Variable Star By Heinlein and Robinson

Cam Turner writes "In late August, Slashdot reported that a lost Robert A. Heinlein novel was mere months away from being released. True enough, it was completed and released on October 18th, 2006 by Spider Robinson, himself a distinguished speculative fiction writer. On the back cover, John Varley is quoted as saying "Completing a book from notes by a dead author is almost always a mistake. But apparently Robert A. Heinlein isn't really dead. He was at the side of Spider Robinson as he wrote this book." I'd have to agree. This story is a valuable addition to any speculative fiction collection, even that of a purist Heinlein fan." Read the rest of Cam's review. Variable Star author Robert A. Heinlein and Spider Robinson pages 320 publisher Tor Books rating 8.5/10 reviewer Cam Turner ISBN 076531312X summary An excellent additon to your speculative fiction collection.

In the afterword Spider Robinson describes how he came to be the writer who took Heinlein's eight pages of notes — penned in November 1955 — and turned them into a full length novel released half a century later and 18 years after Heinlein's death. He describes it as "literally the most difficult and intimidating challenge that could be handed to a science fiction writer." However, as a lifelong fan of Heinlein's work, Robinson said "I wanted to read a new Heinlein novel so badly that I didn't care if I had to finish it myself."

The protagonist, Joel Johnston of Ganymede, is a man of his late teens or early twenties. His life as he knows it falls apart when his fiancé turns out not to be who she says she is. As he struggles to regain control of his identity and his direction in life, he decides to join a starship as it travels 85 light years — and 20 ship years — to found the colony on a newly discovered Earth-like planet. Variable Star is the story of his journey, his regrets and the friends he makes en route.

Identifying the antagonist is a little more complicated — as it is with many of Heinlein's novels. It could possibly be his struggle with adapting to his new life in a small colony of only 500 people, his regrets over leaving the love of his life, or his tenuous escape from her family's vast influence. Regardless, the possibilities weave together to create a richly imagined story that is a believable description of how events might unfold for a character in Joel's position on a long journey between the stars.

The rest of the characters are also vivid and well constructed. At no time did they act counter-intuitively to their rich back stories. Certainly each character is revealed and built up over the course of the book, but I found their actions and motivations to be entirely believable and flawed in the way that only humans — even future humans — can be.

Heinlein fans will recognize many nods to the Future History timeline. From Leslie LeCroix being the pilot of the first moonship to the Covenant (and Coventry) that brought enforceable peace and tolerance to the human civilization after the fall of the Prophet. Robinson also incorporates many of the various sexual ideas that Heinlein had in his works like The Moon is a Harsh Mistress and Stranger in a Strange Land, however he doesn't go into as lavish and descriptive detail as Heinlein often did.

As a downside, I don't think that Variable Star is going to be as timeless as some of Heinlein's better works. Robinson managed to work into the Future History (timeline two) nods to both the 9/11 terrorist attacks and the Iraq wars. Reading through them jarred me back to reality momentarily and thus detracted from the story. Robinson is careful not to mention these events by name, but readers for years to come may find their mention distracting. It's true that we'll look back on these events in the future as part of our violent history, but invented wars would have served the same purpose in terms of story development and would have allowed the reader to stay in the imaginary world.

As mentioned, the outline was created in 1955 and, as expected, fits perfectly into the Heinlein Juvenile and Young Readers works of that time. It appeals to teenage boys and furthers Heinlein's propaganda agenda about the colonization of space. It is not what Heinlein would have described as "adult" fiction and has a single, linear storyline and a well defined main thread. Teenage readers will be able to identify with many of the struggles Joel faces through the course of the book and Heinlein fans will get a kick out of seeing how Robinson weaves in numerous references to Heinlein's earlier works. For other adult readers the story is still a fantastic, quick and entertaining read.

In the afterword Robinson makes a point of mentioning that the notes Heinlein left behind contained no climax or ending. Robinson tells the story of how both were inspired by some audio clips of Heinlein interviews in the 80's and extrapolated from his views on the true future of humanity. That said, the climax was not a typical Heinlein climax and was entirely unpredictable up until the exact moment it occurs.

To be honest as the number of remaining pages dwindled I began to wonder how exactly Robinson was going to get where I thought he was going in the pages he had left. I feared a Neil Stephenson-like abrupt ending was the fate of the story and characters I had come to love. I was very happily surprised with what I got. The ending fits the situation, motivations and expected behaviors of the characters so perfectly that, in hindsight, I can't imagine it concluding any other way.

Ultimately I give this book an 8.5/10. Robinson has done an excellent job of writing a strong story with strong characters as well as paying homage to the Grand Master and the vast legacy of richly imagined universes he left behind. Make no mistake, Variable Star isn't of the same caliber as The Moon is a Harsh Mistress or Stranger in a Strange Land, but it certainly holds up against many of the novels that have been nominated for the Hugo or Nebula awards the last few years. It might not win next year, but I'd be surprised if it didn't at least make both of the final ballots.

Lastly, potential buyers of this book should note that profits from the sales will help fund the $500,000 Heinlein Prize for innovation in commercial manned spaceflight, a goal Robert A. Heinlein considered crucial to humanity's long-term survival.

Aside: I haven't yet had an opportunity to read anything else by Spider Robinson, but I am now a fan of his work and intend to work my way back through his collection too. Does the Slashdot community have any suggestions on where to start?

Cam Turner is the author of Beginning Google Maps Applications, an internet software developer, a father and a long time Heinlein fan.

You can purchase Variable Star from bn.com. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews -- to see your own review here, read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page.

Comments

bought it

[thejrwr]

This is a good buy, already ordered it

Yeah RAH

[stoolpigeon]

I wrote up a few of my impressions of the book in this journal entry.
 
I've thought about the book quite a bit more since. I did not make the same connection to 9/11 that the reviewer made. There were similarities, but the description could have fit another set of events that would be in our future. Heinlein did this himself and so I took it the same way - as referring to events that have not happened yet.
 
I think part of the appeal RAH's juveniles hold is the naivete they present. By mixing in some of the 'worldliness' of the later novels, a bit of that is lost. Sometimes it felt like watching an old Andy Griffith re-run and having Aunt Bea drop the occasional f-bomb. I don't think someone new to Heinlein would notice it, but having re-read those older works many times, it was a bit jarring.
 
I had pre-ordered my copy and read it right away. Of course, you can't really go back. It's not Heinlein, it couldn't be. But it is pretty close and I guess it speaks volumes about how many of us feel, that we would be willing to grasp at those straws. And as excited as I was to have had two 'new' Heinleins come out, I hope they are done and will just let his body of work stand as it is. The great thing is the works we have can still be just as powerful. Hopefully somewhere right now, some young kid is getting chills, just like I did, as he reads about Johnny Rico's combat drops. Or maybe some other kid is closing their copy of The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, and feeling that same sense of loss, and hope that Mike is still alive in their somewhere.
 
I used to wonder why Hollywood wasn't cranking out movies based on Heinlein now that special effects are so good. But after what they did to troopers, I hope they stay away from all the rest. I think his biggest impact will be with all of those like Spider Robinson and myself, who found the master at our public library.

Re:Yeah RAH

[Mursk]

And "The Puppet Masters" was not much better. Done right, movies based on Heinlein's works would be awesome beyond words. But realistically, I agree that they should leave them be...

Re:Yeah RAH

[krell]

"But after what they did to troopers, I hope they stay away from all the rest."

I read "Troopers" right before seeing the movie. I found that it was a rather close adaptation: true to much of the detail and the spirit of the book.

Re:Yeah RAH

[kfg]

I think the combo of Ellison and Gilliam could do it. The problem would be:

a)Getting the project financed
b)Getting it left alone

See the problems Gilliam had with Brazil after it was in the can.

KFG

Re:Yeah RAH

[geekwithsoul]

What the hell version of Troopers did you see (or read)? The movie was a travesty -- it seemed like they couldn't make up their minds to make fun of Heinlein's source story or follow along with it. I admit that part of the problem was Heinlein's story -- it was a shoot-em up, but with a lot of subtext as baggage. The movie ignored the subtext and did the shoot-em up part poorly.

Re:Yeah RAH

[rucs_hack]

except that almost all the major characters in the film are dead in the book, and one who is alive in the book is dead in the film, and the officer who writes to him never enlists, and the bugs no longer have allies in the film....

I could go on. It's a good film, great in fact, very entertaining, but has almost nothing in common with the book. I like them both for different reasons, but the book is crying out for a closer adaption.

Dunes another one, David Lynches film was barely similer to Dune the book, and yet both are excellent entertainment.

Re:Yeah RAH

[DragonWriter]

I read "Troopers" right before seeing the movie. I found that it was a rather close adaptation: true to much of the detail and the spirit of the book.

Sure it kept to the detail and spirit of the book, aside from changing all the details (from the micro-level details like the sex of characters, their relations with each other, the capacities of the troopers, their tactics and employment, etc., to macro-level 'details' like, say, the entire large-scale plot of the movie, the society it took place in, etc.) and radically reorienting the spirit of the book from a serious, decidedly gray, thought provoking look at an alternative society through the lens of the war to a shoddy "cautionary tale" about totalitarianism.

Re:Yeah RAH

[Venik]

I read "Troopers" right before seeing the movie. I found that it was a rather close adaptation: true to much of the detail and the spirit of the book.

Details, I think, they got a fair amount of and then some. As to the spirit of it, seems to me the spirit got lost under all the details. For me watching this movie was like watching "Jurassic Park" after reading Crichton's work: a hopeless disparity between a literary masterpiece and a Hollywood action flick.

Re:Yeah RAH

[bcrowell]

I also disagree with some of what the slashdot review said.

1. They quote Varley, saying "...Robert A. Heinlein isn't really dead. He was at the side of Spider Robinson as he wrote this book." No way. Robinson's style is extremely different from Heinlein's. Nobody who's familiar with Heinlein's style could read this book and not realize it wasn't by Heinlein. Robinson divides the book 50/50 between slapstick humor and serious stuff, and IMO didn't do a very good job of integrating them to make a stylistically consistent whole.
2. What the review said about teenagers as the target audience is a little off-base. Some parents might be OK with having their 13-year-old read this book, but others definitely won't. There's lots of no-apologies promiscuous sex (including gay sex), and lots of positive descriptions of drug use (meaning drugs that aren't in the socially approved pharmacopia in the U.S.). I personally wouldn't mind having my daughters read it when they reach their teen years, or even now, but I would definitely want to talk to them about it. In any case, this material is jarringly different from anything included in Heinlein's 50's juveniles.
3. The reviewer talks about how it fits into the Future History. Actually, the Future History is separate from, and often inconsistent with, the world presented in the juvenile novels, and this book mixes them together. E.g., we have Nehemiah Scudder references, which are clearly dealing with the Future History universe, but also the telepathic twins communicating faster than c, which are a feature of one of the juveniles, and don't exist in the Future History. I also felt that Robinson was far less skilled at making the science plausible than Heinlein would have been. (Heinlein was an engineer, and worked on space suits for the military during WWII.)

Re:Yeah RAH

[Dr. Manhattan]

I read "Troopers" right before seeing the movie. I found that it was a rather close adaptation: true to much of the detail and the spirit of the book.

For a summary of why the movie was nothing like the book, see here.

Re:Yeah RAH

[Captain Splendid]

Negatory good buddy. While Puppet Masters will never win any Oscars, It's as good a sci-fi B-movie as you're likely to see. The pace is tight, the effects clean with little to no CGI, and Donald Sutherland actually bothered to act for once. Definitely worth a rental.

Re:Yeah RAH

[DerekLyons]

I've thought about the book quite a bit more since. I did not make the same connection to 9/11 that the reviewer made. There were similarities, but the description could have fit another set of events that would be in our future. Heinlein did this himself and so I took it the same way - as referring to events that have not happened yet.

I picked out the 'modern' references just reading the introductory material available on the web. Between that, and a quick scan once it hit the shelves, it was baldy obvious that this isn't a Heinlein novel, it's a Robinson novel written while Robinson was wearing a (very cheap) Heinlein mask. It echoes his (Robinson's) political sensibilities (very different from Heinlein's) and reeks of Robinson's love of complex puns and allusions (something Heinlein used sparingly and rarely if at all). In that one quick scan, I found half-a-dozen instances where Robinson had (as is his wont) lifted a paragraph from one of his earlier works, rephrased it, and inserted into this book - a habit of his that is among the reasons why I stopped reading him.
 
 

I had pre-ordered my copy and read it right away. Of course, you can't really go back. It's not Heinlein, it couldn't be. But it is pretty close and I guess it speaks volumes about how many of us feel, that we would be willing to grasp at those straws.

It's decidely not Heinlein - and it's not even close. Too much of the novel reeks of Robinson - his ego seemingly too great to write consistently in the style of the Master and his skills too poor to even ape it convincingly when he tried.

Re:Yeah RAH

[bcrowell]

It echoes his (Robinson's) political sensibilities (very different from Heinlein's)
I agreed with most of your post, but on this point, I'm not so sure. The book is saturated with negative references to religious fundamentalism, which is entirely in keeping with Heinlein's point of view, although Heinlein was more apt to treat fundamentalism satirically, and often took a more nuanced view of religion in general. The suspicious attitude toward economic monopolies is pure Heinlein. The lifeboat rules stuff is pure Heinlein. It's also difficult to extrapolate Heinlein's political views from the cold war era during which he wrote to the present era, when the real threat is a regional nuclear war in Asia, or use of nuclear weapons by terrorists, against whom nuclear retaliation is impossible.

Re:Yeah RAH

[Moofie]

You're high. I read the book, lots of times. I saw the movie, a very few times.

1) There was no powered armor in the movie. Not any. Zero.
2) There was no coed naked shower scene in the book. Not any. Zero.

The movie was a mockery of the book.

Re:Yeah RAH

[Poromenos1]

Or maybe some other kid is closing their copy of The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, and feeling that same sense of loss, and hope that Mike is still alive in their somewhere.

Well, at least you've ruined that one for me. Seriously dude, courtesy spoiler warning next time.

Re:Yeah RAH

[Mursk]

I take it you didn't read the book first? ;)

It all depends on your expectations, I guess.

Re:Yeah RAH

[SurturZ]

What the hell version of Troopers did you see (or read)? The movie was a travesty -- it seemed like they couldn't make up their minds to make fun of Heinlein's source story or follow along with it. I admit that part of the problem was Heinlein's story -- it was a shoot-em up, but with a lot of subtext as baggage. The movie ignored the subtext and did the shoot-em up part poorly.

Obviously you didn't read the opening credits closely enough, where it said "Same title as the book by Robert A Heinlein" :-)

I love both the movie and the book, but I consider them different stories.

"Starship troopers the movie" will teach you all you need to know about deconstructing films, to whit: One decapitation = horror, two decapitations = comedy

The movie also wins the award for Best-cast-against-type with Doogie Howser as a member of the SS.

Re:Yeah RAH

[1u3hr]

I read "Troopers" right before seeing the movie. I found that it was a rather close adaptation: true to much of the detail and the spirit of the book.

Troll. But a couple of points anyway:

• Detail: The book is about "Mobile Infantry": armoured flying battle suits, beam weapons. The movie has Vietnam-era grunts with machine guns walking up to bugs and getting slaughtered like sheep.
• Spirit: The book is very Iwo Jima, John Wayne, patriotism. The movie makes the protagonists evil fascists.

Re:Yeah RAH

[1u3hr]

... promiscuous sex .... drug use (meaning drugs that aren't in the socially approved pharmacopia in the U.S.). ... In any case, this material is jarringly different from anything included in Heinlein's 50's juveniles.

I'm not so sure about that. What about Podkayne of Mars, The Rolling Stones? Lots of sex (though not graphic). I can't recall drugs, but plenty of drinking (and in many novels Heinlein speaks of the virtues of tobacco, rather jarring these days). Also apparently some more racy passages in his "juveniles" were cut in editing. Recent editions have included these parts, though I haven't troubled to read them. And of course in the 60s and 70s, Heinlein got into psychedelia, and lots of icky sexual obsessions like incest. But I try to forget those.

Re:Yeah RAH

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude, that's an awesome post. Took me back to many fine nights staying awake reading, to find out what happened next. Thank you. RAH was the best of the best.

Re:Yeah RAH

[bcrowell]

What about Podkayne of Mars, The Rolling Stones? Lots of sex (though not graphic).
Huh? What are you talking about? There's no sex in those books.

Also apparently some more racy passages in his "juveniles" were cut in editing.
Not really. His editor thought there were Freudian references to sex, but it was all in her imagination.

And of course in the 60s and 70s, Heinlein got into psychedelia, and lots of icky sexual obsessions like incest.
That was after he stopped writing juveniles.

Re:Yeah RAH

[krell]

I did find it a rather close adaptation. Detail? You aren't going to have actors acting in giant armor suits where you can't see their faces, so I'll grant the moviemakers scaling down the suits. Spirit? I read the same patriotism / fascism into both the book AND the movie. There are other reasons to call me a troll at times, but I don't think my views on "Starship Troopers" are that troll-like. I enjoyed both the book and the movie, but didn't think either was any sort of classic.

Re:Yeah RAH

[1u3hr]

Detail? You aren't going to have actors acting in giant armor suits where you can't see their faces, so I'll grant the moviemakers scaling down the suits.

It changed the nature of the warfare completely. It wasn't just cosmetic. In the movie troops rush into battle in mobs, on foot, and get chewed up, literally by giant bugs. The military tactics in the movie are idiotic and make the commanders responsible for senseless slaughter; impying that it's a "Wag the Dog" war to keep the home world cowed and fearful. This idea is nowhere in the book. They should have filmed The Forever War if that's the stry they wanted to tell.

I read the same patriotism / fascism into both the book AND the movie.

What were the recruiting ads in the movie but unsubtle characterisation of the society as openly racist and fascist? In the book, the protagonist, Rico, is not an Aryan storm trooper but a Filipino. You have to look very deep in the book to find hints of criticism of the society portrayed. So deep it's a strong point of contention whether Heinlein had any doubts at all of the virtues of his society, a world guided by benevolent military veterans fighting back against after an unprovoked alien attack corresponding to Pearl Harbor.

I don't think my views on "Starship Troopers" are that troll-like.

The words seem carefully calculated to piss people off. Thus "trollish".

Re:Yeah RAH

[1u3hr]

What about Podkayne of Mars, The Rolling Stones? Lots of sex (though not graphic).
Huh? What are you talking about? There's no sex in those books.

Okay, it's 30 years since I read those. But I'm pretty sure in Podkayne her "auntie" (not biologically, but an older woman who took that role) was sleeping around, she certainly had an active social life around the Venusian casinos; some attempts to seduce Podkayne; and of course the whole "frozen embryos" thing at the beginning was probably rather shocking at the time. In Rolling Stones I think it was strongly suggested that the grandmother had had a very active sex life. But of course, no actual sex scenes in any of these.

Re:Yeah RAH

[krell]

"You have to look very deep in the book to find hints of criticism of the society portrayed"

I saw the implication of levels of rights being teired, and given to those who earn them instead of "all men being created equal", and its resemblance to the fascistic veneer of a hero-led society. I did read it around the same time Forever War came out, by the way. I also read it in the context of a book club in which we did emphasize the negative aspects of the society.

I actually didn't think my views were that controversial. I didn't intend to piss off with them. I guess I just don't take Heinlein as seriously as others do. I didn't think that expressing the views would get a reaction like coming on here and saying "Babylon 5 really SUCKED!".

Re:Yeah RAH

[snarkth]

Yeppers. The original story had a point. War sucks, seen from both sides.

  The movie, well, it fell short of providing much of anything but gore. Gore, it had plenty. Gore and stupid pointless "heroics" just like the carboncopy horror flicks on scifi these days.

  Plotless, pointless, and boring. *click off*

  snark

Re:Yeah RAH

[bcrowell]

But I'm pretty sure in Podkayne her "auntie" (not biologically, but an older woman who took that role) was sleeping around, she certainly had an active social life around the Venusian casinos
Nope. Girdie's ex-husband blew their money, so she emigrates to Venus and becomes a change girl in a casino. No sleeping around, and not much of a social life, either. The casino scenes are her reluctantly accompanying the two kids, basically to keep Clark (who's in love with her) out of trouble.

some attempts to seduce Podkayne
One attempt, which is only very indirectly hinted at, and which she rebuffs, although she's flattered by it.

and of course the whole "frozen embryos" thing at the beginning was probably rather shocking at the time.
shocking, maybe, but only related to sex in a very clinical way

Re:Yeah RAH

[eno2001]

One decapitation = horror, two decapitations = comedy

Then things must just be a laugh a minute over in the middle east... Badump-ching!

Re:Yeah RAH

[1u3hr]

I saw the implication of levels of rights being teired, and given to those who earn them

But in the book this was presented as a good idea. People have argued there was a critical subtext, but I'm not convinced. Heinlein started out as a socialist, but ended up a libertarian, and he always venerated the military. .

I also read it in the context of a book club in which we did emphasize the negative aspects of the society.

The question is not what you, or I, think of this society, but what Heinlein thought. The movie presented the society as unambiguously evil, a Nazi parody. That certainly was not what Heinlein intended. And the movie IS the story as far as much of society is concerned.

I guess I just don't take Heinlein as seriously as others do

I don't worship him. But obviously in this topic you're going to find people who do. There have been huge flame wars on SF discussion newsgroups on this subject.

Re:Yeah RAH

[krell]

"There have been huge flame wars on SF discussion newsgroups on this subject."

Then excuse me for the trollish behavior of not knowing the conventions, customs, and history of an SF discussion newsgroup I'd never heard of before :)

Re:Yeah RAH

[Anonymous Coward]

You're high. I read the book, lots of times. I saw the movie, a very few times.

1) There was no powered armor in the movie. Not any. Zero.
2) There was no coed naked shower scene in the book. Not any. Zero.

The movie was a mockery of the book.

It may have been a mockery of it, but, imo, and I'm sure I'm not the only one around here, the book was crap and the movie was good. Don't misinterpret me as someone who hasn't read and enjoyed a lot of Heinlein, because I have done both of those things.

Re:Yeah RAH

[1u3hr]

Then excuse me for the trollish behavior of not knowing the conventions, customs, and history of an SF discussion newsgroup I'd never heard of before :)

Even if you're not a professional troll, I think you've demonstrated a natural talent.

Re:Yeah RAH

[krell]

I think I have an ancestor who lived in Moria.

Re:Yeah RAH

[ultranova]

Well, at least you've ruined that one for me. Seriously dude, courtesy spoiler warning next time.

Yeah, but at least he didn't tell you that Mike was actually built by Darth Vader, who dies in a huge kung-fu fight with Queen Serenity at the end, but manages to kill her too and free the Moon from the tyranny of royalty.

Oops... Sorry for the spoilers, but maybe they'll help some kid write an essay for school or something !

Open Source Masterpieces.

[Anonymous Coward]

"In the afterword Spider Robinson describes how he came to be the writer who took Heinlein's eight pages of notes -- penned in November 1955 -- and turned them into a full length novel released half a century later and 18 years after Heinlein's death."

Now just think if those notes had been released onto the internet. According to slashdot we would have had a masterpiece much sooner.

Re:Open Source Masterpieces.

[Gospodin]

How many monkey-years does it take to turn 8 pages of notes into a full-length novel?

Re:Open Source Masterpieces.

[Guppy06]

"Now just think if those notes had been released onto the internet. According to slashdot we would have had a masterpiece much sooner."

No, we'd have five or six as the literary code forked and forked again, not to mention the competing book licenses they'd be released under.

Re:Open Source Masterpieces.

[exp(pi*sqrt(163))]

But if it had, we'd have many masterpieces by now. And people would have argued over which one was the true continuation of the story, if any. These arguments would become full scale flame wars and would eventually spill over into real wars causing the deaths of millions of people. No, it's better that only one person finish the story so that we have one canonical truth that we can all agree on.

Spider stories

[gurps_npc]

Spider Robinson has some nice stories of his own. I particularly like the earlier Callahan's Place short stories. I dislike the later novels, as he often had the characters make bad assumptions, ignoring other possiblities. In addition, he tended to blame the bad guys for things the good guys did.

But some of his short stories are fantastic, even the ones that had no science fiction in them. One of my favorites was the Time Traveller who used a prison cell as his time machine to the future.

Re:Spider stories

[DavidTC]

That story is called 'The Time Traveler', which is funny because, duh, it has no 'time travelers' in it.

I think it loses some of the power now, but someone who skipped from, what, 1962 to 1973? really would get hit with as much future shock as someone who traveled from 1900 to 1960. The social changes were just crazy, and frankly that's one of the best 'dealing with time displacement' story I've ever seen.

I don't really like any of his work except the Callahan stories and novels, because, frankly, I can't relate to the characters. Jake (and Joe and Maureen) are real people, and the futuristic people don't jibe.

That's actually sort of the reason I'm not a big fan of 'Callahan's Key', because Erin is too damn hard to relate to in the first place, we last saw her when she was the equivalent, maturity-wise, of maybe an eight year old, and now she's basically an adult(1), and the story concept basically made it impossible for us to get to know her.

1) Yes, I know, respectively, she was two and, what, fifteen or so? Not the point.

Spider Robinson's work

[foniksonik]

Is mostly comedy in a recently past setting mixed with a lot (I mean as in a whole several acres lot) of bad puns... and songs with bad puns and puns within puns. Its good sci-fi don't get me wrong but you should know what you're getting into before you start reading Robinson ;-p

Anyways, start with any of the Callahan series and work your way forward or back (there's a lot of time travel so it doesn't really matter which way you go, you'll feel as if you'd been there before regardless).

Most importantly, enjoy the reading... that's why he writes apparently, to entertain which is admirable in this day... oh yeah and all the novels I've read by Robbie are set in the late nineties so expect some feelings of de ja vu... and yet it's still science fiction eh?

Re:Spider Robinson's work

[Fortran IV]

There are numerous collections of Robinson short stories available, though they tend to overlap considerably. I tend to like Spider's short work better than his novels—he has a tendency to write good ideas to death. For instance, Stardance is a brilliant and heartbreaking novelette, but a somewhat disappointing novel.

On the other hand, Night of Power is an outstanding novel that tends to get overlooked, partly because it's not science fiction, partly because racial violence is not the most optimistic subject Spider ever chose.

Callahan's Crosstime Saloon

[Nefarious Wheel]

...and work up from there, building your pun tolerance as you go. Fun guy to read, think I've got them all on the shelf, don't think I've read any of Spider's books just once.

Re:Callahan's Crosstime Saloon

[krell]

"don't think I've read any of Spider's books just once."

Nice wording: the situation applies also to those who have never even seen one of his books :)

Re:Callahan's Crosstime Saloon

[Nefarious Wheel]

Nice wording...

Yes, but I meant the positive root of the equation. I have read all of them more than once.

Re:Callahan's Crosstime Saloon

[Jeff DeMaagd]

I think "just once" implies more than once.

Re:Callahan's Crosstime Saloon

[callistra.moonshadow]

I may give it a try. I have to admit to not being a Heinlein fan. I read "Stranger in a Strange Land" and "Glory Road." I put down "Friday." I studied him in a class about the philosophy of scifi/fantasy. I have problems with authors that for lack of a better way of putting it - don't treat women well, or when they try to, do it badly. Oddly I ended up sticking with female authors for a long time, well past a point that I should have moved on. At least these days I've added the likes of Stephen Baxter, Kim Stanley Robinson, Orson Scott Card, Robert Jordan, etc. into my reading list. I guess it is sad that many other authors might have had more to offer, but a few turned me off for a long time. :(

Re:Callahan's Crosstime Saloon

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

Not to start a flame war -- but what is your definition of not treating them well? I've heard that accusation in the past -- but all that's ever come across to me in Heinlein's work (especially his more recent work) is an near-worship of women.

Ah, well. I suppose it's all a matter of interpretation.

Re:Callahan's Crosstime Saloon

[EPAstor]

Disclaimer: I'm male.

It's not that Heinlein actually puts women down. In fact, I thoroughly agree with you that he essentially worships them. However, he does so in a fashion that some modern women find offensive, in that he assumes certain basic aspirations on biological grounds. As I recall (I haven't read Friday in a few years now), Friday is one of his worst books that way, largely because he takes the questionable step of narrating from the point of view of a female protagonist. The result is that the basic prejudices that he had (which, by the way, almost all members of either gender have in their mental conception of the opposite) come through in spades, and end up feeling almost directly sexist.

Where Heinlein differs from modern radical feminism is in his explicit upholding of the view that men and women have distinctly different roles to play in society. This break doesn't appear to be based in prejudice, but rather in his basic feeling that the average woman actually has far more significance, and thereby deserves better treatment, than the average man. Even this is not inviolable for him... several of his female characters break stereotypes right and left.

The primary way to defend Heinlein from these accusations, though, is to highlight how much POWER he attributes to women in each novel... Just as an on-the-fly interpretation, a one-sentence summary might be: "Men die for the world... Women live for it." Heinlein's world could almost survive without men; the essential role of women is beyond question, both biological and societal. The world revolves around women - men are an accessory of the real power. Hell, just look at his rather extreme views on sexuality and marriage... In each case, his societies give far more power to the women involved than the typical modern realization - and much more than did the society Heinlein was raised in! The Moon is a Harsh Mistress presents particularly good examples of this. In this context, and in every one of his non-dystopian visions of the future, one of the most despicable things any man can do is to force his views (and/or actions) on a woman.

Re:Callahan's Crosstime Saloon

[bcrowell]

I have problems with authors that for lack of a better way of putting it - don't treat women well, or when they try to, do it badly.
Huh? In Glory Road, the main female character is queen of multiple universes -- hardly an anti-female scenario :-). In Friday, the real issue is that the protagonist has low self-esteem because she's genetically engineered, and she gets beyond that by the end of the book (which you didn't read). Stranger in a Strange land might support your point more, since the three secretaries are treated more or less like sex objects, but the book is something like 300,000 words, roughly half of it about sex, so you can't exactly summarize everything it says about sex in 25 words or less. The main female character, Jill, gets rid of her inhibitions, embraces free love, and reaches (a satirical kind of) religious enlightenment. The main character (Valentine Michael Smith) is portrayed as experimenting with androgyny via mental control of his own body. I just don't see how you can twist the whole story into some kind of anti-female thing.

Re:Callahan's Crosstime Saloon

[TheRaven64]

I agree. I found that Heinlein seems to be aware of his sexist bias and try to overcompensate for it. Instead of producing female characters who are actually interesting though, he manages to just take two-dimensional ones and give them some kind of special ability or extra attribute as a substitute for a personality. As such, his female characters really, really grate on the nerves of anyone who's ever had a conversation with a real human female.

Stephen Baxter I can't stand because he feels the need to destroy the universe at the end of every one of his books that I've read (as well as butchering H.G Wells' Time Machine, and basing the entire plot of one of his novels on horrendously obviously flawed mathematics). Kim Stanley Robinson I enjoyed, but found hard work to read. Orson Scott Card wrote one good book twelve times. I'd recommend Alastair Reynolds; I found his books to be quite hard to read at the start, and much harder to put down at the end.

Re:Callahan's Crosstime Saloon

[callistra.moonshadow]

You know, I have to agree about Stephen Baxter. Most of his books seem to end with destruction of earth. He can be depressing. I read his "Manifold" series and it was very good with different endings for each of the three in the trilogy. He also wrote a book called "The Time Ships" which was a unique try at a sequel to "The Time Machine." I'd have to say that of all his works this was the only one that was light-hearted. As to Heinlein, his females are indeed, two-dimensional. It was pointed out that in one of his early books "Space Cadet" the non-human Alien Queen is very intelligent and interesting, yet the females that are Human are two-dimensional window dressing. Unfortunately it was a trend in all his books. It's odd that he did a better job breathing life into an Alien than a Human.

Re:Callahan's Crosstime Saloon

[wbd]

Funny you should mention this. Spider Robinson wrote about this sort of response Heinlein seems to get from some women. (and remember, Heinlein's novels were largely written before 1980...hell, mostly before 1970. Attitudes have changed....and mostly seem to catch up with Heinlein, frankly.)

See his article "RAH, RAH, R.A.H." which you can find a copy of on the Heinlein Society site:

http://www.heinleinsociety.org/rah/works/articles/ rahrahrah.html

The two relevant passages:

(2) "Heinlein is a male chauvinist." This is the second most common charge these days. That's right, Heinlein populates his books with dumb, weak, incompetent women. Like Sister Maggie in "If This Goes On--"; Dr. Mary Lou Martin in "Let There Be Light"; Mary Sperling in Methuselah's Children; Grace Cormet in "--We Also Walk Dogs"; Longcourt Phyllis in Beyond This Horizon; Cynthia Craig in "The Unpleasant Profession of Jonathan Hoag"; Karen in "Gulf"; Gloria McNye in "Delilah and the Space-Rigger"; Allucquere in The Puppet Masters; Hazel and Edith Stone in The Rolling Stones; Betty in The Star Beast; all the women in Tunnel in the Sky; Penny in Double Star; Pee Wee and the Mother Thing in Have Space Suit--Will Travel; Jill Boardman, Becky Vesant, Patty Paiwonski, Anne, Miriam and Dorcas in Stranger in a Strange Land; Star, the Empress of Twenty Universes, in Glory Road; Wyoh, Mimi, Sidris and Gospazha Michelle Holmes in The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress; Eunice and Joan Eunice in I Will Fear No Evil; Ishtar, Tamara, Minerva, Hamadryad, Dora, Helen Mayberry, Llita, Laz, Lor and Maureen Smith in Time Enough For Love; and Dejah Thoris, Hilda Corners, Gay Deceiver and Elizabeth Long in "The Number of the Beast--. "[1] Brainless cupcakes all, eh? (Virtually every one of them is a world-class expert in at least one demanding and competitive field; the exceptions plainly will be as soon as they grow up. Madame Curie would have enjoyed chatting with any one of them.) Helpless housewives! (Any one of them could take Wonder Woman three falls out of three, and polish off Jirel of Joiry for dessert.) I think one could perhaps make an excellent case for Heinlein as a female chauvinist. He has repeatedly insisted that women average smarter, more practical and more courageous than men. He consistently underscores their biological and emotional superiority. He married a woman he proudly described to me as "smarter, better educated and more sensible than I am." In his latest book, Expanded Universe--the immediate occasion for this article--he suggests without the slightest visible trace of irony that the franchise be taken away from men and given exclusively to women. He consistently created strong, intelligent, capable, independent, sexually aggressive women characters for a quarter of a century before it was made a requirement, right down to his supporting casts. Clearly we are still in the area of delusions which can be cured simply by reading Heinlein while awake.

and

(2) "Heinlein can't create believable women characters." There's an easy way to support this claim: simply disbelieve in all Heinlein's female characters, and maintain that all those who believe them are gullible. You'll have a problem, though: several of Heinlein's women bear a striking resemblance to his wife Virginia, you'll have to disbelieve in her, too--which could get you killed if your paths cross. Also, there's a lady I once lived with for a long time, who used to haunt the magazine stores when I Will Fear No Evil was being serialized in Galaxy, because she could not wait to read the further adventures of the "unbelievable" character with whom she identified so strongly--you'll have to disbelieve in her, too. Oddly, this complaint comes most often from radical feminists. Examination shows that Heinlein's female characters are almost invariably highly intelligent, educated, competent, practical, resourceful, courageous, independent, sexually aggressi

Re:Callahan's Crosstime Saloon

[callistra.moonshadow]

See my response about an early example of his writings. His women are extremes, and generally the outstanding ones are not Human. When I tried to read "Friday" I had to put it down because she read like a man, not a woman. I've read several authors that can speak with a male or female voice. Most of his books show women in subservient roles (when Human) and/or as sexual window dressing. Again, he wrote during a time that this was a common practice.

Re:Callahan's Crosstime Saloon

[wbd]

See, I have a problem with your saying that his women are "extremes". What makes you think that? Sounds like you're trying to denigrate the capabilties of your own gender, to me.

Are the women Heinleins writes about EXCEPTIONAL? Maybe. But then so was his wife, by all accounts. I'd argue that many are, but many are not. But then so are most of his men. And hey, who wants to read about unexceptional or uninteresting people? One can get enough of that on the soap operas and in the movies of the week shown on the "WE" channel, frankly. Snooooore.

Aspire to a little more, please!

Re:Callahan's Crosstime Saloon

[callistra.moonshadow]

Please see my post about "Space Cadet" which was subject of a class I took in college. It is one example of the general state of women in his books, whether in an adult or juvenile story. I read some of his other books from my dad's scifi collection. It makes me wonder why he did a better job with Alien females versus Humans?

Re:Callahan's Crosstime Saloon

[callistra.moonshadow]

Actually exceptional could be a deaf person learning to play a musical instrument becoming a medical doctor. When a character is a caricature instead of a person it is not "aspiring to be more." I think you missed my point. Cheers, Cally

Re:Callahan's Crosstime Saloon

[1u3hr]

yet the females that are Human are two-dimensional window dressing. Unfortunately it was a trend in all his books.

Well, he did try occasionally. How about Podkayne of Mars? Being a male myself I can't say how authentic the narrator, a teenage girl was here, but it seemed to ring true.

Re:Callahan's Crosstime Saloon

[stanmann]

Heinlein, due to his period and experiences, had come to believe that (radical) Feminism, and its goals, ideals and plans, had become worse(for women) than Misogyny and prejudice.

Re:Callahan's Crosstime Saloon

[1u3hr]

When I tried to read "Friday" I had to put it down because she read like a man, not a woman.

Unfortunately, there were many reasons to put down most of the books he wrote after about 1970 when his health started to decline. Judge him by his best, in the 1940s-60s.

Re:Callahan's Crosstime Saloon

[Fortran IV]

Remember that Space Cadet was published in 1948, just one year after Mickey Spillane's I, the Jury. In those days SF was almost exclusively a male market. Andre Norton had legally changed her name to disguise her gender from readers. Marion Zimmer Bradley was still several years from her first sale. Publishers weren't looking for female leads; they were still demanding John Campbell's "competent man."

In my opinion, Heinlein was one of the first writers to make a significant effort to include strong, intelligent, capable female characters. Compare his work in the '50s and '60s to Murray Leinster, whose female characters tended to be "the woman behind the man"; Heinlein's female characters were much more likely to be an equal partner. Heinlein's women are much more closely related to the female characters of modern writers like C.J. Cherryh than those of any other major writer of the Golden Age.

As for your post on Space Cadet below: I've always felt that all of Heinlein's characters were a bit two-dimensional. The classic example of that (for me) is The Number of the Beast, where I often lose track of which character is currently narrating, because they all sound so much alike.

Re:Callahan's Crosstime Saloon

[Fortran IV]

Unfortunately, there were many reasons to put down most of the books [Heinlein] wrote after about 1970 when his health started to decline. Judge him by his best, in the 1940s-60s.

...Before he became such a bestselling powerhouse that no editor dared naysay him. His best work came when he had editors (such as John W. Campbell) strong enough to make him stick to his ideas and clean up his tendencies to ramble all over the landscape.

Not my theory—that of a friend who has the largest private SF & fantasy collection I've ever seen. But it rings true to me.

Re:Callahan's Crosstime Saloon

[callistra.moonshadow]

It's funny that you mention Andre Norton. I've read most of her books including her last one published after her passing. She was writing around the same time as Heinlein and the female characters in her books were believable and well thought out. Of course Andre (Alice Mary) was a woman writing for men. Quite a difference. Once I started reading Andre Norton, and then discovered Marian Zimmer Bradley I kept to female authors. That is not to say that there are not female authors that treat male protagonists badly. I put those authors down too.

Re:Callahan's Crosstime Saloon

[RobertB-DC]

Instead of producing female characters who are actually interesting though, he manages to just take two-dimensional ones and give them some kind of special ability or extra attribute as a substitute for a personality. As such, his female characters really, really grate on the nerves of anyone who's ever had a conversation with a real human female.

I think you just pinpointed why I loved Heinlein as a teenager.

But now I have to wonder -- cause or effect? Did I like Heinlein because girls wouldn't talk to me, or would girls not talk to me because I subconciously expected them to all be naked hypersexual spacecraft navigators? (and what book was that, anyway?)

Re:Callahan's Crosstime Saloon

[DavidTC]

In this context, and in every one of his non-dystopian visions of the future, one of the most despicable things any man can do is to force his views (and/or actions) on a woman.

To be fair, in his non-dystopian futures, one of the most despicable things any man can do is to force his views (and/or actions) on anyone. The Moon is a Harsh Mistress society is just only halfway there.

However, you're right about his treatment of women. They are the basis of society, and it's okay for men to protect them, although often those men will find they don't need protecting. (Aka, Hazel in The Cat Who Walked Through Walls, where her and Colin end up 'protecting' each other to the point of silliness in the first third of the book because he thinks she's just some random woman while she's seen more action than he ever has.)

There are only three kinds of women in Heinlein books:

1. Ones that are weak, but learn not to be.
2. Ones that pretend to be weak, but aren't.
3. Ones that never appear to be weak in the first place.

None of them actually are weak (Unlike a few men), and they're all very competent (Like most major characters.). Good men try to protect them, and bad men don't, but the best women don't need it. I can't think of a single female villain.

Re:Callahan's Crosstime Saloon

[doom]

stanmann wrote:

Heinlein, due to his period and experiences, had come to believe that (radical) Feminism, and its goals, ideals and plans, had become worse(for women) than Misogyny and prejudice.

In _Expanded Universe_, Heinlein proposes various ways he thinks the voting system might be improved, and one of his suggestions is that possibly only mothers should be allowed to vote, because they automatically have an investment in the future.

Is that a feminist idea? A sexist idea?

Really, I think Heinlein tended to be totally off the map in his political and social attitudes -- it's one of the reasons the flame wars about his work tends to be so intense.

Re:Callahan's Crosstime Saloon

[doom]

I may give it a try. I have to admit to not being a Heinlein fan. I read "Stranger in a Strange Land" and "Glory Road." I put down "Friday." I studied him in a class about the philosophy of scifi/fantasy. I have problems with authors that for lack of a better way of putting it - don't treat women well, or when they try to, do it badly. Oddly I ended up sticking with female authors for a long time, well past a point that I should have moved on.

You might be interested in reading "Have Spacesuit, Will Travel" and "The Rolling Stones". Both of these have some strong female characters, one very young, and the other very old: one of the original feminist critiques of Heinlein (back in the days before "Friday") was that his pubescent women were totally brainless stereotypes, though if they were younger or older than that, they could be intelligent, interesting characters.

The smoking gun on that, as I remember it, is "The Door Into Summer", where we see a young girl turn into an adult woman by way of a time travel gimmick of a sort -- she appears to have had a lobotomy in the intervening years.

I think "Friday" was an attempt at dealing with that criticism, how sucessfully I leave it up to you to judge.

I also might point you at "To Sail Beyond the Sunset", his last novel, and in my opinion the best of his later novels: not a bad job of doing a female character, if you ask me, though obviously "YMMV".

Re:Callahan's Crosstime Saloon

[callistra.moonshadow]

I've heard that his last book might have been his best. If that's so he's done better than some other authors I've read (Frank Herbert for instance). I might give it a try.

Launching into Fictons

[Doc Ruby]

If you want a great intro to Spider Robinson, try starting with Time Travelers Strictly Cash, the hilarious (and poignant) first book in the "Callahan's" series. It's short, fantastic, and has some non-Callahan's short stories.

If you want a great intro to Robert A. Heinlein, try starting with practically any of his dozens of first-rate books published from 1939-73, during which he defined "science fiction", leading a group of prolific writers. There's some good stuff later, but not nearly as reliably inspired or executed.

Re:Launching into Fictons

[krell]

Time Travelers Strictly Cash, the hilarious (and poignant) first book in the "Callahan's" series. "

"Time Travelers Strictly Cash" is actually the second Callahan's book from what I recall (and from what Robinson says in the link you gave). It has been a while since I have read them (back then there were only two), so I don't know if the reading order even matters.

Re:Launching into Fictons

[bob_herrick]

"...but not nearly as reliably inspired or executed."

Get both versions of Stranger in a Strange Land, put them next to each other, and read the first paragraphs in parallel.

"Once upon a time there was a Martian named Valentine Michal Smith" (quoted from memory).

It is a pretty dramatic line, one that grabs the reader's attention. Read the start of the "Authors Edition" that came out a few years ago. Wait a minute and try and recall the first paragraph. Nothing memorable at all.

This comparison shows the value of good editing even for a serious author like Heinlein. My thesis is that when an author becomes more and more popular, he or she starts to feel above the editing process. That is when bloat creeps (or stomps as the case may be) in.

I found bloat to be the case in the last several books that Heinlein wrote. Another place to see the effect is in the later works of Tom Clancy (His stuff, not the group projects).

As for Spider, I am in the minority. I had to force myself to finish Variable Star. The fundamental characteristic of Heinlein juveniles, to me, is a compentent, optimistic hero who perseveres though force of character. Spider's hero was a disappointment in that regard.

Also, if it were me 'collaborating' with RAH, I would have lost the puns. Love'em in the Callahan series and elsewhere, but they were out of place in this work.

Re:Launching into Fictons

[Doc Ruby]

When I read TTSC, there were none in the series ;).

Re:Launching into Fictons

[Doc Ruby]

I agree about the editorial cycle's declining contribution to most "great" authors' late works, especially in SF. Douglas Adams might be the worst loss to that permissive process.

Re:Launching into Fictons

[Tumbleweed]

I haven't read any of Robinson's Callahan books, but I remember really liking his post-Apocalyptic book, "Telempath." Good stuff. I'm always a sucker for a good post-Apocalyptic story.

Re:Launching into Fictons

[TheRaven64]

My thesis is that when an author becomes more and more popular, he or she starts to feel above the editing process

Interesting. My theory was that when an author becomes popular then their editors becomes more hesitant 'tamper' with their work. A good recent example of this would be 'Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix,' a book clearly in need of an editor willing to cut 2-400 pages.

Re:Launching into Fictons

[Doc Ruby]

I really liked _Telempath_, too. I read all the Callahan's stories, which really touched me. I'm a recovering ex-hippie technocrat from Long Island, so I expect I eventually willam haven to visited Callahan's.

I just don't get it

[jbrader]

I have read a ton of SF over a huge range. Everything from the genre's most literary (Olaf Stapledon and Phillip K Dick) to the really fun but maybe not so deep (Alastair Reynolds and Ben Bova) and from way back in the 19th century (Wells, god I love The Time Machine) to stuff published within the last couple of years. I can't even begin to estimate how many hundreds of novels and thousands of short stories I've read since I was 11 or so and discovered Arthur C Clarke (the author who got me started down my geeky path).

But, for the life of me I cannot understand the appeal of Heinlein. I've tried s few of his novels (Stranger in a Strange Land, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress and The Number of the Beast [that's the right title I think, anyway it was so bad I actually tore it in half before i used the pages to get the kindling going in my fireplace]) as well as a number of short stories in various collections. Where he's not ridiculous he's offensive, and I'm usually very difficult to offend. And his politics strike me as something that would come out of a bright but not terribly nice 14 year old.

So can anybody clue me in? What am I missing?

Does anybody else agree with me or am I the lone voice of geek dissent out here?

Re:I just don't get it

[stoolpigeon]

It's art. Some people like it and respond to it in a positive way. A lot of people love RAH - but some don't. And probably the number of people who've never even heard of him is larger than both of the other two put together. No big deal. I don't get ballet. Doesn't mean it isn't meaningful and worthwhile, it just isn't for me.
 
RAH's libertarian philosophy is a bit beyond that of a 14 year old I think, but when you consider that his target audience was 14 and younger, I think your critique falls in his favor. As for not nice, well, I don't think so.
 
Offensive? I can see that, especially some of the later stuff. But once again, we are talking about personal preference. I cut my teeth on his juveniles which were very sanitary and inspiring. Horatio Alger kind of stuff. As a young geek it was escapism that I could really enjoy. I read Have Spacesuit Will Travel many times over, each time seeing how that could be me. Same with a ton of his other titles (Starman Jones (except for the memory part), Rocketship Galileo, and so on).

Re:I just don't get it

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm guessing you're missing about 20 or more years of growing up in the Cold War with parents raised in The Depression.

Not meant as a slam, just an observation.

Re:I just don't get it

[erotic piebald]

... or am I the lone voice of geek dissent out here?

Yes, you are.

Re:I just don't get it

[Nefarious Wheel]

So can anybody clue me in? What am I missing?

I think it might help if you think about the era Heinlein was born into -- culturally WWI and environs. Although his style is archaic by modern mores it helps to consider him as a bridging phenomenon -- we got where we are today by shifting from where we were then, and it's great to have some record of the steps in thinking between then and now. For example, in his day the military was the only visible source of integrity, people didn't challenge authority and women were perceived as without any career path beyond mother, nun or nurse.

Heinlein challenged everything, including the reader and most definitely himself. His SF was as real as he could make it -- before the advent of ubiquitous computing he and his lady sat in their room working iteratively through mounds of spherical trig functions by hand in order to get his orbits believable. That's character, that is. My wife says he's the most eminently readable author she's ever violently disagreed with.

Re:I just don't get it

[jfengel]

Number of the Beast is definitely not his best work. I'm totally sympathetic with tearing it in half. But if you've read Stranger and Moon is a Harsh Mistress, then you've read most of his best stuff. If it's not to your taste, I really wouldn't try to change your mind.

The thing to notice about Heinlein is that he's really more of an ideas guy than a character guy. There are at least two others you might consider reading: Time Enough for Love and Starship Troopers. The former is really a collection of short stories, and in his short stories he gets to do the speculative-sci-fi without his failures as a character writer becoming too apparent. The latter is more in the vein of Moon is a Harsh Mistress, which is really about political systems with a sci-fi frame.

If the short stories appeal to you, his future-history series has some interesting entries. Technologically they're way out of date, but they have a good deal of pulp appeal, and a few of them are genuinely touching.

So what's to like about Heinlein? He had some interesting thoughts on politics, with some nice foresight into the way technology would allow changes in society. That's very classically sci-fi. He spans that period from early pulp to the beginnings of sci-fi with real literary merit, with Stranger as a kind of pinnacle from a literary standpoint. If nothing else, Stranger was incredibly influential at the time, though I'm sure it seems outdated today. (I haven't read it in years.)

My own tastes run to his middle works. His early pulpy stuff is often too juvenile, and the sexual liberation that he examined in Stranger became rambling and unfocused in everything after that. (Though his finale, To Sail Beyond The Sunset, struck me as a remarkable throwback and a fitting capstone to his works.) Try Time Enough for Love and Starship Troopers; at the very least as light sci-fi you should be able to read them pretty quickly.

Re:I just don't get it

[chreekat]

It goes both ways for me. I agree that Heinlein can be juvenile, and his characters are often very sexist. The Number of the Beast, in particular, was extremely hard for me to read; I only had the strength the skim the last chapter and couldn't even tell you what the resolution was.

That might say more about me than it does Heinlein, though. :) Sometimes, I get the feeling that the sexism is tongue-in-cheek, as if to simply show how silly sexism is. As for the political statements, I think it's clear that he is 110% pro-capitalism, and doesn't see some of its flaws. But I'm sure worse could be said about a writer -- especially a sci-fi writer, who often deals with best-case scenarios anyway.

Further, a lot of his writing was periodical-style. That simply has to be appreciated in context, imho. :) The short stories of Heinlein and Asimov are some of my favorite pieces of fiction, because I love the format. Namely, take a neat idea, extrapolate a little, and ask your audience, "What if... ?". Dialog and plot are simple, because they aren't the point. I do prefer Asimov here, but Heinlein definitely had an impact on the genre.

Finally, I see that you didn't mention Starship Troopers. That is, by far, my favorite Heinlein book. I'd check it out.

Re:I just don't get it

[DragonWriter]

So can anybody clue me in? What am I missing?

Liking art is a matter of taste. If you need to view "not getting" something other people like as a matter of doing something wrong, I suppose I could suggest that you may be getting "too close" to the material: viewing its descriptions as straightforward advocacy. At least, that may be why you are offended. I can't talk about the ridiculousness part: that's really a matter of where your personal suspension of disbelief gets thrown off, and there's not much I can say about that.

Does anybody else agree with me or am I the lone voice of geek dissent out here?

Hating Heinlein, especially (IME) among liberal geekdom, is fairly popular, so I doubt you are the only one.

Re:I just don't get it

[ZorbaTHut]

My own tastes run to his middle works. His early pulpy stuff is often too juvenile, and the sexual liberation that he examined in Stranger became rambling and unfocused in everything after that. (Though his finale, To Sail Beyond The Sunset, struck me as a remarkable throwback and a fitting capstone to his works.) Try Time Enough for Love and Starship Troopers; at the very least as light sci-fi you should be able to read them pretty quickly.

This is pretty much what I was going to say, although I suspect my tastes lean more towards the early stuff - even in Stranger I felt he was spending too much time with sex-for-sex's-sake. The guy's a dirty old man, basically, in much the same way as Piers Anthony is. His early work was more distinctive and interesting than Piers's, and he came in on the forefront of scifi instead of the trailing edge. (And he didn't get trapped into writing an endless series of Xanth books.)

But his late stuff . . . man, it's worth reading for the hilarious constant-sex factor, but I can't say I'd recommend it past that. I read a full bibliography of his once, and with a few extraordinarily notable exceptions I honestly don't think it was all that good. :(

Re:I just don't get it

[jbrader]

That's true but I like a lot of other stuff from the same period.

Re:I just don't get it

[Gospodin]

Anyone who thinks Heinlein is "110% pro-capitalism" has not read his novels very carefully. In particular, you should read "For Us, the Living". While he's a fan of private enterprise (and was a famous advocate of private enterprise leading the way into space), he also has no problem postulating a world government (many of his juveniles use this premise). He's an anti-bureaucrat, but this includes corporate bureaucrats as well as governmental ones.

Re:I just don't get it

[Anonymous Coward]

yes, it's even simple to explain. You missed the important Heinlein, and have only read the "later" Heinlein.

The impression most people have of RAH is formed by starting with his juveniles. The Rolling Stones, Have Spacesuit, Will Travel, Red Planet. Then, progressing to his early adult fiction, Starship Troopers, etc.

The later Heinline, including Stranger and Mistress are works by a man who grew up in post WWI Kansas City, Mo, and lived to be idolized by geeks in the 1960's.

To understand RAH, you have to read the early works that co-existed with those early Clarke's you fed on.

And, you may be too old now.

-_ Rick

Re:I just don't get it

[bob_herrick]

Let me add this thought. In addition to the points raised earlier (two good pieces, two weak pieces, for example), and assuming that your taste is sufficiently different from mine that you just wont' appreciate RAH, one big difference between you and most of the other posters is that you started with works at the late middle and end of his writing career.

I started reading RAH in the 50's, and when I read Stranger in a Strange Land (for the first of well over 20 times)it was just published, I was in college, and it was so totally different from the SF of the day, and from RAH's prior work (except for the Jubal character. He's in every book somewhere) that had elements of epithany.

I am hard pressed to think of things that I have read in my life that I can to this day recall so vividly - possibly the scene in Catch-22 where the nurse swtiches bottles on the Soldier in White comes close.

It is almost certainly too late for you to start where I did, but that is, I think, the explanation.

Re:I just don't get it

[Gospodin]

Epithany, n.

1. A terse revelation. "John's epithany was like a bolt of lightning."

2. A book of epithets. "The Notebooks of Lazarus Long is Heinlein's fictional epithany."

Great sniglet...

Re:I just don't get it

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, I didn't read heinlein until I was 22 and he swiftly became my most favorite author. Maybe by your terms thats young enough to still be affected by the juveniles, and certainly I am more able to appreciate juveniles than many other people... so maybe there is hope for him!

Re:I just don't get it

[wolfemi1]

I must agree with some of the other posters: Starship Troopers is one of my favorite books of all time, and I think that should be required reading for anyone wanting to get a feel for his work.

I am a Heinlein fan, and I think Number of the Beast is pretty bad. I heard from my father that Heinlein switched medications somewhere in the middle of this, which could account for its meandering nature and lack of resolution to any of the infinite silly plot threads it introduces.

As for the morality aspect, I would say (at least, for Stranger in a Strange Land) that society has moved on from when the book was published. I suspect that it was a very revolutionary book when it was published, and nowadays doesn't have the same impact due to a slightly more jaded, cynical, and liberal society.

In any case, give Starship Troopers a try, and if you don't like it, well, I'm in no position to dictate taste to you. I really enjoyed it, and if you don't then at least you don't feel that you have to pretend to in order to fit in :)

Re:I just don't get it

[jbrader]

It's art. Some people like it and respond to it in a positive way.

I agree absolutely. What I'm wondering is what is it about this particular art that people find so attractive because it's utterly lost on me.

Re:I just don't get it

[jbrader]

Of course it's a matter of taste, and if my earlier post made it sound as though I think his fans are doing something wrong or have wrong opinions that was not my intention. If you like it, that's cool enjoy. I'm just saying I don't like and I was wondering why others do.

Re:I just don't get it

[JDAustin]

"I am a Heinlein fan, and I think Number of the Beast is pretty bad. I heard from my father that Heinlein switched medications somewhere in the middle of this, which could account for its meandering nature and lack of resolution to any of the infinite silly plot threads it introduces."

Number of the Beast is bad because Heinlein intentionally wrote it that way. Read the following article and it really explains the entire book...

http://www.heinleinsociety.org/rah/numberbeast.htm l

Re:I just don't get it

[LordLucless]

I've actually read almost the same set of Heinlein books (Stranger, Moon and Time Enough for Love), and come to almost the same conclusion. I quite enjoyed some of the concepts he raised in the books, especially Stranger and Moon, but the way he constantly presented his socio-economic and sexual ideologies as utopian ideals really irritated me. Bringing up the concept in a book and examining the pros and cons is one thing, but all of those books brought them up, generally multiple times. It felt like he was telling an allegory rather than a story, and that annoyed me.

Re:I just don't get it

[Anonymous Coward]

I've read everything that heinlein wrote and number of the beast is easily the worst. Without a shadow of a doubt.

Stranger in a strange land can be flaky unless you have experience with or can detect the faint currents of a solid man casting about for some tenuous ideas.

The moon is a harsh mistress is written in a distinctive and possibly off-putting style.

I don't think you chose the right three to start with.

Re:I just don't get it

[Michael Snoswell]

I read pretty much all his novels that I could lay my hands on back in my early teen years, so his writing fitted perfectly with that young adolescent age "Have Spacesuit Will Travel" and "Day After Tomorrow" are classic examples. I tried re-reading some of his books when Friday, The Cat Who Walks Through Walls etc came out when I was in my 20s. I didn't like any of it by then. I tried rereading Citizen of the Galaxy and didn't like that anymore, sadly. Methuslea's Children was great but I think as an adult I'm just too critical in my thinking to tolerate the naivety (whilst I don't mind Cyrano de Bergerac). By the time Starship Stroopers came out as a movie I was kind of glad they'd edited out some of the whacky bits of the story and many people I know didn't understand the whacky ideas that stayed in there.

I think Heinlein inspired many youngsters when space travel was a wonderful promise that we thought was within our grasp when we grew up. Young people today know that there are no aliens living on Mars or Venus and the idea of setting up farms on Ganymede is just dumb and they know when they grow up there might be a handful of people in space and that's it. It just doesn't appeal to the younger generation. And for we sadly grounded and rational thinking adults it has lost it's appeal too. We've all been brought down to earth and despite the best efforts of X-cor or Armadillo we'll all still be on earth for a long time to come. It's a sad truth that kids today know and it's the adults who have trouble letting go of those aspirations (I'm generalising but I see a lot of Gen Y ppl who don't understand the adventurous spirit of the Boomers).

What Heinlein does keep for me is a wonderful memory and feeling that "this is possible". It gave me great dreams to grow up with and aspire to, which made me strive to achieve in maths and science because a dream is a powerful thing. I know it's not true now, but that doesn't detract from the feelings I remember which after 30 odd years are still so strong. And it is for that reason that Heinlein deserves a great place in the annals of SF writers.

Re:I just don't get it

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh no you not!

I too have tried to read his books on numerous occasions, and I come away with the feeling of bafflement that anybody would like this stuff. But as the saying goes there is no accounting for taste.

Thank god that I didn't come to his writing first when I started to read SF, otherwise I might never have discovered some of the gems that I have.

Re:I just don't get it

[Saint Aardvark]

Another vote for early stuff. IMHO you can divvy up RAH pretty well by pre- or post-SIASL (with "Moon Is A Harsh Mistress" clearly leading up to SIASL). My fave by far is "The Puppet Masters"; if you (grandparent) haven't tried it I'd recommend making time for it.

I agree that the post-SIASL stuff is pretty wretched. And I'm not really a fan of SIASL/Moon. But man, I am entertained beyond all reason by just about everything before that.

Re:I just don't get it

[wbd]

Pity that you think that. If I had to choose only ONE SF authors books to have on a desert island, they'd be Heinleins. I've read and re-read all of them many times. Plenty of other SF authors I love too, and also read and re-read, but there is a reason Heinlein is called The Master (and no, you Doctor Who fans, you can't chime in here....go 'way.)

If you don't get it...try harder. (Which might sum up Heinlein in a nutshell, come to think of it....)

Not that I've ever had to TRY much to enjoy and (wonderfully) even LEARN from Heinlein's work.

Re:I just don't get it

[wbd]

EXCELLENT reply!

Re:I just don't get it

[jbrader]

Thank you very much, that's exactly the sort of answer I was hoping for. It sounds to me that Heinlein was for you what Clarke was for me (although I still enjoy a lot of his stuff).

Re:I just don't get it

[sgt_doom]

So can anybody clue me in? What am I missing?

There are sure to be a great many of replies to this interrogative - the majority of them wonderful! But please allow me to add my own most humble comments:

Heinlein ranged far and wide on the myriad possibilities of the human race - just take a gander at "All You Zombies" along with "The Green Hills of Earth." His work on future spy fiction set the gold standard ("The Puppet Masters") while his earliest works made science wonderfully exciting. He opened up his readers' imagination to the infinite possibilities at a time when things may have looked particularly bleak - given the nuclear buildup, the arms race, the Cold War (and its many proxy wars), not too far off from the this present era.

He championed the positive side of capitalism ("--We Also Walk Dogs") - while realizing its obvious downsides (that short story where the wealthy business owner - inherited wealth, that is - goes undercover to experience the real slave labor shops his companies run). He romanticized science, space travel and adventure. He embodied the life philosphy of self-improvement, individual responsibility and a citizen's true worth and measure. Life as a constant evolution, adaptation and adventure. His disdain for humanity was always evident, so too his hope and yearnings for it.

An imagination without bounds. His science might sometimes be out-of-date by today's standards (see the description energy consumed by human cognition in "Lost Legacy") but his mindset was forever in the future. From "Beyond This Horizon" and "Methuselah's Children" to "Sixth Column" and "Starman Jones," he gave hope to the masses of optimistic and thinking readers out here.

TANSTAASFL!!.

Re:I just don't get it

[eriks]

I actually just finished reading "Number of the Beast", for the first time, having read (and at least liked, mostly very much) almost everything else he had ever written.

I can understand thinking that characters in the NotB are sexist, but I think that he is actually hard on his characters for their sexist attitudes, they often learn the hard way that their sexism is harmful. Case in point, when "Sharpie" is (ultimately) deemed the best commanding officer of the crew, not because she is a man or a woman, but simply because she has the best skills for the job.

"To Sail Beyond the Sunset", which I also just read for the first time, is the life story of Maureen Johnson Smith (Long) -- and sort of picks up where NotB leaves off... it (I think) demonstrates Heinlein's very strongly anti-sexist (by his generation's definitions anyway) attitudes. It is his "craziest" and probably "sexiest" book, being his last, and having gotten to be (apparently) an even older and dirtier old man. But I enjoyed both books immensely, entertainment value alone was worth it.

I literally jumped for joy when I got to meet Lazarus Long again in NotB and tSBtS. Read I may sometimes disagree (sometimes strongly) with some of his (which are possibly Heinlein's actual) philosophy, but I find that I agree strongly with most of the really important things he has to say. Read "Notebook of Lazarus Long" for a thorough sampling, including such (still apropos) gems as:

Always store beer in a dark place.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done, and why. Then do it.

Rub her feet.

Sin lies only in hurting other people unnecessarily. All other "sins" are invented nonsense. (Hurting yourself is not sinful -- just stupid.)

I sincerely doubt that he was a capitalist, at least not in the current sense of the term. Perhaps his ideas could be classified as Anarcho-Capitalist, or even Anarcho-syndicalist.

One of his most important (because it's the most true) social ideas (imho) is that one of society's (in the US) biggest problems is prudishness about sex. It was the case when he started writing, and continued to be so throughout his writing career, so I think he kept turning up the volume on that particular issue. And perhaps he was a "horny old goat" to boot.

Anyway, I like Asimov (even) better also. Foundation rocked my world, and his robot novels are some of my favorite novels, period. In any genre of fiction (and I like a lot of non-scifi).

So why do geeks love Heinlein? I think it's because he cuts through a lot of bullshit, and is entertaining for those that like his particular brand of wit. Also for the pure action/adventure style of his writing (particularly in novels like Friday), which admittedly, isn't very "literary". It's pulpy, but fun.

I mean come on, "Pantheistic Multiple-Ego Solipsism"? Most geeks eat that kind of shit up.

I've never read Starship Troopers, although I'm sad to say I watched the "movie" they made "from it". I wish we had the technology so I could erase those two hours from my head.

Re:I just don't get it

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm with you. My contempt for Heinlein is the reason my Karma here is so terrible -- people are religious about it. He's just awful, offensive, nasty, talentless and boring.

You also seem to think that Firefly is racist, slaver, southern propaganda. Have you considered the possibility that your karma is low because you're a troll?

Re:I just don't get it

[Carnildo]

You picked the wrong books to start with. Heinlein's works divide into two groups: his early works, which are entertaining stories with a strong survivalist, libertarian bent, and his later works, which are just plain strange. If you want a book that will make you think, read "Starship Troopers", and find out why us fans prefer to ignore the existance of the movie. If you want entertainment, try any of his juvenile fiction -- it's not just for kids.

Re:I just don't get it

[Anonymous Coward]

And read "Life-line", where the inventor of a device that can predict the date of death has to put up with insurance companies trying to sue him into bankruptcy. The comments by the judge about the case should be dear to the heart of anyone who hates the RIAA.

Ah, thank you wikipedia:

There has grown in the minds of certain groups in this country the idea that just because a man or corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with guaranteeing such a profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary to public interest. This strange doctrine is supported by neither statute or common law. Neither corporations or individuals have the right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped, or turned back.

Re:I just don't get it

[chthon]

I am pretty sure that the kind of people who kill Michael at the end of the book do still exist in the US today, and that if the US society really would have moved on, there would not have been such a stink about Janet Jackson's tit.

Re:I just don't get it

[chthon]

I have always the feeling that 'The Number of The Beast' was a kind of end point started with 'Stranger In A Strange Land', where he uses the concept of multiple dimensions to make his books alternative realities.

He starts it first by letting Michael (from SIASL ) things disappear in a dimension perpendicular to our own, and then uses the concept in 'The Number of The Beast' to pull together his own realities, realities from other writers (Oz) and creating a new one.

With this background you do not need to find his juvenile books outdated. Just imagine them in one of Heinlein's parallel universes and consider them a nice adventure story.

Re:I just don't get it

[Cragen]

Years ago, I would've bristled while reading your post, but I am beginning to understand your point. Not that I totally agree with your post, but many of us started out our early years reading SF&F (back in the 60's and 70's) and generally started with Heinlein. Back then, being rebellious was a relatively new idea to us. Being rebellious sexually and in print, outside of porn, was generally only found in heavy-going (no pun intended) English lit. (For us Anglos, anyhow.) Heinlein may have been my first exposure to philosophy of any sort. His philosophies were not necessarily great, but I didn't have much to compare it to, as a teenager, back in the late 60's and early 70's. Later, having survived Vietnam, and still philosophically naive, RH's work was even a bit poignant. It was only later when the light of more mature philosophies exposed those back alleys of my mind that I began to see how simplistic, even juvenile at times, RH's philosophies were. Still, they started me down my own road of finding my own path of discovery so they will always count as "something to remember" in my own small history of life.

Re:I just don't get it

[DavidTC]

It's not just Life-Line. He's got another short story, with the invention of 'sunscreens'. Basically, they were trying to invent a 'cold light', instead of wasting energy on heat (1), and manage to do so, but also realize it works backwards and converts light to electricity with near 100% efficiency and it's extremely cheap to make. (Some sort of artifical clay, IIRC.)

In that case, everyone tries to shut them down, and they do exactly what every person who actually finds themselves in that situation should do...they patented it, and released the plans to all newspapers they could, and barely managed to get out alive, and, of course, millionaires with the royalties.

1) Damn, Heinlein thought of almost every single damn technological breakthrough, didn't he? Look at the current push to replace incandescent with less wasteful bulbs.

Re:I just don't get it

[DavidTC]

Anyone who thinks that book is serious isn't paying attention when the characters are talking about science fiction, and how they get 'edited out' of their original universe.

NotB isn't a book. It's a meta-book. I mean, Lazarus Long said it was unbelievable when he was reading the first half, and Lazarus is Heinlein's voice.

Oh, and, incidentally, NotB is also the best argument for shorter copyright terms I've ever seen. Imagine if Heinlein had been able to play with stories from the 40s and 50s.

Re:I just don't get it

[catman]

they started me down my own road of finding my own path of discovery
Exactly. For me. the main "message" I get from RAHs books is "use your own brains, dammit - ". Somewhat like Ted Sturgeon's "always ask the next question".

Speculative Fiction?

[glrotate]

Come on. It's sci-fi.

Re:Speculative Fiction?

[Jeff DeMaagd]

That's what I thought. I wonder who the first prick was that suggested using "speculative fiction". To me, it sounds like some ego thing, snobbery and such. Maybe that's the topic of a Google search some other day.

Re:Speculative Fiction?

[LordLucless]

Speculative Fiction isn't a euphamism for Sci-Fi, it's a general term for all genres that deal with an altered universe - sci-fi, fantasy, horror, etc.

Re:Speculative Fiction?

[Petrushka]

it's a general term for all genres that deal with an altered universe

I generally call this "fiction".

Re:Speculative Fiction?

[LordLucless]

Fortunately, nobody cares what you generally call anything.

Heinlein is from Mars, Robinson is from Venus

[Dachannien]

He'll never truly be discorporated, as long as we continue to grok him.

Re:Heinlein is from Mars, Robinson is from Venus

[Gospodin]

And unlike Valentine Michael Smith, Heinlein is plenty salty.

Dumb euphemisms for scifi

[krell]

"Come on. It's sci-fi."

You got that right. "Speculative fiction" is a dumb euphemism anyway. Technically, Tom Clancy's book(s) about all-out war between the US and USSR are "speculative fiction".... but they sure as hell aren't scifi.

Re:Dumb euphemisms for scifi

[MrFlibbs]

According to wikipedia, the term "speculative fiction" was actually coined by Heinlein in a 1948 essay. Today, it implies a super-set of science fiction that includes fantasy and horror. A speculative world is one beyond the one we know. Traditional sci-fi usually takes place on a future Earth or some other planet, but with this term you can include more whimsical worlds under one umbrella. Tom Clancy's books don't qualify because we're already familiar with the setting.

I'm not sure I like the term myself. In some sense it doesn't really matter where/when/how a setting is defined as long as there's a compelling story. Arthur C. Clark once said that all possible plots had already been written. That's not literally true, of course, but his point was that a sci-fi story doesn't need ground-breaking new physics to be good -- it just needs to make you care about the characters. Sci-fi stories take place in some fantastic locales, but eventually it all comes down to the characters.

Re:Dumb euphemisms for scifi

[DavidTC]

Sci-fi exists solely so you can have 'non-real' things happen to the characters. Period. Which is also why alternate histories is under the 'spec-fi' umbrella.

People who try to make a distinction between hard sci-fi and soft sci-fi, or sci-fi and fantasy, are just being obtuse. It doesn't matter how plausible, based on the world we know, your trip to the stars, or meeting a duplicate of yourself, or traveling through time, or whatever. It's something that does not 'really' happen, and hence is sci-fi, or, as Heinlein preferred, spec-fi.

Arachnophilia

[kfg]

I'd have to recommend that anyone new to Spider start with Stardance.

However, that said, reviewer's geek card is hereby revoked and he will not be returned to good standing until he knows who Ralph Von Wau Wau is.

KFG

Re:Arachnophilia

[catman]

Ahh - thanks. I didn't know where Ralph came from when he walked into Callahan's Place that first time ...

About Variable Star - I found it fascinating how real Heinlein characters spoke in Robinson's voice. There was no mistaking
either characters or voice.

I recommend it!

Re:Arachnophilia

[kfg]

A charecter orginally from a different author, who was orginally a charecter from a different author (whose stories sometimes include a fictionalized account of right where I'm sitting. I can just about see the Illium Works from here). You don't get many of those and Callahan's seems just the place for a charecter like that to end up.

KFG

Re:Arachnophilia

[catman]

Of course. He's a natural for that Place. I wonder what happened to his companion? Disappeared without a trace after that first story ...

Re:Arachnophilia

[kfg]

I wonder what happened to his companion?

If I told you if I told I'd have to kill you I'd have to kill you.

KFG

My personal favorite Spider novel

[Ethanol]

...since you asked, is Time Pressure, which is a companion to the almost-as-good Mindkiller. (I say "companion" instead of "sequel" because some time travel is involved, so the books are actually both sequels of each other. Doesn't much matter in which order you read them, but if you're particularly spoiler-averse, you should probably go with Mindkiller first.)

And the Callahan's Bar stories are terrific too, but they take a nosedive after the third book.

Re:My personal favorite Spider novel

[Ethanol]

And, good golly, I'm shocked that I momentarily forgot to mention the staggeringly great Stardance and its worthy sequel Starseed. (The third book, Starmind, I can take or leave.)

Spider's uneven, but when he's on, he's wonderful.

Re:My personal favorite Spider novel

[naienko]

I find it ASTOUNDINGLY odd how few people who rave about the Callahan books even know the Stardance trilogy exists. I was introduced to Robinson via those books, and I've yet to find any book that made me think more than Stardance.

Try a few more books

[DG]

Starship Troopers is brilliant stuff; utterly unlike the irony-laden movie of the same name.

Glory Road is a happy and entertaining romp with a nice twist at the end that'll get you thinking.

Friday is very similar; a good yarn with some things that'll get you thinking.

And I also like J.O.B. as a morality play of sorts.

Try those ones on for size and then report back if you've changed your mind.

DG

Re:Try a few more books

[Tumbleweed]

Oh, man, what a collection to get someone interested in RAH! Yeesh.

Okay, I agree with Starship Troopers (and for those who have only seen the movie - the movie is a *parody* of the book). It's sad, as I'd like to see a serious movie version, but with this stinker out there, it'll never happen.

I'd suggest newbies stay away from Friday, J.O.B., Glory Road, I Will Fear No Evil, etc. They all have their good, if not great, points, but these are not for a newbie to RAH, now way, no how.

The Moon is a Harsh Mistress is, for me, quintessential RAH. Puppet Masters is also good stuff.

If you want to read some RAH juveniles, I'd suggest Citizen of the Galaxy, Have Spacesuit Will Travel, Space Cadet, Red Planet, Between Planets, Door Into Summer, Time for the Stars, Rocketship Galileo, The Rolling Stones, Starman Jones, Farmer in the Sky, The Star Beast, Tunnel in the Sky. That's in no particular order, really.

If you do get a book of his that has also been made into a movie, make sure you get the "pre-movie" edition, just in case. I'll admit that the movie version of Puppet Masters wasn't bad, but it wasn't the book, by any stretch. Don't get me started on the movie version of Starship Troopers. Any good will Verhoeven (sp?) had from RoboCop was utterly burnt up when he did that to one of my favourite RAH books.

Dune

[stoolpigeon]

Dune is even worse because it is antithetical to much of what Herbert had to say. Starship Troopers does this too, but not to the same extent. Both movies mock the books. I find myself going back to the movie dune, sort of like when i go back to the fridge and look inside, even though i already know i don't want what is inside.
 
I don't revisit the Starship Troopers film, because as has already been mentioned, everything of substance is completely dropped or ridiculed. Both books, Dune and Troopers are books that I read at least once a year.

Re:Dune

[rucs_hack]

I frequently re-read the dune books, all of them, including the ones his son did, and enjoy them all. The film did suck when it came to telling the original story, but it's not a bad film in its own right.
I tend to expect films of books to be nothing like the book, after all how could they be? I can think of no way that anything but the smallest least interesting of books could be transfered to screen without suffering..

A good aproach is to use the one taken with Blade Runner. An Iconic film only slightly similer to the book (which I also really enjoy) that manages to stand on its own seperate from the original and avoids the usual 'crap film of book' comments. The cynic in me suggests thats because most people have never read the book, but I have, and I'm fine with the differences. Sometimes they just have to take the spirit of the story and run with it I guess.

Starship troopers is probably my favorite heinlein book, closely followed by Stranger In A Strange Land and Friday.

The all time worst conversion to a film for me has to be Running Man. The original Bachman story was entertaining and dark. The film was hidious, it makes me cringe just to think of it. That is an example of a film that will never stand on its own merits, because it has none, unless its merit is a pile of dog turds. /rant

Re:Dune

[aquabat]

I liked the film version of The Running Man, probably because I haven't read the book, if what people tell me about it is true.

I think I got the major points the film was trying to make:

1) the shock and horror conveyed by the extreme popularity of torture and murder made into a game show, especially the audience participation aspect.

2) the hipocracy involved in having a hero named Captain Freedom, whose purpose is to distract people from their lack of same.

3) the irony of Captain Freedom's interpretation of his job, and his ignorance of role he plays in the system.

4) the meta-irony expressed by people watching the film, who watch it as a game show. In other words, they get into the superficial story, and miss the deeper issues of the above points. I think film is ideally suited to this effect.

Re:Dune

[TheRaven64]

I disagree on the Dune film. It changed a lot of the plot, but it kept the characters very similar to their book versions. Contrast this with the Sci-Fi mini-series which managed to keep the plot quite similar, but turned Paul from a strong character plagued by the consequences of moral compromises into a whiney brat who I just wanted to slap.

Re:Dune

[wbd]

Actually, if you want see to an excellent movie adaptation of a SF book, that follows the book almost exactly, take a look at the movie "Colossus:The Forbin Project" (sometimes called just one or the other). Then read the book by D. F. Jones, or vice versa. Very, very close, faithful adaptation of an excellent book.

The book also has two sequels.

Re:Dune

[lymond01]

The movie Starship Troopers was terrible, and that's not an opinion. Plot, acting, action, the way it distorted the plot, action, and characters in what is a great book....

I enjoyed Heinlein's Glory Road. An adventurous romp with Heinlein's usual (or unusual) take on Earthly cultures. Just good science-fiction writing (which doesn't mean it's great literature, it's just not the usual schlock).

Re:Dune

[1u3hr]

The all time worst conversion to a film for me has to be Running Man. The original Bachman story was entertaining and dark. The film was hidious, it makes me cringe just to think of it. That is an example of a film that will never stand on its own merits, because it has none, unless its merit is a pile of dog turds.

You do know that "Bachman" was a pseudonym for Stephen King? Anyway, most of his novels are disposable (but I like his short fiction) and little deserving of veneration. Running Man the movie was a quite funny parody of reality TV, WWF wrestling and such. I liked it on its own terms.

My nomination for worst adaptation of a good SF novel: Poul Anderson's High Crusade, filmed by Roland Emmerich. The novel is a space opera, about mediaeval crusaders who hijack a spaceship and end up conquering the galaxy. Emmerich sadly attempted to make a broad comedy, but failed dismally. I was so excited to find the VCD of this, the only movie based on a novel by this great author, so disappointed at the crap that it was.

Re:Dune

[snarkth]

Contrast this with the Sci-Fi mini-series which managed to keep the plot quite similar, but turned Paul from a strong character plagued by the consequences of moral compromises into a whiney brat who I just wanted to slap.

  You have no idea what a relief it is to find someone else who thinks that way. Doesn't seem to be many (that I've talked to, anyway) and I don't understand that.

  Both versions have their good points and bad points, but from the beginning of the miniseries we get confronted with this little shit who needs to be turned over a knee, rather than the Paul of the book. That was one thing the feature film did right - Paul acted like he'd had the training and could survive the gom jabbar, and I thought it was well done. I don't know if it was the scripting, the acting, or the directing that destroyed the Paul character in the mini, (suspect a combination of all three) but it nearly ruined it for me. They could at least have done the main character right.

  snarked

Re:Dune

[solitas]

Both books, Dune and Troopers are books that I read at least once a year.

Go, thou: read Joe Haldeman's "The Forever War" (1974) and hope they never attempt to make a movie of it. It's another book you'll want to keep rereading.

Look for "the Author's preferred edition" (the latest paperback edition) - the story is in three parts and Haldeman rewrote the second part for this edition because, through time (no pun intended), he was never really satisfied with its flow. IMO, both versions have their good points but I can understand why he did what he did.

Re:Dune

[stoolpigeon]

I own it. I've read it 4 or 5 times. I do not think it is the edition you mention though. I'll have to dig it up and check.

Re:Dune

[solitas]

here's the cover: http://www.fantasticfiction.co.uk/h/joe-w-haldeman /forever-war.htm

Re:Dune

[stoolpigeon]

That's definitely not the one that i have. mine has a green & white cover. thanks for the tip.

Re:Dune

[solitas]

Yah - I have both covers. Take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Forever_War - I was quite surprised at how many of my favorite books have entries in wikipedia!

Jurassic Park

[krell]

....a book which I found to be an excellent adaptation of an even better movie. Oh wait.... the book came first. But that is how it seems, anyway.

Re:Jurassic Park

[eno2001]

So why don't you go and jam on some of those Krell musical instruments like you did back in -9283342948295 NQ? I dug that crazy rhythm man! (Note: For people too old to get the joke, the alien race in the classic 50s sci-fi film, Forbidden Planet, are called the Krell)

RAH as written by SR

[autophile]

"Computer, we have to get out of here!" yelled Joel, "Quick, what's the haversine of 0.6?"

"Well," replied the computer, "I'd haversine right on the dotted line, just look at those luscious legs!"

"Why, thank you, Computer!" simpered Friday, "I knew wearing high heels on a spaceship was a great idea!"

And that's Heinlein and Spider, right there :(

--Rob

Best stuff by Robinson...

[32Na]

is the Stardance trilogy: Spider collaborated with his wife Jeanne to write about taking the art of dancing into space (free-fall), with all the associated challenges.

The first title is here:
http://www.fantasticfiction.co.uk/r/spider-robinso n/stardance.htm

Are you perchance female ?

[EMB Numbers]

Are you perchance female ?
I have known several women who called Heinlein a misogynist. He certainly had unconventional ideas about gender roles and complex relationships. His widow must be a saint.

Heinlein has also been criticized for only having one character, and that character is recycled for both heroes and heroines. One woman I know calls Heinlein's heroines "femaleins."

I love Heinlein, and I think it is ironic that Lois McMaster Boujold (a woman and my favorite author) has in some respects picked up the mantle for Heinlein IMHO. For those who enjoy Heinlein, you will love Boujold... It is Heinlein with more distinct characters.

Re:Are you perchance female ?

[jbrader]

Nope, I'm a dude.

Re:Are you perchance female ?

[WalksOnDirt]

I find Bujold ok, but a little boring. Probably too much characterization, of which Heinlein had plenty for me. If fact I'd love to find some more science fiction authors like Doc Smith and Keith Laumer: No time wasted in character development by them at all.

Re:Are you perchance female ?

[stanmann]

Actually, his widow(now dead), was the person his female leads were modeled after. Unbelievable perhaps, but she was an expert shot, a martial arts master(several disciplines) a mathematician, physicist, and biologist, horseback rider, and aparently quite happily female as well.

Re:Are you perchance female ?

[VdG]

I love Heinlein, and I think it is ironic that Lois McMaster Boujold (a woman and my favorite author) has in some respects picked up the mantle for Heinlein IMHO. For those who enjoy Heinlein, you will love Boujold... It is Heinlein with more distinct characters.

That's strange. Like a number of people here, I quite enjoyed Heinlein's juvenile books - some of the first SF I read as a kid - but find most of his later works to be unsatisfactory or even pretty poor, (especially Number of the Beast: possibly the worst book I've ever read all the way through).

I really like Bujold's works. I only really got into them quite recently but I've spent a fair bit on Amazon since discovering them. I don't see any close similarities between the two, beyond what you could find in any writers working in the same genre.

Are you thinking of both her SF and fantasy? There are more similarities with her SF stuff, but only really because it's got lots of spaceships and guns and stuff. I find her characterization to be much better and the plots generally more sophisticated, (!=complicated).

Someone much closer to Heinlein I think would be David Weber. Curiously, he seems to have a disporportionate number of strong - or at least powerful - female characters, especially in the Honor Harrington books. Fortunately, he doesn't have the same bizarro sex and politics that RAH descended into. Maybe that'll come in a decade or two. :-)

Re:Are you perchance female ?

[jahudabudy]

You should try Jack Vance. I especially enjoyed his demon princes series. Plenty of action and cool ideas; very little characterization.

Re:Are you perchance female ?

[kria]

You're not alone - I wouldn't make a comparison between the two either, save a desire for realism in science.

In my case, I AM a woman, and I do indeed think that's part of the reason I don't really care for Heinlein. Like some authors, I can intellectually appreciate his craft, but not enjoy the sex and sexism.

Bujold, though, I adore, particularly her fantasy. Hmm, you know, there is one other thing in common in their novels, to me: some characters that are great to read about that I would never, ever want to meet.

Re:Are you perchance female ?

[VdG]

I still think some of Heinlein's early stuff, aimed at a younger market is pretty good, and I get a nostalgiaic plessure from re-reading them occasionally. Starship Troopers is a well written adventure novel, if you disregard the dodgy politics.

I remember as an adolescent being mildly titilated by some of the sex in things like "Time Enough for Love", but later works it just got grotesquely over the top and interferred witht he storey - what there was of it. Some of the books were even quite unpleasant: "Farnham's Freehold" and "The cat who walked through walls" spring to mind. I prefer to steer clear of them and just remember the works I enjoyed in my childhood.

I fist got into Bujold through the Vorkosigan novels - I thik it was an Amazon recommendation. But these days I prefer her fantasy. Apart from being generally well written, with interesting characters she's actually come up with some ideas I haven't seen in dozens of other fantasy novels; I especially like the way the gods are dealt with in "Paladin of Souls".

There seem to be a disproportionate number of female authors amongst my favourites. Plenty of men, too, but in the select group of my very favourite writers it's nearly all women. (That includes other types of fiction, not just SF/F.) It's often been suggested that women writers do a better job with characterisation, which seems to be true in my experience. (A generalisation, of course: there are some pretty poor women authors, and some men who do an excellent job with their characters.)

Reading some of the comments about Heinlein writing strong female characters, I had to wonder if people had read the same books as me. They all seem to be two-dimensional to me. Sure: competent, powerful and all that, but they seldom seem like real people. SF/F writing has moved on since Heinlein's day, thankfully.

Spider's Callahan books

[ripcrd]

I think these are the only books of his I've read and I have to say they were tons of fun. He could've easily written these comedies and based them in the old west. I think the Star Trek Captain's Table series plays off these books of his. Anyway, I discovered Callahan's while in college and it was a great distraction from all the homework and required reading.

Do you pay strictly cash at Callahan's?

[krell]

You must, because apparently you are a time traveller. As for an experience more typical for the rest of us, I read the first collection, "Callahan's Crosstime Saloon" not long after it came out in 1977. I awaited a sequel, and special ordered "Time Travelers Strictly Cash" when it came out in 1981. You will see the order (for those of us without time machines) here.

It was Heinlein.

[Grendel Drago]

With the exception of some guy in 1889 (it didn't catch on), that prick was Heinlein himself.

Re:It was Heinlein.

[zhez]

Which is exactly why I used it instead of "sci-fi". I agree that Science fiction is better, but I'll use Heinlein's words to describe his own works. It's only fair.

Re:It was Heinlein.

[JourneyExpertApe]

With the exception of some guy in 1889 (it didn't catch on), that prick was Heinlein himself. [jessesword.com]

Ah ha! He's a prick. I always knew there was a reason I'd never heard of him.

Re:It was Heinlein.

[BillAtHRST]

I always thought it was Harlan Ellison, around the time of "The Beast that Shouted Love at the Heart of the World". Definitely not "sci-fi", but definitely not "normal" fiction either.

Only a few years too late for me.

[Grendel Drago]

I devoured the complete works of Heinlein (with one or two exceptions) my first semester in college. (It mght have been my second; it was a long time ago.) Thank goodness for interlibrary loan. It seemed like the greatest thing in the world to me, like Asimov's robot stories had a few years earlier, but the prospect of more Heinlein seems about as exciting as more Ayn Rand at this point.

It's not like I'm trashing everything I read back then; I'm re-reading Godel, Escher, Bach and enjoying it just as much as I did the first time around. But something about Heinlein hasn't aged well for me.

Bujold

[stoolpigeon]

just in case anybody goes looking - Bujold.

very enjoyable read

[UID30]

i've read some RAH ... but am by no means a RAH expert. wife picked this up for me as a b-day gift ... and i was floored. enjoyed the work quite a lot ... i felt many times that RAH himself would have approved very strongly of the work. imo, SR paid RAH his highest compliment by attempting such a project ... and succeeded in writing a book i will treasure for years to come.

my beagle loved the book too ... at least its binding back cover. *sob* have to spring for another copy now... worth it tho.

It's a turkey

[Animats]

"Variable Star" is a disappointment.

It reminded me of "Paris in the Twentieth Century", which Jules Verne wrote a century ago. Verne showed the manuscript to his friends and literary agent, all of whom agreed that it was too lousy to publish. So Verne put it in a box. A century later, one of his descendants found the manuscript and published it. It still sucks.

Spider Robinson is an OK writer, and Heinlein did great work, but Robinson trying to be Heinlein just doesn't work. Somebody more in tune with Heinlein's worldview, like David Weber, might have done a much better job. Weber, like Heinlein, does drama. Robinson does comedy. It just doesn't fit.

Worse, the book runs out before the plot does. This is mostly an anachronism; SF books today are longer than they were in Heinlein's early days. And today, you can do series. Heinlein's ideas for Variable Star could have been built up into a three-volume series with huge scope. Weber might have done that. It wouldn't have read like Heinlein, though; Heinlein keeps the focus on the main character through most of his books, which today is regarded as too limiting for a big story. The result is wierd; aliens blow up the earth, but that's a subplot to the main love story. Yes, George Lucas made that work, but he had special effects and a symphony orchestra to support it. And besides, at the point Variable Star ends, the human race is losing. Yet the ending is upbeat.

It's not Heinlein. Face it. If you want to read Spider Robinson, get one of his Callahan books. If you want to read good Heinlein, read "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress". But Variable Star? Skip it.

Re:It's a turkey

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude, if you don't mind, when you throw spoilers out, mark them as such.

Re:It's a turkey

[Schwarzchild]

Spider Robinson is an OK writer, and Heinlein did great work, but Robinson trying to be Heinlein just doesn't work. Somebody more in tune with Heinlein's worldview, like David Weber, might have done a much better job. Weber, like Heinlein, does drama.

I think Niven is pretty similar to Heinlein. He should have probably written this.

Re:It's a turkey

[Anonymous Coward]

No no, toss out the endings. I don't want to spend money to find out what the big secret ending was. Just out and tell me dammit.

Callahan's Crosstime Saloon

[brassman]

The article author hasn't read Spider's other books? Hasn't heard Spider sing "A Boy Named Spider" (his own Weird Al retelling of Shel Silverstein's "A Boy Named Sue")?

Wow, you got some good reading ahead of you, fella.

Spider has something else in common with RAH -- and I'm glad I got to tell him so, on a CompuServe chat one day:

Why Spider Robinson Has My Eternal Gratitude http://brasscannon.com/rah.html

By co-incidence...

[igb]

I've only been to Disneyland Anaheim once. I went round with Spider Robinson and John Varley, inter alia.

ian

Speculative fiction?

[Omeger]

Here on Earth we call it SCIENCE FICTION.

Which is actually a good match for Heinlien

[Ungrounded Lightning]

Spider Robinson's work ... Is mostly comedy in a recently past setting mixed with a lot (I mean as in a whole several acres lot) of bad puns...

Which is actually a reasonably good match for Heinlein. Heinlein, like Robinson, would often use puns (sometimes bad ones) to ilustrate a point or as a major plot element - or just for humor.

_Stranger in a Strange Land_, for instance, has quite a bit of pun use (and occasionally resulting slapsitck), both in the education of the "Michael" character and in explaining points of both Martian and story-timeline Human societies.

Having never read a Heinlein book before...

[coldmist]

It was ok, but the two things I hated most about it were the slow middle, once he gets on the ship, and the Deus Ex Machina used in the end to resolve the book in about 5 pages (and I'm not sure how the reviewer missed it).

I'm sorry, but it really didn't come across as a "good" read. The first 8 chapters on the website were the best part of the book.

"Speculative Fiction"

[fm6]

I always groan when I hear the term "Speculative Fiction". Writers use it to distance themselves from the pulp fiction reputation of Science Fiction. It's a way of saying, "I'm not a hack — I write real literature." That's fair enough when you're a mainstream writer who's dabbling in genre fiction. (Margret Atwood and Oryx and Crake come to mind.) But more often it's used by people like Harlan Ellison, who really are hacks, and seek to deny it with a lot of pretentious prose and hyperbole.

Now don't get me wrong: there's nothing wrong with being a hack. It just identifies a writer with a different set of priorities than the "literary" writer. Some of my favorite writers are widely considered hacks, and even refer to themselves as hacks. Robert Sheckley often refers to himself as a "renaissance hack", because of all the different kinds of genre fix he does.

I'm not going to try to apply the "hack" label to Heinlein. But I do know the man hated pretense, and he certainly would have sneered at anybody who described his work with pretentious labels like "speculative fiction".

Re:"Speculative Fiction"

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not going to try to apply the "hack" label to Heinlein. But I do know the man hated pretense, and he certainly would have sneered at anybody who described his work with pretentious labels like "speculative fiction".

"Speculative fiction (I prefer that term to science fiction)..."
-R. A. Heinlein

Re:"Speculative Fiction"

[fm6]

I stand corrected. But I'm afraid you took down my esteem for the dude a small notch.

Citizen of the Galaxy

[wytcld]

Variable Star is structurally and inversion of Citizen of the Galaxy. In both you have an outsider coming to encounter a family of dynastic wealth. In Citizen that outsider travels from the farthest reaches to Earth; in Star from Earth to the farthest reaches. In both there is serious corruption associated with the wealth. In both there is an anthropological interest in the differences of character which go along with differences of occupation.

The other inversion is that where Heinlein wrote some of the best beginnings in the business (e.g. Glory Road or even Number of the Beast) his endings rarely had the same degree of suspensful surprise. Robinson in Star has written an Heinleinesque beginning - really he tries - but it's yet not the equal of the master; on the other hand the ending is one of the best in fiction - as good as any mystery written, and tighter than any RAH pulled off (unless I'm forgetting one - I've only read some of his works thrice).

myth of RAH as a Libertarian

[Tumbleweed]

I think you should keep RAH the writer separate from (some of) RAH's characters. I really think that RAH was much more of a rational anarchist (ala Professor Bernardo de la Paz) than a Libertarian. I think Wikipedia has a good bit on this, but it may have been somewhere else I read about this.

Re:myth of RAH as a Libertarian

[stoolpigeon]

i agree - i used the term very loosely as to be honest, i don't know too much about it all. it's one area of his writing that i find interesting but i don't really agree with his conclusions. prof is a great character. i find myself saying tanstaafl all the time.

Re:myth of RAH as a Libertarian

[Tumbleweed]

I think Prof's explanation of rational anarchy and personal responsibility is still one of the most inspirational and thought-provoking things I've ever read. The book is worth reading for that alone, IMO.

Big Difference in Personalities

[airship]

Heinlein was the ultimate Libertarian military jock.

Robinson's a frickin' hippie.

I just don't see how that works...

Re:Big Difference in Personalities

[wbd]

Really? You're sure about your estimation of Heinlein are you?

Or Robinson for that matter?

Read this:

http://www.heinleinsociety.org/rah/works/articles/ rahrahrah.html

dissapointed Heinlein fan

[reversible physicist]

I loved Heinlein's juveniles growing up and share the wistful desire of many others to see just one more new one. Unfortunately this book captures neither the optimistic spirit nor the intelligence of the best of Heinlein's stories. The first few chapters, which Robinson wrote as samples in order to get the gig, were by far the most Heinlein-esque, but then he spiraled off into a lesser universe. I was eager to love this novel, but in the end I didn't even like it.

For me the things that were most appealing about Heinlein were his enthusiasm and knowledge about science and his insight into people and societies. He had something original to say about both. Robinson doesn't. Robinson's protagonist, Joel Johnston, spends much of the story drunk and trying to destroy himself. Joel starts off with a strong sense of self and what he wants in life, but this seems to fade as the story progresses. The starship is powered not by science and engineering, but by newage mumbo jumbo. The ending is illogical within the context of the story (given faster than light travel, relativistic time dilation provides plenty of time to warn the colonies and have one of them build a rescue ship).

I'm not particularly concerned with the logical inconsistencies, since it would be hard to enjoy very many science fiction stories without ignoring those. But in the end the Heinlein spirit is absent and the story does not inspire or inform.

The two Heinleins

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

You started with late Heinlein and sound like someone who would prefer early Heinlein.

Pick anything published before Stranger in a Strange Land. Citizen of the Galaxy would be a good start. Revolt in 2100 is a well-realized htough not groundbreaking look at overthrowing a dictatorship.

For ideas, Waldo and Magic Incorporated. For humanity, The Door Into Summer.

Try the Early Heinlein

[reversible physicist]

I loved the early Heinlein and I occassionally re-read Heinlein juveniles to try to recapture that feeling of excitement and wonder that he communicated to me when I was a kid, and that still inspires me. The later Heinlein books, starting with Stranger in a Strange Land, are too heavy handed and self indulgent for my tastes. My favorite early novels are probably Citizen of the Galaxy, Tunnel in the Sky, Door Into Summer and Starman Jones, in about that order. These stories communicate Heinlein's love of science and intellect, his take on the nature of courage and integrity, and his optimism about the future.

other than callahans....

[hostylocal]

try stardance, starseed and starmind.

i've been reading his stuff for years (and years) and get all nostaligic over the callahans series. a good place for a spin off is callahnas lady and lady slings the booze. this is mike callahans wife - lady sally - who runs the best whorehouse in brooklyn. those have to be checked out.

be warned, spider's style is not heinlein's.

lh

Re:THANK YOU FOR YOUR PROFOUND CONTRIBUTION

[Anonymous Coward]

Heh. Cute kid. You're just jealous because your mom was too busy being ass fucked by me to order the book for you. Here's fifty cents for your mom's services. Go buy an ice cream cone or something.

CmdrTaco (Yes, THAT one)

BTW, I've forgotten my password again. If you can get me modded way up for this post... you know the drill. Thanks!

Hydrogen atom impaled by V2 rocket t-shirt

[Anonymous Coward]

In the afterward Spider mentions that in libraries, "the ones that all had a sticker on their spine depicting a hydrogen atom inexplicably impaled by a V2 - were always excellent". It looks like someone has created a CafePress shop with this design.

Re:Hydrogen atom impaled by V2 rocket t-shirt

[doom]

More like a Helium atom, isn't it? I always remember it having two crossed orbits.

Those cafe press designs look pretty terrible, actually -- I would guess they added more orbits (orbitals? no point in being fussy about scientific details here) to avoid some sort of infringement in the original design.

When you read

[popsicle67]

The collective works of Spider Robinson be sure to read all of the authors he mentions and listen to all the musicians also. I considered myself a huge fan of literature and music until I read his books. Luckily I did read that first story, God is an Iron, and got hooked. Without that, Neal Stephenson and John D Mac- Donald and Travis McGee would just be names.

Spider Robinson? Oh well.

[doom]

I might've been interested in this work if it had been written by anyone except Spider Robinson -- Robinson has never been much more than "readable", if you ask me, and his attitude toward Heinlein has never been anything other than a mindless, gushing cheerleader.

Bruce Sterling could've pulled this off, probably... But not Robinson.

In any case, if you'd like to read the greatest Heinlein novel not written by Heinlein, you should look up the Alexi Panshin book "Rite of Passage". One of the few examples of someone writing a Heinlein Juvenile that's at all successful (and certainly many others have tried). The plot involves a culture that lives on large scale space ships, but has a custom where it's teenagers must under going a survival exercise on a planet's surface as the "Rite of Passage" of the title.

As for you folks who just don't get Heinlein, well, Heinlein can be problematic for a number of reasons -- his later work is much different than his earlier, his political opinions are controversial (in part, because they're so unusual it's hard for people to even understand what they are), and in general his style may seem a bit dated -- but there's no question that he was a totally brilliant, ground-breaking, science fiction writer, second only to H.G. Wells.

The last time this subject came up I wrote up some recommendations for people new to Heinlein... those are on the web here: HEINLEIN.

Of the later Heinlein books, I actually think the last ("To Sail Beyond the Sunset") is the strongest... he's starting to get down to the real issues, not just writing up libertine fantasies: TO_SAIL_BEYOND.

Heinlein convention in the works

[PeterScott]

It hasn't gotten wide coverage yet, but Heinlein fans might like to know that there's going to be a Heinlein convention to commemorate his birth centennial (07/07/07) next year in Kansas City (his birthplace, or nearby). Spider Robinson will be there plus a bunch of guests from the space community. See http://www.heinleincentennial.com/.