Robert A Heinlein

Added Named Weapon to Glory Road and Glory Road to Named Weapon.

I saw that, thanks. I find that my memory is not perfect with respect to Glory Road, even with Wikipedia's help, as I cannot remember the precise name or scope of Star's empire. I'm pretty sure it's called the Fifty Universes — I was getting it confused with the Five Galaxies from... umm, Dune?

I haven't read it in ages either but I think you're correct that it's the Fifty Universes.

I also need to re-read it and figure out which of The Call tropes apply.

edited 7th Jul '11 2:13:34 PM by Madrugada

Definitely The Call Left a Message. Others, maybe.

Hmm. In my Copious Free Time(tm) I might have to dig out my copy of GR...

Number and TEFL probably won't get too much attention from me, I'm not a big fan of the whole World As Myth thing.

edited 7th Jul '11 3:31:11 PM by Nohbody

Time Enough For Love predates the World as Myth, but not the concept of The Multiverse, so really it's a case of picking your poison. Heinlein's written enough material that's controversial to someone that I don't see how it's possible to fairly trope his works without going into acceptance mode — just take it for what it is.

You can make endless arguments about when he crossed over the line into Wish-Fulfillment, turned Lazarus Long into a Marty Stu, abandoned any pretense of a coherent timeline, indulged in incest fantasies, or went on political rants. What I notice when rereading his various works is that he's always written thinly veiled sociopolitical Author Tracts. It's part and parcel of what makes Heinlein Heinlein.

It has struck me at times that maybe he was testing his audience as much as he was indulging his fantasies. He's so matter of fact about attacking traditional religious, social, sexual, economic, and political mores that one imagines a preface to each story saying, "Dear reader. This novel contains material that your society finds objectionable. Are you sufficiently intellectually honest to step aside from your prejudices and enjoy the story within?"

edited 8th Jul '11 6:40:14 AM by Fighteer

We had a Heinlein thread all along? Awesome.

We did indeed Kino.

I just went back and read through it and golly, if I haven't at least learned to edit my posts for spelling before hitting the post button, then I haven't learned anything. (I was Amarys in the beginning)

I have to to track down The Numberofthe Beast again. I never actually finished it because all the calculations for time travel made my eyeballs melt.

Funny, that's one of my favorite Heinlein novels — possibly because it makes no attempt to be serious or relevant; it's just pure entertainment. I heard at one point that Heinlein wrote it in an attempt to see if he could sell pure tripe, but that may be a myth.

I have read Stranger, Moon is a Harsh Mistress, Farnham's Freehold, and Job. I don't think I've done any of his others yet.

I recall being somewhat annoyed at the dystopia in Farnham, but I'm intellectually honest with myself enough to say it's because . . . when white people owned slaves we didn't eat them. Why the -Self Censored- would a black dominated society turn to casual cannibalism of whites?

Haven't read Farnham's yet, but I seem to recall cannibalism in another Heinlein work...or am I making that up?

You are not making it up. Heinlein doesn't really pull any punches regarding Hobbes Was Right — his works clearly express a belief that humans revert to savagery given the proper conditions. It's mentioned in passing in Time Enough For Love and very directly in The Cat Who Walks Through Walls, and those are the two I specifically know of. The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress discusses it as an axiomatic consequence of starvation in a society.

The most well-known, however, is probably in Stranger In A Strange Land, in which the Martians practice cannibalism of the dead as a means of honoring them — they term it "sharing" — and Mike grew up with that belief system and carries it over into his teaching of Martian ways to humans. The end of the book is about as close to a Jesus allegory as it's possible to get, including actual (as opposed to the ritual cannibalism of Catholicism — what do you think those wafers are supposed to represent anyway?) "sharing" of his body.

edited 19th Mar '12 4:43:50 PM by Fighteer

It's not necessarily cannibalism I object to as much as the commercialization of it in that story.

"Commercialization" wut? You mean in Stranger? Heinlein introduced a Blue-and-Orange Morality religion that featured ritual cannibalism as a rite of honor for the dead. I don't see how that equates to "commercializing" it. If you find it offensive, then you certainly fail to grasp the core theme of the novel.

I meant Farnham, not Stranger. I get Stranger, I don't mind the Cannibalism in that one.

Ever read Philip K.Dick's impressions of Heinlein? They're rather illuminating.

Got a link?

I'll be honest, I read Farnham's Freehold only once, and while I vaguely recall the cannibalism aspect, I remember more vividly that they were into castration. Is it just an aspect of my personality that I'm very hard to offend with fiction?

I'm not. But it is a personality thing, and a good one at that. Yours, I mean.

Basically, there were farms where studs and sluts were raised to breed, get fattened, and then get killed to make "pork." Farnham stumbles upon the preservation room of his Lord's palace, and realizes that what he's seeing hung up on butchers' hooks are human carcasses, and that the reason the pork he's been sharing with his mentor is so greasy is because it's people, not pigs.

Ah, right. I remember it now. Maybe I didn't want to — ugh. I do recall that being when Farnham knew he had to get out of there, though.

Sounds like you're not as immune as you thought you were. See why I might be a little offended at it? It's different in Stranger, it's a way of honoring people. In this. . . it's total dehumanization.

It still had a narrative purpose. I can be disgusted by what's being depicted (as most humans would be in our culture) without being offended that the novel included it.

Only I never said I was offended at the novel for including it. I was offended at the society for doing it. >.> Which is exactly what I said early, I was annoyed at the Dystopia in that one.

Ah, okay. Communicating clearly helps. Yes, I think that was intentional.

Mmhmm, because we're not supposed to like the situation one bit. Makes it very clear the main character has to get out, and somewhat distressing that Duke and the rest of Farnham's family don't make it. I forget what happened to Karen, but I don't recall her making it out.