Groking: “The Pleasant Profession of Robert A. Heinlein” by Farah Mendlesohn

“Heinlein was always adamant, at all times in his life, that he wanted to teach people to think. For all his grumbling about hippies and weak-minded liberals, Heinlein was not interested in followers: he wanted critical thinkers for his readers. And, of course like all authors, he had little patience with people [...] who wanted him to do their homework for them.”

In “The Pleasant Profession of Robert A. Heinlein” by Farah Mendlesohn

“By the end of the short-story period, all the key elements of Heinlein are in place: sentiment, family first, a clear idea of bravery and duty, women matter, slavery is wrong, and the traces of sexual radicalism evident in For Us, the Living  [...].”

In “The Pleasant Profession of Robert A. Heinlein” by Farah Mendlesohn

“But there are three clear divisions in terms of the rhetorical techniques Heinlein uses: the cinematic, the didactic, and the picaresque.”

In “The Pleasant Profession of Robert A. Heinlein” by Farah Mendlesohn

“For a society to use people effectively, Heinlein argues, that society has to be egalitarian, and one of the strengths of Heinlein was the degree to which he argued that on behalf of women.”

In “The Pleasant Profession of Robert A. Heinlein” by Farah Mendlesohn

“Heinlein’s hatred of sexual coercion is sharp: he was explicit about it in his own private notes and he extended this into his writing. It is hinted at in Podkayne of Mars first, where Podkayne is uneasy with the ‘fatherly pats’, and explicit in the contemporaneous The Moon is a Harsh Mistress where, as is well known, sexual autonomy lies entirely with the female and there are two clearly assaults”

In “The Pleasant Profession of Robert A. Heinlein” by Farah Mendlesohn

“For Heinlein, allowing women to be sexual beings who enjoyed sex was fundamental to challenging the blue laws and a culture in which women pretended they did not.”

In “The Pleasant Profession of Robert A. Heinlein” by Farah Mendlesohn

“My contention is that in those texts [To Sail Beyond the Sunset and I Will Fear No Evil] in which women have narrative and focalised agency, Heinlein made a  conscious effort to think about what women were like, and how they thought about themselves. He tried to create for them a voice that was embodied and aware of being female in a male world. In [his work] he also tried to make an argument about the possibilities for shifting that sense of self.”

In “The Pleasant Profession of Robert A. Heinlein” by Farah Mendlesohn

“To Sail Beyond the Sunset, a curious, anti-feminist and yet feminist novel, brings into focus Heinlein’s idea of a perfectly integrated, right-ordered individual, and the person in the frame is a woman. It is in this story that we get most strongly the sense of Heinlein trying to write women from the inside and focus himself as a women. [...] I have come to believe that it is simply not the book that I read in 1987 at the age of nineteen; my current age and experiences have profoundly shifted my response. [...] There are a number of incidents that convince me that To Sail Beyond the Sunset could be understood as Heinlein writing himself as a woman [...].”

In “The Pleasant Profession of Robert A. Heinlein” by Farah Mendlesohn

As a lifelong fan of Heinlein, I do see the Competent Man character described in many of his writings.  However, almost every Competent Man in a Heinlein novel sees themselves as incomplete and ignorant with a thirst for more knowledge and experience to fill their perceived character gaps.  Every Competent Man has as a hero a more Competent Man.  It is these two pieces of the Competent Man which gives him the will and desire to live through even the worst of circumstances.

I've read someone say that if you look at their skill sets they are bordering on John Galt levels of Absurd... thus often making their perceived deficiencies seem equally absurd if not disingenuous. Not so.  Though a book hero might have more than the usual dosage of skills, it's meant to be an aspiration.  ("All I know is that I know nothing" isn't about how much you know, but about continuing to learn.  Some knowledge becomes useless [DOS commands, anyone?] so keep adding new knowledge to your brain.

"The Competent Man" may be out of reach for the sub-average intellect, but it's surprising how little you have to know about something to have a good grasp of its fundamentals (Example:  How much training do you need to have about fishing to do it well enough to survive?  A single book could impart such knowledge; that's what the Boy Scout Manual used to be.)  Learning more after that is much easier than becoming a super-expert in some narrow field.  I'd rather have a small team of generalists than a large team of specialists.  Even those generalists will have individual strengths.

Still, in today's highly technical world, there is a blizzard of new stuff to know about a variety of topics; it's hard to know what to stay focused on.  So learn about things that are most likely useful.  Some of them will be more interesting than others. The one theme that seems common throughout all of Heinlein writing eras is the theme of individual responsibility: It’s in “Rocket Ship Galileo”, “Between Planets”,“The Green Hills of Earth,” “Have Space – Will Travel”, “Starship Troopers”,  “Citizen of the Galaxy”, “Time Enough for Love”, “The Moon is a Harsh Mistress”, “Double Star”, “Friday”, etc.

I'd say that Heinlein's protagonists are more grounded in reality and more likely to have flaws but they're definitely a little bit over-competent. They're a bit more along the lines of the Renaissance man or polymath model though.

What I took away from Heinlein during my first pass through his works (as a tween and early teen and now - I’ve re-read a few of his works recently: vide LINKS above) was the notion that it was OK to be smart and competent, and that if you worked hard and applied your brains and learning, you could succeed despite the idiots who tried to stop you. Also that women could be smart, stubborn, competent, and equal to men, and that such women were the best ones to hang out with. (In fairness, I got a lot of that from Mom too, with no Freudian nonsense intended.) This became an essential part of who I am (or at least, who I try to be), and for that, I'll always be grateful. On many levels, I've found his books aged well upon returning to them. Now, more than 40 years of "woke" later, I can see some of the creaky bits and flaws that younger me never noticed. But I can forgive him those flaws in most cases because the writing still flows beautifully, and I usually enjoy the characters and plots. Even when he lectures. I grew an awful lot intellectually by asking and answering the question of why some of his theses left me uncomfortable or unconvinced. The Heinlein of "Starship Troopers" would probably enjoy that attitude; the later Heinlein might well have sneered at me. His letters, his sort of autobiographies (“Expanded Universe”, “Grumbles from the Grave”, etc.) and the biographies (Patterson’s, although an hagiography still worth reading - volume 1 and volume 2) I've read suggest he was a perfect lamb if he liked you, but a nasty old bugger if he didn't. From my current perspective, I see the box he grew up in and laud him for at least recognizing the box and trying to look beyond it. That's also become a cherished part of who I am.

I’m with Mendlesohn on "Farnham's Freehold" (I execrated it even when I read it as a teen, and I've never been able to make it past the first pages even now 30 years later; the opposite happened with “To Sail Beyond the Sunset”; I loathed back then, and then a few decades I later I loved it).

Fascist? Let's try to keep our facts straight here. It's not fair to bring up “Sixth Column”. He only wrote it because it was John Campbell's idea and Campbell wasn’t a good enough writer to pull it off so he offered Heinlein a lot of money to do it instead. Even Heinlein said that it was way too racist for his tastes. Why are you guys being so hard on Heinlein when you glossed right over all the shady stuff Campbell got up to? For further research, I recommend reading his posthumous autobiography “Grumbles from the Grave” and now “The Pleasant Profession of Robert A. Heinlein”. Heinlein did his best to hose down Campbell's racism. It was enough to make it an interesting book about rebellion in a tech society. But Heinlein was not proud of it. I keep it in the "paid prose" section. “Starship Troopers” isn't fascist, illiberal yes, but fascist no. The core of the book is that political authority should be given to those who are willing to sacrifice and risk themselves to have it. Most specifically through federal (not necessarily military, and this point is made in the book) service. Anyone who thinks that Heinlein was supportive of fascism knows nothing about Heinlein or fascism. Some of the political ideas expressed in his work could be described as crackpot, but that's true of any literary utopia. Ever read "Erehwon?", "Walden Two?"

In his essays, Heinlein was a supporter of democracy and public control of government. His book "Take Back Your Government" sets forth a plan for political public service and for localized block voting as a means of stymieing oligarchistic, bureaucratic authoritarianism. Heinlein was not, strictly speaking, a Libertarian in the Ayn Rand/Von Meises/Harry Brown style. You would more accurately call him an Individualist.

I have always believed that ridiculous 'Fascist' label on Heinlein comes from idiots equating saying anything positive about military service with being a fascist. The system in “Starship Troopers” isn't authoritarian though, it’s diametrically opposed to Fascism, and explicitly does not have any of the constraints you're talking about wherein it singles out any group for not being able to vote. Rather it demands that those who expect something from society be willing to put something into it, which nothing like Fascism, wherein the society is considered paramount and individuals as completely irrelevant. Also check out "For Us the Living" which has a very socialist type society (when Heinlein was an American Socialist; yes, you read right).

Derogatory to women? Funny. Have you ever read “Delilah and the Space Rigger” and “The Menace from Earth”? Despite being a man, I liked Maureen Johnson better than his regular heroes. I also prefer Mannie over his other male protagonists. I really don't think people are being fair here. Like ignoring all the times in his stories where your so called "competent man" archetype got his bacon saved by an even more competent woman. Heinlein was one of the first writers in his genre to include strong, complex female characters with actual depth in central roles rather than just bystanders or satellites to a more "competent man". Read Chapter 5 of Mendlesohn’s book if you think was anti-women or some other related bullshit. I’m not saying he was perfect, but he was a lot better than most of the crap being written at the time regarding women (vide quotes above).

And while I'm at it; Heinlein didn't invent the "competent man" trope either. This stuff has been around for literally centuries. Heinlein wasn't perfect, but he was one of the first writers to actually push back against that trope, and thereby laid the groundwork for others to continue pushing back. So how about a little credit where credit is due, eh?

 What I really like about Heinlein is that, even when I disagree with him I still find it interesting to read his opinions and come out of it with a different perspective or a few extra thoughts to chew on. He's never dull or simplistic. It is inexplicable that his legacy and character have come under attack lately, to the point where he has become one of the most misunderstood and maligned SF author in recent years, coming in a close second to Orson Scott Card. Sadly, the 'snowflake' generation has been conditioned to dismiss Heinlein as a 'fascist' based purely on criticism of “Starship Troopers”, most of which was derived from that ridiculous and quirky movie adaptation and NOT the actual text!

Heinlein never intended to present the militaristic democratic government depicted in the novel as a utopia, merely as a more effective form of government to the universal representative democracy in its current form (which has its own numerous & unique faults) and more importantly, one that is unique and relative to the setting of the book. Ultimately people lose sight of the overarching goal of the book which is analogous to the struggles fought during the Cold War; the conflict between Communism & Democratic Capitalism and the ideological struggle between collectivism and individualism. Critics and sci-fi fans also conveniently forget the time period when the book was written, during the aftermath of the Korean War which saw massive numbers of poorly equipped Communist solders confronting the numerically inferior but qualitatively superior Democratic forces of NATO, all done under the specter of possible nuclear annihilation.

So he made Mary Sue stories for nerds and boy scouts that wanted to feel empowered? Well, he knew his market if he got so many fans. At least he didn't exploit his fans like Ron L. Hubbard, and I hope he didn't share the beliefs of Orson Scott Card who I abhor.

I'm not sure when people decided that any militarily run society is fascist, especially given that Heinlein’s heyday was during the Eisenhower administration, most of the complaints I see directed at it are more from later period and post-Vietnam-war anti-military culture. Most people are idiotic, brainwashed sheep. Look at how degenerate society is today to see how far out we are from any sense of normalcy.

The cool thing about Heinlein has always been that even in his worst works, and believe me there are some real stinkers, he's still easy and enjoyable to read. The man just had a way with words that kept you interested even if the material was rubbish. And when that writing met material that was also good, you get Hugo and Nebula awards like “The Moon is a Harsh Mistress.”

R. I.P. R.A.H.  Robert Heinlein is basically me; I am fascist, supporter of rights, and democratic dictatorships. You made me question my own beliefs with your body of work. Mendlesohn wrote a biography of sorts, but unlike Patterson’s volume 1 and Volume 2, she also gave us a balanced approach to Heinlein’s tropes: Feminism, Fascism, etc.

I can never fully grok.

Geiger Counters: "Between Planets" by Robert A. Heinlein

(My own 1996 edition)

It’s been a few years since I read this one for the first time, but I'm quite sure that one of the first SF books I ever read was "Between Planets". Why do I know this? Because I didn't know what a Geiger counter was when I first read it.  It seems quite strange by today’s standards to remember the pre-Internet Universe of the 80s where I might be interested in what a Geiger counter was and had no practical way to find out! I could have searched in an encyclopedia the next time I was in the library, but I was too young to think that, and I'd have slipped my mind anyway. In the early 80s, as a teenager I gobbled up his stuff like manna from the skies. I just wanted to be a part of the Lazarus Long family, and have some hot chick offer herself to me for “Many Hours of Pleasure…” I also thought Valentine Michael Smith had the dream life! Literally tons of dough sitting around the house, and women who were so into sex they'd starting 'doing it' right on the living room couch in front of everyone who happened to be there. Who wouldn't want that? I sure did! And being more than a little nerdy at the time, I found myself captivated by giant Rolling Roads, Star Beasts, Martians, Waldos, and larger-than-life magnates who gambled it all to go to the Moon to wreak havoc. I read and re-read many of his books well into my 20s and 30s, so entranced by those aspects (I still do as you can see by reading the reviews I wrote in 2018 and now 2019).  Heinlein is usually bashed to the extent that people are bashing Shakespeare when they point out that “The Merchant of Venice” is anti-Semitic or that “The Taming of the Shrew” is misogynistic. If that is fair cultural criticism, so is talking about Heinlein's “weird” women issues which is also nonsense (vide “The Pleasant Profession of Robert A. Heinlein" by Farah Mendlesohn for a good analysis on Heinlein’s Women).

Cliched SF: "The Forever War" by Joe Haldeman

I remember when I read Haldeman's "The Forever War"; it was considered a critique of "Starship Troopers".  I have heard an anecdote that Haldeman attended an event where he was going to be on a panel with Heinlein and was dreading the meeting, fearing Heinlein would take him to task.  Instead, Heinlein thought Haldeman's book was a great read and take on that theme, much to Haldeman's relief.  I don't think Heinlein thought "Troopers" was a bible for creating a utopia, but he was laying down some philosophical markers with it.

It's nothing of the sort (an utopia that is).

I already wrote a review of sorts of “Starship Troopers” per se. This a review of “The Forever War” using “Starship Troopers” as counterpoint.

I've read through “Starship Troopers” a few times, and to clarify: technically in his vision of the future the world IS NOT ruled necessarily by military veterans; it is in fact a world where only people who served AT LEAST two years in service to the government: this service could be the military, it could be labor such as mining, it could be scientific test subjects, or any other service deemed significant by the government (which is democratic).  Heck they even say in the book that a chance to serve is a RIGHT, so technically someone could roll into the recruitment office in a wheel chair with both lets missing, one hand and blind in one eye and as long as the person can understand his responsibilities, the government is required to come up with some kind of job for that person to do for two years, even licking envelopes at the post office!

Also: the protagonist is even TOLD OUTRIGHT in officer training school that being a veteran DOES NOT make you smarter or more disciplined than non-veterans, it is established that they keep their system (which AGAIN IS NOT a military dictatorship but a highly centralized republic) simply because it works.  The military dictatorships of Hitler and his cronies have NOTHING to do with the world of “Starship Troopers”, because they ARE NOT a dictatorship!

It's kind of ironic that even knowing Heinlein's intention, I've always read “Starship Troopers” as an anti-utopia, as a picture of a fascist state, something to avoid and abhor.

We should say that a history of military dictators debunks Heinlein's message is completely incorrect. Firstly in “Starship Troopers” they don't have the right to vote while they're in the service meaning even a long time general didn't have the right to control civilian society. There really is no comparison to a dictatorship because the problem with dictatorships isn't that individuals are innately evil but rather that it's an unbalanced and unchecked system. Also even though the book seems to push for military intervention and war it's important to remember that the governing body is made of individuals who understand the gravity of war and military engagement better than anyone else.

As a guy who never did military service, I don't think Heinlein's ideas about public service were too far off.  If you're invested in society, you're much more likely to take a keen interest in what politicians do.  (That's definitely something to consider in America where less than half the population votes; the same happens in Portugal: in the last May Elections for the European Parliament around 70% didn’t vote; I know, I know, the weather was terrific as it usually is at this time of the year).   I do have a beef with his notion that veterans as a whole would make a government brisk and orderly like a military organization.  Those types of military organizations, despite desperate PR from the military worldwide say, do not exist.  Only fake veterans and general officers believe they do.

I might add that Heinlein never said in “Starship Troopers” that violence was the preferred way to resolve problems. He denounced a Pollyanna sentiment current then and now that "violence never solves anything."  And cites historical fact to back to back it.  Certainly as a Naval academy guy he was OK with it.  But he never said he preferred it.  Also, while the state in “Starship Troopers” was clearly authoritarian and militaristic.  But it wasn't, near as I could tell, fascist.  There was no dictator, Committee of Public Safety or God Emperor Figure to pledge allegiance too.

I'll go to bat for Heinlein's book but not for Haldeman's. And I think MOST people who read it and analyzed it (ironically including the military) underestimate Heinlein as a writer and as a thinker. A good chunk of that book was written AS SATIRE. It intentionally goes past the point of reason and shows its failings time and again to demonstrate the absurdity of an absolutist position. The movie was actually a great representation of the book in that it made the cheesy militaristic propaganda satire even more apparent so a wider audience could "get it." And if people think the movie is being serious then...they need to have their head examined.

I don't think, for example, that one has to be an "apologist" to feel he makes some valid points in Starship Troopers. And the political failings of militaristic dictatorships does NOTHING to subvert Heinlein's assertion that veterans can act from a point of view of service -- HE was talking about people who VOLUNTARILY placed themselves at the service of the state, NOT draftees who did NOT choose. Finally, why, oh why, would you use an image from that horrible movie version of “Starship Troopers”?   The armor didn't look like that, the bugs didn't look like that, etc. I always appreciated Heinlein's logic even while recognizing it's practical limitations (people are not logical and when they are they are rarely happy about it) in the real world. He was writing fiction after all. Did he really intend these stories to be statements about the world around him or were they simply stories for their time?

I see the parallels to the cold war (and even WWII) in “Starship Troopers” but really never considered that saying something like "Any breed which stops its own increase gets crowded out..." was at all the same as saying "Any group of anatomically and culturally similar people that stop their own increase...". For now at least, it seems morally OK (even right) to be a humanist and exercise our privilege over other animals and life on the planet. We make them our tools, playthings, and food without any regrets at all. If chimpanzees became powerful enough to be our enemies, would we really have any compunction against killing them? How long would it really take for us to see them as people? Then again the lines between species is oft blurred. Hardly anyone ever gets this right: In "Starship Troopers" military service is not the only way to get a vote. It's service of ANY sort, military or non-military. You volunteer to serve, and the state MUST accept your service, no matter what you are capable of, and you must accept the service offered once you have volunteered. You might be sent to do medical research, or might be sent to build infrastructure in the wilderness, or if you are healthy, young and they need soldiers at that moment, well, you probably will get sent to the military. But it isn't "serve in the military or you can't vote"!

What about "The Forever War"? It pales in comparison. I like the concept but it sounds like it was an utter failure. Several of the concepts seemed neat to me. Like even the idea of a future where homosexuality is the norm; it would be interesting to see a straight character deal with that. But then to make the entire population into some halfhearted cliché.... It was this clichéd, and then to have a character undergo treatment to be straight in the end like it was some kind of happy ending didn't sit right with me at all. But the concepts were excellent. In a way that makes it even worse because it could have been great. It just didn't do it for me. I’ve got another bone to pick with the story; I will say it comes off as a little misogynistic as there's a law that states the female soldiers have to screw the men so that they can let off steam, but that's off-set by the fact that in terms of ability, intellect, and overall development the women are portrayed as equals to the men.  

Non-Hubris SF: "Have Space Suit-Will Travel" by Robert A. Heinlein

(My own edition))

I feel like there is a weird bias when analyzing Heinlein’s work and this book in particular.

I never really got that the Competent Man in Heinlein books was presented as the norm. It was always the protagonist or the protagonist's mentor, characters who can be expected to be exceptional in some way. There were always people beyond reclamation, but Jubal and Lazarus always tried to elevate people around them. They thought everyone should be competent while knowing not everyone was and also that some were determined to not be competent.

I am one of those neckbeards that took that message but not in the way some people might suggest. I set out from a very young age to have the broadest set of skills and knowledge I could acquire while also acquiring sufficient depth on a few of them to be able to have a career. While this has resulted in more hobbies and unfinished projects than I can count, the unexpected benefits have more than paid off in both reduced cost of living by being able to make and maintain a lot of my own stuff myself and also through finding novel solutions by bringing unusual experience to problem solving in my various jobs. Additionally, I never got the general disrespect of academia Heinlein’s books have. I got the disrespect of excessive academia, totally divorced from practicality. But there was clear respect for people who had to be specialized to the exclusion of general competence when it was clear that was necessary to apply sufficient brain-power to the problem being considered. There wasn't time for such people to develop general competence. Those people were to be funded and protected, not disrespected.

Almost no Greek character is free of hubris. Odysseus got cursed by Poseidon all because he bragged to the blinded Cyclops and told him his real name. Theseus got locked in Hell for trying to kidnap Persephone. Perseus was an idiot to agree to hunt Medusa in the first place and had to be helped out through divine intervention or he never could have done it. Heinlein is just carrying the torch so to speak.

If you want to know the more idealistic side of Heinlein’s ‘competent man’ in his young-adult stories, track down this one and ‘Citizen of the Galaxy’. They’re probably two of his best YA novels and can show how these ideas play out.

Maybe I am alone in this.

SF = Speculative Fiction.

Emotional Disconnect: "Friday" by Robert A. Heinlein

(My edition)

"Friday" is typical of some of Heinlein's style used in some of his not so successful books. Heinlein certainly likes his archetypes, as he should. Jubal Harshaw in “Stranger in a Strange Land,” for example, is just another Boss, a mysterious ultra-rich, cynical genius and Mike is the super-powered innocent growing into his own. I appreciate the feelings more when they are mixed with cunning. Friday was extremely intelligent, but her thoughts, while calculated, were contrived. Her mind had the same feel as the rest of her "just-in-time" powers, which is exactly what deadened her internal conflict for me. Her flip-flops between acting like an alien observer to silly humans, and like a human longing to fit in. So, she's a lot like nerds in 80s sitcoms. The problem was her emotional disconnect as an observer is so pronounced that she basically stops appearing human for small pockets of time. When she was raped early in the story, she was able to brush it off with (again, convenient) "mind control" techniques. She didn't walk away from the situation traumatized; although she did have a nearly-murderous grudge.

My point is that even Friday's psychological state is ultimately indestructible, which hurt the only real conflict that seemed to matter in the story. Even the alien mindset thing can be done well if it has an impact on other characters (Dr. Manhattan is a good example again, with whether he's too alienated to care if humanity ends being a big question throughout). I guess Heinlein had to be aware that the character is indestructible to do anything interesting with them; if they're constantly trying to fake the audience out with the character not really being indestructible, they might not even realize what kind of character they've written themselves.

What supports my point of view, by the way, is that in the end, Friday finds "home" but notice that her tension is actually unresolved, because her locus of emotional control is still exterior, rather than one of self-acceptance and "self-belonging." She depends on others for kittens and cuddles, much as she relied on Boss all the way though. She presents the image of a strong, independent woman, but never quite embodies it, despite being in God Mode.  

8XK40367: “Citizen of the Galaxy” by Robert A. Heinlein

(My edition)

"Goodnight, son," the old beggar whispered. "Good dreams . . . and good luck!"

In “Citizen of the Galaxy” by Robert A. Heinlein

I should ask the Heinlein estate permission to use one of his characters in a new story. I could see Thorby going after the slavers, there are so many other characters. Lazarus Long, Started Max Jones, Lip Russell and his spacesuit, Bill Lerner and his farm on Ganymede. John Lyle and America as a theocracy.

Of the three main love interests presented the first was taboo, fair enough and he didn’t really think of her that way before it was too late. The second one he was forced to leave behind to uphold his promise to pops and what he felt was his duty, arguably he could've done more here if he was interested and he at the very least though of her that way so it’s a bit "meh' but understandable. The third one though is by now minimum 18 years of age; it’s never really specified exactly but he was taken at 3 and Lida (or Leeda or however it’s spelled said it’s been at least 15 years so at the very least 18 years old. Now here is a young beautiful, caring and brave woman who puts everything on the line to help him, supports him in everything he does, goes against her own parents and literally saves him in more ways than one and you want me to believe an 18 year old man would not give his left nut to get with that? I find that rather unlikely, to imagine he wouldn't even think of her like that is just nonsensical.  When they met, he thought she was a 1st cousin. He didn't recognize her as a potential romance; by the time he realised she was, they were "friendzoned". Plus, it's a consistent character trait that he's pretty much oblivious to women's interest; doesn't pick it up, not everyone does. Also, very driven, duty-minded, not to mention traumatized kid; recipe for dissociation, could be that his libido's entirely sublimated. It never occurred to him to sit outside and watch girls walk by, either.

Shouldn't assume that the way western teens are socialized is biologically inevitable. His socialization is more like a refugee child, totally different worldview and priorities. At first I had the same criticism of the Thorby character but after re-reading some of Heinlein's other books and re-reading this book about a billion times I've decided that it's not an error - Heinlein seems to have intentionally written Thorby's character to be more asexual in nature. Especially seeing as he doesn't show sexual interest in any of the other characters and when it is brought up he seems to react in such a way that seems like he's more concerned with their feelings/his duties than he is interested in exploring anything related to sex/sexuality.

I've known a couple of asexual people in life - they're rare but they do indeed exist…

This, ah, old story by Robert Heinlein, is an instruction manual for life, aimed at young people, but meant for anyone who is interested in how things work in a real world setting. A fictional tale that explains real things in allegory and metaphor. So, your wish that this story never end, is somewhat fulfilled. You may enjoy another story by R.H. titled "Stranger in a Strange Land" (LINK), and the original "Dune" series of 6 books by Frank Herbert.

Why does anyone still read Heinlein? Because he's like David Bowie. Even bad Bowie is better than no Bowie.

Perhaps his best juvenile novel.

Competent Man: “Time Enough for Love” by Robert A. Heinlein

(my 1985 edition)

“A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.”

In “Time Enough for Love” by Robert A. Heinlein

This my favourite Heinlein quote.

I really am the competent man; the only thing from Heinlein's Dictum that I cannot and have not done, is conn a spaceship, and butcher a hog (but I have seen it being done); I don’t know about the part of dying gallantly. I’ll tell you afterwards…I wasn't bought up on a farm or in the middle of nowhere. I'm from a large town, Lisbon. It's about learning and honing skills, and treating every opportunity as a chance to try them out. For example, I learned the praxis of trigonometry (not just the theoretical part) before I learned it in high-school. It's all very well just knowing it but to be a capable man you need to go further. This allowed me design a trebuchet in my 12^th year in physics and make predictions on its performance, then build it and test it. Thus causing me to learn many different subjects and skills (up to and including gaining permission from the school) just to test my math. It's not location, it's the outlook that counts.

I think to view Heinlein’s list above as literal is a bit of a mistake anyway. The point is, I think, that a person should be able to assimilate and adapt to new tasks. You may not be able to build a wall right now but you should have a broad idea of what things are about and be able to acquire or intuit a lot of the details. Everyone who has ever worked in IT knows what I’m talking about.

Now I wonder if the Asimov’s character Golan Trevize, the arrogant and intuitive man whose actions shaped the future of Foundation isn’t a riff on that Competent Man. He fits all these criteria but he is arrogant and self-centered to the point where everyone kind of hates him. Still, in the end, his character arc ends up with him changing and realizing some pretty important stuff about the place of Man in the galaxy. But, I’m just saying that... who knows?

The 'Common Man' still exists though, in SF and when you run across one you know the story is going to be bad. Only now they're called 'Mary Sue' and 'Marty Stu'. Seeing the Common Man in action in Mundane Fiction is equally bad. I feel like the "Competent Man" critique isn't fair.  These protagonists often start incompetent.  Lazarus learned lessons the hard way over hundreds of years.  Mike knows basically nothing about anything.  Johnny from “Starship Troopers” joins the Mobile Infantry (considered the lowest rung of the military) because he has no qualifications for anything else.

Jubal isn't also the “The Competent Man” archetype either. Jubal is the "Old Man" archetype, which is often seen as the characters representing Heinlein himself.  Jubal and the Professor (Moon) are examples (and one or more teachers/instructors in Starship).  They're usually wise old characters who are dissidents/non-conformists in some way (politically, culturally), and they often spend a lot of time monologuing philosophy. Mike from Stranger isn't apparent as a "Competent Man" because by the time he becomes the Competent Man, the story is focusing on other characters' POV.  Some of Heinlein's books are solely focused on a protagonist's journey into becoming the Competent Man by overcoming obstacles (often internal/mental).

Incest? FFS! Many people cite the incest in Heinlein's novel as a type of perversion but in Heinlein's view of the future genetic imperfections are eliminated that made the incest taboo necessary in the first place. In "Time Enough for Love" Lazarus and Dora had to explain to their children why incest was improper, even exaggerating the chances of birth defects in order to discourage relations between them. Don't even suggest Heinlein was an advocate of incest.

Heinlein is a shining example of the importance of zeitgeist.  Much of what he wrote was very progressive or even controversial for the time.  In a modern context, his social stances look occasionally offensive and often backwards or ignorant, and always flawed.  But you have to keep the context of the original writing in mind.  Society marches on, propelled in part by authors like Heinlein forcing people to confront the absurdities of the prevailing mindsets of the time (and highlighting those absurdities with deliberate flaws meant to show just how twisted such thinking is).  You must always remember what society was like at the time of a piece's writing when you evaluate it, because that will tell you far more than any perspective you might gain from how society is at the time of review.

Heinlein is only controversial to those who are anti-liberty and anti-self-reliance.

"Astounding John W. Campbell, Isaac Asimov, Robert A. Heinlein, L. Ron Hubbard, and the Golden Age of Science Fiction" by Alec Nevala-Lee

"In 1963, Asimov argued that science fiction appealed to an existing type of curious reader, but today, it seems more likely to subtly alter the way in which we all think and feel."

In "Astounding: John W. Campbell, Isaac Asimov, Robert A. Heinlein, L. Ron Hubbard, and the Golden Age of Science Fiction" by Alec Nevala-Lee

"'How long has this racket been going on? And why didn't anybody tell me about it sooner'"

Heinlein to Campbell after selling "Life-Line" in 1939, In "Astounding: John W. Campbell, Isaac Asimov, Robert A. Heinlein, L. Ron Hubbard, and the Golden Age of Science Fiction" by Alec Nevala-Lee

"'There are about five consistent, adult science fiction writers in the business: de Camp, Heinlein, Hubbard, van Vogt, and, if he'll only work at it a little, del Rey.'"

In a letter from Campbell to Heinlein, In "Astounding: John W. Campbell, Isaac Asimov, Robert A. Heinlein, L. Ron Hubbard, and the Golden Age of Science Fiction" by Alec Nevala-Lee

I started reading science fiction in the '80s. I never enjoyed the Hubbard stories I read in anthologies.  Then I found out about Dianetics.  His self-created biography including multiple resurrections was more fantastic than any of his fiction.  :-)  Campbell, as many have observed, took science fiction to “another level”. I'm a little surprised Andre Norton was omitted in this write-up.  I remember the day I became a fan of hers when a friend of mine at the time told me to choose three books:  "Galactic Derelict" was one of them.  Mao Tse Tung's "Strategy and Tactics" was another.  What was I thinking?  I was only going with my interests.  Our elementary school also passed out monthly catalogs for the Scholastic book club, and there I found Norton's first biggie, "Star Man's Son, 2250 AD".   I seem to have become that character until I realized girls weren't all that impressed. Sure, Norton's science fictions and fantasies are usually qualified as "young adult", but I still read one occasionally.  I was never too impressed by Hubbard, Pohl, Campbell, but Asimov and also Heinlein still continue to amaze me.  And where's James Blish?  "Cities In Flight", another grand space opera, has plenty of descendants in today's science fiction world.  Even though it's a bit weird in that the Oakies launch entire cities into space because Earth is a bummer, I saw plenty of Blish in Dan Simmon's "Hyperion" series, another meh space opera, and of course Blish also wrote novels based on the Star Trek TV series.   Andre Norton's novels inspired me to write when I was 12.  I'm still doing it.  And still having fun. 

I have read every single story and book mentioned in Nevala’s-Lee and I’m not even American, and own copies of every book named. I indeed got hooked in the 80s as I said, reading every single SF book our local library had. And when I had read them all, I relentlessly pestered to the librarian to check to see if there were others she could order (IN English). She was not amused, clearly believing that the ones already on the shelves were taking up space they didn't deserve. She also couldn't understand why a boy would want to read about spaceships and aliens (not very common in Portugal at the time).

One of my great thrills was in college when late, late one night a friend and I, high as kites, decided for fun to call the phone number listed in the back of a Harlan Ellison collection of stories (I was already into the BBS craze at the time). It was supposedly his number with an invitation to call him, but we assumed it was phony. It wasn't. We woke him up. He was wonderfully rude and insulting, then settled in to discuss current literature with him until he pronounced us total nitwits and told us not to call him again until we had something interesting to say. I'll never forget Harlan.

I'm already and old fart now and still a huge fan of SF. My library has grown and grown. Science fiction which is clearly labeled fiction and is understood to be fiction is one thing. But Lafayette Ron Hubbard's Dianetics which grew into Scientology claims to be non-fiction. I always thought (and I still do) that Hubbard's theory that the unborn fetus develops engrams is pure horse-shit. One example. A woman developed an unexplainable rash on her rear end. While still a fetus, the fetus heard the mother say something about aspirin. Notice how aspirin sounds like ass burns…All credibility is gravely endangered when someone calls Hubbard a giant of the science fiction genre. Was he prolific? Yes, but that is no indication of prowess and his writing is mediocre at best. It could be argued that Dianetics is his best piece of science fiction, at least in terms of impact.

I read a lot of science fiction (way back) when I should have been studying physics. I consider the prime time of SF writing to be between the end of WWII and 1970. For me the last great writer was Larry Niven, who crafted stories set in the wonderful universe that he created. The most influential writer who was omitted is Arthur C, Clarke. Some of the story lines presented during the three year run of the original Star Trek are mesmerizing. Science fiction as a genre allows you to write in almost any other genre, as long as you are willing to change your setting. Hubbard is still widely considered as a trash author in the general SF community.

Nevada-Lee fails to note that Heinlein in his later years was no friend to Hubbard, whom Heinlein came to consider and out and out charlatan. Hubbard Was a charlatan!  His SciFi books weren't very good either. And the "church" founded in his image and likeness is, too. Since Heinlein seemed to have a low BS meter, it's not surprising. Since Heinlein seemed to have a high BS meter, it's quite surprising Heinlein got into his bandwagon... The Church of all Worlds was started based on Heinlein's Stranger in a Strange Land. He at least, had the good grace to be embarrassed about it. Hubbard.  Ugh.  His “Battlefield Earth” sucks major eggs. Always amusing to see Hubbard mentioned in the same breath as the great science fiction writers such as Heinlein, Asimov, etc. His best was not even up to the standard of their worst. Heinlein wrote about people.  Clarke wrote about concepts more than the people.   Asimov averaged the two. Hubbard’s stuff was horse-shit. Heinlein was a curious (and cantankerous) duck.   And he mostly wrote early on as if social constructs would endure long after governments had changed.   Towards the end of his life, he realized that society was changing faster than governments and political philosophies.   He had a hard time wrapping his head around it. And he never forgave Clarke for Clarke's denouncement of Star Wars tech, despite a lifelong (until then) friendship (Lee mentions this in his book). Since "Star Wars" devolved into a boondoggle, Clarke turned out to have been right.

Not only does science fiction (and fantasy) pervade our culture, it has infiltrated every corner in one aspect or another. I believe that it is the forward thinking aspects required of writing in these genres that has allowed it to do so: SF writers (and fans) are responsible for creating the internet - and showing us how to use it. The argument is stronger if you confine yourself to fields of entertainment (though most of our advanced technologies were inspired by SF and brought into existence by readers of SF), and particularly in the realm of fan-based engagement with those entertainments. Getting the fans together with the creators on an equal footing first took place within SF Fandom and has branched out (spawned is a good word) to every other fandom, from comics to cosplay. (What other fandom can lay claim to renewing television shows and getting its name on a space shuttle?) I can think of no other literary field of endeavor where the fruits of its labor are enthusiastically embraced by the entire world and yet the creators - those responsible - are disregarded, belittled and looked down upon, if they are given any consideration at all. They're paid low word rates, most only get midlist level advances and are constantly subjected to unfounded criticism of their work. These authors have and are still creating the future we're going to inhabit. They deserve a much more elevated position in our society.

Science Fiction has become a kind of portmanteau term covering a lot of very different writers with very different intentions just like "folk" covers an awful lot of different styles of music and musicians. In the UK, for example, Christopher Priest has spoken often of using something speculative as the core metaphor and then pushing that hard, as well as the importance of deep characterisation. His excellent, “The Adjacent”, is certainly Science Fiction in those terms but is a long way from what, for example, Peter Hamilton or Alastair Reynolds are doing. Simon Ings, Ian MacDonald, Ken MacLeod, Ian R. MacLeod and others are also pursuing things from a decidedly "non-space opera" angle (my favourite single novel from the Golden Age - Simak's "Way Station" is also largely character driven and as for the remarkable tales of Cordwainer Smith).

Isn't the problem that the narratives in SF are characterised as a function of technology rather than character? And because of this, the literary elite have, as a whole, dismissed the genre. The writers of the golden age did not help themselves in this regard, and it is their legacy which has coloured subsequent Lit. Attitudes. Those authors who have lit. Credentials (Atwood, Lessing, Ballard, Orwell et al.) rise above the rest through (a) their treatment of narrative/character (b) intent (c) style. Orwell, as we all know, wrote beautifully. Dick did not. Though Dick was a wonderful SF author. Having said all that, I am presently reading Peter F Hamilton's Great North Road. Literary it is not. Entertaining it most certainly is. Pohl was more of an in-betweener than just a Golden Age writer. He was very much a different kind of writer than Asimov, Heinlein or Van Vogt. His work deserves more to be placed with Dick's, Silverberg's or Sheckley's. Not new wave but a generation on from the writers who established the genre in the pulp periodicals.

Are we still use the word "fascist" as a slur? Left-wingers have been doing that for decades, it's a fine tradition! Anyone who disagrees with you, or anyone to your right, no matter how marginal their deviation, is to be labelled a "fascist". I'm willing to be bet you have never in your life encountered a single person who describes themselves as a "fascist". Doesn't that trouble you? That the only means to uncover these "fascists", who are apparently everywhere, is by left wing deduction and declamation? (No, of course not because we're so virtuous and smart!). "Fascist" now no longer refers to an inter-war movement founded by Italian national syndicalists but instead, the demonic force which motivates all Evil in the universe. Think Social Welfare spending is out of control? FASCIST. It doesn't bother you that women still tend to look after kids, at home or professionally? FASCIST. Really, using the word "fascist" is a means of signalling to your in-group. The word itself is utterly decontextualised. When your tails are up that epithet means "anything which isn't to my left". Heinlein must have been a fascist too! - because he was a nudist? Or wrote that anarchist book set on the moon? Or built that bomb shelter during the Cold War? Or because he believed in free love and distrusted organized religion? Wait, I got it! Starship Troopers! Yeah, that fascist pamphlet. It has bombs and guns in it and stuff. FASCIST.

The 1950/60 science fiction was fuelled by discoveries of the time into mainstream thinking take black holes first put forward in 1783 it was in the 1960s that it became a science that was talked about in newspapers. SF writers help to explain it in better terms than scientists by putting it in a story. Neutron stars, event horizons, singularity, pulsars are another examples. There was also nuclear power a double edge sword, medicine was promising to cure more people talking about DNA genetics. A SF writer would have to read the scientific journals of the time to get an idea. Scientist themselves were becoming writers to explain their thoughts about gravity, populations and general science. Much more difficult now as soon as you have written a book there is always someone to say, O such and such wrote about that in the 60s or that has been done before.

One hell of a book ride that made me recall some of my SF youth by reading about these guys.