Whatever Was Heinlein Thinking? TNOTB
David M. Silver
merely unexamined opinion -- about Heinlein's 1980 published novel, _The
Number of the Beast_.
According to the myth, Heinlein slowly wrote a precursor to the novel
over a period from somewhere about the autumn of 1976 through an evening
shortly before a trip planned for November 1977 when he finished it and
left the final full manuscript for Ginny to read and assess, as usual,
and went to bed.
Certain things are said about this period. Heinlein's intentions were to
write a tribute to writers who had gone before whom he had read and
enjoyed in his youth (Frank Baum's Oz stories; "Lewis Carroll's" Alice
stories; Edgar Rice Burroughs' John Carter of Mars tales; Edward Elmer
"Doc" Smith's Lensmen series). Heinlein supposedly had trouble bringing
the possibilities together in his mind -- they were too broad -- and he
experienced difficulty in deciding where to limit and focus.
Also, at some vague time during this period, it was said by Ginny that
Heinlein experienced without realizing fully what it was a TIA
(Transient Ischemic Attack), once considered a precursor to a stroke,
but now regarded merely as one of very short (less than 24 hours)
duration, minimal effect, and no permanent after-effect, one day while
writing it when he had a brief moment of disconnect, and his vision
doubled and went blurry. This was some time yet before the attack early
in 1978 in the South Pacific when walking on a beach at Moorea, Tahiti,
he became paralyzed and Ginny had to virtually carry him back to their
ship; and he did not at that time mention it to either Ginny or any
doctor.
Other work, mainly organizing and supporting blood drives, had also
prolonged the period of writing of this first final manuscript and may
have contributed to his stress load.
According to Ginny she read through the manuscript with growing
puzzlement. It was a strange book, the writing _perfectly competent_,
yet to her "it just wasn't a Heinlein novel."
Briefly, Heinlein's plot had two newlywed couples pursued across
alternate realities by alien villains he called "Black Hats." Heinlein
had written two alternate endings. In one, they met Dr. Lafe Hubert (an
unused alias of Lazurus Long noted in _Time Enough for Love_) at a
rejuvenation clinic at the Lensman Prime Base of E.E. Smith, Long having
discovered cross-continuum travel following his TEfL adventure with time
travel. In this ending, the Lensmen and four protagonists mount a huge
multi-universal war to hunt down and exterminate the Black Hats. In the
second, shorter ending, the continua-travelers opt out of the war
against the Black Hats, mostly. They found a safe haven to have their
children in a Mormon-settled planet called "Deseret" and got out to hunt
Black Hats for amusement, every now and then.
There's obviously a contrast shown here by the alternates in what one
character, Zeb Carter, had noted he must "do about Ed," his Black
Hat-murdered cousin.
Ginny concluded she had to tell Robert the manuscript simply wasn't
publishable, that in her opinion for the first time he had to confront
the possibility at 70 years of age his faculties were failing in some
important way -- and she knew it meant more for him than simple old age.
Both his father and his mother had completely lost their faculties for
years before they died.
Robert put the manuscript aside; and they decided, according to Ginny,
to simply carry on with the year's planned activities -- the November
trip to Atlanta, the South Sea island cruise beginning in mid-December.
This was the situation by early the next year when Heinlein suffered the
second TIA in Tahiti.
I think we might profit by discussing the original manuscript which is
available from the Heinlein Archives now since July 2007.
What really made the manuscript not a Heinlein novel, in Ginny's view?
Does that comport with our various views of what a reading of the
original story reveals? Was it competently written? Why not, if not?
What was Heinlein trying to do with the alternate endings? Do we think
he actually found himself unable to choose between the endings? If so,
why? And what might those alternatives have been getting at, in light of
what novels came later?
Finally, why turn it into a parody, as some have termed it, when it was
rewritten? Is either the original or the rewritten version a parody, or
something else?
What do you think?
--
David M. Silver
http://www.heinleinsociety.org
"The Lieutenant expects your names to shine!"
Robert Anson Heinlein, USNA '29
Lt.(jg), USN, R'td
John David Galt
> Finally, why turn it into a parody, as some have termed it, when it was
> rewritten? Is either the original or the rewritten version a parody, or
> something else?
The entire book appears to exist for the purpose of setting up the party
scene involving all the writers and fictional characters to which Robert
wanted to give homage. This (in my view) makes it nothing more than a
huge Feghoot [a long story which exists to enable a bad pun at the end].
I agree with the subject line -- TNOTB was not what I expected from RAH.
David M. Silver
John David Galt <j...@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us> wrote:
> David M. Silver wrote:
> > Finally, why turn it into a parody, as some have termed it, when it was
> > rewritten? Is either the original or the rewritten version a parody, or
> > something else?
>
> The entire book appears to exist for the purpose of setting up the party
> scene involving all the writers and fictional characters to which Robert
> wanted to give homage. This (in my view) makes it nothing more than a
> huge Feghoot [a long story which exists to enable a bad pun at the end].
>
You've certainly, John David, defined a Feghoot correctly, i.e.,
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feghoot> but my question is: whatever you
chose to call the ending of TNOTB, why end it that way? It wasn't an
original planned alternative ending and is as different from the two
original choices as can be -- neither a space epic ending in which the
various multi-universes which the four travelers visited join together
to defeat and destroy the Black Hats, nor an ending somewhat reminiscent
of a surrender to a recognition of impotence in which the four hide
somewhere safe and, now and then, venture forth to, at best, harass or
conduct as mosquitoes might a guerrilla war against the Black Hats.
The fact Heinlein originally wrote two alternatives to end the basic
plot of the Black Hats against humanity in all the alternative universes
of the number of the beast means to me he saw something of a need and
originally planned to resolve between those two choices. Both "do
something about Ed" and the Black Hats' attacks on the four and threats
against humanity, one very little, and one potentially an ultimate
resolution.
> I agree with the subject line -- TNOTB was not what I expected from RAH.
I don't think RAH originally intended to give you what ultimately was
written. My question is why not? What do you think?
I see something of one side of this alternate resolution in the next
novel after TNOTB, in _Friday_, where she ends paying attention to her
own and her own familial, not humanity's concerns. Two novels down the
line from that, in _The Cat Who Walked Through Walls_, wadda we got? The
other side? Campbell dies/or maybe not dies in furthering the war
against the Scene Changers or whomever.
gullive...@yahoo.com
my interest, something I recalled had always been the case. I can't
really offer any particular insight, but I found myself thinking that
another famous novel, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, exhibits a
situation where the last approximate quarter of the book is clearly
not f the quality of the first three quarters. Twain wrote himself
into a problem because the river flowed south and he had to tack on an
unreasonable conclusion that made some of his strongest points from
the earlier part of the book seem diminished.
However, it isn't just the ending that's the problem with TNOTB.
Having said that, the book does have flashes of typical Heinlein
brilliance, it seems to me, just not enough of them consistently. It
would be interesting how I would feel as I read the original
manuscript, because my reaction is a very visceral one, just a gut
feeling that something is amiss. I just don't feel that way when I
reread any other Heinlein, although, frankly, I rarely reread Friday
or I Will Fear No Evil. What does that say about me?
Tony Vickers
was different and posited ideas that had never occured to me nor had I
ever read similar types of stories.
For me, TNOTB was a much more enjoyable read than IWFNE. Farnham's
Freehold was also one I did not care for. To me, TNOTB felt closer to
Glory Road in tone. The sequels to Number were also good and continued
the story begun in Number.
Just my $0.02US
Will in New Haven
Now I have to find an essay by someone whose ideas I value but whose
handle I cannot spell. Gharlane of Eddor?
I thought he had some good ideas about #Beast.
--
Will in New Haven
David M. Silver
<4199eab3-2658-4603...@u13g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
It's on the website, Will. I asked and received Gharlane's (David
Potter's) permission to republish it back in 1999. See,
<http://www.heinleinsociety.org/rah/numberbeast.html>
Chris Zakes
laser caused "gullive...@yahoo.com" <gullive...@yahoo.com> to
write:
That (like other Heinlein fans) you find some of his books more
entertaining than others.
If you pick a random batch of Heinlein fans and ask them to list their
most favorite and least favorite you'll soon observe that one fan's
most favorite is another's least favorite. and vice-versa. I don't
much like "I will Fear No Evil" and "Podkayne of Mars" but I *do* like
"Friday." TNOTB I can take or leave.
-Chris Zakes
Texas
Even a man who is pure in heart
And says his prayers at night
May become a wolf when the wolfbane blooms
And the autumn moon is bright.
David Wright Sr.
23C0BE.061...@news.individual.net:
[concerning TNOTB]
>
> What do you think?
>
The strongest impression that I had when I first read this was that Heinlein
felt that it was going to be his last book and that he wanted to say some
things before he left. Fortunately, this wasn't the case and I was pleased to
see the later works.
The shifting POV gave me problems, (and still does), but the more often I re-
read it, the better I like it, (which is true for me for most of his works.)
David Wright Sr.
--
Nothing hides truth more effectively than unchallenged preconceptions.
James P. Hogan "The Mirror Maze"
David M. Silver
"David M. Silver" <ag.pl...@verizon.net> wrote:
> According to Ginny she read through the manuscript with growing
> puzzlement. It was a strange book, the writing _perfectly competent_,
> yet to her "it just wasn't a Heinlein novel."
>
> Briefly, Heinlein's plot had two newlywed couples pursued across
> alternate realities by alien villains he called "Black Hats." Heinlein
> had written two alternate endings. In one, they met Dr. Lafe Hubert (an
> unused alias of Lazurus Long noted in _Time Enough for Love_) at a
> rejuvenation clinic at the Lensman Prime Base of E.E. Smith, Long having
> discovered cross-continuum travel following his TEfL adventure with time
> travel. In this ending, the Lensmen and four protagonists mount a huge
> multi-universal war to hunt down and exterminate the Black Hats. In the
> second, shorter ending, the continua-travelers opt out of the war
> against the Black Hats, mostly. They found a safe haven to have their
> children in a Mormon-settled planet called "Deseret" and got out to hunt
> Black Hats for amusement, every now and then.
>
> There's obviously a contrast shown here by the alternates [. . .]
>
> Ginny concluded she had to tell Robert the manuscript simply wasn't
> publishable, that in her opinion for the first time he had to confront
> the possibility at 70 years of age his faculties were failing in some
> important way -- and [. . .]
>
> I think we might profit by discussing the original manuscript which is
> available from the Heinlein Archives now since July 2007.
>
> What really made the manuscript not a Heinlein novel, in Ginny's view?
> Does that comport with our various views of what a reading of the
> original story reveals? Was it competently written? Why not, if not?
> What was Heinlein trying to do with the alternate endings? Do we think
> he actually found himself unable to choose between the endings? If so,
> why? And what might those alternatives have been getting at, in light of
> what novels came later?
>
> Finally, why turn it into a parody, as some have termed it, when it was
> rewritten? Is either the original or the rewritten version a parody, or
> something else?
>
> What do you think?
To which in article
<5e9c9402-9db8-4010...@s21g2000prm.googlegroups.com>,
"gullive...@yahoo.com" <gullive...@yahoo.com> replied:
>> Earlier this fall, I reread TNOTB, and found it difficult to keep up
>> my interest, something I recalled had always been the case. I can't
>> really offer any particular insight, but I found myself thinking that
>> another famous novel, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, exhibits a
>> situation where the last approximate quarter of the book is clearly
>> not of the quality of the first three quarters.
You definitely are on to something here, gulliverfoyle. However, to
express what needs being said, I have to get into more about the
original manuscript than perhaps everyone might want. Imagine the
problem: there it sits, an unread bona fide, mature Heinlein novel
virtually no one has ever read. I don't want to spoil the experience of
reading a true "new Heinlein" for everyone.
It's not a cadet novel written by an unpracticed relative youth, but
genuine mature work written by the seventy-year-old Grandmaster. Ginny
called the writing "competent" but, also, "yard goods," "strange" and
"not Heinlein."
First, there needs be one thing settled. The business about the four
month period of time with Heinlein "dull normal, slipping toward 'human
vegetable,'" [with him] "sleeping 16 hours a day and barely functioning
the rest of the time" as he himself described it in "Spin Off," his
testimony before the joint Congressional committees later, did NOT take
place while he was writing the original manuscript. That was finished in
November 1976. "Human vegetable" did not begin to arrive until two
months after the TIA in Tahiti, well into spring 1977, during a six
month regime of medication for treatment from the TIA.
Heinlein wrote the original with all his facilities intact, as much as
any seventy-year-old's are.
What did Ginny mean in calling it "yard goods"? Yard goods are what my
mother (born 1920, a few years after Ginny) called what her mother (born
in the late 1880s) bought from a textile retailer (it could be a general
store, or perhaps one of those new-fangled dime stores such as
Woolworth's) when grandmother wanted to make one of her four daughters,
herself, or her younger sister, a dress or dresses. We're talking about
finished fabric or cloth suitable for cutting, shaping and, by stitching
together, assembly into a useful garment. The "yard" came from the fact
it was sold to women such as my grandmother at prices per the three foot
yard length measurement (the width was some standard size rolls of
fabric came off factory looms).
Perhaps Ginny meant what Robert had written still needed to be properly
cut, shaped and stitched together.
If you buy the manuscript from the archives [available at
<http://www.heinleinarchives.net/upload/index.php?_a=viewCat&catId=37>
for listed prices totaling $15 for five parts] you'll be able to assess
for yourself whether and how much was needed. I'm going to hold off
about a week to let anyone who wishes do that without being overly
influenced by what I might write about the point.
Meanwhile, there's a lot else to talk about.
More later today.
>> Twain wrote himself
>> into a problem because the river flowed south and he had to tack on an
>> unreasonable conclusion that made some of his strongest points from
>> the earlier part of the book seem diminished.
Here, I'm guessing (and it's been many years since I read Huck Finn),
but I am about to assume you refer to the degree the plot was contrived
to get Jim free after his recapture (Huck finding Jim's new owners are
related to Tom; their mistaking Huck for Tom; what that led to; Tom's
ultimate arrival to 'straighten things out,' etc., etc.).
>> However, it isn't just the ending that's the problem with TNOTB.
Which ending? "L'envoi," or Deseret, or what I'm going to call "The Last
Battle"?
Which leads to another question. Would any ending have been satisfactory?
>> Having said that, the book does have flashes of typical Heinlein
>> brilliance, it seems to me, just not enough of them consistently. It
>> would be interesting how I would feel as I read the original
>> manuscript, because my reaction is a very visceral one, just a gut
>> feeling that something is amiss.
Maybe the operative words (for all of us) are "when I read the original
manuscript"?
What does $15 get you?
Pages
1071
Description
Part 1, 150 pages, contains scattered manuscript pages and notes. Two
copies of an ending to the story.
�
Part 2, 251 pages, contains manuscript pages 215 to 504, with extensive
edits.
�
Part 3, 151 pages, contains manuscript pages 598-688, 713-769, end. It�s
a different ending to the novel than in Part 1, and different from that
published. Header sheet says �suppressed�, and �original, first-pass
edited�. Title �Panki-Barsoom Number of the Beast�
�
Part 4, 250 pages, contains manuscript pages 256-502 of �suppressed�
version of �Panki-Barsoom Number of the Beast�. No edits.
�
Part 5, 269 pages, contains manuscript pages 503-769, end of
�suppressed� version of �Panki-Barsoom Number of the Beast�. No edits.
lal_truckee
>
>
> What did Ginny mean in calling it "yard goods"? Yard goods are what my
> mother (born 1920, a few years after Ginny) called what her mother (born
> in the late 1880s) bought from a textile retailer (it could be a general
> store, or perhaps one of those new-fangled dime stores such as
> Woolworth's) when grandmother wanted to make one of her four daughters,
> herself, or her younger sister, a dress or dresses. We're talking about
> finished fabric or cloth suitable for cutting, shaping and, by stitching
> together, assembly into a useful garment. The "yard" came from the fact
> it was sold to women such as my grandmother at prices per the three foot
> yard length measurement (the width was some standard size rolls of
> fabric came off factory looms).
Come on David - "yard goods" aren't some ancient term. Yard goods are
sold all over the place; lots of people make clothes, curtains, etc,
(and the biggie - quilts) today. This is regular old everyday stuff in
the modern world.
What Ginny undoubtedly meant was a reference to the cloth rolling of the
automated loom in whatever length the mill wanted. In other words, Ginny
was describing it as "extruded prose" with exactly the same descriptive
intent which we use the "extruded" term. Once you set the
loom/wordprocessor up, the automation pushes out cloth/text in whatever
length you want.
David M. Silver
lal_truckee <lal_t...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Didn't say it was "ancient," Lal. 1895 which is the first usage cited is
only about a century ago. Didn't say those who stitch professionally or
sew as a hobby don't know what it means. They do. They, or some, also
know what "white goods" and "piece goods" mean or used to mean as well.
Essentially, the same thing, depending on context (although white goods
has come to mean refrigerators or washers or other kitchen appliances).
"Lots of people" doesn't equate to everyone, even most, or even a
majority. The number of people who sew domestically or as a hobby has
been declining substantially for the past century. It's a hobby, but
considered a luxury hobby. Grandmother sewed a lot--most of her
children's clothing. My mother sewed if you put a gun to her head. My
wife sews a bit, when absolutely necessary, or if drafted as part of a
group to make a quilt or part of one as a gift (as, for example, for a
new baby). My daughter doesn't sew at all. One of my grandfathers was a
tailor; his son my father a hatter. They both sewed (or stitched, which
is what tailors or other garment workers of earlier generations call the
act), or, in the case of my father, stitched linings, hatbands, and
trims, when he followed that trade. None of my father's brothers sewed;
and none of his sons, except, rarely, to replace a button or, maybe,
darn a stocking. I doubt my daughter has ever touched a sewing machine
except to move her mother's portable out of the way to get to something
behind it in a closet.
I'll go with the following from audioenglish.net: "Familiarity
information: YARD GOODS used as a noun is very rare." Hence, the
explanation.
It might interest you to know that, while its definition remains in some
common dictionaries [e.g., Merriam Webster], "yard goods" has dropped
out of others [e.g., New Oxford American Dictionary].
lal_truckee
>
>
> Didn't say it was "ancient," Lal. 1895 which is the first usage cited is
> only about a century ago. Didn't say those who stitch professionally or
> sew as a hobby don't know what it means. They do. They, or some, also
> know what "white goods" and "piece goods" mean or used to mean as well.
> Essentially, the same thing, depending on context (although white goods
> has come to mean refrigerators or washers or other kitchen appliances).
I've also heard "Brown Goods" (furniture) used in conversation by a
professional purveyor of "White Goods." His implication was he could
sell either - made no difference to a pro.
> "Lots of people" doesn't equate to everyone, even most, or even a
> majority. The number of people who sew domestically or as a hobby has
> been declining substantially for the past century. It's a hobby, but
> considered a luxury hobby. Grandmother sewed a lot--most of her
> children's clothing. My mother sewed if you put a gun to her head. My
> wife sews a bit, when absolutely necessary, or if drafted as part of a
> group to make a quilt or part of one as a gift (as, for example, for a
> new baby). My daughter doesn't sew at all. One of my grandfathers was a
> tailor; his son my father a hatter. They both sewed (or stitched, which
> is what tailors or other garment workers of earlier generations call the
> act), or, in the case of my father, stitched linings, hatbands, and
> trims, when he followed that trade. None of my father's brothers sewed;
> and none of his sons, except, rarely, to replace a button or, maybe,
> darn a stocking. I doubt my daughter has ever touched a sewing machine
> except to move her mother's portable out of the way to get to something
> behind it in a closet.
>
>
>
> I'll go with the following from audioenglish.net: "Familiarity
> information: YARD GOODS used as a noun is very rare." Hence, the
> explanation.
Hum, maybe I'm too insular. Around here (N. California) quilting has
become big business - stores in every town offering yard goods. Public
exhibits, and obscure Heroines (c.f. Gee's Bend Quilters.) The wife can
sniff out the stores in the most unlikely of locations.
>
> It might interest you to know that, while its definition remains in some
> common dictionaries [e.g., Merriam Webster], "yard goods" has dropped
> out of others [e.g., New Oxford American Dictionary].
Catastrophe; the world is coming to an end.
David M. Silver
Tony Vickers <acvicker...@juno.com> wrote:
> David M. Silver wrote:
[humongous snipperini]
> >
> > What do you think?
> >
> Despite the opinions of others here in this venue, I enjoyed TNOTB. It
> was different and posited ideas that had never occured to me nor had I
> ever read similar types of stories.
That's an interesting statement, Tony. I'd be interested in knowing what
differences in form or substance you particularly enjoyed and why.
For example, what did you think about the multiple POV? Did the
chit-chat between the four turn out to be enjoyable or drive you nuts,
or where you indifferent? Did you find anything better expressed because
of it? Was it an improvement over what Heinlein is sometimes criticized
for, "info dumps"?
What else?
>
> For me, TNOTB was a much more enjoyable read than IWFNE.
Why? Subject matter? The thing many find irritating, the chit-chat,
exists in both, between the four in TNOTB and between the three in the
brain (as I call them) in IWFNE. Did Heinlein get better at expressing
chit-chat in the time between IWFNE (1970) and TNOTB (1980). Was there
something else you enjoyed more in one than the other?
> Farnham's
> Freehold was also one I did not care for. To me, TNOTB felt closer to
> Glory Road in tone.
Interesting. You'd probably find the original manuscript containing the
visit of the four to the original Barsoom with John Carter of Mars'
friends and relatives ever more like unto Glory Road. You could give
some thought to downloading it. The "real" Barsoom begins in Part 2, et
seq. of the archive copy. I'd be fascinated in your thoughts on it --
and how well Heinlein wrote a tribute to Burroughs in those parts.
> The sequels to Number were also good and continued
> the story begun in Number.
A very palpable point!
>
> Just my $0.02US
Worth more than two cents. How's Stephanie doing, btw? We don't see her
much here anymore and I, for one, miss her mind and thoughts. It was
nice to meet her in the flesh at Rusty's in Kansas a couple years back.
Wish she hadn't had to return so quickly. I'd have been delighted to be
a fly on the wall listening to her and PeeWee converse on what they each
found it like to "grow up" reading the nut cases we all are on this
newsgroup.
David M. Silver
<4199eab3-2658-4603...@u13g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
Will in New Haven <bill....@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
>
> I thought he had some good ideas about #Beast.
Which ones, Will?
What do you think, btw, about the choice confronting the four in the
original manuscript. Do we do (a) or (b)?
(a) declare and lead a war to the death against the Black Hats?
(b) secure our families (women and children first) from becoming widows
and orphans and, only then and afterwards, do what we can to combat the
Black Hats so long as it's safe and won't result in harm to the
aforesaid potential widows and orphans?
Which choice and why would you pick it? What other choice(s) is/are
there?
David M. Silver
> What Ginny undoubtedly meant was a reference to the cloth rolling of the
> automated loom in whatever length the mill wanted. In other words, Ginny
> was describing it as "extruded prose" with exactly the same descriptive
> intent which we use the "extruded" term. Once you set the
> loom/wordprocessor up, the automation pushes out cloth/text in whatever
> length you want.
Getting back to this, Lal, finding whether it was merely "extruded," if
I may characterize fairly what your image portrays as "merely," may only
be finally determined in your mind by reading the original manuscript.
How 'bout it? Ginny said it was "strange," but perfectly competent, but
just not Heinlein to her view.
But Ginny also found _Stranger_ on first reading to be something she
didn't quite know what to do about.
David M. Silver
In article <tmNDm.104894$944....@newsfe09.iad>,
Tony Vickers <acvicker...@juno.com> wrote:
> David M. Silver wrote:
[humongous snipperini]
> >
> > What do you think?
> >
> Despite the opinions of others here in this venue, I enjoyed TNOTB. It
> was different and posited ideas that had never occured to me nor had I
> ever read similar types of stories.
That's an interesting statement, Tony. I'd be interested in knowing what
differences in form or substance you particularly enjoyed and why.
For example, what did you think about the multiple POV? Did the
chit-chat between the four turn out to be enjoyable or drive you nuts,
or were you indifferent? Did you find anything better expressed because
of it? Was it an improvement over what Heinlein is sometimes criticized
for, "info dumps"?
What else?
>
> For me, TNOTB was a much more enjoyable read than IWFNE.
Why? Subject matter? The thing many find irritating, the chit-chat,
exists in both, between the four in TNOTB and between the three in the
brain (as I call them) in IWFNE. Did Heinlein get better at expressing
chit-chat in the time between IWFNE (1970) and TNOTB (1980)? Was there
something else you enjoyed more in one than the other?
> Farnham's
> Freehold was also one I did not care for. To me, TNOTB felt closer to
> Glory Road in tone.
Interesting. You'd probably find the original manuscript containing the
visit of the four to the original Barsoom with John Carter of Mars'
friends and relatives ever more like unto Glory Road. You could give
some thought to downloading it. The "real" Barsoom begins in Part 2, et
seq. of the archive copy. I'd be fascinated by your thoughts on it --
and judgment on how well Heinlein wrote a tribute to Burroughs in those
parts.
> The sequels to Number were also good and continued
> the story begun in Number.
A very palpable point!
>
> Just my $0.02US
Worth more than two cents. How's Stephanie doing, btw? We don't see her
much here anymore and I, for one, miss her mind and thoughts. It was
nice to meet her in the flesh at Rusty's in Kansas a couple years back.
Wish she hadn't had to return home so quickly. I'd have been delighted
to be a fly on the wall listening to her and PeeWee converse on what
they each found it like to "grow up" reading the nut cases we all are on
this newsgroup.
--
David M. Silver
"David Wright Sr." <dwri...@alltel.net> wrote:
> "David M. Silver" <ag.pl...@verizon.net> wrote in news:ag.plusone-
> 23C0BE.061...@news.individual.net:
>
> [concerning TNOTB]
>
> >
> > What do you think?
> >
> The strongest impression that I had when I first read this was that Heinlein
> felt that it was going to be his last book and that he wanted to say some
> things before he left.
I shared that impression, David, when I read it as well; and we've found
since then that even after the successful cranial by-pass Heinlein may
have continued to heed Ginny's warning that he might be losing some
ability when he finished TNOTB the way he did and tied up the rest of
his loose ends with _Expanded Universe_ which put back into print many
long out-of-print short fictions as well as unloaded his concerns in the
greatly expanded interstitial commentaries. A fair implication from what
Ginny wrote in _Grumbles_ is he did intend to stop right there.
> Fortunately, this wasn't the case and I was pleased to
> see the later works.
The warm and much increased mail response he received after publishing
EU and TNOTB had much, Ginny wrote in _Grumbles_, to do with Robert's
decision to return to writing for as long as his health permitted.
>
> The shifting POV gave me problems, (and still does), but the more often I re-
> read it, the better I like it, (which is true for me for most of his works.)
>
It probably gave others, including Ginny, problems as well. There's one
significant difference in format between the original manuscript. In the
rewritten and finally published 1980 version, each chapter begins with
the name of the narrator so we do know who he or she is. It helps.
The different narrators and POVs do at least two things that are helpful
in my mind. First, they allow greater explication on a point by allowing
differing POVs on one point. Second, they allow the writer to explore
the techniques of unreliable or less reliable narrator more easily. I
never felt ready to buy most of what Jake thought, about himself and
other things. I was also less likely to accept what Sharpie said
generally.
Can any of us think of other ways multiple POVs and narrators can help?
Of course there's always the blind men examining the elephant, but there
must be more than that, mustn't there?
Michael Stemper
>[concerning TNOTB]
>The shifting POV gave me problems, (and still does), but the more often I re-
>read it, the better I like it, (which is true for me for most of his works.)
I think that the problems that you (and I) had with the shifting point
of view point to one of the flaws of _Number_. I found myself regularly
having to flip back to the beginning of a chapter to find out who was
the current narrator. All four of our intrepid crew sounded the same.
Heinlein wrote a lot of memorable characters in his career. In this
book, though, they were mostly indistinguishable.
Reading this book put me off of Heinlein for a decade. After that, I
found myself picking up the occasional juvie, and finally worked my
nerve up for a second attempt at _Number_. Although I still see its
flaws, it has become a "comfort read" for me.
--
Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Disclaimer>
Visualize whirled peas!
Nyssa
> In article <ag.plusone-23C0B...@news.individual.net>,
> "David M. Silver" <ag.pl...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
> If you buy the manuscript from the archives [available at
> <http://www.heinleinarchives.net/upload/index.php?_a=viewCat&catId=37>
> for listed prices totaling $15 for five parts] you'll be able to assess
> for yourself whether and how much was needed. I'm going to hold off
> about a week to let anyone who wishes do that without being overly
> influenced by what I might write about the point.
>
David, this is like teasing a starving person
with food just out of reach.
I'd be more than willing to pay the price for
these and other items at the archive, but
everything is download only. And the site clearly
says don't try it with dial-up.
Well, I (and I'm sure many others) out here
still have dial-up with no other option in
sight.
Is there any way that the folks that run the
archive could offer alternative delivery methods
(hard copy or items mailed on CD/DVD) even
at a slightly higher cost? I'm sure there would
be a lot of people interested besides me.
Nyssa, in a broadband-deprived rural area
David M. Silver
Nyssa <Ny...@concentric.net> wrote:
> Is there any way that the folks that run the
> archive could offer alternative delivery methods
> (hard copy or items mailed on CD/DVD) even
> at a slightly higher cost? I'm sure there would
> be a lot of people interested besides me.
Let me check and get back to you, Nyssa. Today I expect.
David Wright Sr.
news:hbs6ki$qcv$2...@news.eternal-september.org:
>>The shifting POV gave me problems, (and still does), but the more often
>>I re- read it, the better I like it, (which is true for me for most of
>>his works.)
>
> I think that the problems that you (and I) had with the shifting point
> of view point to one of the flaws of _Number_. I found myself regularly
> having to flip back to the beginning of a chapter to find out who was
> the current narrator.
>
I didn't have quite that problem as my version had the names at the top of
each page, but I was continually having to look up to see who was talking.
> All four of our intrepid crew sounded the same.
After reading it 5-10 times, I could easily spot the differences ;)>
David Wright Sr.
Dr. Rufo
David M. Silver wrote:
> In article <hbqdhu$5ct$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> lal_truckee <lal_t...@yahoo.com> wrote:
< snip of excellent plea in mitigation of the use/explanation of the term
"yard goods" .>
> It might interest you to know that, while its definition remains in some
> common dictionaries [e.g., Merriam Webster], "yard goods" has dropped
> out of others [e.g., New Oxford American Dictionary].
>
Better than castigating Dave for explaining the meaning of a term
of reference, I think it would have been more productive to stick to the
point:
As I see it, Dave's point is that Mrs. H's remark was referring to the
"original version
of TNOTB, called "The Panki Number of the Beast" in the RAH Archives.
She WAS NOT
referring to the currently published text.
The next important point is that Dave is offering to hold his further
discussion in abeyance
to allow others to download and read the MS. from the Archives.
Is that it?
Rufe
David M. Silver
"Dr. Rufo" <bay...@verizon.net> wrote:
> Dave is offering to hold his further
> discussion in abeyance
> to allow others to download and read the MS. from the Archives.
>
> Is that it?
Exactly, sorta. No reason why we cannot discuss some points without
getting into great detail while the week passes, though.
Tony Vickers
I enjoyed the multi-person POV as it brought to light details in each
person's life and insight to how their minds worked. Zeb was a logicial
thinker, Deety was emotional, Hilda was a seat of the pants thinker but
with a goal, and Jake the intellectual but a bit plodding in his manner.
In IWFNE, you didn't get that kind of information. That story focused to
much on our main protagonist and not on the actual story, IMHO.
Idea wise, the multi-verse concept was a familiar one having read DC
comics for years with the concepts of Earth 1 & Earth-2 being just a bit
out of sync with one another. But what intrigued me most was the twist
of swapping space-time axis for each other to reach totally different
types of universes. And the Black Hat concept (competing authors as it
were) was a good one. Then to reveal that all is fiction while being
real was something i had never considered.
As for my "wayward" daughter, she's doing well in MO, working for the
evil empire that is known as Wal Mart. She's currently being groomed for
a position in management apparently. Her body is accumulating various
aches and pains but that happens to us all.
bookman
> In article <Xns9CAC66237FF68nokva...@74.209.131.13>,
>
> The different narrators and POVs do at least two things that are helpful
> in my mind. First, they allow greater explication on a point by allowing
> differing POVs on one point. Second, they allow the writer to explore
> the techniques of unreliable or less reliable narrator more easily. I
> never felt ready to buy most of what Jake thought, about himself and
> other things. I was also less likely to accept what Sharpie said
> generally.
>
> Can any of us think of other ways multiple POVs and narrators can help?
> Of course there's always the blind men examining the elephant, but there
> must be more than that, mustn't there?
For "compare and contrast" purposes, I'd suggest David Drake's "The
Jungle". It uses multiple POV (and non-linear time, via flashbacks),
and can be quite hard to follow, but it explores "heroism" and
"leadership" - rather successfully, IMO.
(Background: it's set in Kuttner's Venus Merceneries universe, on
Venus, but it thoroughly Drake in style.)
Just a thought.
RtB
John David Galt
> Can any of us think of other ways multiple POVs and narrators can help?
> Of course there's always the blind men examining the elephant, but there
> must be more than that, mustn't there?
I see a story with multiple "viewpoint characters" as offering a more
complete, varied, and/or fairer view of the world the characters are in,
as well as being more accessible to people who might not be sympathetic
to whomever would be chosen as a single viewpoint character. I see
Larry Niven's Known Space, Chalker's Well World, and the current cable
TV series "Mad Men" as benefiting these ways from having more than one.
David M. Silver
Supplemental reply. I wanted to check to see whether I was correct
before I made this response to Nyssa's lack-of-broadband access download
problems.
A quote from the technical type who set up the download site for the
archives:
" ... the purpose of the "don't try this with dial-up" warning was so
that if someone ignored us and didn't like the results we could at least
say "we TOLD YOU not to do it!". There is no technical reason why
someone with dial-up couldn't make it work with sufficient patience ...".
"If she's really motivated, she could try it one piece at a time and see
how it goes."
Individual mailing on the scale suggested would be too labor intensive
to the Trust without a substantial change for time.
I should mention that I live in an area notorious for slow-speed DSL
(Verizon inherited General Telephone's and they are ancient), in fact,
it's the slowest speed for DSL on the West Coast. With a little patience
I have no problem.
Nyssa
Thanks for checking it out for me, David.
It's pretty much as I had thought; try it if
you dare, but be prepared to bring a sleeping
bag while you wait for the downloads and
hope your line doesn't go down.
I, too, am in an ex-GTE area, albeit on the
East Coast. We're the unwanted step-children
of Verizon. Verizon has stated they have no
plans for any upgrades to our system in the
foreseeable future, so I (and my neighbors)
are stuck with dial-up until/unless we move.
Nyssa, who needs to win the lottery for a move
David M. Silver
"David M. Silver" <ag.pl...@verizon.net> wrote:
> In article <tmNDm.104894$944....@newsfe09.iad>,
Tony Vickers <acvicker...@juno.com> wrote:
> > Farnham's
> > Freehold was also one I did not care for. To me, TNOTB felt closer to
> > Glory Road in tone.
>
> Interesting. You'd probably find the original manuscript containing the
> visit of the four to the original Barsoom with John Carter of Mars'
> friends and relatives ever more like unto Glory Road. You could give
> some thought to downloading it. The "real" Barsoom begins in Part 2, et
> seq. of the archive copy. I'd be fascinated by your thoughts on it --
> and judgment on how well Heinlein wrote a tribute to Burroughs in those
> parts.
I think, since some of you are obtaining the manuscript by now, for
those reading the manuscript and comparing it with what came later, the
revised and rewritten novel published in 1980 (abridged serial 1979),
it's time to specify some beginning points of departure of one from the
other.
From what is left in manuscript, we presume the mid-point in Chapter
XVIII, is the first point of clear departure.
That chapter can be found in Part 2 [Opus 176-2] of the download. It
begins in mid chapter at page 256 of the typed copy which is equivalent
to about page 160 of the Richard Powers illustrated trade paper first
edition.
We presume that for what would have been the first 159 pages of the
printed edition, Heinlein simply took whatever he'd written (around 255
typed pages), edited it -- possibly cutting, perhaps adding bits and
pieces (the names of narrator at the beginning of each chapter for one
thing and titles of chapters) and began writing anew at mid point of his
old Chapter XVIII.
In the rewritten _The Number of the Beast_, Chapter XVIII ends "Part
One, The Mandarin's Butterfly" but there are no designated parts in the
original.
At the more or less midpoint of Chapter XVIII, the four make their first
reconnaissance of what Hilda has decided to call Barsoom. Unlike the
revised version, the recon is not terminated almost immediately by
observation of an ornithopter approaching them. Instead, as they trudge
along under the low gravity, Zeb, who is narrating, feels the ground
tremble and, around the shoulder of a hill, there charges a eight-legged
monster midway in size between dinosaur and a rhinoceros, ridden by a
six-limbed green giant twice as tall as Zeb's six feet plus, with
eyeteeth that are tusks curling up almost to his eyebrows, wielding a
couched lance about the size of a telephone pole in his two right hands,
and carrying a rifle in his upper left hand.
Trying to recall how the original Burroughs' Captain John Carter of Mars
handled the situation, Zeb charges forward, trips and sprawls arse over
teacup, barely managing to avoid being trampled as the "preposterous
pachyderm pounds past."
Rising, Zeb observes something equally preposterous, although tragically
heroic -- Hilda, unarmed on this recon expedition except for a large
knife, swarming up the green giant's leg with her knife trying to take
him apart.
As Zeb charges again, the giant drops his lance to grasp Hilda and hold
her knife away out of reach of his eyes. Meanwhile both Jake and Deety
are blasting away from extreme long range with their inadequate firearms
(Deety's birdshot-loaded twelve gage and Jake's M1911 .45 automatic,
notoriously inaccurate beyond fifty meters). The giant, in a decided
upper class British accent, asks Zeb to "please tell your friends to
cease firing. It makes the thoats quite nervous, Quite." Zeb calls for a
cease fire, looks around and finds himself surrounded by two other green
giants atop their thoats, each uglier than both the others. Zeb, a
pilot, focused only on the first seen had failed to notice the attacking
wing men, a sure way to "get his tail shot off." With some difficulty,
Zeb and Jake convince Hilda to cease trying to attack the giant holding
her.
Zeb then negotiates a truce.
The giant introduces himself as Tawm Takus, leaving introduction of his
companions until later. Zeb lies a bit while introducing his own party
and tells Takus that Hilda is "Princess Hilda," Deety is merely
"Princess Deety," (not Dejah Thoris--that name will be concealed until
later) but Jake is the "famous Doctor Burroughs," traveling
semi-incognito, "Jeddak of Logan, Master of Time and Space, Explorer of
Universes, Master Galactic Engineer, Veteran of the Pentagon, Emperor of
Ruritania, Supreme Pontiff of the Nine Mysteries," etc., etc., and so
forth. Zeb introduces himself as Captain Zebadiah John Carter, of
Virginia."
Similarities of names (Zeb's to the 'clean-limbed fighting man,' Dr.
Burroughs to the supposed nephew of John Carter, etc.) are noted.
John Carter's good friend and companion in the Burrough's series, green
martian Tars Tarkas, the Jeddak of Thark, is later claimed as "brood
uncle" by Tawn Takus (the difference in spelling of the surname is not
explained).
I'll leave what follows to your reading for the time being.
Comments?
David M. Silver
"David M. Silver" <ag.pl...@verizon.net> wrote:
> At the more or less midpoint of Chapter XVIII, the four make their first
> reconnaissance of what Hilda has decided to call Barsoom.
A further word or so about entry into the world Hilda insists will be
Barsoom.
I've reread the first few chapters of Edgar Rice Burroughs' _A Princess
of Mars_ (first published in February 1912 by serialization sub.nom.
_Under the Moons of Mars_, in _All-Story_ magazine). A comparison of
tone might be helpful. Chapters III and IV are those in which John
Carter first encounters the Thark tribe of green Martians over which
Tars Tarkas eventually establishes rule. They're short chapters, and if
you haven't a copy already, the novel is on-line and downloadable from
Gutenberg <http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/62>.
The first thing of note is the contrast in descriptive terminology used
by Burroughs in _Princess_ and Heinlein in _Number_ to describe the
first meeting with the green Martians.
The word "preposterous" used by Heinlein stands out. So too description
of a lance the size of a "telephone pole" and a sprawl "arse over
teacup."
Just as in the beginning of _Number_, in Deety's description of herself
as the daughter of a mad scientist, Heinlein is using a tone of
affectionate playfulness, nearly ridicule, to portray the universe
created by Edgar Rice Burroughs.
There are later examples: one of Tawm Takus' companions will turn out to
be named Kach Kachkan, the other, not distinguished enough yet to have
two names, makes do with one: Kad.
Speak the names. However you pronounce them, they're absurd in
connotation.
Cash can what? Catch [as] catch can? Using or making do with whatever
means are available? Not a very good plan.
Cad? [As in Taffy was a Welshman, Taffy was a thief?] An ethnic insult.
Will the tone stay that way? Was that tone a good choice? What purpose
will/did it serve?
Will Heinlein echo that tone when he introduces us to the other
universes we find the four visit?
David M. Silver
There are points at which, in the novel _The Number of the Beast_, in
final form, Heinlein and his characters strike a more serious tone. For
example, in the refuge the four find to settle, they find a civilization
in which (one day) they killed all the lawyers and so there are none.
Whether or not Heinlein indulged in a broad irony in that sequence is a
matter of argument; but reviewing _A Princess of Mars_, we find a
passage in Chapter IX (which covers John Carter learning about the
society of Green martians), in which Burroughs had Carter recite:
The men ... make the laws as they are needed; a new law for each
emergency. They are unfettered by precedent in the administration of
justice. Customs have been handed down by ages of repetition, but the
punishment for ignoring a custom is a matter for individual treatment
by a jury of the culprit's peers, and I may say that justice seldom
misses fire, but seems rather to rule in inverse ratio to the
ascendency of law. In one respect at least the Martians are a happy
people; they have no lawyers.
Although he belonged to a Shakespeare club at Central High School in
Kansas City, this could have been Heinlein's first encounter in writing
with the notion of a lawyer-less society, assuming he read _A Princess
of Mars_ shortly after it was first published in book form in 1917 (when
Heinlein was ten years old), rather than Shakespeare's Henry IV, part
II, Act IV, Scene ii (which he might not have read until high school,
age fifteen or later).
Simon Jester UK
...
> Cad? [As in Taffy was a Welshman, Taffy was a thief?] An ethnic insult.
Cad isn't specific to the Welsh, or even particularly associated with them,
David - it's a (rather old-fashioned) insult meaning someone who is
unprincipled. From online and dead tree dictionaries, it appears to be an
abbreviation of either cadet or caddie.
David M. Silver
I know what the online dictionaries say, Simon. Nevertheless, I've heard
and read instances where it specifically was used to express a Welsh
ethnic insult -- e.g., "Cadwallon this, and Cadwallander that -- we're
surrounded by the b*****y Cads." Not as common as Taffy, of course. Wish
I could remember a specific source.
Simon Jester UK
> In article <FlSGm.6326$op2....@newsfe28.ams2>,
> "Simon Jester UK" <simonje...@pantaloons.yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> David M. Silver wrote:
>> ...
>> > Cad? [As in Taffy was a Welshman, Taffy was a thief?] An ethnic insult.
>> ...
>>
>> Cad isn't specific to the Welsh, or even particularly associated with
>> them,
>> David - it's a (rather old-fashioned) insult meaning someone who is
>> unprincipled. From online and dead tree dictionaries, it appears to be an
>> abbreviation of either cadet or caddie.
>
> I know what the online dictionaries say, Simon. Nevertheless, I've heard
> and read instances where it specifically was used to express a Welsh
> ethnic insult -- e.g., "Cadwallon this, and Cadwallander that -- we're
> surrounded by the b*****y Cads." Not as common as Taffy, of course. Wish
> I could remember a specific source.
It sounds more like someone was punning, based on the names of the Welshmen
in question. I have heard cad used (mostly ironically) in conversation, but
never as a an ethnic insult against the Welsh.
Kipling is probably semi on topic most of the time round here; cad is used
quite a bit in eg. Stalky and Co, where it doesn't appear to be a reference
to the Welsh:
"What, in the name of everything caddish, was he driving at, who waved that
horror before their eyes ? Happy thought ! Perhaps he was drunk.
...
They discussed the speech in the dormitories. There was not one dissentient
voice. Mr. Raymond Martin, beyond question, was born in a gutter, and bred
in a board-school, where they played marbles. He was further (I give the
barest handful from great store) a Flopshus Cad, an Outrageous Stinker, a
Jelly-bellied Flag-flapper (this was Stalky's contribution), and several
other things which it is not seemly to put down."
Pete LaGrange
>
> Thanks for checking it out for me, David.
>
> It's pretty much as I had thought; try it if
> you dare, but be prepared to bring a sleeping
> bag while you wait for the downloads and
> hope your line doesn't go down.
You could try one of the download manangers, I seem to
recall one of their main points was the ability to resume a
download after a broken connection.
--
Pete LaGrange
loyalty above all, save honor
<http://69.127.16.11:7776/index.html>
Julian Treadwell
> On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 16:33:59 -0700 (PDT), "gullive...@yahoo.com"
> <gullive...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Earlier this fall, I reread TNOTB, and found it difficult to keep up
>> my interest, something I recalled had always been the case. I can't
>> really offer any particular insight, but I found myself thinking that
>> another famous novel, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, exhibits a
>> situation where the last approximate quarter of the book is clearly
>> not f the quality of the first three quarters.
>
> Did either Twain or Heinlein have an issue with dead lines? There are
> books by other authors that are carefully crafted to the middle or
> last quarter and then read like a rush to whack it out and get it in
> the mail. I've never heard how/if deadlines were an issue for RAH.
I like the ending of TNOTB and don't feel it is of a much lower quality
than the rest, or that it seeems rushed. However, I recall that Douglas
Adams used to love deadlines. He liked the whooshing sound they made as
they went by.
> Heinlein often goes off into long dialogs that amount to a debate on
> some principle. When I finally notice this, I usually realize I
> enjoyed it anyway. But in TNOTB there seems to be an excessive amount
> of sniping in what amounts to a struggle over who is in charge - a
> pissing contest if you will. Many are over pretty petty points.
As he was ex-military I don't find it surprising that the topic of
command was very important to RAH. My take on why he spent so much time
on the bickerings between 4 very intelligent people who were usually
mature and collaborated well is that he was exploring the nature of
command, probably for the benefit of the reader rather than himself. I
suspect he was trying to make several points, including (1) there can
only be one captain on a ship, and that the rest of the crew must accept
that without question (especially in times of crisis); (2) if bad
command decisions are met with resistance, disobediance or obstruction
the whole unit becomes disfunctional; and possibly (3) civvies, no
matter how capable and wise, are unlikely to ever make good soldiers.
>> It
>> would be interesting how I would feel as I read the original
>> manuscript, because my reaction is a very visceral one, just a gut
>> feeling that something is amiss. I just don't feel that way when I
>> reread any other Heinlein, although, frankly, I rarely reread Friday
>> or I Will Fear No Evil. What does that say about me?
I think it says that you're an individual with individual taste, just
like the rest of us. There are several of his early books which many on
this rave about, but which leave me stone cold.
Cheers,
Julian
David M. Silver
Julian Treadwell <julian.t...@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
> Winston_Smith wrote:
> > On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 16:33:59 -0700 (PDT), "gullive...@yahoo.com"
> > <gullive...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Earlier this fall, I reread TNOTB, and found it difficult to keep up
> >> my interest, something I recalled had always been the case. I can't
> >> really offer any particular insight, but I found myself thinking that
> >> another famous novel, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, exhibits a
> >> situation where the last approximate quarter of the book is clearly
> >> not f the quality of the first three quarters.
> >
> > Did either Twain or Heinlein have an issue with dead lines? There are
> > books by other authors that are carefully crafted to the middle or
> > last quarter and then read like a rush to whack it out and get it in
> > the mail. I've never heard how/if deadlines were an issue for RAH.
>
Winston: I cannot address the issue with Clemens; but in Heinlein's case
all that I've read indicates that from at least after World War II, any
deadline was self-imposed, except only the "deadline" pertaining to the
Scribners' juvenile novels. In the case of Scribners' he had a
commitment to produce an annual novel (and as the years went by, the
notion took hold of publishing it to sell by the Christmas season so it
would be purchased by adults as gifts to juvenile readers).
Otherwise, Heinlein produced what he felt he had to sell to keep his own
finances above water. As examples that are not necessarily true, but to
illustrate, if he needed to sell three shorts to survive six months
financially until royalties for a novel started paying off, he wrote and
tried to interest magazines in publishing three shorts. If he needed to
sell something, let's say, two novels to finance construction of the
home in Colorado during the Korean War period, he sold two novels (by
expanding two earlier novella serials published pre-World War II into
novel-length stories and authorized their new reprinting, e.g., If This
Goes On in _Revolt in 2100_ and Methuselah's Children, independently as
a stand-alone). Otherwise he took what time he needed to write (e.g.,
the about ten years overall it took to write Stranger).
I don't think from what I've read he was under any external deadline
with respect to TNOTB. He spent about a year (fall 1976 to about the end
of October 1977) doing a number of things, blood drives, etc., during
which he tried to write it; but the problem was the quite grand ideas
weren't coming together enough for him to be satisfied enough to finish
it, until shortly before the trip in November he finished it for the
first time and left it for Ginny to read.
Even then, he was uncertain enough about it that he wrote two separate
and distinct endings -- neither of which, incidentally, is the ending
with the L'Envoi chapter.
Then, later, after the operation to restore the flow of blood to his
brain, he turned back in his own time to rewrite it, tying up, so to
speak, the loose ends, discarding large parts and ending it with the
L'Envoi chapter. [At the same time, he dictated material to Jim Baen to
expand _Worlds of Robert Heinlein_ into _Expanded Universe_, getting,
while he was at it, most of the rest of his non-anthologized short
stories back into print.] He had easily enough time between finishing
TNOTB and its publication, to let H. Bruce Franklin, who was writing
_RAH: America As Science Fiction_, read it.
> I like the ending of TNOTB and don't feel it is of a much lower quality
> than the rest, or that it seeems rushed. However, I recall that Douglas
> Adams used to love deadlines. He liked the whooshing sound they made as
> they went by.
Julian: Heh. Wish I appreciated Adams' work more.
>
> > Heinlein often goes off into long dialogs that amount to a debate on
> > some principle. When I finally notice this, I usually realize I
> > enjoyed it anyway. But in TNOTB there seems to be an excessive amount
> > of sniping in what amounts to a struggle over who is in charge - a
> > pissing contest if you will. Many are over pretty petty points.
>
> As he was ex-military I don't find it surprising that the topic of
> command was very important to RAH. My take on why he spent so much time
> on the bickerings between 4 very intelligent people who were usually
> mature and collaborated well is that he was exploring the nature of
> command, probably for the benefit of the reader rather than himself. I
> suspect he was trying to make several points, including (1) there can
> only be one captain on a ship, and that the rest of the crew must accept
> that without question (especially in times of crisis); (2) if bad
> command decisions are met with resistance, disobediance or obstruction
> the whole unit becomes disfunctional; and possibly (3) civvies, no
> matter how capable and wise, are unlikely to ever make good soldiers.
>
Julian and Winston: It's somewhat more than just the nature of command.
Used to be we'd hear the phrase "prompt and cheerful obedience" a lot.
That pertains to the nature of a subordinate's following orders.
It goes way back. According to Gibbon, the Emperor Julian used the
phrase addressing his troops ca. 360 C.E. Sometimes the concept is
overstated, i.e., "Obey all orders of your superior officers with an
alacrity that will not give you time to inquire into their propriety."
--Lord Nelson. ["I Vas Chust Followink Orders," supposedly doesn't work
any more (although what we say about interrogations of prisoners during
recent conflicts is a mystery to me).] Patton referred to the concept
when he taught at the tank school between the World Wars.
The major lesson in TNOTB as pertains to the "who's in charge" or the
"Lifeboat Rules" parts isn't how to command. It's how to follow.
None of the four ever quite "get it."
The subtext, I think, is to demonstrate that as between married
partners, Lifeboat Rules can only rarely and briefly pertain. Otherwise,
the marriage is heading for dissolution or divorce.
There's really quite a lot expressed and implied about the relationships
between married partners, and the nature of the marriage relationship,
in TNOTB (all versions) that merits and yet is not commonly commented
upon.
Cheers to you both.
jeanette
John Tayman, a non-fiction book I have recommended here, there is a
section about a man who Mark Twain greatly admired and planned to write
a book about. If I remember correctly, Tayman said that scholars have
recently determined that instead of a non-fiction book, he wrote
Connecticut Yankee using the man as his model--I have the impression
they feel Twain was under some pressure to produce.
Jeanette
John David Galt
> " ... the purpose of the "don't try this with dial-up" warning was so
> that if someone ignored us and didn't like the results we could at least
> say "we TOLD YOU not to do it!". There is no technical reason why
> someone with dial-up couldn't make it work with sufficient patience ...".
I have found Sun Download Manager (download free from java.sun.com) VERY
helpful in getting multi-megabyte downloads to work over dial-up.
It lets you resume any ftp or http download from where you left off, even
over multiple sessions.
Its weakness is sites such as gnu.org and yahoogroups.com which hide the
actual URL of the file you are downloading, either because they want to
keep track of your logins or to make you use mirror sites. Sometimes you
can work around this by viewing the source of the web page, but sometimes
the web page writer succeeds in shutting you out.
David M. Silver
"David M. Silver" <ag.pl...@verizon.net> wrote:
> There is a certain amount of myth -- whether or not mis-information or
> merely unexamined opinion -- about Heinlein's 1980 published novel, _The
> Number of the Beast_.
>
> According to the myth, Heinlein slowly wrote a precursor to the novel
> over a period from somewhere about the autumn of 1976 through an evening
> shortly before a trip planned for November 1977 when he finished it and
> left the final full manuscript for Ginny to read and assess, as usual,
> and went to bed.
>
> Certain things are said about this period. Heinlein's intentions were to
> write a tribute to writers gone before [ ... lots of snippage] and he
> experienced difficulty in deciding where to limit and focus.
>
[ ... ]
>
> According to Ginny she read through the manuscript with growing
> puzzlement. It was a strange book, the writing _perfectly competent_,
> yet to her "it just wasn't a Heinlein novel."
>
> Briefly, Heinlein's plot had two newlywed couples pursued across
> alternate realities by alien villains he called "Black Hats."
[ ... ]
>
> Ginny concluded she had to tell Robert the manuscript simply wasn't
> publishable
[ ... ]
>
> I think we might profit by discussing the original manuscript which is
> available from the Heinlein Archives now since July 2007.
>
> What really made the manuscript not a Heinlein novel [ ... ]?
> Does that comport with our various views of what a reading of the
> original story reveals? Was it competently written? Why not, if not?
[ ... ]
>
> Finally, why turn it into a parody, as some have termed it, when it was
> rewritten? Is either the original or the rewritten version a parody, or
> something else?
I've taken my time reading and comparing early parts of the original and
rewritten novels. Let's first talk about what was retained from the
original, in whole or part.
Missing from all parts of the archived original are the front eighteen
chapters (all of the Part One, entitled "The Mandarin's Butterfly" from
which we may wish to infer Heinlein retained in the rewritten novel,
edited in some way or another. One thing we may choose to believe:
Heinlein probably changed the name of some characters -- or gave them
names, i.e., Professor of Mathematics Neil O'Heret Brain, Forest Ranger
Bennie Hibol, our first two beasts, to comport with the joke latter
written involving anagrams of his names and pennames and the name of his
wife, making all of the "beasts" either himself or Ginny. I cannot think
of any other obvious edit in the first third of the novel. He may have
shortened or lengthened it. He might have expanded the small amount of
chit chat about "life boat rules' or perhaps not. There's not much of it
there initially.
The versions change at the point that the Russian ornithopter first
appears. In the original there was no ornithopter, no Russian of any
political persuasion or manners, no British, no Russian colony, no
British colony, no Bertie, no Bertie's alcoholic wife, no "Squeaky"
(Colonel Iver Hines-Jones -- our third beast). There is no invention of
a colonized Mars at all, no exiled convicts reminiscent of the Georgia
north american colony or Australia, and especially no "wogs" who turn
out to be not fully evolved "beasts," or Black Hats.
By the way, there is a minor character named Bean. Anyone pick up on the
reason perhaps why? Would have been better if his first name had been
Norman. Or was it Normal?
Instead the colonial Barsoom invented by Heinlein what we got in the
original NOTB is Edgar Rice Burroughs' Barsoom, with Dejah Thoris, from
the original _A Princess of Mars_ (mainly off stage until the end of the
sequence), and John Carter's son, Carthoris and Princess Thuvia of
Tharth, Carthoris' wife, from _Thuvia, Maid of Mars_. John Carter,
himself, and his sidekick, the Green martian Tars Tarkas are also kept
off stage, away on some adventure or another. There are some
Heinlein-invented inhabitants of Barsoom, three Green martians, and some
nine Red martian female "servants." There is one addition: contact has
been established between Barsoom and Terra. This Terra maintains an
embassy and three corporations, America Express, Thos. Cooke, and Hilton
have monopolized trade and send very rich tourists to visit Mars and
take sight-seeing tours. Some Green martian warriors are employed as
tour guides/guards at cheap wages that however far surpass their usual
warrior's wage. That's it. A miniscule amount of trade, which the
martians cannot really afford to pay for, is the only other item, plus a
treaty the missing John Carter negotiated.
So what happens for the duration of visit on Barsoom? Not much, but it's
not all that bad. Mostly Zeb and Jake hobnob with Carthoris and
Barsoomian mathematician Mobyas Toras, trying to keep their promise to
Carthoris to provide him and his nation with a copy of the irrelevancy
vehicle Jake has invented. That requires most of it be manufactured by
the Red martians, and the two civilizations have to develop a common
mathematics as well as the Barsoomians develop understanding of Terran
manufacturing. While they do that, Deety and Hilda spend their time
sight-seeing with the three Green martians who originally discovered
them and hobnobing with Thuvia (and later, with the original Dejah
Thoris). An affinity and mutual admiration develops.
And while sight-seeing Deety and Hilda make a discovery. In a museum of
ancient history, they discovered preserved actual dead bodies of a race
of unsuccessful invaders of Barsoom known to the martians as Panki
(Pankera, in the singular), who are, indisputably, identical to the
Beasts or Black Hats who have driven them to flight.
Once, long ago, they invaded and were beaten back and annihilated by
what remains of the Barsoomian civilization, fighting with what were
essentially merely swords and rifles (well, the rifles are a little more
powerful than what we have, but not all that much) and much less than
20th century technology. This establishes some hope in Zeb and Jake that
the contemplated war with the Beasts may be successful.
While all this hobnobbing went on there were discussions about some
interested, but not-too-related topics, mainly things John Carter
abolished after he conquered Barsoom, e.g., slavery, compelled gladiator
combat, but also others such as trade economics. And there's another
little surprise discovery: the analog Terra is infested/controlled by
the Beasts who try to have Carthoris arrest and turn over Zeb to the
Earth government for prosecution for murder, the murder of three, a
professor and his daughter, and the host of a party where Zeb was last
seen.
So, generally, as we leave Barsoom for wherever Heinlein's various
versions take us, what do you think, especially anyone who has read it,
about the original NOTB? Oh, by the way, there's little if any of the
"who's in charge" discussion in the original.
What might Heinlein have felt it added to the rewrite? What might have
Heinlein felt the new, improved colonial Barsoom added?
>
> What do you think?
David M. Silver
Let's put any discussion of "who's in charge" in the most general
category, perhaps what Heinlein was really getting at.
For years, as many do, I've viewed the discussion as examplars of mainly
military command and leadership (some call this "management"), but I'm
not any longer convinced that Heinlein intended it be so limited.
There is a very broad application of the situations Heinlein portrays to
critiques of interspousal relationships. Perhaps that's closer; but then
again, there's a term today for the even more general topic that
Heinlein may be having his characters discuss and portray: "emotional
intelligence," or "social-emotional intelligence." Look it up.
It is said to cover something that engineers (and nerds) are
stereotypically unable or lack ability to do: evaluate the effect of
factors they cannot measure exactly -- the intangibles inherent in human
relationships.
Jake's reactions to the orders of Hilda, his wife, while she is "in
charge" perhaps best illustrate this lack.
Does anyone agree with me that this is most likely of the topic Heinlein
intended to portray at the level he wished it be viewed?
>
> What might Heinlein have felt it added to the rewrite? What might have
> Heinlein felt the new, improved colonial Barsoom added?
--
John David Galt
> So, generally, as we leave Barsoom for wherever Heinlein's various
> versions take us, what do you think, especially anyone who has read it,
> about the original NOTB? Oh, by the way, there's little if any of the
> "who's in charge" discussion in the original.
I have a first paperback edition and there's plenty of it there. If it
was ever revised, I'd love to know when and why.
Of course, the funniest thing about its model of the overall universe is
how it has to somehow accommodate all the varieties of time travel in
other works of fiction, for instance Leiber's "Try and Change the Past",
Vance's "Rumfuddle", and Niven's "The Flight of the Horse". Those last
two and TNOTB each claim to be able to take you to ANY place/time, but
have natural laws about how time travel works which thoroughly
contradict each other. It's almost enough to make me believe in
quantum mechanics.
kke...@gmail.com
wrote:
Remember the professor's machine has three time axis so one may differ
from another in rules.