's. Perhaps if PJF had been approached right after RAH's death, he might have been a better option. At this point, Robinson's still got all his marbles (that he ever had), and is both more flexible and starts closer to Heinlein in style than Varley.

Anyway, quit your whining. Either you're a serious Heinlein fan, and will buy the book, or you aren't and won't. Kvetch after the results hit the bookstores.

--
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.

Heinlein was a Dirty Old Man by Ashen · 2006-08-29 08:53 · Score: 1

My bets are that it will be about an old man that hooks up with a young chick. Or two.

Either way, it couldn't be worse than The Cat Who Could Walk Through Walls, could it?

Re:Heinlein was a Dirty Old Man by VAXcat · 2006-08-29 08:58 · Score: 1

Teh only thing that I've seen that was worse than The Cat Who Walks Through Walls was Job: A Comedy of Justice. Oh wait, there was To Sail Beyond the Sunset. Now, don't get me started on Keith Laumer's post-stroke novels...

--
There is no God, and Dirac is his prophet.
Re:Heinlein was a Dirty Old Man by MichaelSmith · 2006-08-29 11:13 · Score: 1

Better than being a clean old man.

Was it a Heinlein character who claimied that he wanted to be shot dead by a jealous husband at the age of 100? Or am I confusing him with somebody else?

--
http://michaelsmith.id.au

In this case, it may be an improvement... by Lonewolf666 · 2006-08-29 09:19 · Score: 1

While I really liked Heinlein's older novels, his more recent output failed to impress me. The depth and suspense were simply not there anymore, at least not in the degree I was used from Heinlein.
Same for Tom Clancy BTW, and for similar reasons.
Now Spider Robinson is at least reasonably good at storytelling, and his version may actually be better than what Heinlein might have written in his old days.

--
C - the footgun of programming languages

Re:In this case, it may be an improvement... by murdocj · 2006-08-29 09:41 · Score: 3, Insightful

While I really liked Heinlein's older novels, his more recent output failed to impress me. The depth and suspense were simply not there anymore, at least not in the degree I was used from Heinlein.

I'd go even farther and say that Heinlein's last few novels were awful. As he went further along the protagonist became an older and older man who was having sex with younger and younger women. In my (humble) opinion he peaked at around "The Moon is Harsh Mistress".

I loved Heinlein as a kid, but re-reading him as an adult, he's just too absolute, too certain... "this is the way things are, anyone who disagrees with me is a fool". If I want to see that, I can read slashdot.
Re:In this case, it may be an improvement... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-08-30 04:24 · Score: 0

As he went further along the protagonist became an older and older man who was having sex with younger and younger women.

Well, as they say, write what you know.

This just isn't fair by bw-sf · 2006-08-29 09:19 · Score: 0, Troll

Why is this vile, talentless hack being given an opportunity to commit further crimes against literature and the English language twenty years after his long-overdue demise? There is not a worse writer in any language or any genre than Robert Heinlein. He is atrocious. By comparison, Jewel is a Nobel-winning poet, Shatner is an Oscar-nominated actor and Scientology is a sensible and sane belief system.

Re:This just isn't fair by Attaturk · 2006-08-29 09:35 · Score: 1

If you start off on a premise far from that of the mainstream i.e. this extremely popular classic science fiction author is a "vile, talentless hack being given an opportunity to commit further crimes against literature and the English language twenty years after his long-overdue demise" then it might be an idea to qualify that statement with something a bit more worthwhile than "he is atrocious." In other words, don't tell us you hate him. Explain to the dear readers why you hate him. For they might otherwise take you to be as nutty as he was. ;-)
Re:This just isn't fair by bw-sf · 2006-08-29 11:14 · Score: 1

I'm terribly sorry if I've upset some central truth you think exists about Heinlein. Do you enjoy the classic writings of Dan Brown, too? How about Caleb Carr's "Killing Time"? Did you consider that a classic? Because it sucked donkey balls.

If all you read is Honor Harrington, then, sure, Heinlein's probably a genius by comparison. Among literate people who appreciate books and literature in general, rather than science fiction exclusively, I don't think there's anything controversial about my opinion at all. I would say that, in fact, anyone who exalts Heinlein as a serious, quality writer is far, far outside the mainstream, for whatever that's worth.

I find Heinlein's work notable for:

* Leaden, ugly dialogue.
* Clichéd, central-casting characters.
* Puerile, distasteful attitudes towards women and sexuality.
* Convoluted, boring plots.
* A nasty, racist political agenda.
* A pervading sense that the writer simply doesn't understand people and has never really met any.

You are affronted by my opinion and demand an explanation which I don't believe I owe -- but you're not explaining what is in any way *good* about him. His imagination? Nothing new, ever. Escapades in space ships. Yawn. His characters? Name a few of his characters and illustrate how they represent three-dimensional real people instead of cardboard cut-outs. His narrative? His ear for dialogue? Sorry, no. Of all the basic, fundamental things that writers need to create quality work, he has none of them. The result is ugly, turgid, leaden stupidity enjoyed by people who don't like books.

Compare another SF writer of a broadly similar vintage. Jack Vance is no Nobel winner, but he lightly sketches out ambitious fantasty settings, and creates characters like Cugel: a conflicted, complex anti-hero who retains some of our sympathies despite committing appalling atrocities. Vance is not a great writer, but he has an infinite amount more talent than Heinlein because he can do things like that consistently and competently. If you truly appreciated books, language, and writing instead of cleaving to your I'm-a-geek-therefore-Heinlein-is-God certainty, you'd think about this critically and would unescapably come to the same conclusion.
Re:This just isn't fair by KillerBob · 2006-08-29 12:01 · Score: 1

* Leaden, ugly dialogue.
* Clichéd, central-casting characters.
* Puerile, distasteful attitudes towards women and sexuality.
* Convoluted, boring plots.
* A nasty, racist political agenda.
* A pervading sense that the writer simply doesn't understand people and has never really met any.

I'm not gonna deny that Heinlein had some seriously bad books under his belt. Personally, I couldn't stomach Starship Troopers, for example, and an entire litany of other books he wrote. The thing is, he wrote a very large number of books, and *some* of what he wrote is very good. I really enjoyed Revolt in 2100, for example.

As for any racist political agenda, you're looking at his work with a modern perspective. You're entitled to do that, but before you write his work off as trying to forward some insidious agenda, you need to understand that at the time he wrote, it was considered normal, and Heinlein's estate has been good at preserving what he wrote, unlike certain other authors from the period....

Like Agatha Christie... Ever read her book, Ten Little Nigger Boys? Don't like that title? How about Ten Little Indians? Nope? What about And Then There Were None? Three titles, one book.

--
If you believe everything you read, you'd better not read. - Japanese proverb
Re:This just isn't fair by Attaturk · 2006-08-29 14:01 · Score: 1

OK - you are just as nutty. 8) For what it's worth I appreciate Heinlein's work and his place in the history of science fiction but I don't rate him anywhere near as highly as you clearly assumed to be the case. For someone that professes such profound literary wisdom and insight you didn't do a terribly good job of reading my post. I was made curious about your opinion by the concentration of vitriol found in your post. I now see that the whole pretentious meal can't be separated from its vitriolic sauce.

If you yourself "truly appreciated books, language and writing instead of cleaving into your" own self-important projections and assumptions you'd think about yourself critically and would unescapably come to the same conclusion. ;-)
Re:This just isn't fair by Attaturk · 2006-08-29 14:03 · Score: 1

Damn. I missed a pertinent SIC opportunity! =D
Re:This just isn't fair by russotto · 2006-08-30 05:13 · Score: 1

Bah. The _Dying Earth_ stories with Cugel are examples in fantasy of much which is wrong with mainstream literature. Cugel is a conflicted, complex anti-hero? No, he's simply an amoral slug who retains our sympathies (if he does) mostly because he's the main character and we don't really give a crap about the characters he mistreats. There's no real plot; Vance just has Cugel give us a tour of the setting, much as Dante has Virgil give us a tour of Hell. Only Hell's more interesting. As with much mainstream literature, _Dying Earth_ is written in an overblown style which makes it difficult to read; this appears to be the main criterion by which literature snobs judge books.

As for a "nasty, racist political agenda"... you've only read _Farnham's Freehold_, right?

I've got an unearthly urge to cringe by Delzuma · 2006-08-29 09:20 · Score: 1

But so long as Brian Herbert and Kevin J Anderson aren't the writers doing this I'll give it a chance. Anything's better than what those mediocre half-wits are passing off as Dune books.

Re:I've got an unearthly urge to cringe by Hitman_Frost · 2006-08-29 10:52 · Score: 1

I'll second that!

I'm also worried that someone will try and complete David Gemmell's Troy trilogy working from "notes". It's terrible he died after completing book two, but I hope they just leave it alone...

correction by Quadraginta · 2006-08-29 09:22 · Score: 1

OK, brain fart, Rico is Filipino. Oops.

It was the 60's by Nitewing98 · 2006-08-29 09:23 · Score: 1

A lot of Heinlein's later writing was influenced by the times. It WAS the 60's, after all. AND lived in California.

His best work was from '61 on, if you ask me.

BTW: I'm a huge Heinlein fan, so I admit I'm not objective. He was born in Butler, MO, 50 miles south of Kansas City, where I live.

--

Nitewing '98

Everything works...in theory.

Re:It was the 60's by geekoid · 2006-08-29 09:55 · Score: 1

"He was born in Butler, MO, 50 miles south of Kansas City, where I live."
but he got out of that stinkburd and muved to Ca, where I leved. Clearly I win.

why does the distance from his birthplace matter? would you have enjoyed hi works less if it was 51 iles away? more?

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

If there is just a 20% chance that it's any good, by Whoah · 2006-08-29 09:23 · Score: 1

then I'll be glad to have had one more "Heinlein-esque" novel to enjoy. I love that guys stories.

Post mortem releases... now required. by kinglink · 2006-08-29 09:31 · Score: 2, Insightful

First it was Douglas Adams' Salmon of Doubt, where in Douglas Adam's own words his final manuscripts were published.

Then it was the final book of the true dune series that was originally envisioned by Frank Herbert is now published (I don't know the name but I've heard more then enough about it).

And Now we have this.

What is it with people who have now basically gone around and robbed the grave? I mean Douglas Adams' salmon of doubt wasn't good but it was at least his work. Frank Herbert's son basically is robbing the grave here, and of course now this person's estate is now just asking for more money. It would be one thing if the person was dying and needed the money to go to a fund to save him from some sickness or cure other people, but in the end it's really just greed. I will give props to Brian Herbert, he at least has worked in his father's universe long before the final book was released, but even then his work has been far below his father's that to see him work on his father's last manuscript must be like watching a guy who shoots paint from his butt touch up a Picasso.

It's not that these people arn't well intentioned, they want to be loving with their work, but the fact is they will always change the work that they work on because it's the nature of the creative process.

Every time I see a post mortem release, whether it be a play (of course the script not being good enough or not being finished at the time of his death), a movie, a Cd, or even a book, I always feel a little sick and a little disgusted at the ultimate greed of man, especially when it's one of those platnium covered memorial copies that some groups try to sell fans.

Re:Post mortem releases... now required. by AuMatar · 2006-08-29 11:06 · Score: 1

You think thats bad? Look at Christopher Tolkien, having written at least 2 dozen books from his father's material.

--
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?

so that means by rice_burners_suck · 2006-08-29 09:35 · Score: 1

So that means he's not going to write anymore books?

Then this is Heinleins 2nd post humous book by aliscool · 2006-08-29 09:36 · Score: 1

Grumbles from the grave was published a year or two after his death.
Really just a hodge podge of shorts stories and other material never published before, and quite frankly not very good IMHO.

Re:Then this is Heinleins 2nd post humous book by doobie · 2006-08-29 11:06 · Score: 1

3rd, there is also "For Us, The Living" which he wrote in 1936 or so and was first published in 2003.
Re:Then this is Heinleins 2nd post humous book by Pinback · 2006-08-29 12:50 · Score: 1

If you feel obligated to read everything Heinlein wrote, at least buy a used copy of "For Us, The Living". Not much chance you'll want to keep it for very long.

Three quarters of the book is an attempt to tell how engineering principles were applied to 1939 era economics to create the super duper year 2086. To fill in between the bricks, there is a story about an oversimplified aircar, and the idea that an engineer from 1939 will face no difficulty in fitting in 147 years later.
Re:Then this is Heinleins 2nd post humous book by Stonyman · 2006-08-30 02:20 · Score: 1

>Really just a hodge podge of shorts stories and other material never published before, and quite frankly >not very good IMHO. Um, not so much. Grumbles from the Grave was Heinlein's own compilation of his correspondence, much of it with his agent Lurton Blassingame. Virginia Heinlein provided commentary. It was assembled and edited before his death. His expressed intent in so doing was to provide Ginny with income continuance after his death. I quite enjoyed it, providing as it did a peek at RAH's working habits, his private life, travel, etc.

Would have been way better if..... by pkcs11 · 2006-08-29 09:36 · Score: 0

The basis of this book would have been way better if he woke up in a Yugo bound for the stars.
Come one, finding yourself on a starship naturally leads to the "bound for the stars" conclusion.

--
"I have an odd craving to whisper about those few frightful hours in that ill-rumored and evilly shadowed seaport of dea

Just finished Heinlein's FIRST novel... by libertytrek · 2006-08-29 09:43 · Score: 2, Informative

"For US, the Living" www.heinleinsociety.org/newsFUTL.html Very interesting, with a forward by Spider, and an afterward by Robert James. You can definitely see the seeds of many of his best works in this novel - highly recommended...

Finally... by Deadguy2322 · 2006-08-29 09:47 · Score: 0

Heinlein will be in the esteemed company of V.C. Andrews, cranking out product with his name on it from beyond the grave!!!

--
Check out my foes list to see who is so retarded that they can't use the signature line!!!

Re:Spider Robinson? or John Varley? by WillAffleckUW · 2006-08-29 10:01 · Score: 1

I've no great objections to Spider Robinson as an author, but completing Heinlein? I think I'd much prefer John Varley for the job.

Well, there's another author I'd have on my short list. Herb would do a great job of it too.

I'd give the edge to Spider, kind of a gut feel here, plus my sense of how much each person would change (knowingly/unknowingly) in "finishing" the book.

One thing that I'd like to know is: who's going to edit it? Maybe Spider could get Herb to edit it for him?

Now that's a "trilogy" of authors I'd like to see ...

--
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --

Ten things I hate about publishers by tillerman35 · 2006-08-29 10:02 · Score: 3, Interesting

In no particular order (except that #1 is the one thing I hate the most):

1. Posthumous "collaborations." I make a very small exception for Chrisopher Tolkein's scholarly works. Otherwise, it's just crap they think they can sell. Sadly, there are enough idiots buying the crap that they continue to make it.

2. "collaborations" with elderly authors. Yah, maybe Andre Norton or Marrion Zimmer Bradley wrote part of that book. Maybe all she did was nod off during plot discussions. Honestly, it's hard to tell. Seems there are a few authors who are so crappy that they can't come up with ideas on their own.

3. Trade paperbacks. I'd mind less if they would get together and decide on a single standard size! As an owner of thousands of books, I have a real need to keep size to a minimum. If I have to adjust my shelves to buy your book, I'm not buying your book. My "oversize" storage has gone from four or five shelves to a whole stack, and it's really pissing me off.

4. Cover blurbs comparing every fantasy novel to Lord of the Rings. If I wanted to read another Lord of the Rings, I'd read Lord of the Rings again. Ditto for every Harry-Potter wannabe ripoff with cover blurbs claiming it's just like Harry Potter. Frankly, if I saw a book with a cover blurb that went "nothing like Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, Interview with the Vampire or any other commercially viable work," I'd have that thing at the register in ten seconds.

5. Cover blurbs from authors who are too old to wipe their own asses. Maybe that drooling nod meant "Most promising young author since Harry Potter!" Or maybe it just meant "I've soiled myself and you have to take care of it." Either way, it's a crappy recommendation.

6. Listing authors "other works" but leaving out works done with another publisher and/or distributor.

7. Massive series based on popular movies. Just because you can hire 10,000 monkeys to write Star Wars "novels" (and I use the term with much more generosity than they are due) doesn't mean it's right to do so. When an entire 1/3 of the book store's sci-fi shelving is wasted on this kind of crap, it makes me wonder how many good new authors could have their works on that 300 linear feet of retail space.

8. Collections of short stories, in which one is set in a universe from one of the author's popular series, marketed as a part of that series. If you're such a great author, your short stories won't need the prop. If you're not, don't bother writing them. Moron.

9. Collections of short stories, in which one is written by the author and set in a universe from one of the author's popular series, and in which the rest are written by other (sometimes wannabe) authors. If you can't find the time to write your own stories, don't make some talentless schlob do it for you.

10. Direct-from-publisher "signed" editions. Do they really think we're that stupid? Those signatures are about as original as a painting from the Thomas Kinkaid "gallery" next to Sears. I'm not going to pay you $10 extra so that Skippy the Intern and his sidekick Amazing Pantograph Bob can crank out ten of these at a time. Especially when you sell it in size-of-the-month-club trade paperback form.

Re:Ten things I hate about publishers by Gryle · 2006-08-29 13:10 · Score: 1

You should probably add "Salmon of Doubt" as another small exception. It's a collection of stuff by Douglas Adams, some of it pulle from his computer posthumously. Definitely worth a read.

--
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not entirely sure about the universe - Einstein
Re:Ten things I hate about publishers by zevans · 2006-08-29 14:04 · Score: 1

I liked Niven until I read your post... damn.

He's guilty of 2 and 3, sadly lumbered as the referant of 4 ("Best future history since Ringworld" - how many times have we seen that?), criminally guilty of 6 - in fact I have accidentally bought the same short stories at least five times, and some of the Known Space books stray into the territory of 8.

9 - Man/Kzin wars, let's say no more.

Then again "Scatterbrain" specifically apologises for point 6 and gives you interesting insights into the whole collabaration and ideas versus writing thing.

And don't get me started on EE Smith "with" Stephen Goldin.

In fact, have ANY of the well-known authors avoided all 10 of these traps?

--
"... and more and more now there are all kinds of electronic goodies available" -- Pink Floyd 1972
Re:Ten things I hate about publishers by WalksOnDirt · 2006-08-29 17:35 · Score: 1

I found most of the Man-Kzin stories very good; much better than Larry's own recent output.

--
a,e,i,o,u and sometimes w and y (at be if of up cwm by)
Re:Ten things I hate about publishers by Axello · 2006-08-29 23:12 · Score: 1

Collections of short stories, in which one is set in a universe from one of the author's popular series, marketed as a part of that series. If you're such a great author, your short stories won't need the prop. If you're not, don't bother writing them. Moron. I take exception to this 'rule' with the Man-Kzin Wars by Larry Niven. The stories by Pournelle, Poul Anderson, and Dean Ing are often much better than those by Niven.

Heinlein vs. PKD by Jack+Action · 2006-08-29 10:08 · Score: 1

I think its interesting to task why Philip K. Dick's books have been made into movies in recent years, but Heinlein's seem to have languished on the shelf (the pseudo-parody Starship Troopers notwithstanding).

Dick's characters were ordinary men and women muddling through the bizarre situations they found themselves in. Large organizations -- the military, the state, corporations -- were blindly sinister. Dick also understood (perhaps because of his mental health issues) the media saturated world before its time -- where everything is connected to everything else, and an overwhelming paranoia ensues.

On the other hand, Heinlein's characters tend to be special forces types (Puppet Masters), engineering specialists (Starman Jones), or perfect, beautiful aliens (Stranger in a Strange Land). Large corporations (Have Spacesuit, Will Travel) and the state (Puppet Masters) are benign, despite the libertarian bent of most of Heinlein's individual characters.

For me, the revealing contrast is the chummy, lovable President in Puppet Masters, compared to Freddie Fremont, the Reaganesque assasin from California in Radio Free Abermuth.

Very close -- but wrong order. by oneiros27 · 2006-08-29 10:20 · Score: 1

I was thinking the same thing, but Lister went on a bender and ended up on a spaceship _before_ he had a falling out with his girlfriend.

Actually, if memory serves, he ended up on a different planet, and took the job to get back ... then met his girlfriend, and they had a falling out, and ended up millions of years from Earth.

So yes, all of the elements are there, but in a different order.

--
Build it, and they will come^Hplain.

More from the author of "The Number of the Beast"! by bw-sf · 2006-08-29 10:26 · Score: 1, Interesting

Here's a challenge that no sensible, literate adult can accomplish: * Read "The Number of the Beast" * No, no cheating. Finish it. Every last word. * Look me in the eye and say "Robert Heinlein is a good writer" without giggling.

I have read the book; well an Advanced Proof. by doobie · 2006-08-29 11:00 · Score: 4, Informative

I really really did not believe I wouldd read this book and think "wow this is a Heinlein novel." I never liked the NY Times quote "I'd nominate Spider Robison as the new Robert Heinein." quote. I did not fully believe John Varley's quote that it Robert Heinlein was at Spider Robinson's side.

It is now obviously I was wrong; very very very very wrong. I would put more very's in but it wouldn't get to the point. Heinlein outlined the journey; Spider followed it. Only a few points disappointed me (IMO Heinlein never pun'd that much; and I didn't like reading 'googled around' 2 or 3 times).

The following is early spoilerish material

The book is a story of a boy, Joel, who was in love with a girl, Jinny. They complete junionr college and start planning for the future. She wants to marry him, he wants to finish college to support her. When he finally accepts that he would marry her if he can support her, she takes him to "her home". Turns out this is a hidden house buried in a glacier. The house is home to Conrad of Conrad (I don't recall this in other Heinlein novels, but from what I can gather think Harriman Enterprises, but bigger; much bigger). After meeting Conrad of Conrad and telling him where to go stick his money/fortune/plans for Joel's with Jinny, he escapes back to his apartment with the help of Jinny's little cousin Elelyn.

After a major bender, he is reminded of a ship leaving to start a colony on a distant planet. He spends the last of his money to ge to FL and tries to get on. He's told that he's too drunk to make the decision but he could come back in a few days if he's sober and still wants to go. He of course returns and gets on the ship. This is where most of the story happens. I'm not going to get into many of the details because that would spoil the fun. There is talk of line/group marriages; there's music; there's science; there's romance and despair, and of course there's hope when all hope is lost.

Some of you may hate me for saying this, but if Heinlein had written this book he would have had a hard time improving on what was written.

Re:I have read the book; well an Advanced Proof. by Anonymous Coward · 2006-08-29 18:58 · Score: 0

she takes him to "her home". Turns out this is a hidden house buried in a glacier. The house is home to Conrad of Conrad (I don't recall this in other Heinlein novels, but from what I can gather think Harriman Enterprises, but bigger; much bigger).

The tail end of Citizen of the Galaxy had "Rudbek of Rudbek at Rudbek," the name of the heir to a colossal corporate empire.

I'm also reminded of "The Diamond as Big as the Ritz" for some reason, but that's probably just me.

Puppet Masters by MichaelSmith · 2006-08-29 11:17 · Score: 1

If you haven't yet seen the movie, don't. It was horrible

--
http://michaelsmith.id.au

Re:More from the author of "The Number of the Beas by MichaelSmith · 2006-08-29 11:22 · Score: 1

Look me in the eye and say "Robert Heinlein is a good writer

By that time he was big enough, old enough and rich enough to experiment in public. Heinlein wrote many very good books. Too bad if you (and others) don't like each and every one of them. I find it interesting that The Moon is a Harsh Mistress and Friday (both good books IMHO) appear to be set in the same universe. Maybe he was in a particular "mode" for both of those books.

--
http://michaelsmith.id.au

A Heinlein novel I'd like to try writing by Catbeller · 2006-08-29 11:24 · Score: 2, Interesting

In the Future History timeline, there was one unwritten novel, "The Sound of His Wings", the story of the rise of southern backwoods preacher Neremiah Scudder to the Presidency of the United States, whereupon he suspended the Constitution, declared himself dictator under God's Law and declared himself the First Prophet.

Heinlein decided not to write the novel because he detested the bastard. But the fall of the U.S. into religious dicatorship (written in 1941!) as chronicled in "If This Goes On --" and subsequent FH stories needs to be completed, I've thought, since I first read it in 1976. Hell, it let me recognize Jerry Falwell and Robertson in 1977 in their march on Washington for what they were. Heinlein grew up in Missouri and knew what the people he came from were capable of. The story is being written every day, as preachers get special White House briefings and all personnel in the WH are expected to attend Bible class every day. Bush's core 30 percent truly believe he was selected by God (as Bush himself has stated, although more guardedly that his supporters) to convert the US to a Christian nation and prepare the way to the end of days as described by St. John of Patmos in the Book of Revelations. The US as always been primed for a religious dictatorship, and will be so even after this bunch of clowns are voted out. This tendency needs a good thrashing out in a novel.

Frighteningly prophecy of a U.S. theocracy by RAH by Catbeller · 2006-08-29 12:25 · Score: 1

Heinlein:

"As for the second notion, the idea that we could lose our freedom by succumbing to a wave of religious hysteria, I am sorry to say that I consider it possible. I hope that it is not probable. But there is a latent deep strain of religious fanaticism in this, our culture. It is rooted in our history and has broken out many times in the past. It is with us now; there has been a sharp rise in strongly evangelical sects in the country in recent years, some of which hold beliefs theocratic in the extreme, anti- intellectual, anti-scientific, and anti-libertarian."

"It is a truism that almost any sect, cult or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so. . . . The custodians of the True Faith cannot logically admit tolerance of heresy to be a virtue."

". . . Could any one sect obtain a working majority at the polls and take over the country? Perhaps not -- but a combination of the dynamic evangelist, television, enough money, and modern techniques of advertising and propaganda might make Billy Sunday's efforts look like a corner store compared to Sears Roebuck. Throw in a depression for good measure, promise a material heaven here on earth, add a dash of anti-Semitism, anti-Catholicism, Anti-Negroism, and a good large dose of anti- furriners' in general and anti-intellectuals here at home and the result might be something quite frightening -- particularly when one recalls that our voting system is such that a minority distributed as pluralities in enough states can constitute a working majority in Washington."

". . . Impossible? Remember the Klan in the Twenties and how far it got without even a dynamic leader. . . The capacity of the human mind for swallowing nonsense and spewing it forth in violent and repressive action has never yet been plumbed."

The Heinlein Novel I'd Love To See by quux4 · 2006-08-29 12:55 · Score: 1

... is the one after the Cat Who Walks Through Walls. I always wanted to hear Mike's story of where he went after the FN hit Luna, and to see him finish growing up and achieve his potential. I suspect Varley would be a good pick for this. Of course it would still be a Varley novel, but that would be the icing on the cake!

Jeez by ucblockhead · 2006-08-29 13:04 · Score: 1

And people wonder why authors have their papers burned when they die.

--
The cake is a pie

bingo by Anonymous Coward · 2006-08-29 13:20 · Score: 0

you got it.

that's nothing by pyrrho · 2006-08-29 13:25 · Score: 2, Informative

I've just finished a new chapter in the Bible by God. I worked from notes God had almost created on the 4'th day of creation but got distracted creating the slugs. It's The Book Of Slugs and goes in the Old Testament.

I kept God's original style rather well.

--

-pyrrho

Re:that's nothing by Anonymous Coward · 2006-08-29 15:42 · Score: 0

Don't keep us waiting, man! Publish!
Re:that's nothing by Anonymous Coward · 2006-08-30 00:03 · Score: 0

WOW!

I've been working on the two disc special edition director's cut of "The Passion of the Christ" with the brand new alternate ending!
Re:that's nothing by Anonymous Coward · 2006-08-30 03:22 · Score: 0

Isn't that mormanism?

If you like Heinlein by Viadd · 2006-08-29 14:32 · Score: 1

If you like Heinlein, read some of the good new stuff that he inspired. My recent favorite is Old Man's War by John Scalzi (Just won the John W. Campbell award). Inspired by Starship Troopers, but not like it.

Red Thunder is an homage to Rocket Ship Galileo by John Varley. Not as good as Scalzi, but still fun.

Re:More from the author of "The Number of the Beas by Valafar · 2006-08-29 14:45 · Score: 1

Obviously, you are smoking crack. The Number of the Beast is a brilliant piece of work; In fact, it's one of my favorite books written by him. I admit that it is very "obtuse", but it's hardly poorly written. Then again, perhaps I'm the crack smoker, because the book actually makes sense to me.

If there is a crusty old lawyer character... by IronTeardrop · 2006-08-29 15:19 · Score: 1

...who happens to have studied the bible and is surrounded by amazonian bisexual women and who may be named "Jubal Harshaw" then count me out. Heinlein jumped the shark for me many, many years ago. I remember being half-way through one of his novels ("Friday" I think) for the first time and finding it so formulaic that I had to turn to the last chapter to see if I had read it before. I put it down and haven't read any of his work since. I doubt that even Spider Robinson could breathe any new life into that sadly clapped-out body of work.

Re:If there is a crusty old lawyer character... by Churla · 2006-08-30 00:45 · Score: 1

The shark jumping moment for me was when he basically tried to interweave all his novels into one "multiverse" with himself, of course, as God. It felt too much like he had written a bunch of really great novels, then one say while getting stoned on the beach he thought "Wouldn't it be cool to have them all in a room with each other?!?!"

It's a pity because I love everything of his up to about Time Enough for Love. Started sliding downhill for me at Cat Who Walked Through Walls, and I didn't make it to the end of Friday.

Favorites? Job: A Comedy of Justice , The Moon is a Harsh Mistress

--
I'm a fiscal conservative, it's a pity we don't have a political party anymore

My favorite novel by applix7 · 2006-08-29 15:37 · Score: 1

All right, it's only a short story... http://home.comcast.net/~plutarch/sex.html

Decent reviews? by IronTeardrop · 2006-08-29 15:38 · Score: 1

The writers of Penny Arcade (and others) will disagree with you on that (language not safe for work) http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2003/10/15

Outlier in the data by abb3w · 2006-08-29 16:44 · Score: 1

In other words he slowly transitioned from young serious author to mature exploratory author to dirty old man.

You overlook For Us, the Living, which while (ironically?) not published while he was among the living, was written before any of his other novels or short stories were published. Perhaps this resembles the now-common practice of novice amateurs writing Mary-Sue themed wank material, before getting serious. (There's a reason it spent over half a century unpublished.

Heinlein was always a dirty old man. He just stopped bothering to hide it after Stranger.

--
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.

the odds? by alizard · 2006-08-29 20:45 · Score: 1

Once starship travel becomes common, that sort of story will be found in the back pages of whatever replaces newspapers. The ability of a culture to build starships does not preclude the ability of the individuals in it to screw up spectacularly. In fact, better technology increases the opportunities to screw up. Perhaps it will be you who proves that this is indeed possible when you wake up with the worst hangover in history 2000 light years from home.

Of course, that's going to be a while, even if any of the theories that suggest the possibility of FTL transportation accurately describe this universe.

--
Tech Public Policy stuff

Re:Let's Make this Political! [OT] by vrai · 2006-08-30 00:01 · Score: 1

I always thought Anarchism was grouping of political theories that advocated the no-coercion principle. Basically any system that uses force or the threat of force for any purpose other than self-defence is not Anarchism. As such you could have an Anarchist Government, but you have to allow anyone and everyone who wishes to secede from the Government's oversight. Obviously this can become more complicated depending on how you view property; is it an extension of the person (and so something one can own and use to force to defend) or not? However that's an argument for another, more on topic, thread.

Bless you! (nt) by PhineusJWhoopee · 2006-08-30 01:05 · Score: 1

Bless you!

ed

Why it was abandoned by Frightened_Turtle · 2006-08-30 02:10 · Score: 1

Heinlein's books at the time he created the idea for Variable Star were positive and ended with the hero overcoming whatever. But he always wanted to write a book that took the other path, where things didn't work out. He wanted to write a tragedy.

His publisher at the time refused to allow him to write it, for the above mentioned reason that "Heinlein fans expected a positive, uplifting story."

In the end, Heinlein had to set aside the notes and outline for Variable Star to work on other stories that were already in the pipeline according to his contract with the publisher. Contrary to popular belief, most authors do not make that much money. (Steven King and J. K. Rowling are exceptions to that rule.) Writers are pretty much self-employed contractors. Their clients (publishers) are looking for a given product. Like any contractor, if one tries to deliver something other than what was asked for, they aren't going to get paid. Would you pay someone if you hired them to paint your house a deep blue color and they painted it florescent green instead? Heinlein had to set aside this manuscript to work on what the publisher was paying him to deliver.

As time went by, he found himself working on other, more enticing projects and ideas that he wanted to pursue, and the notes and outline for Variable Star were persistently put on a lower priority. Time eventually ran out for Mr. Heinlein before he ever got a chance to sit down and work on it. How often do we have a little project that we'd like to work on, but never get around to it because of other matters? (Kind of makes you think about your priorities, doesn't it?)

This is my fault for not mentioning the issue with the publisher in my initial submission of the story. Judging by a number of the comments I've read, people are assuming that the story was abandoned because Heinlein thought it was bad. I strongly urge people to go to the Variable Star site and read the free chapters before jumping to conclusions. I am a fan of Heinlein's earlier style, and I've been enjoying this book immensely, and I'm confident that this book will be a good read for anyone who is a fan of science fiction.

--

Whew! This water sure is cold!

(Maybe not actually a ST movie reference...) by MS-06FZ · 2006-08-30 02:37 · Score: 1

Dead on. Troopers is ENTIRELY about responsibility. Unfortunately, when that Robo-Turkey director picked up the script for the film, those issues and that moral background were the first things he tossed out the window.

And then there was the part of the movie where that little girl beat up one of the powered suits... What was up with that?

--
---GEC
I'm but the humble pupil, seeking to snatch the scratchbuilt pebble from the master's fully articulated hand

Dune prequels by Anonymous Coward · 2006-08-30 02:58 · Score: 0

Penny Arcade said it best.

I read the first 2 chapters by rhaig · 2006-08-30 03:37 · Score: 1

It feels a lot like RAH. The same style, and banter between characters, but with a slight flavor of something else. Having never read Spider Robinson, I'm assuming that flavor is him.

So far I like it. I'll be buying it.

--
"We are not tolerant people. We prefer drastically effective solutions"

Futurama by Ann+Coulter · 2006-08-30 03:39 · Score: 1

Going on a "bender" and waking up in some futuristic setting? That sounds a little like Futurama. Even Bender was mentioned.

If this goes on... by hicksw · 2006-08-30 12:14 · Score: 2, Interesting

Toward the end, RAH was so famous that nobody would edit his copy, not even correct the spelling.

There were some good novellas lurking in his final few door-stoppers.

And yes, I have read RAH serials in Astounding, and all the sad long stuff that came toward the end.

Slashdot Mirror

Heinlein's Last Novel Coming in September

276 comments