Robert A. Heinlein

[Mysterion]

I'm spinning this thread off from the Asimov thread elsewhere in this forum.

Here's where we left off: Someone said they though that Heinlein's work was fading into obscurity. then it was pointed out that there is a two-volume bio of Heinlien coming soon from Tor Books. Then I replied:

Greg Cox wrote:
Mistral wrote:
Allyn Gibson wrote:
I find myself nodding at this. Of the "Big Three," I think that Clarke's is the work that will endure the most, especially for short stories like "The Star" and "The Nine Billion Names of God."

Heinlein, I think, will be largely ignored and forgotten -- a science-fiction Washington Irving, essentially. (In his time, Irving was a major author, he defined the American voice. Outside of "The Legend of Sleepy Hollow" and "Rip Van Winkle," no one reads Irving's work today.)

Sad, because he wrote The Moon.... and The Rolling Stones, Podkayne, etc-all fine books. And his collection of Future History stories is great as well....


If you're interested, Tor is publishing an authorized two-volume biography of Heinlein by William Patterson.

So he hasn't exactly slipped into obscurity yet!

Will definitely keep my eye out for that bio of Heinlein.

Can't say I like the idea of Heinlein's work fading into obscurity. His was the first SF I read in my teens, and there are a number of books of his I return to from time to time, and they never get old for me.

A lot of folks might dismiss him for some of his later work (Stranger, Number of the Beast, I WIll Fear no Evil, etc.), but I still think his overall body of work is an important part of science fiction in the 20th century, or at the very least an important part of american science fiction in the 20th century. The philosophical and moral underpinnings of his "juvenille" books, for example are still jsut as valid today as they were when they were written 50 or 60 years ago (and, I might add, a very sneaky way to expose younger readers to those things).

Personally, I cannot think of another science fiction autor I would rate higher than Robert Heinlein,and I don't see that changing any time soon.

So what do folks think? Am I wrong and is Heinlein's work a relic of the past? Or am I correct, and Heinlien's work is still a valuable part of the science fiction canon?

Do you like his work? Have a favorite?
Do you dislike his work? What turned you off?

Have you never read anything by Heinlein (and if so, why the hell not?)?

Let's discuss.

 

[Distorted Humor]

As i said in another thread, a lot of Libertarians read "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress"

 

[Admiral2]

So what do folks think? Am I wrong and is Heinlein's work a relic of the past? Or am I correct, and Heinlien's work is still a valuable part of the science fiction canon?

I don't know about the Great Canon overall. I still like his work and will read it over and over.

Have a favorite?

Starship Troopers, of course

 

[Mysterion]

@Distorted Humor: Understandably so. That book is probably one of the best explanations of libertarian philosophy I've seen.

@Admiral2: Same for me. Have read and re-read Starship Troopers numerous times. and absolutley loathe what Verhoven did to it in his movie. The short story The Long Watch is also a stand-out favorite for me.

 

[MANT!]

Far from being Fascist, RAH was more a militarist in some of his books..

Democracy, individual freedoms, and free enterprise always seemed to win out in the end in most of his works...

Some folks disliked his militarism, and he had a tendency to use technobabble towards the end of his career, but overall he's still one of the giants in early "hard" science fiction and still one of my favorites.

And Verhoven never even read the book when he made his movie...
But "Roughnecks, The Starship Trooper Chronicles" seemed to capture most of what made the Starship Troopers book good.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roughnecks:_Starship_Troopers_Chronicles

 

[Admiral2]

@Admiral2: Same for me. Have read and re-read Starship Troopers numerous times. and absolutley loathe what Verhoven did to it in his movie.

Directors are always looking to insert their own vision or message, and sometimes you gotta tell em "Look, doofus, the message is already there! Just do the movie like the friggin' book, okay?!"

The short story The Long Watch is also a stand-out favorite for me.

Have you ever read Farnham's Freehold? It's an out-there little book with out-there stuff between its covers, but I couldn't put it down when I started reading it.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

I think the day when all of Heinlein's work was perpetually available in print is passing. OTOH, there are books that are still widely-read - Starship Troopers and Stranger In A Strange Land, for two.

 

[Goliath]

So what do folks think? Am I wrong and is Heinlein's work a relic of the past? Or am I correct, and Heinlien's work is still a valuable part of the science fiction canon?

Personally, I think Heinlein's work is pretty dated, and I agree with the poster who suggested he was the weakest of the Big Three.

As even you've implied, his work is enjoyed less and less these days for science-fictional reasons, and more and more for ideological reasons. The most extreme example of this tendency would be Objectivists who think Atlas Shrugged is the Greatest Novel Ever Written.

Someone once said that "history dies into literature." That is to say: as time passes, and works like The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire are superseded by more recent research, they are read less and less for their historical merits, and more and more for their literary qualities.

I think something similar can be said for science fiction, since in many cases the science on which it is based is eventually superseded. As a result, just as history dies into literature, science fiction dies into fantasy, or philosophy, or both. That seems to be what's happening to Heinlein's work.

Do you like his work? Have a favorite?
Do you dislike his work? What turned you off?

I do like some of his writing. "The Long Watch" is probably my favourite. I was devastated by that story the first time I read it. I'd never read anything quite that tragic before.

I liked Starship Troopers as a boy: in fact, IIRC, I've read it five times. But I'm less impressed with it as an adult, and I enjoyed watching Verhoeven take the piss out of it.

I think the last Heinlein novel I read was Double Star. That didn't make much of an impression on me, one way or another.

 

[Professor Zoom]

I liked Starship Troopers as a boy: in fact, IIRC, I've read it five times. But I'm less impressed with it as an adult, and I enjoyed watching Verhoeven take the piss out of it.

This. I read Starship Troopers for the first time a few years ago... and it's ok. Maybe if I read it as a kid it would've been the best thing ever... but, it doesn't quite work for adult readers, it's origins as juvenile fiction stand out.

Verhoeven's film is a wonderful satire, even better because I don't think the cast was in on the joke. Well, maybe Doogie, the rest, not so much. It's a great movie.

I like Moon Is A Harsh Mistress, I think it's a good read.

 

[Hopeful Romantic]

Heinlein was the first SF author I read (my mother had his entire collection). She started me on Stranger in a Strange Land, though I was far too young (age 11) to understand it all. I read it again at 15, then at 20, and each time it was a whole new book. I read a lot of his work as I was growing up. I love his writing style and the way his characters came to life for me. He was always able to draw me into the story and see things through the progagonist's eyes.

My favorite book of his, hands down, is The Door into Summer.

 

[Canadave]

I've never been a huge fan, myself. I've enjoyed a couple of his books (The Moon is a Harsh Mistress and Starship Troopers come to mind), but he doesn't resonate with me the way other "classic" SF authors like Asimov and especially Clarke do. For whatever reason, I find his books just haven't aged as well, and I never feel terribly compelled to read them.

 

[Davros]

And Verhoven never even read the book when he made his movie...

That was pretty obvious.

On a side note, Charles Manson was a big fan of Stranger In a Strange Land, and based some of his "Family's" rituals off of elements of the book.

 

[Bob Morton]

He has never been a favorite of mine but I've enjoyed his work; Time Enough for Love was pretty twisted, The door to Summer was enjoyable and I always pictured the car in The Number of the Beast as a Delorean.

Also I really enjoy the aphorisms of Lazarus Long...

"Anyone who cannot cope with mathematics is not fully human. At best he is a tolerable subhuman who has learned to wear shoes, bathe, and not make messes in the house."

 

[RoJoHen]

I have ready half of "Stranger from a Strange Land," and I have to say that I don't think I grok it. I read the first half about 3 years ago and then just kinda stopped. I don't really plan to go back and finish it.

I want to read "Starship Troopers" because I've heard the book is very good, and I've somehow still never managed to see the movie.

 

[Hound of UIster]

Even if Verhoven didn't read ST, he was able to do a good job of seeing the logical end of Heinlein's vision.

 

[Expo67]

I have ready half of "Stranger from a Strange Land," and I have to say that I don't think I grok it. I read the first half about 3 years ago and then just kinda stopped. I don't really plan to go back and finish it.

I want to read "Starship Troopers" because I've heard the book is very good, and I've somehow still never managed to see the movie.

I read the book in 1997, before Paul Verhoeven's film adaptation was released on November 7th of that same year. It was a cool book to read.

I saw the film during its opening weekend with some friends, and despite some changes to the film, it was explosive, brutal, and violent. ost of all, very entertaining and enjoyable to watch.

If you do watch the film, I recommend purchasing the Special Edition 2 - disc set. That was released in 2002(the film's fifth anniversary), and it is full of trivia and production information that you might find interesting.

I always watch it every November 7th of every year.

 

[Distorted Humor]

My family, who has the most entertaining comments on SF, calls "Starship Troopers" the "Spacebug" movie. It was extra entertaining that when we watched it on a cable channel, it showed the bit from when the Bug-cannons blow up the ships, till the end of the ships blowing up. Then it went to commercial break, Then came back and showed the same clip again, then skipped ahead and missed a 10 min block of the film. Improved it greatly with that editing.

(My family also is the same who when saw I was watching DS9, said anyone who was opposed to the kardashians had there support, and metioned that VD must be nasty in the future, as it gives you spoon-head-itis. God I love them)

 

[The Borgified Corpse]

@Distorted Humor: Understandably so. That book is probably one of the best explanations of libertarian philosophy I've seen.

While I'm not sure it's the 1st book I'd suggest for someone looking to learn about libertarian philosophy, I think it does do a good job of capturing the sense of it, as well as what seems like the frustrating futility of it. In the end, they gain independence but also seem to impose a new bureaucracy on themselves. Liberty & tyranny are often a frequent cycle that must repeat itself over & over again to remain fresh.

But while it occasionally will digress into a political treatise for a few pages here & there in the middle, it's much more than that. It's not like Ayn Rand's books, which always climax with the main character delivering a 50 page speech about the evils of the welfare state. The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress excels on the basis of its vibrant characters, particularly the friendship between Manny & Mike. Wyoh & Stuart are also a lot of fun. The competant, eccentric misfits who populate Luna are a constant surprise and a joy to read about. These are the kinds of people who you want to see build their own society and then invite you to join them.

He also created some pretty entertaining protagonists in Job: A Comedy of Justice. He does an especially good job of getting you thoroughly invested in Alec's plight before you start to realize that he's an intolerant Bible-thumper, the kind of guy that you wouldn't like at all had that been the 1st thing you learned about him.

@Admiral2: Same for me. Have read and re-read Starship Troopers numerous times. and absolutley loathe what Verhoven did to it in his movie.

Directors are always looking to insert their own vision or message, and sometimes you gotta tell em "Look, doofus, the message is already there! Just do the movie like the friggin' book, okay?!"

I don't think it was a matter of trying to impose his own vision on the book. I think it was a matter of him already making the movie before he learned of the book, then the studio buying the rights to the book and using the title because it's just similar enough to the movie that they were already making that they might get sued otherwise. (It's like what Pirates of the Caribbean did with Tim Powers' unrelated pirate novel On Stranger Tides.)

 

[Nerys Myk]

I read a whole lot of Heinlein ( and Asimov and Clarke) while in my teens and twenties. Loved Stranger In A Strange Land. Got a kick out of Number of the Beast too. But I love it when fictional worlds cross. I reread Stranger in a Strange Land about ten years ago, some how at forty it just wasn't the same.

 

[Australis]

I've read a lot too. let's see...

Liked the earlier stuff: Door Into Summer, Glory Rd, Farnham's Freehold. Also liked Stranger... but I don't think it's aged well. I Will fear No Evil and Time Enough For Love were great. For me, Starship Troopers was eclipsed by The Forever War, which is the book Verhoeven should have used for his film.

But the later stuff for me is horrendous. It seems to revolve around Lazarus Long wanting to schtup everything in sight, including and especially his mother. No no no no no. That to me was seriously disturbing and unhealthy. I kept picking up each new one hoping for better, but it never happened. And Job was just a flat out disappointment.