ab3@pucc-h (Darth Wombat) (02/02/84)
Well, so far the trend seems to be against the man; I'd like
to disagree a bit with that.
While I found "Number of the Beast" to be an argument in four
movements, and thus rather tedious, and "The Fifth Column" rather
simplistic, I think these mis-writings are the exception, not the rule.
The "Future History" cycle (Lazarus Long & Co.) is certainly as
entertaining and self-consistent as Niven's Known Space or Anderson's
Polesotechnic Universe; and while Heinlein certainly injects generous
portions of his own philosophy into his work, usually in the persona
of the protagonist, who doesn't?
It is difficult to like someone's work when their philosophy
repels you, I suppose; I happen to like Heinlein's viewpoint, so I don't
have the right reference point for that, though.
I do think that a great deal of his work, especially "Stranger..."
and "I Will Fear No Evil" will last. I haven't read "Friday" -- yet.
--
"Go ahead...make my day."
Darth Wombat
{ allegra, decvax, ihnp4, harpo, seismo, teklabs, ucbvax } !pur-ee!rskeric@aplvax.UUCP (02/03/84)
I can't knock the author who introduced me to all of the wonders of science fiction. While I could try to defend him against his many critics, I would rather point to an essay entitled "Rah, Rah, R.A.H" by Spider Robinson. I have forgotten where it was first published, but it is contained in the second Callahan's book, and is an excellent defense of both the man and the author. -- eric ...!seismo!umcp-cs!aplvax!eric
argo@hou2a.UUCP (W.GARRETT) (02/04/84)
WHAT!!! "I will fear no evil" will last?!!! That has got to be one of the worst books I have ever read, and as I've read a good deal of Heinlein's other works, that's saying something. I thoroughly enjoyed about the first 50 pages of this book, up until Johann Smith became Joan, at which point it degenerated into, uh ... well, I can't think what it became, but certainly not a good book. One thing I have noticed about Heinlein is his absolute inability to handle anticlimax. For that matter, he doesn't do an especially good job with the climax either, but it is his ridiculously long and boring anticlimaxes that truly stand out. To give him his due, what very little he deserves, I have found some of his short stories have hit the lower bounds of mediocrity, and one or two actually approach decency, but that is as far as I will go. Contact has been made, Andrew Garrett
cej@ll1.UUCP (Chuck Jones) (02/07/84)
[] "Time Enough For Love" you're least favorite R.A.H. book? I found it the most enjoyable of his works that I've read. In particular the "intermissions" filled with L. Long's sayings. I think you're right, though, Heinlein probably doesn't believe ALL the things he writes. I mean "Get the first shot off QUICK. It gives you the time to aim the second shot well." may sound good at first, but we all know where "shooting from the hip" gets you... The other netter was right about "The Number of the Beast". Nothing more than an argument in four acts. (One for each character) We'll burn that bridge when we come to it... Chuck Jones AT&T Communications ...we13!ll1!cej Chicago, Il
amigo2@ihuxq.UUCP (John Hobson) (02/07/84)
Spider Robinson's laudatory essay on Heinlein, "Rah, Rah, R.A.H" is in the book "Time Travelers Strictly Cash." I'm sorry, but while both you and Robinson like Heinlein, I find that I too often find him just about unreadable. He preaches, rather than suggests. When he wants to, he can tell a very good story, but all too often, he doesn't really seem to want to. I don't like his philosophy, which I once described as being "by Hugh Hefner out of Ayn Rand", to which a friend of mine responded "Every man for himself and carry a big prick." In Time Enough For Love (once known to sf-lovers as Time Enough To Screw Around), he seems to agree with Harlan Ellison that "Love Ain't Nothin But Sex Misspelled." If you don't agree with that, then tell me why EVERY female character wants to have sex with Lazarus Long. And I don't mean "make love to",I mean "have sex with." If Heinlein doesn't know the difference, then I feel sorry for him. The book of his that I like the least is Starship Troopers. Anyone who says that war is morally good has a warped sense of morality. (I mentioned in an earlier submission that Heinlein has no personal combat experience.) The classic attitude towards war in Christianity (I know that Heinlein makes no claims about being a Christian, but I am, and what I am about to say is agreed upon by many non-Christians) is the "Just War Theory." This says that war is ordinarily morally repugnant, but under certain circumstances (carefully detailed), it can be morally justified. Unfortunately, the Just War has frequently been abused, and more governments pay lip service to it, rather than observe it. It is like what G. K. Chesterton said about Christianity: "Christianity has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult, and not tried." If you want to discuss war and morality further, then I suggest we move the discussion to net.religion or net.politics. I just want to say that I found ST the most gung-ho war story that I have ever read, and was almost sickened that anyone can hold the attitude towards war that Heinlein does (in case you missed my earlier submission, I was in the infantry in Viet Nam.) John Hobson AT&T Bell Labs Naperville, IL (312) 979-0193 ihnp4!ihuxq!amigo2