REREADING ROBERT HEINLEIN
Bruce C. Baker
David M. Silver
"Bruce C. Baker" <b...@undisclosedlocation.net> wrote:
> http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/89383/
Interesting reference, Bruce. It led to two interesting reviews
published by Mrs. (Ms?) Martini published in the Locus (Online)
Roundtable. One was particularly intriguing so I posted a response to
it. See,
http://www.locusmag.com/Roundtable/2009/11/more-rah-rereading.html
Thanks,
--
David M. Silver
http://www.heinleinsociety.org
"The Lieutenant expects your names to shine!"
Robert Anson Heinlein, USNA '29
Lt.(jg), USN, R'td
Raxon
On Dec 4, 3:24 pm, "David M. Silver" <ag.plus...@verizon.net> wrote:
<--- suitably clipped to avoid extraneous noise --->
David M. Silver
<74f8c21a-86b9-46ec...@p30g2000vbt.googlegroups.com>,
Raxon <raymond...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Nice discussion on the site. I added my own comments there.
[snip]
> See,http://www.locusmag.com/Roundtable/2009/11/more-rah-rereading.html
About the questions you raise in comments on the Locus site. I don't
think Heinlein intended any symbolic reference to John Thomas Stuart's
character. Some background on the "raising John Thomases" joke is
probably necessary to understand fully what Heinlein did to Alice
Dalgliesh, his editor at Scribners, by employing those given names for
his protagonist. What follows is probably more than you ever wanted to
know, and more than I really feel comfortable posting on the Locus site,
although it's perfectly appropriate here.
First, the slang usage didn't originate with Heinlein. The name "John
Thomas" is an old British slang immortalized in D.H. Lawrence�s
notorious novel, Lady Chatterley�s Lover, by being the name given to his
own sexual appendage by the gamekeeper with whom Constance Chatterley
has her major affair. Dalgliesh claimed to be and probably was quite
familiar with British classics. We have her to thank for causing the
import to the United States of the classic The Wind in the Willows. She
also wrote her own children's novels, specializing in those intended for
girls and small children.
Whatever her other merits, however, she had in Heinlein's opinion a
substantial disqualification as his editor. She saw "from her Olympian
heights as an amateur Freudian" far too many "dangerously evil
connotations" in his writings.
She had insisted that Heinlein make certain cuts in Red Planet (1949)
including removal of what she considered improper sexual references,
i.e., that Martians have six genders and Willis lays a clutch of eggs.
See, Appendix A to Grumbles from the Grave. After some serious argument,
Heinlein adopted the practice of usually acceding to her wishes, after
first allowing her a preview of each novel before entering into a
contract for it--she was supposedly the expert on what children's
librarians and school boards would accept.
In 1952, however, after she had once agreed it was fit for publication
and signed a contract, she again reviewed that year's juvenile, The
Rolling Stones, and sent him a "rather horrid" letter that "quite
offended" him, in which she changed position to decide it contained
reference to "abnormal sexual practices" and other objectionable matter
which she demanded be removed, including an anecdote in which a
Vermonter makes a pet of a cow, "--same as you might a good hunting
dog," also that "Flat cats seem to me a trifle too Freudian in their
pulsing love habits" (referring to the fact flat cats responded to
petting as do cats or dogs), and finally that naming the prospector "Old
Charlie" was objectionable because the first name of the founder and
president of Scribners was Charles. Heinlein responded directly to
Dalgliesh by performing a Freudian analysis on one of Dalgliesh's own
girls' books. Salient parts are contained at pages 65-7 of Grumbles
(Heinlein's March 7, 1952 to Dalgliesh in Cp. III, "The Slicks and
Scribner's Juveniles").
I'll quote only a little over one paragraph from the text of Heinlein's
letter (p. 66):
"Following your theory, I really must point out that the treatment of
Rusty in _Along Janet's Way_ [written by Miss Dalgliesh] is extremely
significant (to a good Freudian) [Dalgliesh kept telling him to consult
one] and highly symbolic, both in secondary sex behavior and in
sublimation phenomena--in fact, not the sort of book to put in the hands
of a young girl. That business with the nightgown, for example. From the
standpoint of a good Freudian, every writer (you and I among others)
unconsciously uses symbols which are simply reeking with the poisonous
sexual jungles of our early lives and our ancestries. What would a
half-baked analyst make of that triangular scene between the girl, the
young man, and the male dog--and the nightgown? Of the phallic symbolism
and the fetishism in the dialogue that followed? And all this in a book
intended for young girls?
"Honest, Alice Dalgliesh, I don't think you write dirty books. But
neither do I--and lay off my flat cats, will yuh? **** "
Heinlein's reply caused her to pull in her horns for a time, but she
tried another red pencil tactic again concerning the next juvenile and
looked as though she intended to continue forever. Lady Chatterley's
Lover was quite well known, accessible, and much in the news by the
1950s. I had checked out and read a [somewhat expurgated] copy from the
LA Public Library by my freshman year in high school (1956). Perhaps to
prove a point to himself about Dalgliesh's naivete and actual ignorance
of British literature, Heinlein deliberately slipped the name by her in
his next novel after Dalgliesh returned to trying to cause him to make
unwelcome cuts (1954). Perhaps, the joke worked; for it appears to have
flown right past Dalgliesh. Alice never referred, so far as her letters
to Heinlein are concerned, to any unusual meaning for "John Thomas,"
although it's evident she back-stabbed him on other occasions to
reviewers and her employer.