Heinlein's Last Novel Coming in September

Frightened_Turtle writes "Robert Heinlein's last novel, Variable Star , will be released in September. Completed by Spider Robinson at the behest of Heinlein's estate, the novel is based on the notes and outline created by Heinlein for the novel over 50 years ago. It was set aside and forgotten when Heinlein went to work on other projects. The story follows the life of Joel Johnston who — after having a fallout with his girlfriend and going on a bender — wakes up on a starship bound for the stars. Spider Robinson has done an excellent job maintaining Heinlein's style and flow throughout the novel. Want to check out the story for yourself? You can download the first eight chapters online from the 'Excerpts' link on the site as they are released over the next few weeks."

Comments

Re:Scared, I am...

[ajs]

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:Does that mean no sex scenes?

[Quadraginta]

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:In this case, it may be an improvement...

[murdocj]

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:Let's Make this Political!

[spun]

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.