Heinlein in Dimension: Relevant or Malevolent?
Alexei & Cory Panshin
I've been putting up in The Critics Lounge on my
webpage, Alexei Panshin's The Abyss of Wonder, at
http://www.panshin.com, I've just posted the first
of five installments of _Heinlein in Dimension_.
I will be putting up the entirety of the book during
the next couple of months.
It was a surprise to me when I got online about five
years ago to find that HiD, my first published book,
written back in 1965, was an object of controversy
here on alt.fan.Heinlein.
I've seen remarks from some people who thought the
book was fair and perceptive -- even prophetic of
Heinlein's later work. On the other hand, there were
rather more people for whom _Heinlein in Dimension_
was a dirty word. I found myself described as "lower
than wormshit" for the unacceptable things I'd had to
say there.
What those awful things were, I can only guess. When
I asked one detractor, his answer was, "You ought to
know. You said them." And that wasn't much help.
To my mind, I was doing four things in HiD, and none
of them was attacking Heinlein. I was writing about
the career of a still-active SF writer, which nobody
had done before. I was making an inventory of Heinlein's
work and setting it in order. I was gathering whatever
previous comment on Heinlein's work I could find, and
laying down a basis for further discussion by agreeing
with it, disagreeing with it, or modifying it. And I
was setting forth some observations of my own.
I thought of the book as a discussion starter, and not
a final word. It was intended to only be a beginning,
and it says as much.
I never thought for a moment that thirty-seven years
later, HiD would remain the sole attempt to date to
assess Heinlein's work as a whole -- at least as far
as the time it was written. If the book still looms
large, that has to be the fault of the people with more
perspective than I and a completed body of work to deal
with who have not yet written commentary that sees
Heinlein more clearly than I did in 1965.
I mean, if there is one thing that HiD's detractors
and I can agree on, it is that there's no way that
_Heinlein in Dimension_ should be any sort of last word.
Before I'd let that happen, I'd write on Heinlein myself
with different emphases and different observations --
and I have, too.
Because I was trying to initiate a conversation and
not to pick fights or to present anything like a final
word, over the years when I've run across someone
cursing my name for having written this book and
condemning it out of hand, I've dropped them a line
and asked them to quote whatever it was they found
objectionable and talk with me about it. For all
they knew, I might agree with their criticism now.
And, time and again, I'd get an answer which said
they hadn't read the book recently and would need to
reread it to get up to speed. They would get back
to me with their objections in a week or so. Only
none of those promised follow-up notes ever came.
That's been a disappointment to me. I hate to be
rude, but there are times when I think that you folks
really aren't very curious about getting to the bottom
of Heinlein, but only in using Heinlein as a convenient
excuse to cheer and jeer. And in the absence of serious
Heinlein discussion, you mistake HiD's first approximations
for hostility and take shots at it for not cheering hard
enough in just the right way, when its real limitation is
that its frame of reference isn't large enough and much
more remains to be said.
My suspicion is that most of those who badmouth HiD
have never actually read the book. Well, now is your
opportunity to see for yourselves what it does and
doesn't say, and what its strengths and weaknesses
actually are. After that, we can get into deeper waters.
Alexei Panshin
"There are more to everything than its appearance."
--Chinese Fortune Cookie
James Gifford
> After that, we can get into deeper waters.
So, Alexei, you're back to start another thread. I find it truly curious
that, like the proverbial bad penny or B5's "Mr. Bester," you keep
turning up just long enough to cause confusion and chaos, and then
disappear for months whenever the questions get too pointed and
insistent.
If you have any deeper waters, they're obscured by the shallow haze that
permeates all of your writings and postings.
Fair warning, not that you're entitled to it: I'm about to kick yours
and Earl Kemp's asses all over cyberspace, and unlike you two
raconteurs, I have documentation.
--
| James Gifford - Nitrosyncretic Press |
| http://www.nitrosyncretic.com for the Heinlein FAQ & more |
| Tired of auto-spam... change "not" to "net" for replies |
Colin Campbell
with the perception of "the Heinlein individual," and the darkness that
entered RAH's stories in "The period of alienation."
I think the rabid reaction against the book was because it contains
criticism, which scifi audiences were not accustomed to. It points out
inconsistencies and tendencies that adulators do not want pointed out. It
mentions Heinlein's strengths and weaknesses as a writer; I guess he's
supposed to have only strengths.
But Damon Knight pointed out strengths and weaknesses in Heinlein's work
in IN SEARCH OF WONDER; maybe he got away with it by titling the chapter,
ONE SANE MAN.
I always wanted to hear what Panshin had to say about the novels
subsequent to MOON IS A HARSH MISTRESS. In fact, I'd like to hear what
_any_ critic has to say about the later novels. They were barely even
reviewed in the SF magazines.
In article <3C507BDC...@enter.net>, Alexei & Cory Panshin
<to...@enter.net> wrote:
> It was a surprise to me when I got online about five
> years ago to find that HiD, my first published book,
> written back in 1965, was an object of controversy
> here on alt.fan.Heinlein.
>
> I've seen remarks from some people who thought the
> book was fair and perceptive -- even prophetic of
> Heinlein's later work. On the other hand, there were
> rather more people for whom _Heinlein in Dimension_
> was a dirty word. I found myself described as "lower
> than wormshit" for the unacceptable things I'd had to
> say there.
>
> What those awful things were, I can only guess. When
> I asked one detractor, his answer was, "You ought to
> know. You said them." And that wasn't much help.
--
Colin Campbell
Steve Burwen
"Alexei & Cory Panshin"
>
> Alexei Panshin
>
> "There are more to everything than its appearance."
> --Chinese Fortune Cookie
>
"There are less to your book than its appearance." :-)
Actually, I enjoyed reading HiD, even though I did not always agree with its
conclusions.
But I thought I'd make one point. IIRC, at one place in the book you say
"Heinlein's grasp of politics has always been remarkably frail." Something
like that. As it's been 30 years since I read it, if I'm mis-remembering
this, or if you didn't actually write that, then please ignore the following
comments.
Anyway, it's well-known that Heinlein was quite involved with grass-roots
level politics and political party activities for some years. So I would
expect his understanding of practical politics to be very good. So when you
make blanket statements like this that are obviously incorrect, it calls
into question the other aspects, and possibly the entire body of, your
criticism, and makes people suspicious who might otherwise have found
something of value in your book.
--Steve B.
Bill Dennis
"Steve Burwen" <magel...@earthlink.net> wrote
in message
news:qO448.12678$Fh4.1...@newsread1.prod.itd.ea
rthlink.net...
>
> "Alexei & Cory Panshin"
> >
> > Alexei Panshin
> >
> > "There are more to everything than its
appearance."
> > --Chinese Fortune Cookie
> >
>
>
> "There are less to your book than its
appearance." :-)
>
> Actually, I enjoyed reading HiD, even though I
did not always agree with its
> conclusions.
>
> But I thought I'd make one point. IIRC, at one
place in the book you say
> "Heinlein's grasp of politics has always been
remarkably frail." Something
> like that. As it's been 30 years since I read
it, if I'm mis-remembering
> this, or if you didn't actually write that, then
please ignore the following
> comments.
>
Actually, what that statement means is that
"Anyone whose politics are different from my own
MUST have a frail grasp of of politics."
--
Bill Dennis
http://peoriatimesobserver.com
http://billdennis.net
Alexei & Cory Panshin
I don't remember ever having written anything like your
quote, and it doesn't sound to me like something I'm likely
to have said. But if you do find it, point it out to me, and
we can talk about it.
Steve Burwen
"Alexei & Cory Panshin" <to...@enter.net> wrote in message
news:3C5119B0...@enter.net...
Alexei,
If I've erred, I stand corrected. As I said, it's been 30 years. --Steve B.
Alexei & Cory Panshin
> So, Alexei, you're back to start another thread. I find it truly curious
> that, like the proverbial bad penny or B5's "Mr. Bester," you keep
> turning up just long enough to cause confusion and chaos, and then
> disappear for months whenever the questions get too pointed and
> insistent.
What pointed and insistent question do you want me to answer?
> If you have any deeper waters, they're obscured by the shallow haze
> that permeates all of your writings and postings.
So what have I said that you find hazy?
> Fair warning, not that you're entitled to it: I'm about to kick yours
> and Earl Kemp's asses all over cyberspace, and unlike you two
> raconteurs, I have documentation.
I don't know what you think you have documentation of --
but if you want to check out its authenticity with me, I'm
willing to verify my signature.
As for kicking my ass all over cyberspace -- I wrote a
song for you. It's called "Why Are You So Mad?" The lyrics
will go up with the next half-a-dozen lyrics I post on my
site.
Oliver Gampe
(in <3C507BDC...@enter.net>)
> have never actually read the book. Well, now is your
> opportunity to see for yourselves what it does and
> doesn't say, and what its strengths and weaknesses
> actually are. After that, we can get into deeper waters.
OK, so I read the first part and what you had to say about "Lifeline".
I agree that the story is not really one of the best, but some points
you mention are IMO just ridiculous.
Just some examples:
> "Why Pinero would build his machine in the first place is never
> explained,
Because he could. End of story.
When you do research and come to a conclusion that enables you to do
something that has never been done before, you do it. Otherwise the
research was in vain.
> nor how it was built;
That would have made a really interesting story, really really.
> and Pinero does not seem to realize that it is
> his own act of marketing his predictions that brings his death upon
> him. "
It is not. It is "fate". The story makes quite clear that in the
described universe there is no way to change the length of one's life.
(At least that's the idea I got when I read it and maybe I got that
wrong.)
> Would he still have died from some other cause at the same exact
> moment he predicted if he hadn't made his machine public?
I think this question is answered in the story when you read between the
lines and the answer is "yes".
In the summary you write:
> "It is found at the end that Pinero knew of his own death and
> apparently was able to accept it quite calmly.
So there you got the answer. He knew he couldn't change his life-span,
so why worry about death when there is absolutely nothing you can do
about it?
(Because the machine doesn't tell *how* people are going to die, there
is no way to prevent anything. Just dropping dead is not a very common
cause of death, but I'm told it happens.)
> He states that his motivation in making the machine public is to make
> money -- yet the death he knows is coming is very close as the story
> opens and he hardly has any time to enjoy the money that he makes.
True. He should have said "I want to become famous before I die, because
I know this will happen very soon". But he didn't, because he was a
liar. (That's my suggestion :-)
I didn't read past "Heinlein's first period" at the moment, but this
will change soon, I hope.
--
Pasta la mista
Oliver
Today's Teaser:
Time is what is missing when you've got everything else.
Steve Burwen
"Oliver Gampe"
>
> > and Pinero does not seem to realize that it is
> > his own act of marketing his predictions that brings his death upon
> > him. "
>
> It is not. It is "fate". The story makes quite clear that in the
> described universe there is no way to change the length of one's life.
> (At least that's the idea I got when I read it and maybe I got that
> wrong.)
>
Pinero knew when he would die, but he seems quietly resigned to it in the
story.
--Steve B.
Stephen Jordan
<ka-snip the opening of this thread>
I had not read Heinlein in Dimension until the opportunity was presented
on Panshin's site as referenced in the first post on this thread. I look
forward to reading the rest of the book as it is posted on the site.
Having done so, I may or may not be as upset as others seem to be,
especially Jim Gifford.
Anyhoo, I note in the first installment that Mr. Panshin refers to _If
This Goes On..._. He writes (wrote) that the headquarters of The Cabal
was located in a cave in southern Arizona:
> Lyle manages to make his way to the headquarters of the Cabal
> (located in a gigantic and unknown cave in southern Arizona), and
> takes part in the revolution that throws the Prophet out.
Boys and girls, RAH is known to us as a prophet, but I am here to tell
you that there IS such a cave. Now, here's the interesting part: that
cave was discovered near Benson, Arizona by two explorers, Tufts and
Tenen, in 1974 (35 years after Street and Smith's copyright date of the
story, 1939, 1940) on property owned by James A. and Lois M. Kartchner.
Its discovery was kept secret until 1978. The State of Arizona accepted
the grant of the property in 1988. It is now a State park, named
Kartchner Caverns State Park.
Hmmmm.
Steve J
--
Dear Lord, give me chastity and self-restraint.....but not yet, O Lord,
not yet!
--Saint Augustine
Skylark
<mycro...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Anyhoo, I note in the first installment that Mr. Panshin refers to _If
>This Goes On..._. He writes (wrote) that the headquarters of The Cabal
>was located in a cave in southern Arizona:
>
>> Lyle manages to make his way to the headquarters of the Cabal
>> (located in a gigantic and unknown cave in southern Arizona), and
>> takes part in the revolution that throws the Prophet out.
>
>Boys and girls, RAH is known to us as a prophet, but I am here to tell
>you that there IS such a cave. Now, here's the interesting part: that
>cave was discovered near Benson, Arizona by two explorers, Tufts and
>Tenen, in 1974 (35 years after Street and Smith's copyright date of the
>story, 1939, 1940) on property owned by James A. and Lois M. Kartchner.
>Its discovery was kept secret until 1978. The State of Arizona accepted
>the grant of the property in 1988. It is now a State park, named
>Kartchner Caverns State Park.
>
>Hmmmm.
>
I wonder if that cave in Arizona is the same one that John Carter's
body lay in during his first "out-of-body" excursion to Barsoom?
(Chapter 1 of _A Princess of Mars_ being entitled "On the Arizona
Hills")
--
Skylark
"Any day you learn something new and useful is a GOOD day."
Dr. Rufo
<snip>
>I wonder if that cave in Arizona is the same one that John Carter's
>body lay in during his first "out-of-body" excursion to Barsoom?
>(Chapter 1 of _A Princess of Mars_ being entitled "On the Arizona
>Hills")
If the two caves are the same then Captain John Carter of Virginia only
saw the barest beginning of it. I believe he says in that first chapter to
which you alude that he could see the entrance from where he had lain
down. The cave(s) in "If this goes on . . ." were much more fully
explored. This would be a clear possibility/certainty considering the
elapsed time (years) between the two events. It would be a clear example
of the First Law of the Multiverse(s): The Law of the Conservation of
Fictons (or would that be "ficta"?)
Dr. Rufo
Pax Vobiscum
Alexei & Cory Panshin
If you understand that in _Heinlein in Dimension_ I was writing
from the point of view of someone primarily interested in how
science fiction stories are thought of and constructed, you may be
forgiving of what otherwise might appear to be nitpicking.
It's not that the points I raised about "Life-Line" can't be
answered but that they are "story problems" that Heinlein-the-
beginning-writer ought to have recognized and addressed and didn't.
Clearly, the first story piece that came to Heinlein was the
concept of a machine that could foretell the length of a person's
life. And he followed it up by asking himself, "What would
happen to a person who was fool enough to try to make money
from such a machine?" And he answered himself, "The life
insurance industry would arrange his death as an impediment
to their accustomed profits."
That was Heinlein's basic story idea, and he sat down and
wrote it. With Pinero's self-knowledge of the time of his
own death the ironic kicker.
A later and more experienced Heinlein would have asked
himself more questions before he began to write: How
did Pinero conceive of the possibility of a machine of
this kind in the first place? Having thought of it, why
and how did he build it? What made him (or, more important,
his clients) believe in the reliability of the machine's
predictions? What distinguishes the people who want to
know when they will die so they can profit by it from the
people who don't want to know when they will die because
the knowledge frightens them? Why didn't Pinero anticipate
that the life insurance industry would be pissed if his
machine cost them money? Why didn't the life insurance
industry make an offer to Pinero that he couldn't refuse
and use the machine to make increased profit for themselves?
If the machine was easy and obvious enough that a Pinero could
conceive and build it, why, in the entire length of the Future
History isn't his result ever duplicated?
A later and more experienced Heinlein would have thought
of all these questions and many more and would have scattered
"answers" to them through his story. He wouldn't depend on
you to come up with explanations sixty years later. Especially
since the "answers" you supply are Pinero "built the machine
because he could. End of story." and you have to "read between
the lines."
The technical term for this is "handwaving." :-)
"Life-Line" was a first story. It had moves that other SF
of the time didn't have. Enough of them to cause a teen-age
Isaac Asimov to sit up and take notice and turn him into
Heinlein's first fan. But by sound story standards, it was
comparatively crude and first-order. Both/and.
And one more thing. "Life-Line" presents a philosophical
stance toward cause-and-effect and determinism which you
express when you speak of "fate" and things being what they are
in the story because they are what they are. This is also
the stance taken in Heinlein's time travel stories, "By
His Bootstraps" and "All You Zombies--".
Did Heinlein think that human action was meaningful or
that our fate is predetermined?
_Heinlein in Dimension_ only begins to wonder.
Jane Davitt
>
> A later and more experienced Heinlein would have thought
> of all these questions and many more and would have scattered
> "answers" to them through his story. He wouldn't depend on
> you to come up with explanations sixty years later. Especially
> since the "answers" you supply are Pinero "built the machine
> because he could. End of story." and you have to "read between
> the lines."
>
> The technical term for this is "handwaving." :-)
>
> "Life-Line" was a first story. It had moves that other SF
> of the time didn't have. Enough of them to cause a teen-age
> Isaac Asimov to sit up and take notice and turn him into
> Heinlein's first fan. But by sound story standards, it was
> comparatively crude and first-order. Both/and.
>
>
>
>
I don't think anyone would expect someone's first published story to
be a model of perfection. Writing style evolves. I have often
discovered an author by reading a book from the middle of their
career and then been a little surprised at how different their first
book was. Reginald Hill's 'A Clubbable Woman" for instance has a
rather different Dalziel from the one we meet in later novels. But
you also have to remember than an editor demands a certain quality
level; he doesn't care if he's blighting someone's dreams by
rejecting their maiden effort. So it's unlikely that Life-Line stood
out as being below par.
However, the points you are picking at seem to me to be ones that
would be valid only if Life-Line were a novel. A short story has to
be ..well, short. Describing the minutiae of building the machine
would have been tedious; do I care what size screws he used or if he
ran out of duct tape and it was Sunday night and all the shops were
closed? I don't think so. In a novel, devoting a few pages to that
sort of description is fair enough. In a short story, it would be
swiftly excised by an editor. Especially back in the days when
writers were paid by the word.
Jane
Bill Dennis
Science fiction doesn't have to be a dissertation
about what would happen if ... Heinlein set up a
situation in order to tell an interesting story.
He did.
Alexei & Cory Panshin
> Alexei & Cory Panshin wrote:
>
>
>>
>> A later and more experienced Heinlein would have thought
>> of all these questions and many more and would have scattered
>> "answers" to them through his story. He wouldn't depend on
>> you to come up with explanations sixty years later. Especially
>> since the "answers" you supply are Pinero "built the machine
>> because he could. End of story." and you have to "read between
>> the lines."
>>
>> The technical term for this is "handwaving." :-)
>>
>> "Life-Line" was a first story. It had moves that other SF
>> of the time didn't have. Enough of them to cause a teen-age
>> Isaac Asimov to sit up and take notice and turn him into
>> Heinlein's first fan. But by sound story standards, it was
>> comparatively crude and first-order. Both/and.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> I don't think anyone would expect someone's first published story to be
> a model of perfection. Writing style evolves. I have often discovered an
> author by reading a book from the middle of their career and then been a
> little surprised at how different their first book was. Reginald Hill's
> 'A Clubbable Woman" for instance has a rather different Dalziel from the
> one we meet in later novels. But you also have to remember than an
> editor demands a certain quality level; he doesn't care if he's
> blighting someone's dreams by rejecting their maiden effort. So it's
> unlikely that Life-Line stood out as being below par.
I didn't suggest that "Life-Line" was below par. In fact, I said
that it had virtues unknown to most science fiction of the time. But --
not unnaturally -- the story also had beginner flaws. Both/and.
> However, the points you are picking at seem to me to be ones that would
> be valid only if Life-Line were a novel. A short story has to be ..well,
> short. Describing the minutiae of building the machine would have been
> tedious; do I care what size screws he used or if he ran out of duct
> tape and it was Sunday night and all the shops were closed? I don't
> think so. In a novel, devoting a few pages to that sort of description
> is fair enough. In a short story, it would be swiftly excised by an
> editor. Especially back in the days when writers were paid by the word.
>
> Jane
I wasn't suggesting that the story should have been a novel. I
was suggesting that Heinlein wrote too early in the creative process
and that as a result the story wasn't tightly integrated. A story which
answered all the questions I raise might well have been shorter than the
one Heinlein wrote rather than longer. It just would have been a more
completely thought-through story.
Alexei Panshini
Bill Dennis
A non-denial denial. She never suggested that YOU
suggested it should have been a novel. She said
that if Heinlein had addressed all the points you
said he should have, it would have to be as long
as a novel. I agree.
> I
> was suggesting that Heinlein wrote too early in
the creative process
> and that as a result the story wasn't tightly
integrated.
Really? Other than notoriously panned books of
literary criticism, what contributions have you
made to science fiction that qualify you as an
expert on the creative process?
> A story which
> answered all the questions I raise might well
have been shorter than the
> one Heinlein wrote rather than longer.
You can't put 10 pounds of potatoes into a five
pound bag.
> It just would have been a more
> completely thought-through story.
Well, everyone is entitled to their
poorly-thought-through opinion.
Steve Burwen
"Alexei & Cory Panshin"
>
> A later and more experienced Heinlein would have asked
> himself more questions before he began to write: How
> did Pinero conceive of the possibility of a machine of
> this kind in the first place? Having thought of it, why
> and how did he build it? What made him (or, more important,
> his clients) believe in the reliability of the machine's
> predictions? What distinguishes the people who want to
> know when they will die so they can profit by it from the
> people who don't want to know when they will die because
> the knowledge frightens them? Why didn't Pinero anticipate
> that the life insurance industry would be pissed if his
> machine cost them money? Why didn't the life insurance
> industry make an offer to Pinero that he couldn't refuse
> and use the machine to make increased profit for themselves?
> If the machine was easy and obvious enough that a Pinero could
> conceive and build it, why, in the entire length of the Future
> History isn't his result ever duplicated?
>
> A later and more experienced Heinlein would have thought
> of all these questions and many more and would have scattered
> "answers" to them through his story. He wouldn't depend on
> you to come up with explanations sixty years later. Especially
> since the "answers" you supply are Pinero "built the machine
> because he could. End of story." and you have to "read between
> the lines."
>
>
>
> "There are more to everything than its appearance."
> -- Chinese Fortune Cookie
>
On the question of why the insurance industry didn't make Pinero an offer,
it seems to me you answered that question very well yourself in the book,
when you observed that Heinlein's stories are often about authority having
gone wrong. The insurance industry didn't make Pinero an offer because they
screwed up and weren't smart enough to do it differently.
On the many other questions you raise, these are perhaps interesting
historically, but writers aren't historians--they're nuts and bolts
story-tellers, and the questions you raised would have required a much
longer story. The story works well within the limits it sets, but I have no
doubt that Heinlein could have examined the issues you raise had he wanted
to.
As someone wiser that I once said, "Historians, like deaf men, give answers
to questions no man has ever asked."
Not that I'm a major critic of typical historical and historiographic
methods, I enjoy reading history almost as much as I do science stuff, but
there are limits in a short story to what an author can do with the type of
questions you pose.
--Steve B.
Nyx
news:3QX48.7830$gW4.5...@news1.rdc1.mi.home.com:
> Really? Other than notoriously panned books of
> literary criticism, what contributions have you
> made to science fiction that qualify you as an
> expert on the creative process?
Exactly. A critic is the best writer, ever, he knows all and sees all.
They're all better than Shakespeare.
Except they are too busy commenting on everyone else's work to actually
write anything of their own.
Nyx
--
"I'm not alone 'cause the tv's on." Some band on the radio.
www.bleedingprettycolours.com
aim: nyxxxxx yahoo: nyxxxx icq: 9744630
Jane Davitt
> "Bill Dennis" <dwill...@home.com> wrote in
> news:3QX48.7830$gW4.5...@news1.rdc1.mi.home.com:
>
>
>>Really? Other than notoriously panned books of
>>literary criticism, what contributions have you
>>made to science fiction that qualify you as an
>>expert on the creative process?
>>
>
> Exactly. A critic is the best writer, ever, he knows all and sees all.
> They're all better than Shakespeare.
>
> Except they are too busy commenting on everyone else's work to actually
> write anything of their own.
>
> Nyx
>
>
No, to be fair, Mr Panshin has written fiction; Rite of Passage is
one of the titles I've heard of, often when people are asking, "what
is similar in feel to a Heinlein juvenile?'
Jane
Nuclear Waste
"Alexei & Cory Panshin"
> What pointed and insistent question do you want me to answer?
A simple search at Google would anwer that question. Research, not being
your strong suit*, I am not surprised that this has eluded you.
NW
*I wish to be considered for any usenet awards given for understatement.
jump101
-- > NW
>
> *I wish to be considered for any usenet awards given for
understatement. --
In recognition of his masterful and timely gift for understating a point,
and his unerring humility when doing same, the Esteemed Entourage of the
Golden Lions of Earth do hereby bestow upon Nuclear Waste the coveted BSIA
(Barely Said It Award) with all the rights and privileges granted thereby.
And may God have mercy on his soul.
--
Steve
"If you can dream it, you can do it." - Walt Disney
eeg...@exis.net
webm...@mnsdesigns.com
http://www.mnsdesigns.com/
William Hughes
<dwill...@home.com> wrote:
> "Alexei & Cory Panshin" <to...@enter.net> wrote in
> message news:3C5440E5...@enter.net...
> > A story which
> > answered all the questions I raise might well
> have been shorter than the
> > one Heinlein wrote rather than longer.
>
> You can't put 10 pounds of potatoes into a five
> pound bag.
Sure you can, Bill. I used to pack survival kits for a living, and "putting 10
pounds of * into a five pound bag" is exactly how I used to describe it.
> > It just would have been a more
> > completely thought-through story.
>
> Well, everyone is entitled to their
> poorly-thought-through opinion.
You'd think Panshin would have learned better by now.
Those who can, do.
Those who can't, criticize.
Heinlein wrote dozens of short stories, novellas and novels. His name is
recognised damn near everywhere. He has been cited as a reference and/or an
inspiration by thousands.
Panshin has written... nothing that I can recall, aside from his endless
criticism of Heinlein.
Rusty Bill
jump101
> Exactly. A critic is the best writer, ever, he knows all and sees all.
> They're all better than Shakespeare.
>
> Except they are too busy commenting on everyone else's work to actually
> write anything of their own.
>
> Nyx
Or more succinctly... "Those who can; write. Those who can't; criticize."
Major oz
>from the point of view of someone primarily interested in how
>science fiction stories are thought of and constructed,
Perhaps we did consider that. But, on reflection, we discovered that you were
writing from the perspective of "why they aren't the way you would have done
them"
> It's not that the points I raised about "Life-Line" can't be
>answered but that they are "story problems"
.....only in your mind.
> Clearly, the first story piece that came to Heinlein was...<snip>
...whatever you thought it might have been.
> A later and more experienced Heinlein would have asked
>himself more questions before he began to write:
......so saeth thou......::sheeeshhh::
> How
did Pinero conceive of the possibility of a machine of
>this kind in the first place?
RAH didn't give a shit, neither do I, and neither should you. That wasn't his
purpose.
> Having thought of it, why
>and how did he build it?
RAH didn't give a shit, neither do I, and neither should you. That wasn't his
purpose.
>What made him (or, more important,
>his clients) believe in the reliability of the machine's
>predictions?
RAH didn't give a .............. you get the idea.
>What distinguishes the people who want to
>know when they will die so they can profit by it from the
>people who don't want to know when they will die because
>the knowledge frightens them? Why didn't Pinero anticipate
>that the life insurance industry would be pissed if his
>machine cost them money? Why didn't the life insurance
>industry make an offer to Pinero that he couldn't refuse
>and use the machine to make increased profit for themselves?
>If the machine was easy and obvious enough that a Pinero could
>conceive and build it, why, in the entire length of the Future
>History isn't his result ever duplicated?
Nobody cared -- not RAH, not us, and hardly anyone outside self-serving
academia (as distinguished from public-serving academia).
> A later and more experienced Heinlein would have thought
>of all these questions and many more and would have scattered
>"answers" to them through his story.
Bullshit. He would have dismissed them as irrelevant to the story. As would
you, if you paid attention to what readers want rather than why they should
listen to critics tell them what they should want.
>He wouldn't depend on
>you to come up with explanations sixty years later. Especially
>since the "answers" you supply are Pinero "built the machine
>because he could. End of story." and you have to "read between
>the lines."
>
> The technical term for this is "handwaving." :-)
Not so. It is: "Cut the bullshit -- tell the story". RAH built his career on
exactly this maxim.
> And one more thing. "Life-Line" presents a philosophical
>stance toward cause-and-effect and determinism...
......and I bet you hear Satan when you play the White Album backwards.
> Did Heinlein think that human action was meaningful or
>that our fate is predetermined?
Once again: He didn't give a shit. He was telling a story.
>
> _Heinlein in Dimension_ only begins to wonder.
....and Inquiring Minds want to know....
> "There are more to everything than its appearance."
> -- Chinese Fortune Cookie
If these are words you live by, I am better becoming able to understand your
career having a foundation of an anti-groupie.
cheers
oz
P.S. I think Rite of Passage is an outstanding work, have recommended it to
many youngsters, and have enjoyed it many times. The fact that it is built
from "filed off serial numbers" does not diminish its quality one bit. Stick
to what you do best and leave the navel gazing to the pros.
Steve Burwen
"jump101" <eeg...@exis.net> wrote in message
news:3c54aa72$1...@grouper.exis.net...
> The Nyxster rightly said:
>
> > Exactly. A critic is the best writer, ever, he knows all and sees all.
> > They're all better than Shakespeare.
> >
> > Except they are too busy commenting on everyone else's work to actually
> > write anything of their own.
> >
> > Nyx
>
>
> Or more succinctly... "Those who can; write. Those who can't; criticize."
>
> --
> Steve
And those who can't criticize actually read and learn to understand the
books.
--Steve B.
Mac
wrote:*************************************
Not necessarily so.
I can dream some interesting dreams involving myself and a
certain other person. But, there are definite restraints to
ensure that I can NOT do it!
---Mac
Mac
>from the point of view of someone primarily interested in how
>science fiction stories are thought of and constructed,
Then, you write.
I'm sure that, as you believe you have fully inspected the
writings and thoughts, etc., and criticized the one author, that
you are now fully qualified to do ever so much better.
So, put your money where your mouth is.
Get out into the MarketPlace!!!
Submit your many short stories and novels.
Go-for-it !!!
Let the Readers be the judge.
Oh, you don't want that?
it is "you" who gets to decide what is, and is not, "good" SF?
*********************************
> It's not that the points I raised about "Life-Line" can't be
>answered but that they are "story problems"
Well, you are entitled to believe so.
However, some of what you raised were not really "story
problems".
However, almost any story has problems in that it might have been
done differently...
Soooo, feel free to sit down and dash off several stories that do
not have the problems you appear to find so readily.
G0-FOR-IT !!
**********************
> How did Pinero conceive of the possibility of a machine of
>this kind in the first place?
>
Sorry, but I believe, from my personal perspective, that such
elements would doom that story to being "literature", and slow
the story quite a bit.
This was a short-story.
The kitchen-sink, unless the story involves plumbers fixing the
leak in the kitchen, does not necessarily NEED to be in the
story.
Let the READER ((remember him?)) use his imagination to some
slight degree. At the time the story was written perhaps the
Editor demanded action!, action!,action! and get the story going
and the Reader involved AND IF AN AUTHOR wants to sell a story
perhaps s/he will pay attention to what the Editor is demanding?
*******************
>What made him (or, more important,his clients) believe in the reliability of the machine's
>>predictions?
MAC:
Gee, I guess I'm just a poor country boy but I thought that came
across in the story very well. The machine worked. The
predictions made came about ---- wasn't there something about
reporters and a couple of tests and... etc.?
From that, even if the author didn't take me by the hand to show
how superior he was to my country boy background, it was obvious
that there would be stories about the "Machine", more
"Predictions" and....
And, what about the "Insurance Companies"????
Wasn't that mentioned in the story --- their decision to deny
anyone a policy who had been to Pinero AND had a "reading"?
*******************
***************
>What distinguishes the people who want to know when they will die so they can profit by it from the
>people who don't want to know when they will die because
>the knowledge frightens them? Why didn't Pinero anticipate
>that the life insurance industry would be pissed if his
>machine cost them money? Why didn't the life insurance
>>industry make an offer to Pinero that he couldn't refuse
>and use the machine to make increased profit for themselves?
Jeez!!!
Perhaps you need to get out just a bit more.
I've met quite a few of such people.
No need to describe them.
As for Pinero not anticipating the Insurance Company, I don't
know; perhaps he was so focused upon his theory and constructing
the machine that he did not see humans behaving as humans or a
Corporation behaving as a Corporation.
It doesn't matter.
It does NOT lessen the SHORT-story or the impact.
********************
>If the machine was easy and obvious enough that a Pinero could
>conceive and build it, why, in the entire length of the Future
>History isn't his result ever duplicated?
Why are assuming that it was easy and obvious?
Prhaps it was simply good-fortune?
As to why it was "never duplicated", frankly, who gives a
rat's-ass?
Such a supposition as that has absolutely no bearing upon the
SHORT-STORY.
******************************
> A later and more experienced Heinlein would have thought
>of all these questions and many more and would have scattered
>"answers" to them through his story.
That is one-hell-of-declaration.
Who are you to decide what a "later and more experienced
Heinlein" would have thought of the questions: my personal
opinion, AND IT IS ONLY MY PERSONAL OPINION, is that the mature
Heinlein would probably have been polite enough to listen and
then gone on and written yet more stories and more books.
If one would have been rude and discourteous enough to indulge
oneself repeatedly is such, perhaps the proper response would
have been to "MYOB" ((MindYourOwnBusiness) and Mr. Heinlein
certainly does not owe you, or me, or anyone else any kind of
attention to such questions as you raise AND CERTAINLY has no
reason to "ANSWER" them by scattering the responses throughout
the Future History.
It may come as a shock to you but neither you nor I are that
important in the Universe to demand "ANSWERS" from any author.
*************************
> And one more thing. "Life-Line" presents a philosophical
>stance toward cause-and-effect and determinism...
MAC:
Damn!
And here I thought it was just a rollicking good SHORT-STORY from
a beginning author.
*************************************
>Did Heinlein think that human action was meaningful or
>that our fate is predetermined?
MAC:
I don't know.
At least he doesn't burden the READER with philosophical claptrap
and blather. He apparently knew what the magazine and the Editor
wanted and came up with a story that he thought might meet
approval (earn him money for beer and pretzels). He simply wrote
a good SHORT STORY and the Editor agreed and, apparently, so did
the Readers.
If you believe that a story must display whether or not human
action is meaningful or human fate is predetermined, from your
vast experience of critizing this SHORT STORY, go on out and
write your own story and submit it to the MarketPlace.
*********************
jump101
Not necessarily so.
> I can dream some interesting dreams involving myself and a
> certain other person. But, there are definite restraints to
> ensure that I can NOT do it!
> ---Mac
I can identify with that... sorta.
--
Steve
"If you can dream it, you can do it." - Walt Disney
eeg...@exis.net
webm...@mnsdesigns.com
http://www.mnsdesigns.com/
David Wright
> Oliver Gampe wrote:
>
(snip)
>
> And one more thing. "Life-Line" presents a philosophical
> stance toward cause-and-effect and determinism which you
> express when you speak of "fate" and things being what they are
> in the story because they are what they are. This is also
> the stance taken in Heinlein's time travel stories, "By
> His Bootstraps" and "All You Zombies--".
>
> Did Heinlein think that human action was meaningful or
> that our fate is predetermined?
>
Judging an author's beliefs from what he wrote is a mug's game. But if one
is inclined to do so, how do you reconcile 'Elsewhen' with what you said
here. This story is from the same time period as 'Life-Line' or close
thereunto.
And of course, 'The Number of the Beast" and 'The Cat Who Walked Through
Walls' came much later than 'Elsewhen', but they seem to have a similar
'philosophical stance' totally different than 'Life-Line'
David Wright
Mac
wrote:
>Mac said:
>Not necessarily so.
>> I can dream some interesting dreams involving myself and a
>> certain other person. But, there are definite restraints to
>> ensure that I can NOT do it!
>> ---Mac
>I can identify with that... sorta.
Depending upon my chronological age the "dreams" usually
involved Olivia Hussey, Andrienne B., and the woman in LEXX
and...
The definite restraints are local laws and, "The Redhead".
And, of course, now, with the passing years, the fact that I am
largely invisible to "sweet young things" as I walk across the
University campus...
Oh, well.
---Mac
Alexei & Cory Panshin
>
> Really? Other than notoriously panned books of
> literary criticism, what contributions have you
> made to science fiction that qualify you as an
> expert on the creative process?
>
My first credential for speaking is that I've
paid my dues. I've read a lot of science fiction
and I've studied every book I could lay my hands
on about the nature, construction and meaning of
SF, with particular emphasis on work by people
who've written SF themselves.
Second, I'm the author of _Heinlein in Dimension_,
the first book to discuss the body of fiction of any
SF writer. I received the first fan writer Hugo Award
for this work. Last year, James Gifford said that
even though he had a lot of problems with the book,
it hadn't yet been superseded.
Third, I'm the author of eleven published books,
including five novels and a book of SF short stories.
My first novel, _Rite of Passage_, won the Nebula
Award.
Fourth, with my wife Cory, I'm the author of _The
World Beyond the Hill_, a book which details the
emergence and conceptual development of science
fiction. We received a Hugo Award for best non-fiction
for it in competition with books by Arthur C. Clarke,
Harlan Ellison, Robert A. Heinlein and Ursula K.
Le Guin.
Last, my credential for writing about the stories
of Robert Heinlein is exactly the same as yours for
writing anything about Heinlein (how dare you be so
presumptuous! :-) -- or about Panshin. Which is, as you
say, that everyone is entitled to his own opinion.
And that is what you get from me -- for whatever use
anyone can make of it.
> You can't put 10 pounds of potatoes into a five
> pound bag.
You can't put ten pounds of potatoes into a
5-lb. sack? Of course you can. Heinlein addresses
this question in _Glory Road_.
>
> Well, everyone is entitled to their
> poorly-thought-through opinion.
>
Yup.
Alexei Panshin
Alexei & Cory Panshin
>> And one more thing. "Life-Line" presents a philosophical
>>stance toward cause-and-effect and determinism...
> MAC:
> Damn!
> And here I thought it was just a rollicking good SHORT-STORY from
> a beginning author.
> *************************************
>
>>Did Heinlein think that human action was meaningful or
>>that our fate is predetermined?
>>
> MAC:
> I don't know.
> At least he doesn't burden the READER with philosophical claptrap
> and blather.
>
You have no patience with philosophy and no interest in it?
That's fine. But if that's the way you feel, then you're going
to miss one important aspect of Heinlein.
Heinlein _was_ interested in philosphy. It defined his
conception of SF. His name for it was a philosophical name --
"speculative fiction."
In the Schulman interview, Heinlein said: "I studied
philosophy under Will Durant many, many years ago -- this
was before he was well-known, _long_ before he was well-known;
this was back in the early Twenties -- and he first introduced
me to a wide range of philosophers; and I read 'em all; I gobbled
'em all. I suppose I've learned something from all of them, but
not necessarily what they wanted to impart."
Heinlein deliberately imbedded philosophical matters in
his stories and said so. The questions he explored most
persistently were epistemology and ontology, that is, the
nature of knowledge and the nature of reality.
Back in 1960, in PITFCS, a private forum for SF pros,
Poul Anderson said: "...Philosophical fiction is waiting
to be written. Oddly, in all the discussion which has
gone on for so many years about Heinlein, I don't recall
ever seeing it mentioned how much of his work is this
very sort of thing."
The philosophical aspect of Heinlein's writing is one
that has intrigued me over the years, and much of what
I've written about Heinlein has been explorations of it.
You could say that my "criticism" of Heinlein has had the
nature of an inquiry into the philosophy of his stories.
Your antipathy to philosophy probably means that you aren't
going to get a lot out of what I say. And you better look
elsewhere for a discussion of Heinlein in terms you already
know and agree with. Meantime, those who are intrigued with
free-will and determinism, or solipsism, or the Realm of 666,
or other philosophical matters taken up by Heinlein can see
what I have to say about them for whatever light it sheds.
Alexei Panshin
"There are to everything than its appearance."
-- Chinese Fortune Cookie
Oliver Gampe
(in <3C53F700...@enter.net>)
> Oliver Gampe wrote:
[snipped me]
> If you understand that in _Heinlein in Dimension_ I was writing
> from the point of view of someone primarily interested in how
> science fiction stories are thought of and constructed, you may be
> forgiving of what otherwise might appear to be nitpicking.
There is nothing that I have to "forgive", I was just trying to point
out what I thought of some of the questions that you asked, nitpicking
included.
> It's not that the points I raised about "Life-Line" can't be
> answered but that they are "story problems" that Heinlein-the-
> beginning-writer ought to have recognized and addressed and didn't.
Now, can they be answered or can't they? If they can, they are not
"story problems" but "reader problems". (If some readers can answer the
questions and some can't - whose fault is it?)
> Clearly, the first story piece that came to Heinlein was the
> concept of a machine that could foretell the length of a person's
> life. And he followed it up by asking himself, "What would
> happen to a person who was fool enough to try to make money
> from such a machine?" And he answered himself, "The life
> insurance industry would arrange his death as an impediment
> to their accustomed profits."
Now, you say "clearly" up there. Is it? Did you ask him? Did he say
that?
[...]
> A later and more experienced Heinlein would have asked
> himself more questions before he began to write: How
> did Pinero conceive of the possibility of a machine of
> this kind in the first place?
But this would have added nothing to the story, because the story he
wanted to tell needed the machine to be ready and working.
> Having thought of it, why
> and how did he build it?
Now, who says that he didn't think of that? All I can see is that it's
not in the story and I don't miss it.
(How was the Santa Maria built? I have no idea, but I know what came out
of it...)
> What made him (or, more important,
> his clients) believe in the reliability of the machine's
> predictions?
OK, this might be a valid argument, but I have to read the story again
to see if this is really not explained.
> What distinguishes the people who want to
> know when they will die so they can profit by it from the
> people who don't want to know when they will die because
> the knowledge frightens them?
That's an interesting point, but not needed for the story that is told.
> Why didn't Pinero anticipate
> that the life insurance industry would be pissed if his
> machine cost them money?
Perhaps he did - but he knew exactly when he would die, so why care
about things like this?
> If the machine was easy and obvious enough that a Pinero could
> conceive and build it, why, in the entire length of the Future
> History isn't his result ever duplicated?
Because it was his first story and he had no idea of how the Future
History would evolve, perhaps. But that is just an idea...
> "answers" to them through his story. He wouldn't depend on
> you to come up with explanations sixty years later.
Neither he nor the story depends on that. Only readers who don't
understand the story depend on that ;-)
> The technical term for this is "handwaving." :-)
No. It's "thinking".
> Heinlein's first fan. But by sound story standards, it was
> comparatively crude and first-order. Both/and.
But not nearly as crude as you try to make it - with bringing up
questions that can't really be applied to a short-story.
> And one more thing. "Life-Line" presents a philosophical
> stance toward cause-and-effect and determinism which you
> express when you speak of "fate" and things being what they are
> in the story because they are what they are. This is also
> the stance taken in Heinlein's time travel stories, "By
> His Bootstraps" and "All You Zombies--".
> Did Heinlein think that human action was meaningful or
> that our fate is predetermined?
One interesting question that Heinlein didn't answer in this story is
"What happens to someone whose predicted life will last another 30 years
when he holds a gun against his head and pulls the trigger?". Or jumps
off a bridge. Or takes cyanide.
But I don't criticize the story for not supplying the answer - just like
I don't criticize Jonathan Swift for writing about giant bees (or
wasps?) that - in reality - would be crushed by their own weight.
Sometimes a story is just a story...
--
Pasta la mista
Oliver
Today's Teaser:
"Whom are you?" said he, for he had been to night school.
Alexei & Cory Panshin
> there are limits in a short story to what an author can do with the type of
> questions you pose.
One of the most conspicuous differences between
Gernsbackian scientifiction stories and John Campbell's
modern science fiction was length. Modern science
fiction was shorter, more integrated. It learned to
treat things not as wonders in themselves, requiring
extended description, but as parts of greater wholes
with multiple meanings. Consquently, when something
is given in a Campbellian story, it might not be described
at all, but have half-a-dozen different connections
and implications.
Robert Heinlein would be the first master of this
technique.
One example is the .45 automatic in the opening scene
of _Beyond This Horizon_. It stands in contrast to both
the dilating door, and also to the nailpolish the men wear.
That it is a reconstruction of a historical piece is
another bit of information. That it is a sidearm to be
used in duels tells you something about the culture. That
it is the new weapon of Hamilton Felix and something unconventional
tells you something about him as a person. And so does his
delight in the intimidating noise it makes. And all of this
information is conveyed without any direct description of the
gun.
As a story, "Life-Line" took a situation out of scientifiction --
the solitary scientist with an invention whose secrets are
known only to himself -- and placed it in the public arena of
courts and newspaper reporters and life insurance companies.
This was different from previous SF, and is what made "Life-Line"
one of the initial stories of modern science fiction.
At the same time, "Life-Line" is both the earliest published
Heinlein story and at the very beginning of modern science fiction.
Consequently, it left dangling a lot of questions that more
developed modern science fiction and especially later Heinlein
would have worked through before the writing process began.
And the story would have been stronger, and no longer, for it.
That isn't a condemnation of "Life-Line." It is a statement
of how it stands in relation to other Heinlein and other science
fiction stories.
jump101
> Depending upon my chronological age the "dreams" usually
> involved Olivia Hussey, Andrienne B., and the woman in LEXX
> and...
> The definite restraints are local laws and, "The Redhead".
> And, of course, now, with the passing years, the fact that I am
> largely invisible to "sweet young things" as I walk across the
> University campus...
> Oh, well.
> ---Mac
My younger years found me fixated on Lauren Bacall, but I lean toward the
likes of Gates McFadden these days. (I shall willingly leave the Marina
Sirtis types to the rest of mankind.)
--
Steve
"If you can dream it, you can do it." - Walt Disney
eeg...@exis.net
webm...@mnsdesigns.com
http://www.mnsdesigns.com/
"Mac" <nur99-NoGreenEgg...@spiritone.com> wrote in message
news:q4fa5uca54dp6qcn3...@4ax.com...
Simon Jester
> If you understand that in _Heinlein in Dimension_ I was writing
> from the point of view of someone primarily interested in how
> science fiction stories are thought of and constructed, you may be
> forgiving of what otherwise might appear to be nitpicking.
>
>
> It's not that the points I raised about "Life-Line" can't be
> answered but that they are "story problems" that Heinlein-the-
> beginning-writer ought to have recognized and addressed and didn't.
>
As has been mentioned elsewhere, short stories are not novels. They are
often written to make a specific point - IMO, most of the "story problems"
you mention are actually irrelevent to the story.
> Clearly, the first story piece that came to Heinlein was the
> concept of a machine that could foretell the length of a person's
> life. And he followed it up by asking himself, "What would
> happen to a person who was fool enough to try to make money
> from such a machine?" And he answered himself, "The life
> insurance industry would arrange his death as an impediment
> to their accustomed profits."
>
> That was Heinlein's basic story idea, and he sat down and
> wrote it. With Pinero's self-knowledge of the time of his
> own death the ironic kicker.
>
I got the impression that the point of the story was to ask "what would be
the consequences of such an invention?" The story then investigated this as
clearly and concisely as possible, while remaining a readable story.
I would also have thought it would be very obvious that Pinero would have
checked the knowledge of his own time of death as soon as he had got the
device working - I think one of the biggest holes in the story is that
no-one (least of all a roomful of journalists) asks him.
> A later and more experienced Heinlein would have asked
> himself more questions before he began to write: How
> did Pinero conceive of the possibility of a machine of
> this kind in the first place?
RAH has been widely credited with introducing to SF the idea that
significant elements of a story should emerge through the plot, rather than
being explicitly stated in large, expository lumps.
Inventions mostly seem to be conceived through two methods: either someone
notices a need and then strives to fulfill it, or they find a new way of
doing things and then try to find something useful to do with it. The
courtroom scene implies that Pinero used the first of these two - he states
that "I predict death retail; the Amalgamated predicts it wholesale." IOW,
he brings personal service to what had previously been a matter of
statistical probabilities.
> Having thought of it, why
> and how did he build it?
Why - as stated above. How - is irrelevant to the story and would have been
very dull.
> What made him (or, more important,
> his clients) believe in the reliability of the machine's
> predictions?
Him - because he tested it. Not stated explicitly in the story, but he is
indicated to be a scientist, and this would be standard practice for a
scientist.
His clients - much of the story (the scientific committee, the press
conference, the trial and the news reports) describes how the public
attitude changes from indifference, to disbelief, through to gradual
acceptance.
> What distinguishes the people who want to
> know when they will die so they can profit by it from the
> people who don't want to know when they will die because
> the knowledge frightens them?
An interesting question, but not really the point of the story.
> Why didn't Pinero anticipate
> that the life insurance industry would be pissed if his
> machine cost them money?
I think he did. How do you think he would have acted differently if he had
anticipated that they would be pissed?
Bear in mind that he already knew his moment of death, and that it couldn't
be altered.
> Why didn't the life insurance
> industry make an offer to Pinero that he couldn't refuse
> and use the machine to make increased profit for themselves?
How could they have used the machine to make increased profit for
themselves?
By the time they had accepted that it worked, it was public knowledge; any
life assurance company that tried to use it as part of an application for
life assurance would have its customers demand the results of their tests -
which would remove the need for life assurance. Any single life assurance
company that tried to sell tests the way that Pinero did, would have run
into the same problems as him - and there would have been too much
resistance, too many vested interests for the entire industry to convert to
selling such tests.
> If the machine was easy and obvious enough that a Pinero could
> conceive and build it, why, in the entire length of the Future
> History isn't his result ever duplicated?
As has been noticed elsewhere, there is no indication that the machine was
either easy or obvious. It has been known for inventions to be build by a
talented individual, then lost and not replicated for centuries - for
example, Hero and the steam engine.
It isn't entirely clear why this short story is included in the Future
History. Assuming it belongs, there is a possible technical problem that
could prevent it being reinvented: it is apparent that the device is based
on temporal continuity throughout an individual's life - birth at one end,
death at the other, cause twists in the individual's lifeline. However,
interstellar travel would also produce such twists in the lifeline, as it is
a form of time travel - this is implicit in the fact that Andy Libby
couldn't calculate the date the starship would return to Earth in MC, and is
stated explicitly in NotB.
Consequently, any such readings taken in a spacefaring civilisation would
most often indicate the next interstellar journey. This would obviously not
have been a problem in Pinero's day.
...
> "Life-Line" was a first story. It had moves that other SF
> of the time didn't have. Enough of them to cause a teen-age
> Isaac Asimov to sit up and take notice and turn him into
> Heinlein's first fan. But by sound story standards, it was
> comparatively crude and first-order. Both/and.
>
> And one more thing. "Life-Line" presents a philosophical
> stance toward cause-and-effect and determinism which you
> express when you speak of "fate" and things being what they are
> in the story because they are what they are. This is also
> the stance taken in Heinlein's time travel stories, "By
> His Bootstraps" and "All You Zombies--".
>
> Did Heinlein think that human action was meaningful or
> that our fate is predetermined?
>
I don't believe that these three stories are meant to indicate that Heinlein
personally believed in predeterminism, any more than he believed that force
of will could change scientific laws - he was asking "what if" it could,
just as in "Waldo" he asked "what if" the latter proposition were true.
By contrast, in FF he takes the assumption that the future *isn't*
predetermined, even after Hugh and his family have been there and returned.
> _Heinlein in Dimension_ only begins to wonder.
There is one hole in "Lifeline" mentioned in HiD that does seem to be a
problem - "the overconvenience of that falling sign" (that kills one of the
journalists at the meeting). More specifically, the problem that there
should be someone in such a small group who should die so soon - everyone is
in Pinero's bed-living-room, where he is able to offer them Bourbon or
Scotch; it seems unlikely that there would be more than a couple of dozen
people, maximum.
Well, it was his first story.
Simon
--
"Hit me? My dear fellow, at this range they couldn't hit an eleph-"
Nuclear Waste
"Mac"
> Depending upon my chronological age the "dreams" usually
> involved Olivia Hussey, Andrienne B., and the woman in LEXX
> and...
> The definite restraints are local laws and, "The Redhead".
> And, of course, now, with the passing years, the fact that I am
> largely invisible to "sweet young things" as I walk across the
> University campus...
> Oh, well.
Mac, don't let Steve fool you. He is kept by a redhead of his own. Further
she may have a slight temper. He does, however, bring good cheese when he
comes to visit.
NW
Nuclear Waste
> Mac said:
>
> Not necessarily so.
> > I can dream some interesting dreams involving myself and a
> > certain other person. But, there are definite restraints to
> > ensure that I can NOT do it!
> > ---Mac
>
> I can identify with that... sorta.
Steve, you forget, I KNOW Maureen. You start looking like you are gonna
live out a few dreams and watch that redhead impose those definite
restraints in quite short order. (And rather forecefully.)
NW
jump101
--
Steve, who is dodging pots and pans after that question.
"Men occasionally stumble on the truth, but most of them pick themselves up
and hurry off as if nothing had happened." - Winston Churchill
eeg...@exis.net
webm...@mnsdesigns.com
http://www.mnsdesigns.com/
"Nuclear Waste" <baby...@2z.net> wrote in message
news:a33uqi$158bnj$1...@ID-126442.news.dfncis.de...
jump101
would be lying in a pool of my own vital fluids and hearing her screaming,
"How do I reload this darn thing???"
--
Steve
"Men occasionally stumble on the truth, but most of them pick themselves up
and hurry off as if nothing had happened." - Winston Churchill
eeg...@exis.net
webm...@mnsdesigns.com
http://www.mnsdesigns.com/
"Nuclear Waste" <baby...@2z.net> wrote in message
news:a33um6$1585bo$1...@ID-126442.news.dfncis.de...
Mac
as a critic.
I stated that, in the short-story "Lifeline" Heinlein did not
"burden the READER with philosophical claptrap and blather."
FROM THAT YOU MAKE THE STATEMENT:
"You have no patience with philosophy and no interest in it?
>That's fine. But if that's the way you feel, then you're going
>to miss one important aspect of Heinlein"
If it makes you feel better to make such a statement, then, fine.
I do not believe that the statement is accurate for the
SHORT-Story being discussed. For the moment we are not
discussing the other works of Heinlein. Only the SHORT-Story
called "Lifeline".
By the way, my degree at the University of Denver was History,
with a Minor in Chemistry and Philosophy. And, after taking
Philosophy I am still not impressed with anything that begins in
words and ends in words and does not help great effect the
well-being of humanity.
REGARDING the SHORT-story called "Lifeline" Heinlein set up a
rollicking short-story that moved right along and did not bog
down in philosophy.
As to whether or not I get a lot out of what you say due to your
stating my apathy toward philosophy might well be a reflection of
the person making the comment: or, perhaps, it might well be a
result of the trenditious writing of someone who is willing to
criticize and criticize and navel-gaze to such an extent that he
is unable to convey anything clearly and concisely to any reader,
in contrast to the author being criticized.
Again, you have made such an effort at your constant criticizing
that you obviously feel you know what a story "needs".
I am simply saying that it is time to move beyond words and put
into practice all the fine criticism in which you have engaged,
and write those many short-stories and those novels.
Go-for-it.
---Mac
*******************************
David Wright
> I really hope that your comment is not an example of your ability
> as a critic.
> I stated that, in the short-story "Lifeline" Heinlein did not
> "burden the READER with philosophical claptrap and blather."
>
> FROM THAT YOU MAKE THE STATEMENT:
> "You have no patience with philosophy and no interest in it?
> >That's fine. But if that's the way you feel, then you're going
> >to miss one important aspect of Heinlein"
>
Note that Panshi has gone from questioning about Heinlein's 'beliefs in
determinism' etc as 'shown' in Life-Line to the general statement that he
put a lot of philosophy into his works. The latter I would agree with
wholeheartedly, but IMHO, never to the detriment of telling a good tale. The
former, I would just as wholeheartedly disagree with.
He, (P), has, so far, not given any response to how he would reconcile any
attempt to claim Heinlein's belief in the strict determinism of
'Life-Line', 'All You Zombies', and 'By His Bootstraps' versus the strict
non-determinism of 'Elsewhen', 'TNOTB' and 'TCWWTW'. True, the latter two
came long after 'Life-Line', but 'Elsewhen' was among the earliest of his
stories.
David Wright
James Gifford
> I really hope that your comment is not an example of your ability
> as a critic.
AP's abilities as a critic are, IMVVHO, severely crippled by two
long-standing attitudes.
The first is that his critical filter is exceedingly fine and
exceedingly narrow. Stories cannot be too long or too short, too
literate or too common, proceed too quickly or drag, or fall outside a
dozen other narrow strictures without being decreed "flawed." AP then
proceeds to analyze these flaws according to his strange lexicon and
peculiar viewpoint.
Following the first is that AP discounts most aspects of each story's
genesis and inspiration - in fact, he often doesn't seem to know any of
these elementary facts. Even when he does, he usually dismisses them. To
him, each story must stand alone, encapsulated, and any pressures of
time or editor or venue or other non-literary influences are irrelevant.
I and most of the other critics who have written on Heinlein are aware
of the unique circumstances that inspired and shaped each work, and can
see how those influences affected the final outcome. AP seems to pride
himself on *not* being influenced by these factors.
Perhaps that's why he's still fumbling with elementary issues after some
forty years.
--
| James Gifford - Nitrosyncretic Press |
| http://www.nitrosyncretic.com for the Heinlein FAQ & more |
| Tired of auto-spam... change "not" to "net" for replies |
Nuclear Waste
> Restraints my eye! If I were to do that the last thing I would remember
> would be lying in a pool of my own vital fluids and hearing her screaming,
> "How do I reload this darn thing???"
I don't know, Mau strikes me as the sort who would grant you a slow,
lingering death...
NW
jump101
> I don't know, Mau strikes me as the sort who would grant you a slow,
> lingering death...
>
> NW
I tend to agree. The greater the transgression, the slower the demise.
Jane Davitt
You register surprise that 'They' should be classed as a horror
story because,
"The central character has both purpose and importance,
something that most of us are less than certain of, and he is in no
danger of suffering physical harm. He suffers only from being
distracted."
This strikes me as being blind to the deeper meanings of the story.
Mental anguish can be far more painful than physical torment. The
man in the story is imprisoned and labelled insane (by captors who
are well aware that he is not). This alone is a nightmare situation.
He has seen his wife, the person he loved and trusted in an
unfriendly world, revealed as an enemy. He has had to absorb the
truth that nothing in his world is real. The distraction you speak
of prevents him from finding the truth, from reaching a place of
inner peace, peopled with like minded individuals.
Not horror? I beg to differ.
I also question your judgement that he has purpose and importance
and this makes it all fine. He certainly has importance; we never
quite know why but he does not know it and he has no purpose that
either he or the reader is aware of.
You also later make the statement,
"A short story simply cannot be judged on the same terms as a novel"
I think you need to bear this in mind yourself with regard to the
assessment of Life-Line.
Finally, am I reading it correctly? Do you really think 'By His
Bootstraps" is less worthwhile because it's not about anything
important? An artificial solution to an artifical problem? You say
it's not SF...sheesh. It's a neat, clever little story that can be
read with equal enjoyment the second time round when the outcome is
known but that first time of reading packs a nice punch. Your
standards are different than mine.
And you like Beyond This Horizon....I don't particularly. If you had
commented on the rather dull scientific chapter on genetics as being
detrimental to the pace, I would have agreed. If you had been
scathing about the sappy romance of his friend and the mystery
woman, I would have nodded. If you had been enraged by Hamilton's
behaviour to phyllis when she called on him.... But..you liked it. Hmm.
I think our varying mileage is going to be an issue here.
Jane
Bill Dennis
> Mac reminisced and told us:
>
> > Depending upon my chronological age the
"dreams" usually
> > involved Olivia Hussey, Andrienne B., and the
woman in LEXX
> > and...
> > The definite restraints are local laws and,
"The Redhead".
> > And, of course, now, with the passing years,
the fact that I am
> > largely invisible to "sweet young things" as
I walk across the
> > University campus...
> > Oh, well.
> > ---Mac
>
> My younger years found me fixated on Lauren
Bacall, but I lean toward the
> likes of Gates McFadden these days. (I shall
willingly leave the Marina
> Sirtis types to the rest of mankind.)
Drew Barrymore .... *sigh*
I could cuddle with her for days on end.
--
Bill Dennis
http://peoriatimesobserver.com
http://billdennis.net
Alexei & Cory Panshin
Dear Jane,
If you mean to say that you don't always agree with
the assessments I made in 1965 in _Heinlein in Dimension_,
I wouldn't expect anybody would. I don't myself. The
book was only an opening word, and nothing like a final
word.
Do you and I differ on whether the situation in "They"
is horrifying or not? I guess it all depends on what
you find horrifying. I saw someone last week on Maury
Povich who was horrified by Santa Claus and was driven
bananas for the entertainment of the audience by Santas
brought out on stage to dance around her.
Reactions vary. And I guess this is one that you and
I can agree to differ on.
Did I show "By His Bootstraps" enough respect? Probably
not. At least, you will find me returning to the story to
consider it at greater length on a number of different later
occasions. But where do you find me saying that the story
isn't SF? Please prompt me with a quote of my words.
One thing I think you and I can agree on: In _Beyond This
Horizon_, when Hamilton Felix shows Longcourt Phyllis who's
boss by getting her down and taking her gun away from her
just to prove he can do it, that was a bullying act, to put
it kindly.
Why would you imagine I approved of it?
Alexei Panshin
"There are more to everything than its appearance."
-- Chinese Fortune Cookie
Alexei & Cory Panshin
>
> Note that Panshi has gone from questioning about Heinlein's 'beliefs in
> determinism' etc as 'shown' in Life-Line to the general statement that he
> put a lot of philosophy into his works. The latter I would agree with
> wholeheartedly, but IMHO, never to the detriment of telling a good tale. The
> former, I would just as wholeheartedly disagree with.
>
> He, (P), has, so far, not given any response to how he would reconcile any
> attempt to claim Heinlein's belief in the strict determinism of
> 'Life-Line', 'All You Zombies', and 'By His Bootstraps' versus the strict
> non-determinism of 'Elsewhen', 'TNOTB' and 'TCWWTW'. True, the latter two
> came long after 'Life-Line', but 'Elsewhen' was among the earliest of his
> stories.
>
> David Wright
The quotes you give above are not quotes from me. Quote what
I said and maybe we can talk about it.
Alexei Panshin
"There are more to everything than its appearance."
-- Chinese Fortune Cookie
Steve Burwen
"Alexei & Cory Panshin"
>
> Heinlein _was_ interested in philosphy. It defined his
> conception of SF. His name for it was a philosophical name --
> "speculative fiction."
>
> In the Schulman interview, Heinlein said: "I studied
> philosophy under Will Durant many, many years ago -- this
> was before he was well-known, _long_ before he was well-known;
> this was back in the early Twenties -- and he first introduced
> me to a wide range of philosophers; and I read 'em all; I gobbled
> 'em all. I suppose I've learned something from all of them, but
> not necessarily what they wanted to impart."
>
>
Interestingly, although I like Durant myself, he wasn't a typical 20th
century philosopher. In fact, he says he disagreed with most of the 20th
century's major currents in philosophy--everything from Existential
philosophy and Phenomenology to Logical Positivism and Wittgensteinian
language analysis. He became more of a philosophical historian, as can be
seen from his famous multi-volume history series.
Durant felt philosophy should be relevant to everyday human existence, and
the activities of most professional philosophers in the last century were
too abstract for both him and the ordinary guy in the street, so he turned
to historical analysis, which he felt could teach important philosophical
lessons about history.
I think he succeeded admirably in that, but he wasn't as well regarded by
other professional philosophers as he was by the reading public and history
buffs.
While we're on the subject, there's a great story about Ariel Durant, Will's
wife, who was his best graduate student, and they eventually married. She
and Will got into this discussion of mental illness one time, about what
truly distinguishes a crazy person from a sane person. She said
psychologists couldn't tell the difference between a sane person and a crazy
one, based on their definitions of mental illness. He was dubious about
this, so she checked herself into a local mental hospital. At that point,
she started acting completely normally, but the more normal she acted, the
crazier they thought she was, and she couldn't get out until Will went to
the hospital and rescued her. IIRC, this went on for a couple of weeks, not
just a day or two.
Anyway, that's the story. I'm not sure how much of it was actually true but
I did hear them describe the experience in an interview on TV 20 years ago.
--Steve B.
Mac
<baby...@2z.net> wrote:
>"Mac"
>> Depending upon my chronological age the "dreams" usually
>> involved Olivia Hussey, Andrienne B., and the woman in LEXX
>> and...
>> The definite restraints are local laws and, "The Redhead".
>> And, of course, now, with the passing years, the fact that I am
>> largely invisible to "sweet young things" as I walk across the
>> University campus...
>> Oh, well.
>Mac, don't let Steve fool you. He is kept by a redhead of his own. Further
>she may have a slight temper. He does, however, bring good cheese when he
>comes to visit.
>NW
I am not saying my Redhead has a slight temper.
However, she is part Sicilian and part Celtic(Scottish).
She must also be a mind-reader for each time I begin my fantasy
dreams she calls my name and has a new chore for me...
---Mac
Steve Burwen
"Bill Dennis" <dwill...@home.com> wrote in message
news:Jcl58.9008$gW4.6...@news1.rdc1.mi.home.com...
Oops, my dyslexia must be getting worse. For a second there I thought you
wrote "Barry Drewmore." :-).
--Steve B.
Steve Burwen
"jump101" wrote:
"Men occasionally stumble on the truth, but most of them pick themselves up
> and hurry off as if nothing had happened." - Winston Churchill
>> >
> > NW
> >
"Seek simplicity but mistrust it." --Alfred North Whitehead (a 20th century
philosopher noted for his often convoluted and obsure style of writing)
--Steve B.
Jane Davitt
snip
>
> Do you and I differ on whether the situation in "They"
> is horrifying or not? I guess it all depends on what
> you find horrifying.
Well, yes and no. We aren't talking about something like a fear of
spiders, reasonable to one, stupid to another. We're examining the
story of a man held captive both physically and mentally. The degree
to which this seems like an awful situation to be in can differ
amongst readers but I've never come across anyone who dismisses the
protagonist's situation as not so bad because physically he was
unhurt and the fact that he was important enough to torment was in
some way soothing. Your POV seems to be a bit insensitive and
superficial.
>
> Did I show "By His Bootstraps" enough respect? Probably
> not. At least, you will find me returning to the story to
> consider it at greater length on a number of different later
> occasions. But where do you find me saying that the story
> isn't SF? Please prompt me with a quote of my words.
This is what I was referring to;
"Heinlein's last three stories of 1941 are all less worthwhile,
not because they aren't entertaining, but because they aren't about
anything important. Setting forth artificial problems and then
inventing artificial solutions to them is not what makes science
fiction worth reading."
I amend it; you weren't saying it wasn't SF, you were saying it
wasn't SF that was worth reading.
>
> One thing I think you and I can agree on: In _Beyond This
> Horizon_, when Hamilton Felix shows Longcourt Phyllis who's
> boss by getting her down and taking her gun away from her
> just to prove he can do it, that was a bullying act, to put
> it kindly.
>
> Why would you imagine I approved of it?
"Beyond This Horizon (Astounding, April and May 1942) probably has
as much of a Roman candle plot, shooting off in all directions, as
Heinlein ever wrote. However, in spite of all that I have said
about ununified plots, it remains one of my two favorite Heinlein
stories."
And,
"Hamilton Felix is an interesting character, but it is his society
that is Heinlein's hero and Hamilton is only our guide through it.
I still retain my affection for unified plots. Beyond This
Horizon doesn't have one, but I still find it thoroughly delightful.
Call it an exception. "
If that bit had bothered you, why not mention it as an exception to
your approval of the book? You said he was interesting; that isn't
necessarily a compliment but with no expansion on it most would take
it as one. Perhaps you go back to it later?
Maybe I should wait until the whole book is up and just keep notes
of points I want to raise.
Jane
James Gifford
> the assessments I made in 1965 in _Heinlein in Dimension_,
> I wouldn't expect anybody would. I don't myself. The
> book was only an opening word, and nothing like a final word.
*CHING CHING CHING CHING CHING* A winnah ever'time!
I thought you might have decided to drop this copout, but it only took
you about four days from your first post to fall into it this time.
I really can't understand why you keep trying to open a discussion on
HiD, and then *every time*, as soon as the questions get focused, you
sashay to one side declaiming, "oh, that was Panshin(1966), and I've
evolved muchly since then."
Either dismiss the book as an amateurish take that really doesn't
deserve further discussion, or own up to it and take your lumps where
you've earned them. You can't do both and your perpetual attempt to
straddle this fence is one of the things that makes you so damned
unwelcome in this company.
BPRAL22169
>Horizon doesn't have one, but I still find it thoroughly delightful.
> Call it an exception. "
One thing everybody should keep in mind is that when HID was first published,
Mr. Panshin was careful in the introduction to label it a "personal reaction"
and said that he does not believe in "objective criticism." While one may take
exception to his naivete, one has no ground to argue his esthetic judgments
without establishing some external basis for opinions. Otherwise, it's de
gustibus nil est disputantum.
Bill
David Wright
"Alexei & Cory Panshin" <to...@enter.net> wrote in message
news:3C55EE6E...@enter.net...
comment about what you said. However, if you need quotes to remind you of
what you said, then here they are.
----begin quote ------
And one more thing. "Life-Line" presents a philosophical
stance toward cause-and-effect and determinism which you
express when you speak of "fate" and things being what they are
in the story because they are what they are. This is also
the stance taken in Heinlein's time travel stories, "By
His Bootstraps" and "All You Zombies--".
Did Heinlein think that human action was meaningful or
that our fate is predetermined?
--- end quote -----
---- begin quote -----
You have no patience with philosophy and no interest in it?
That's fine. But if that's the way you feel, then you're going
to miss one important aspect of Heinlein.
Heinlein _was_ interested in philosphy. It defined his
conception of SF. His name for it was a philosophical name --
"speculative fiction."
(section omitted)
Heinlein deliberately imbedded philosophical matters in
his stories and said so. The questions he explored most
persistently were epistemology and ontology, that is, the
nature of knowledge and the nature of reality.
---- end quote --------
On re-reading your quotes, I do see that you never 'claimed' that Heinlein
did believe in the deterministic viewpoint but, instead, asked an
open-question. I do see that I was slightly off on that.
Again, however, I ask that if the question is asked, "Did Heinlein think
that human action was meaningful or
that our fate is predetermined?", then what question on the same subject
should one ask about 'Elsewhen'? And how could either answer take precedence
over the other? Your failure to ask that question was what made me think
that you were indeed claiming his belief in determinism. I would have
expected a well thought out and balanced analysis would have demanded that.
David Wright
Alexei & Cory Panshin
> Alexei & Cory Panshin wrote:
>
>>If you mean to say that you don't always agree with
>>the assessments I made in 1965 in _Heinlein in Dimension_,
>>I wouldn't expect anybody would. I don't myself. The
>>book was only an opening word, and nothing like a final word.
>>
>
> *CHING CHING CHING CHING CHING* A winnah ever'time!
>
> I thought you might have decided to drop this copout, but it only took
> you about four days from your first post to fall into it this time.
>
> I really can't understand why you keep trying to open a discussion on
> HiD, and then *every time*, as soon as the questions get focused, you
> sashay to one side declaiming, "oh, that was Panshin(1966), and I've
> evolved muchly since then."
>
> Either dismiss the book as an amateurish take that really doesn't
> deserve further discussion, or own up to it and take your lumps where
> you've earned them. You can't do both and your perpetual attempt to
> straddle this fence is one of the things that makes you so damned
> unwelcome in this company.
>
>
Wouldn't the world be nice and stable if I thought
today exactly and only what I thought in March 1965?
But no, I heard my teacher Heinlein say that it was
necessary to revise one's opinions as one got older.
As far as I'm concerned, the 24-year-old kid Panshin
was right about some things and not right or incomplete
about others.
This makes _Heinlein in Dimension_ very much like
your own work, doesn't it? If you are a man of your
word, you would never correct yourself or have second
thoughts about anything. In which case you would be
stuck forever with your false accusations about me changing
my essays in order to fool you, and your ignorance about
Philoctetes, and other limitations in your awareness.
My presumption is that we all have limitations in our
awareness, but that if we all listen respectfully to each
other, all of us might pick up something.
My problem with you, Jim, is that you seem to have a
King of the Mountain attitude toward Heinlein where
you get to stand on top of the dungheap and Be Right,
and anyone else who says anything that disagrees with
you or that is based on information you don't have or
that comes from an unfamiliar point of view is wrong,
wrong, wrong and must be punished for it.
Sorry, Jim, but there isn't one Right take on Heinlein
and you don't have it. And if you think you do, you are
likely to make a fool of yourself again.
Oliver Gampe
(in <3C5668EE...@enter.net>)
> My presumption is that we all have limitations in our
> awareness, but that if we all listen respectfully to each
> other, all of us might pick up something.
I like that. With that in mind, many [discussions|arguments] would take
a different ending.
--
Pasta la mista
Oliver
Today's Teaser:
The more times you run over a dead cat, the flatter it gets.
Alexei & Cory Panshin
Well, Jane, as they say, "Absence of evidence is not evidence."
In Chapter VI of _Heinlein in Dimension_, you will find me saying:
"There are two romances in _Beyond This Horizon_. One is a case
of mutual love at first sight (harking back to _'If This Goes On--'_).
In the other, the two call each other 'Filthy' and 'Flutterbrain,'
and the boy has to get into a physical fight with the girl as an
excuse to touch and kiss her for the first time."
More recently, in "Robert Heinlein and _Rite of Passage",
already posted in The Critics Lounge, I say specifically that
Heinlein was capable of putting high-minded idealism and bullying
behavior in the same story. I had in mind the Great Work project
in _Beyond This Horizon_ and Hamilton Felix's personal behavior
toward Longcourt Phyllis which bothered you.
> Maybe I should wait until the whole book is up and just keep notes of
> points I want to raise.
That's probably a good idea.
But I have no problems replying to a quotation of something I did say
and a question about it. Especially since if you pull a quote out and
look at it, you may find that I actually said something a little
different than you first assumed, as with your suggestion that I'd said
that "By His Bootstraps" wasn't SF, or that I hadn't said at all what
you would have me believing, as in your assertion that I'd liked
Hamilton Felix's overbearing behavior because I said I found _Beyond
This Horizon_ thoroughly delightful.
jump101
> Either dismiss the book as an amateurish take that really doesn't
> deserve further discussion, or own up to it and take your lumps where
> you've earned them. You can't do both and your perpetual attempt to
> straddle this fence is one of the things that makes you so damned
> unwelcome in this company.
Come, come James. You should know by now that it is "acceptable" to fall
back on "that was then and this is now" rather than to admit one made a
mistake. This behavior is what has superceded the Fonzie Effect. "I was
wr.... wr.... wro.... wrong."
jump101
> But no, I heard my teacher Heinlein say that it was
> necessary to revise one's opinions as one got older.
True enough, but I rather doubt that dismissing previous errors as being the
naiveté of youth would have been something of which he would have approved.
Nuclear Waste
"David Wright"
> There are no direct quotes in what I said above. I was making a general
> comment about what you said. However, if you need quotes to remind you of
> what you said, then here they are.
Way to go, David, you have just assured that this post will go unanswered.
(This includes using it as a platform to launch more of his delusional
"criticism" without addressing the points you raise. All in all, you have
wasted your time.
NW
Nuclear Waste
"Mac"
> I am not saying my Redhead has a slight temper.
> However, she is part Sicilian and part Celtic(Scottish).
> She must also be a mind-reader for each time I begin my fantasy
> dreams she calls my name and has a new chore for me...
Steve imported his directly from Scotland. She has a wonderful accent.
Jim
(For real fun, at a distance, tell her you really enjoy her Irish accent.)
John Williams
>
> It was a surprise to me when I got online about five
>years ago to find that HiD, my first published book,
>written back in 1965, was an object of controversy
>here on alt.fan.Heinlein.
>
I've had a copy of HiD for years but never gotten around to reading
it. Your post provided the necessary impetus; I started reading it
Friday night and finished it last night (Monday).
> I've seen remarks from some people who thought the
>book was fair and perceptive -- even prophetic of
>Heinlein's later work. On the other hand, there were
>rather more people for whom _Heinlein in Dimension_
>was a dirty word. I found myself described as "lower
>than wormshit" for the unacceptable things I'd had to
>say there.
>
> What those awful things were, I can only guess. When
>I asked one detractor, his answer was, "You ought to
>know. You said them." And that wasn't much help.
>
Fear not, help is finally at hand. I will provide direct quotes.
>
> Because I was trying to initiate a conversation and
>not to pick fights or to present anything like a final
>word, over the years when I've run across someone
>cursing my name for having written this book and
>condemning it out of hand, I've dropped them a line
>and asked them to quote whatever it was they found
>objectionable and talk with me about it. For all
>they knew, I might agree with their criticism now.
>And, time and again, I'd get an answer which said
>they hadn't read the book recently and would need to
>reread it to get up to speed. They would get back
>to me with their objections in a week or so. Only
>none of those promised follow-up notes ever came.
>
Understandable. Had I read the book years ago, I doubt I'd have
bothered to go back over it, searching for what I only dimly
remembered. But since I knew before starting that you were looking
for direct quotes, I kept track of the pertinent page numbers as I was
reading.
First, my overall impressions:
You said some interesting and valid things, but I'm not going to
quote them. As your post only mentioned the objectionable stuff,
that's all I kept track of.
You seem to have a real talent for making mountains out of
molehills. In fact, sometimes you make mountains of land that seemed
perfectly level, without so much as a hint of a rise. (Like, for
example, when you claim that LifeLines would have been a stronger
story had Heinlein given us some info on how the protag came to invent
his machine.) I didn't even attempt to keep track of all these
instances because there were far too many, but I did note a few of
them.
I found at least one instance of gross inaccuracy..
Most disturbingly, I found at least one instance where you seemed
downright nasty.
Now for the quotes:
- - -
Page 80: Elephant Circuit is a mistake, a sloppy sentimental fantasy .
. . It is about a fat, fatuous, fair-loving man . . . He is killed
in a bus wreck and goes to Heaven to find it a super-fair. His dear
dead wife Martha is there, and so is his dear dead dog . . .
This, as should be glaringly obvious, is one of the nasty instances.
You've insulted Heinlein (for writing such crap), fat people (for
being fat?!), and anyone else who is 'foolish' enough to grieve for a
dead person or pet. Oh, and you've also insulted the people who
happen to like the story, of whom I am one; in fact, it's my favorite
Heinlein short. To recap: in a single paragraph you've managed to
insult Heinlein as well as a sizeable portion of the population. Way
to go.
- - -
Page 89: . . . Instead of concerning himself with facts, he has
written about the morality of sex, religion, war and politics, but he
has treated his opinions as though they were facts.
Um, no he hasn't, and this remark seems in poor taste -- scarcely the
sort of thing you want to accuse someone of unless you can come up
with some really good examples. And you didn't, that I could find.
Perhaps he hasn't explained himself to your satisfaction. For that
matter, he hasn't always explained himself to _my_ satisfaction. But
it _has_ always seemed perfectly clear when Heinlein was talking about
facts and when he was giving his (sometimes admittedly strong)
opinions.
- - -
Page 98:
Okay, here's where your criticism come across the weakest: in your
treatment of Stranger. By your own admission, you "disliked the book
too much to be willing to take the page-by-page notes necessary to
discuss a story of its complexity." This being the case, you probably
shouldn't have even bothered trying to cover it here. Your lack of
familiarity with the subject is painfully evident. Some of what you
said was grossly inaccurate. Much of it struck me as downright silly.
- - -
Page 101:
. . . You can't argue with facts, and Heinlein has made the rightness
of his religion a fact.
Sorry, but this is rubbish. He did no such thing. Yes, the
_establishment_ of the religion was a fact, but its rightness was
strictly a matter of opinion. Granted, all the major characters were
eventually convinced of its rightness; but that does not equate to his
make the rightness a fact.
- - -
Page 101 (again):
. . . In other words, the religion has no point for anybody.
Now, this is just plain silly. Of _course_ it has no point for
anybody in real life. It wasn't supposed to!
- - -
Page 101-102:
Both story and religion, it seems to me, be much sharper without the
rather silly things that Smith is capable of doing.
Wrong again. Without the 'silly' things Smith is capable of doing,
there would have _been_ no story!
- - -
Page 102:
Smith's education and enlightenment should be central but they aren't
-- instead, Smith's ability to control the length of his hair by
thinking is central, and that has no importance whatsoever.
Okay, you've missed the boat again. By far the most important portion
of Smith's education and enlightenment was from the Martians, and this
is indeed central to the story. The education and enlightenment he
received on Earth, on the other hand, was relatively trivial -- and
would have been entirely so had it not been for what he learned on
Mars.
- - -
Page 102 (again):
Those capable of accepting Mike's religion (an ability inborn in one
person in a hundred) and developing super powers are God, the only God
there is, so it seems. ... and for no good reason wear halos and
wings.
Grossly inaccurate. When Ben is telling Jubal about the religion, he
specifically says that what Mike preaches to the masses is "Thou art
God." Please note he does _not_ say that only the members of his
religion are God. He says _everybody_ is God. And everything that
groks (thinks). Indeed, nowhere in the book does Heinlein even so
much as hint that members of Mike's religion will be better off in the
hereafter than the non-members; instead, this religion is strictly for
the enrichment of the physical life. Really, of course, it's more of
a school than a religion.
As for the halos and wings, I don't remember any members of Mike's
religion wearing them in the hereafter; indeed, the only member we
even see in the hereafter is Mike himself. So, who _was_ wearing
those wings and halos? The only ones I remember were Foster and
Digby, both of whom were Fosterites, and neither of whom had any
connection whatsoever with Mike's religion -- further proof, if any
were needed, that 'being God' was not restricted to members of Mike's
religion.
- - -
Page 102 (yet again!):
Jill Boardman supposedly loves Ben Caxton, but won't sleep with him.
She will, however, go off around the country with Mike on a
sleep-in-basis. Why? I can't say. At any time it would not surprise
me for her to unscrew her foot and stick it in her ear -- she is
capable of anything . . .
Sigh. This is real "making mountains out of flat land" stuff. Once
again you've fallen prey to the "if I can't see a good reason for
something happening, then there can be no good reason" pattern of
thinking. Having read this story quite a few times, I can think of
several good reasons why Jill would have reacted differently to Ben
and Mike.
For starters, her original relationship with Ben was based on the
ancient, somewhat adversarial contest between the sexes. By
tradition, the man wins if the woman sleeps with him before marriage,
whereas the woman wins if she holds out for marriage. So you could
say that part of the problem with Ben is that Jill wanted to 'win.'
By contrast, there was no such contest between her and Mike, as Mike
never learned to play this game.
Moreover, Jill goes through a profoundly life-expanding experience as
she comes to know Mike, and to realize that the boundaries of human
thought and capibility were not at all what she had previously
thought. So you could make the case that, having gone through this
mind-wrenching shift in perspective, she might well have slept with
Ben had circumstances conspired to have her tour the country in his
close proximity.
But the most obvious and straightforward possibility is that she
simply cared more about Mike than Ben. Surely this would constitute
sufficient motivation for sleeping with one but not the other.
- - -
I had more pages marked, but I'm going to quit here. I've already
given plenty of examples.
Besides, the more I think about it, the more convinced I am that most
of these examples have little to do with the hostile reaction your
book evokes from some people.
The main problem as I see it is that your criticism (even when it's
not totally inaccurate, or making mountains out of molehills -- and
you do a _lot_ of the latter) has essentially put you in the untenable
position of suggesting how Heinlein could have improved his stories.
Granted, some of them could have used some improvement IMO. Still, he
never asked for your advice -- or mine, either. So you are
essentially foisting your unsolicited advice upon him -- never a
pleasant experience for the recipient. To make matters worse, his
reputation and skill as a story-teller is so much higher than yours
that it tends to make you come off as pretentious when you offer your
unsolicited advice. (This is not to say that you have no skill; on
the contrary, I read and enjoyed your RoP.) And when you factor in
the times, relatively few though they are, when you get snippy or
nasty or unduly personal, this puts you in an even poorer light.
All of this, I suspect, is the main source of the big problem that
many people have with your book.
John Williams
Jane Davitt
Alexei, I am going to wait until it's all up on the site. It will
save problems.
What I would like to discuss though isn't HiD itself or what we
think of it so much as _your_ thoughts on what you did right or wrong.
I have no difficulty in beleiving that your opinions have changed; I
look at some of my early newsgroups posts, a mere 4 years ago and
cringe. You wrote that book getting on for 40 years ago and based it
on what Heinlein had written up to that date. Now of course you have
his entire oeuvre to evaluate - this _must_ make a difference to
your judgement even if you yourself had remained fixed in your opinions.
So; what has changed? Do you still think Bootstraps isn't worth
reading when considered as SF? Is BTH still one of your favourites?
Has it stood the test of time?
That sort of thing...HiD is the past. You wrote it a long time ago
and it's hard for me to imagine writing about a Heinlein who hadn't
written TEFL or Friday or..well, you get the idea. Now you have the
full picture ( if you've read Sail that is) and you should be able
to re evaluate any predictions you may have made about the way
Heinlein's work would evolve.
That would be quite interesting. Picking at HiD is not so much fun.
We can tear it to shreds and make you defend each sentence if you
want but really what's the point? It's not a work in progress that
can be improved by criticism, it's set in stone.
Now if we could bring back the AP who wrote it and make _him_ answer
questions, _that_ would be fun...but he doesn't exist anymore and
you can't answer on his behalf.
(Now that was too philosophical for this time of day...off to have a
coffee to recover).
Jane
James Gifford
> That would be quite interesting. Picking at HiD is not so much fun.
> We can tear it to shreds and make you defend each sentence if you
> want but really what's the point? It's not a work in progress that
> can be improved by criticism, it's set in stone.
Not in AP's mind. He considers his body of RAH criticism a work in
progress (a barely-begun work, he usually insists) and virtually refuses
to discuss it piece by piece. Since no one but the author or a fully
committed acolyte can argue a writer's work as a gestalt, he holds all
the cards, makes up all the rules, and sits as referee as well.
In all his interactions here and in email, it has proven nearly
impossible to progress through a meaningful discussion. You must redraw
your questions and define your terms endlessly, until they suit him, and
then - and only then - he gives a brief reply and directs your attention
elsewhere.
Were it not that I believe he has some sincere intent somewhere behind
his madness, I'd call him a troll.
BPRAL22169
>to re evaluate any predictions you may have made about the way
>Heinlein's work would evolve.
I would be particularly interested in a discussion and evaluation from the
Panshins of the pre-review of TEFL written before it came out, based on
publisher's announcement. Some aspects of the piece were remarkably
thick-headed, but I believe the Panshins thought well enough of it to include
it in SF in Dimension -- or am I misremembering the "subjective" interpretation
piece? -- two years later.
Bill
Alexei & Cory Panshin
> On re-reading your quotes, I do see that you never 'claimed' that Heinlein
> did believe in the deterministic viewpoint but, instead, asked an
> open-question. I do see that I was slightly off on that.
>
> Again, however, I ask that if the question is asked, "Did Heinlein think
> that human action was meaningful or
> that our fate is predetermined?", then what question on the same subject
> should one ask about 'Elsewhen'? And how could either answer take precedence
> over the other? Your failure to ask that question was what made me think
> that you were indeed claiming his belief in determinism. I would have
> expected a well thought out and balanced analysis would have demanded that.
>
I have no idea whether Heinlein thought human action was meaningful
or that our fate is predetermined.
To this point, I've never drawn any connections between "Life-Line"
and "Elsewhen."
If you are inclined to do it, I'd like to read your essay.
jump101
> Jim
> (For real fun, at a distance, tell her you really enjoy her Irish accent.)
What exactly do you have against Mac? That could get a man Lorena
Bobbit-ed. She does have a charming accent. Thank God ten years in the
States tamed it though. I could barely understand a word her Mum said.
--
Steve
"Men occasionally stumble on the truth, but most of them pick themselves up
and hurry off as if nothing had happened." - Winston Churchill
eeg...@exis.net
webm...@mnsdesigns.com
http://www.mnsdesigns.com/
"Nuclear Waste" <baby...@2z.net> wrote in message
news:a36lb7$16bgk6$1...@ID-126442.news.dfncis.de...
Alexei & Cory Panshin
Thanks for being interested in what my later opinions might
be as opposed to being stuck, for better or for worse, at
HiD.
The problem is that I am putting up my writing on Heinlein
in chronological order, with contextual essays, so that a
progression of thought is visible. And I'm putting them up
as I'm able to do it. The whole of it is simply going to take
time.
On the other hand, if you are in a hurry, you can read
HiD, you can get hold of a copy of _Science Fiction in
Dimension_ and read the Heinlein essays there, and also
read the Heinlein material in _The World Beyond the Hill_.
That wouldn't be all of what I've written, but it would
be the largest part.
As for my own take on _Heinlein in Dimension_ -- my
account of how it came to be written is given in "The
Story of Heinlein in Dimension" which is posted in The
Critics Lounge. My assessment of its strengths and
limitations will be given in the essay I'm working on
right now.
Steve Burwen
"Alexei & Cory Panshin" <to...@enter.net> wrote in message
news:3C554A90...@enter.net...
>
>
>
> >> And one more thing. "Life-Line" presents a philosophical
>
>
>
> > MAC:
> Back in 1960, in PITFCS, a private forum for SF pros,
> Poul Anderson said: "...Philosophical fiction is waiting
> to be written. Oddly, in all the discussion which has
> gone on for so many years about Heinlein, I don't recall
> ever seeing it mentioned how much of his work is this
> very sort of thing."
>
> > Alexei Panshin
>
> "There are to everything than its appearance."
> -- Chinese Fortune Cookie
>
Speaking of stories that are both very science-fictional and philosophical,
if our readers here have never read Jorge Luis Borge's story, "The Library
of Babel," this is a truly remarkable example of such a fusion of
metaphysical writing and speculative fiction.
Borges won the Nobel prize for literature many years ago. He has since
passed on, and although I haven't read nearly enough of his work, if you
only read this one story, you'll know why he was so special.
In case you're interested, here is a link to the story on the web:
http://jubal.westnet.com/hyperdiscordia/library_of_babel.html
--Steve B.
Mac
<baby...@2z.net> wrote:
>"Mac"
>> I am not saying my Redhead has a slight temper.
>> However, she is part Sicilian and part Celtic(Scottish).
>> She must also be a mind-reader for each time I begin my fantasy
>> dreams she calls my name and has a new chore for me...
>Steve imported his directly from Scotland. She has a wonderful accent.
>Jim
>(For real fun, at a distance, tell her you really enjoy her Irish accent.)
I am be dumb but I ain't stupid, nor am I suicidal !!!
---Mac
David Silver
BPRAL22169 wrote:
>
> One thing everybody should keep in mind is that when HID was first published,
> Mr. Panshin was careful in the introduction to label it a "personal reaction"
> and said that he does not believe in "objective criticism." While one may take
> exception to his naivete, one has no ground to argue his esthetic judgments
> without establishing some external basis for opinions. Otherwise, it's de
> gustibus nil est disputantum.
>
>
IOW, Mr. Panshin disavows any intention of applying anyone else's taste
but his own and, of course, he equates what merely boils down to his own
standards of taste with criticism. There are a few other things wrong
with that introduction, aside from a woeful ignorance of the critical
standards of its own time. E.g., Panshin was ignorant or deliberately
ignored Northrup Frye's _Anatomy of Criticism: Four Essays_ which does
and did then posit objective standards well-known then to any reputable
critic. Unless you're raising straw men to deliberately destroy there
was no excuse then nor is there now for ignoring those standards, so
I've tentatively concluded Mr. Panshin, essentially a layman who had
written a bit of fanzine articles, and a bit of his own fiction, was
merely ignorant of them when he wrote Heinlein In Dimension. As to other
things wrong, I'll leave those other things laying as they are for the
time.
I have, however, but one question: How in the world can that sort of
'personal reaction' be said by anyone except those possessing the same
agenda as Mr. Panshin to have become a standard or classic of Heinlein
criticism? Such statement is utterly beyond me. Columbus was the first
to land in the New World, but he thought he landed in islands offshore
China. I think Panshin's criticisms, from what I've read careful folk
report, are equally off-target. But, I'll await with patience Mr.
Panshin's full web publication of Heinlein In Dimension before I draw
any final conclusion. I certainly won't waste real money buying such a
'personal' work, subject to the individual biases Panshin admits or
facts including what he has written otherwise discloses. It would be
like accepting the decision of the Vatican that the Earth is the center
of the universe. Frye called what Panshin was doing 'public criticism'
by arbiters of current taste, and argued it worthless since tastes
change over time and over society. And I probably won't waste time
replying to Mr. Panshin's semi-annual foray into here until he's got it
all up on the Internet.
David
Roger Connor
David Silver wrote:
> Columbus was the first to land in the New World, but he thought he landed in
> islands offshore China.
<comments on Panshin view of RAH snipped>
I've gotta be a little picky here -
The above statement about Columbus being the first to land in the New World is false,
as well as the idea that he was in China. After all he called the inhabitants
"Indians" indicating that he thought he was in India. And there's Lief Ericson, the
St. Clair or Sinclair knight, the Irish settlement in Florida, the Roman ironworks in
Virginia and a host of other indications that there were a number of Europeans to
visit North America prior to it's "discovery" by Columbus not to mention the Chinese.
And then there is the population that was already here indicating that it hadn't been
"lost" to be "discovered" in any case.
Pick-mode off!
IMHO it behooves us to not use the ancient erroneous popular myths and urban legends
to make comparisons, attempt to draw parallels or provide examples in arguments.
Otherwise -good commentary.
Roger
Steve Burwen
"David Silver" <ag.pl...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:3C57A28A...@verizon.net...
I'm no expert on the subject but I agree with David that one should at least
understand Frye's writings before writing any serious literary criticism.
This is like saying you need to understand the basic harmonic triad before
trying to write a symphony. There are many other critics who I've found
valuable for different things--Lionel Trilling, Irving Howe, C. S. Lewis,
Herb Simon, and so on (not to mention all the post-moderns, who I'm less
enthusiastic about), but you can't go wrong if you at least understand
Frye's ideas.
--Steve B.
Alexei & Cory Panshin
> Alexei & Cory Panshin wrote:
>
>>If you mean to say that you don't always agree with
>>the assessments I made in 1965 in _Heinlein in Dimension_,
>>I wouldn't expect anybody would. I don't myself. The
>>book was only an opening word, and nothing like a final word.
>>
>
> *CHING CHING CHING CHING CHING* A winnah ever'time!
>
> I thought you might have decided to drop this copout, but it only took
> you about four days from your first post to fall into it this time.
Why should I drop it?
In _Heinlein in Dimension_ (1968) p. 188, I said: "I prefer to look
on this book as an interim report, and one that can and should be argued
with. Even in the ground that it covers, there remains much to be said.
I hope others will take the time to say it."
And in the notice that started out this thread, I said, "I thought of
the book as a discussion starter and not as a final word. It was
intended to only be a beginning and it says as much."
And I also said, "I mean, if there is one thing that HiD's detractors
and I can agree on, it is that there's no way that _Heinlein in
Dimension_ should be any sort of last word. Before I'd let that happen,
I'd write on Heinlein myself with different emphases and different
observations -- and I have, too."
In other words, the remark you leap on so gleefully as a desperate
cop-out is, in fact, what I've said at every step of the way. You
were the first person to answer my announcement. How did you come
to miss me saying this?
Alexei Panshin
"There are more to everything than its appearance."
-- Chinese Fortune Cookie
Alexei & Cory Panshin
> First, my overall impressions:
> You said some interesting and valid things, but I'm not going to
> quote them. As your post only mentioned the objectionable stuff,
> that's all I kept track of.
> You seem to have a real talent for making mountains out of
> molehills. In fact, sometimes you make mountains of land that seemed
> perfectly level, without so much as a hint of a rise. (Like, for
> example, when you claim that LifeLines would have been a stronger
> story had Heinlein given us some info on how the protag came to invent
> his machine.) I didn't even attempt to keep track of all these
> instances because there were far too many, but I did note a few of
> them.
> I found at least one instance of gross inaccuracy..
> Most disturbingly, I found at least one instance where you seemed
> downright nasty.
Dear John,
Thank you for writing so thoughtfully and at such length.
The first objection you raise, about making mountains out of
molehills, has validity -- or is totally beside the point.
It all depends on your system of values. The school of
criticism out of which I came is one of SF writers writing
about how and of what stories are made. And that is reflected
in the book. If such matters are not of interest to you,
the book will necessarily look like it is making a lot out
of something that you don't care about.
In later pieces on Heinlein's work, I try things on from
different points of view.
If you found a gross inaccuracy in _Heinlein in Dimension_,
that isn't surprising in a book of 200 pages. If you only found
one, that _is_ surprising.
In fact, as I've said before, there is one deliberate gross
error that has been retained in the book in order to discover
whether people fascinated by Heinlein are capable of noticing
it and pointing it out. So far, after more than thirty years,
no one has.
I'll be grateful to have any factual errors identified.
If you do, and I agree, then I'll have the opportunity to
have things more correct the next time I write about RAH.
If you found me being nasty in the book, I apologize.
The temptation to be nasty is a bad habit that I picked up
from my critical models and have worked to eliminate from
my writing.
> Now for the quotes:
> - - -
> Page 80: Elephant Circuit is a mistake, a sloppy sentimental fantasy .
> . . It is about a fat, fatuous, fair-loving man . . . He is killed
> in a bus wreck and goes to Heaven to find it a super-fair. His dear
> dead wife Martha is there, and so is his dear dead dog . . .
>
> This, as should be glaringly obvious, is one of the nasty instances.
> You've insulted Heinlein (for writing such crap), fat people (for
> being fat?!), and anyone else who is 'foolish' enough to grieve for a
> dead person or pet. Oh, and you've also insulted the people who
> happen to like the story, of whom I am one; in fact, it's my favorite
> Heinlein short. To recap: in a single paragraph you've managed to
> insult Heinlein as well as a sizeable portion of the population. Way
> to go.
Excuse me. I thought I was describing the story accurately, but if
it is one of your favorites, I can understand why you thought I was too
hard on it. To my mind, even now, the story is simple and sentimental.
And it did linger from the time it was written in 1948 until it was
finally published in a minor magazine in 1957, so in spite of the
drawing power of the Heinlein name, it wasn't snatched up immediately.
> Page 89: . . . Instead of concerning himself with facts, he has
> written about the morality of sex, religion, war and politics, but he
> has treated his opinions as though they were facts.
>
> Um, no he hasn't, and this remark seems in poor taste -- scarcely the
> sort of thing you want to accuse someone of unless you can come up
> with some really good examples. And you didn't, that I could find.
> Perhaps he hasn't explained himself to your satisfaction. For that
> matter, he hasn't always explained himself to _my_ satisfaction. But
> it _has_ always seemed perfectly clear when Heinlein was talking about
> facts and when he was giving his (sometimes admittedly strong)
> opinions.
Would a better statement of the point I was trying to make be:
"From the very strength of Heinlein's given opinions about matters
such as sex, religion, war and politics, it is possible to take
him as talking factually when he is not actually doing so." ?
> Page 98:
> Okay, here's where your criticism come across the weakest: in your
> treatment of Stranger.
You may be right.
> The main problem as I see it is that your criticism (even when it's
> not totally inaccurate, or making mountains out of molehills -- and
> you do a _lot_ of the latter) has essentially put you in the untenable
> position of suggesting how Heinlein could have improved his stories.
> Granted, some of them could have used some improvement IMO. Still, he
> never asked for your advice -- or mine, either. So you are
> essentially foisting your unsolicited advice upon him -- never a
> pleasant experience for the recipient. To make matters worse, his
> reputation and skill as a story-teller is so much higher than yours
> that it tends to make you come off as pretentious when you offer your
> unsolicited advice. (This is not to say that you have no skill; on
> the contrary, I read and enjoyed your RoP.) And when you factor in
> the times, relatively few though they are, when you get snippy or
> nasty or unduly personal, this puts you in an even poorer light.
>
> All of this, I suspect, is the main source of the big problem that
> many people have with your book.
Thank you for your comments. But if you are correct that there
are "relatively few" times that I get snippy or nasty or unduly
personal, and that the major problem is a clash between the sort
of criticism that the book does and the knowledge and expectations
of alt.fan.heinlein readers, I can't apologize for that. There
are a lot of different approaches possible and none of them is
the one and only Right Way. Including mine in this book.
Jane Davitt
>
> If you found a gross inaccuracy in _Heinlein in Dimension_,
> that isn't surprising in a book of 200 pages. If you only found
> one, that _is_ surprising.
>
> In fact, as I've said before, there is one deliberate gross
> error that has been retained in the book in order to discover
> whether people fascinated by Heinlein are capable of noticing
> it and pointing it out. So far, after more than thirty years,
> no one has.
>
>
You wrote a book and deliberately included an error as a test? Do
you say anywhere in the book that you are doing this and give an
address for readers to mail their answers?
It seems a pretty daft thing to do, given, as you say, that in a
book of any length there will be plenty of unintentional errors. If
you didn't include a hint then you were making yourself look
ignorant for a rather peculiar reason IMO.
And people may have noticed it but just not told you. Perhaps they
were being polite.
Jane
Peter Scott
my impressions: that it was a mean-spirited critique with the
occasional back-handed compliment and numerous accounts of alleged
flaws which made little or no sense. I got it from the library at
the time and it is not in the catalog of my current library system,
so it's likely to be a while until I read it again.
It reminded me of an incident in high school, when in a gross error
of judgement, I loaned my copy of SIASL to my English literature
teacher hoping to expand his horizons. Said teacher in fact looked
down his nose at any author whose name wasn't Shakespeare, Dickens,
etc, and after skimming the book proceeded to tell my class that it
had no value whatsoever except for the reference, "Ann, you hail
from Porlock," and he wanted to know who else understood the allusion.
Writing an entire book, asking the people most aggravated by it for
comment, and then claiming that anything you said in it could have
been wrong anyway so that any such comment may or may not be pointless
strikes me as one of the more sophisticated trolls I have seen.
--
Peter Scott
BPRAL22169
>written a bit
I think that's a fair assessment -- and there's nothing particularly pejorative
about that. It's quite possible that none of the trained critics, even if they
had taken an interest in the subject, would have been able to find a place,
because the readership wasn't ready for that kind of analysis at that time.
Blish's "William Atheling" structural criticism was unbelievably crude -- but
it was well suited to the sophistication of the readership at the time.
I think in the mid-60's there were five recognized "modes" of literary
criticism then in fashion; the New Criticism had been going strong for some
time by then. In any case, HID doesn't show anything more than a glancing
acquaintance with any of them. Again, nothing wrong with that, and it's
interesting to see someone feeling his way through such a subject. The problem
with HID is not that Panshin had no critical methodology; it's that his
judgments were so green, so superficial -- and yet superficially plausible.
The reason they have become entrenched, IMO, is that for a very long time it
was the only generally available work on a subject of intense interest to a
number of people. I think H. Bruce Franklin's book (and Franklin is a "real"
critic) didn't come around until 1980 and it wasn't suitable to replace the
Panshin paradigm(s)
Bill
James Gifford
> Writing an entire book, asking the people most aggravated by it for
> comment, and then claiming that anything you said in it could have
> been wrong anyway so that any such comment may or may not be pointless
> strikes me as one of the more sophisticated trolls I have seen.
You said it even better than I did. Applause.
David Wright
> David Wright wrote:
(snip)
> >
>
> I have no idea whether Heinlein thought human action was meaningful
>
> or that our fate is predetermined.
>
> To this point, I've never drawn any connections between "Life-Line"
>
> and "Elsewhen."
>
> If you are inclined to do it, I'd like to read your essay.
>
Briefly, 'Life-line' deals with the category of time travel, (or knowledge
about the future) which I call the 'unchangeable linear time-line' category.
'Elsewhen', (or 'Elsewhere' if one prefers), deals with a second category
which may be called multi-dimensional ' time-lines. The second category
actually subsumes, as special cases, the first category, in both the
'unchangeable version' such as in 'By His Bootstraps' as well as the
'changeable version' in which the past can be changed. but for the most part
deals with multi-dimensional time-lines. Heinlein appears to have been
primarily influenced by P.D. Ouspensky, (ahh, there's one of those
philosophers, even in a 'truly vapid story' to quote Mr. Panshin), from his
'New Model of the Universe' with respect to his notions on time in this
work. 'Elsewhen' can be considered as an early pre-cursor to the 'World as
Myth' from 'The Number of the Beast' and later. By that time, the
'many-worlds' theories of Everett-Feynmann-Wheeler-Deutsch may have also
influenced him. For an excellent treatise on 'Elsewhen', I would refer you
to Bill Patterson's essay in The Heinlein Journal. John LeGere also has an
article in one of the THJ volumes which touches on this subject. (I don't
have my notes with me so, I can't provide you with the actual volume
numbers).
As it was explicitly spelled out in the story, the notion of determinism
versus non-determinism was dependant on the 'personality' and 'beliefs' of
the person involved. In this, Heinlein may also have been influenced with
the then current interpretation of quantum mechanics in which the observer
plays a pivotal role. He explicitly mentions, in this story, not only
Ouspensky, but also Dunne, whose theories were similar. Similar echoes of
this are found in 'TNOTB' when Hilda realizes why they are finding the
particular worlds that they do.
On another subject. I have just finished reading the first part of 'Heinlein
In Dimension'. Mr. Panshin does explicitly note that 'This book is a
personal reaction to Heinlein's writing'. and then later, 'Even though, I
may omit an "I think" from time to time, its existence is implied'. For my
own personal reaction to Mr. Panshin's work. I think that it would have been
greatly improved if he had added to EVERY sentence in the book, the words "I
think".
From what I have read so far, I have come to the conclusion that my own
non-objective personal reactions to Heinlein's writings are so different
from Mr. Panshin's 'personal reactions' that he claims this book to be, that
it serves no further purpose for me to attempt to discuss anything with him.
We have no common ground.
I would challenge him, however, to provide 'documented sources' for those
places for which he says, 'Those things treated as facts in this book are,
to the best of my knowledge, actually facts.'
David Wright
Jane Davitt
>
>
> On another subject. I have just finished reading the first part of 'Heinlein
> In Dimension'. Mr. Panshin does explicitly note that 'This book is a
> personal reaction to Heinlein's writing'. and then later, 'Even though, I
> may omit an "I think" from time to time, its existence is implied'. For my
> own personal reaction to Mr. Panshin's work. I think that it would have been
> greatly improved if he had added to EVERY sentence in the book, the words "I
> think".
I'm not, really I'm not, trying to be hurtful here but HiD can't
hold a candle to some posts I've read on afh. The analysis, in depth
examination of minutiae, correlation of links and themes that one
can read here over a period of time far out strips HiD's limited
judgments. IMO.
Now, HiD may have been breaking new ground and perhaps those posters
whose work I've greatly enjoyed had the benefit of both knowing all
of Heinlein's work, not just a fraction of it and of using the
stepping stones laid down by those early pioneers of genre analysis
but still..I think I've been spoiled.
Jane
David Silver
Peter Scott wrote:
> It's been 20+ years since I read HiD, of which I can recall only
> my impressions: that it was a mean-spirited critique with the
> occasional back-handed compliment and numerous accounts of alleged
> flaws which made little or no sense.
[snip]
> Writing an entire book, asking the people most aggravated by it for
> comment, and then claiming that anything you said in it could have
> been wrong anyway so that any such comment may or may not be pointless
> strikes me as one of the more sophisticated trolls I have seen.
>
Oh, you're very correct! Hi, Peter! Glad you made the AIM chat last
Thursday, and sorry I wasn't there to welcome you. I'll do better next
time. Best. [btw, Bill and I will be up in SEATAC for Nowescon over
Easter weekend, expect an EMail].
Skylark
>My younger years found me fixated on Lauren Bacall, but I lean toward the
>likes of Gates McFadden these days. (I shall willingly leave the Marina
>Sirtis types to the rest of mankind.)
>
While Marina is definitely a sweet looking lady, I have to agree with
you about Gates McFadden. She can start my engine anytime!
--
Skylark
"Any day you learn something new and useful is a GOOD day."
jump101
> While Marina is definitely a sweet looking lady, I have to agree with
> you about Gates McFadden. She can start my engine anytime!
My dream usually starts with her saying "Crusher to Enterprise... two to
beam directly to my quarters."
John Williams
>John Williams wrote:
>
> The first objection you raise, about making mountains out of
>molehills, has validity -- or is totally beside the point.
>It all depends on your system of values. The school of
>criticism out of which I came is one of SF writers writing
>about how and of what stories are made. And that is reflected
>in the book.
>
Perhaps I didn't explain myself clearly. Writers "writing about how
and of what stories are made" is all well and good. However, the
mountains-out-of-molehill problem was meant to refer specifically to
claiming something is important when it's really not; when this
happens, the discussion loses whatever claim to validity that it might
otherwise have had. How can this possibly be beside the point?!
>If such matters are not of interest to you,
>the book will necessarily look like it is making a lot out
>of something that you don't care about.
>
It's not matter of what's of interest to me. As I see it, it's a
matter of erroneous premises leading inevitably to erroneous
conclusions. (This {trivial} point is important and _must_ be changed
to improve the story.)
> In later pieces on Heinlein's work, I try things on from
>different points of view.
>
> If you found a gross inaccuracy in _Heinlein in Dimension_,
>that isn't surprising in a book of 200 pages. If you only found
>one, that _is_ surprising.
>
Depends on what you mean by 'gross inaccuracy'. If you mean things
such as claiming that members of Mike's religion are cavorting around
the herafter sporting wings and halos when they in fact are doing
nothing of the kind, then I would say yes, this sort of mistake is
probably to be expected in a book of this length. But when it's a
matter of inaccuracies which are grossly distorting the meaning of the
story -- such as your claim that only the members of Mike's religion
were 'real' people -- then it becomes a much more serious matter. The
first type of inaccuracy could be likened to taking a wrong turn
during a journey through unfamiliar territory -- something to be
avoided if possible, but it's usually no big deal. However, the
second type of inaccuracy is like getting thoroughly lost, and then
driving off a cliff while trying to read the map -- probably a fatal
mistake.
> In fact, as I've said before, there is one deliberate gross
>error that has been retained in the book in order to discover
>whether people fascinated by Heinlein are capable of noticing
>it and pointing it out. So far, after more than thirty years,
>no one has.
>
I can't imagine anyone wanting too. This strikes me as a rather silly
game.
> I'll be grateful to have any factual errors identified.
>If you do, and I agree, then I'll have the opportunity to
>have things more correct the next time I write about RAH.
>
> If you found me being nasty in the book, I apologize.
>The temptation to be nasty is a bad habit that I picked up
>from my critical models and have worked to eliminate from
>my writing.
>
While I acknowledge and appreciate the apology, I do have to wonder
why on earth anyone would pick nasty models in the first place.
>
>> Now for the quotes:
>> - - -
>> Page 80: Elephant Circuit is a mistake, a sloppy sentimental fantasy .
>> . . It is about a fat, fatuous, fair-loving man . . . He is killed
>> in a bus wreck and goes to Heaven to find it a super-fair. His dear
>> dead wife Martha is there, and so is his dear dead dog . . .
>>
>> This, as should be glaringly obvious, is one of the nasty instances.
>> You've insulted Heinlein (for writing such crap), fat people (for
>> being fat?!), and anyone else who is 'foolish' enough to grieve for a
>> dead person or pet. Oh, and you've also insulted the people who
>> happen to like the story, of whom I am one; in fact, it's my favorite
>> Heinlein short. To recap: in a single paragraph you've managed to
>> insult Heinlein as well as a sizeable portion of the population. Way
>> to go.
>
>
> Excuse me. I thought I was describing the story accurately, but if
>it is one of your favorites, I can understand why you thought I was too
>hard on it.
>
I didn't say your description was inaccurate, exactly; what I said
was, it was insulting / nasty.
Had you simply said it was a soppy sentimental fantasy, I would not
have taken issue with you It is most definitely sentimental, and it
is a fantasy of sorts. As for 'soppy', while it didn't seem that way
to me, I can understand how someone with different tastes might feel
otherwise. No big deal thus far because you've left wiggle room for
the possibility that even though you personally didn't care for the
story, it was okay if others liked it.
However, the 'mistake' bit implies that no one should enjoy the story;
if they do, then there must be something wrong with their judgment.
And it's an obvious insult to Heinlein (or anyone else) to claim he's
written a story that no one can legitimately enjoy.
But all this is relatively trivial compared to your disparaging
remarks about fat fatous men and dear dead wives / dogs. In my book,
this is sort of sniping is flat-out nasty.
> To my mind, even now, the story is simple and sentimental.
> And it did linger from the time it was written in 1948 until it was
>finally published in a minor magazine in 1957, so in spite of the
>drawing power of the Heinlein name, it wasn't snatched up immediately.
>
Simple and sentimental, I would agree with. And I'm not surprised it
took it so long to be published; it's traditionally hard to find
markets for atypical fantasies. Actually, I'm surprised it ever
managed to get published (but very glad that it was).
>
> Would a better statement of the point I was trying to make be:
>"From the very strength of Heinlein's given opinions about matters
>such as sex, religion, war and politics, it is possible to take
>him as talking factually when he is not actually doing so." ?
>
No, that statement doesn't work either. Heinlein had many opinions
with which I disagree, but I've never had any difficulty in telling
the opinions from the facts. Indeed, I don't see how anyone can
possibly get the two confused. Whatever he says in his fiction about,
say, morality or sex or religion or political systems must of
necessity be opinion rather than fact; fiction is, after all, defined
as being non-factual...
>
> Thank you for your comments. But if you are correct that there
>are "relatively few" times that I get snippy or nasty or unduly
>personal,
>
Just because you seldom do it, that doesn't make it all right. That's
like saying that if you shoot every five-hundreth person you meet on
the street, then you should get credit for only shooting such a small
percentage of the potential targets!
>and that the major problem is a clash between the sort
>of criticism that the book does and the knowledge and expectations
>of alt.fan.heinlein readers, I can't apologize for that.
>
AFAIC you only have to apologize for the nasty bits, and you've
already done that.
The real issue here seems to be your dissatisfaction with the way HiD
is generally perceived among Heinlein fans. As I see it, there are
three distinct reasons for this.
Reason #1) Many people will consider it presumptive of you (I suppose
this applies to critics in general, not just you personally) to
'teach' Heinlein how to improve his stories.
It's like having some guy who specializes in paint-by-numbers
sauntering up to Rembrandt and telling him he really needs to work on
his composition and color schemes.
Mind you, this is not necesarily an insurmountable problem. Maybe the
paint-by-number guy really does have valid things to teach Rembrandt.
The key is, the way his advice is received will likely be based on the
relative strength of his advice. If almost everything he says is
considered valid,then he will be listened to and respected. If,
OTOH, some things are valid but most aren't, then he will probably be
considered something of a laughingstock unless his few valid points
are especially helpful.
Now, while I can't certainly can't speak for the whole ng (I've never
even posted here before!), my impression of your 'advice' is that it
generally falls within the "some things are valid but most aren't"
category (sorry if this seems harsh), so this would IMO be reaon #2
why your book is not always well-thought-of here.
And Reason #3: Sorry to have to say this, but your manners
occaisionally left much to be desired. While most of what you said
seemed perfectly courteous, even a small amount of unpleasantness can
go a long, long way towards ruining the tone (and the reputation) of
the book.
So that's my .005 cents worth...
John Williams
Alexei & Cory Panshin
> "Alexei & Cory Panshin" <to...@enter.net> wrote in message
> news:3C572ED4...@enter.net...
>
>> I have no idea whether Heinlein thought human action was meaningful
>>
>>or that our fate is predetermined.
>>
>> To this point, I've never drawn any connections between "Life-Line"
>>
>>and "Elsewhen."
>>
>> If you are inclined to do it, I'd like to read your essay.
>>
>>
>
> Briefly, 'Life-line' deals with the category of time travel, (or
knowledge
> about the future) which I call the 'unchangeable linear time-line'
category.
> 'Elsewhen', (or 'Elsewhere' if one prefers), deals with a second category
> which may be called multi-dimensional ' time-lines.
>
> On another subject. I have just finished reading the first part of
'Heinlein
> In Dimension'. Mr. Panshin does explicitly note that 'This book is a
> personal reaction to Heinlein's writing'. and then later, 'Even though, I
> may omit an "I think" from time to time, its existence is implied'.
For my
> own personal reaction to Mr. Panshin's work. I think that it would
have been
> greatly improved if he had added to EVERY sentence in the book, the
words "I
> think".
>
> From what I have read so far, I have come to the conclusion that my own
> non-objective personal reactions to Heinlein's writings are so different
> from Mr. Panshin's 'personal reactions' that he claims this book to
be, that
> it serves no further purpose for me to attempt to discuss anything
with him.
> We have no common ground.
>
> I would challenge him, however, to provide 'documented sources' for those
> places for which he says, 'Those things treated as facts in this book
are,
> to the best of my knowledge, actually facts.'
>
>
> David Wright
>
I agree with you that Heinlein imbedded different philosophical
premises in different stories. The very fact that he could and
did put his head in the places necessary to imagine stories that
are deterministic on the one hand and on the other can involve
the Realm of 666 is endlessly intriguing to me.
But having said that, I still don't understand what question
you were originally asking me. Perhaps this was because you
were not asking about something I said, but about something that
I didn't say. I'm good at answering about things that I said;
not so good on things I didn't.
I'm a little surprised to have you suggest that your personal
reactions are so different from mine that you and I have nothing
to say to each other. If you can't temporarily accept premises
and points of view that are different from those you usually
hold, I would think you would find it difficult to read science
fiction.
I don't remember having said anything about "documented sources,"
so I don't know whom you are quoting. What I said was -- and you
do quote me accurately -- "Those things treated as facts in this book
are, to the best of my knowledge, actually facts."
I accept your challenge:
Present three examples from _Heinlein in Dimension_ of things
given as fact that you doubt. Quote me exactly. Tell me why you
think they weren't a fact. I will then do my best to either show that
they were a fact in 1965 or tell why my state of knowledge then
was incorrect.
Steve Burwen
"John Williams" <williaj...@inna.net> wrote in message
news:3c586994...@news.inna.net...
>
> >
> > Would a better statement of the point I was trying to make be:
> >"From the very strength of Heinlein's given opinions about matters
> >such as sex, religion, war and politics, it is possible to take
> >him as talking factually when he is not actually doing so." ?
> >
> No, that statement doesn't work either. Heinlein had many opinions
> with which I disagree, but I've never had any difficulty in telling
> the opinions from the facts. Indeed, I don't see how anyone can
> possibly get the two confused. Whatever he says in his fiction about,
> say, morality or sex or religion or political systems must of
> necessity be opinion rather than fact; fiction is, after all, defined
> as being non-factual...
>
> >
> John Williams
The fact that you can't infer an author's actual opinions from what his
characters say in a story is one of the main problems with literary
criticism going back 2000 years. It has been shown to be a fallacious and
invalid approach so often that I find it hard to believe anybody still tries
to do it.
I'll give just one example here from Heinlein. He has been criticized many
times for apparently proposing a system of government based on a military
oligarchy in ST. However, in Double Star, the earth has a parliamentary-type
system headed up by a very competent and even enlightened prime minister,
the Honorable Bonforte. And there are other examples. Since there doesn't
seem to be any consistency here, I don't see that singling out ST on this
point is valid.
Unless you have actually talked to the author and he says he definitely has
a certain opinion on something, as someone said here earlier, it's a mug's
game.
--Steve B.
Steve Burwen
"Skylark" <rmhs...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3c58710b...@news1.rdc1.va.home.com...
I'll throw my vote in for Gates McFadden, too. I've only recently noticed
her. Not sure why it took me so long.
--Steve B.
jump101
> I'll throw my vote in for Gates McFadden, too. I've only recently noticed
> her. Not sure why it took me so long.
>
> --Steve B.
Perhaps you were temporarily blinded by the glare from Syrtis' visible
"talents". McFadden tended to hide her "lights" under a bushel. I am sure
that NW would agree that there is nothing wrong with eyecandy however.
Steve Burwen
"jump101" <eeg...@exis.net> wrote in message
news:3c588...@grouper.exis.net...
That's just it. I never had a thing for Sirtis. So I'm not sure why I didn't
notice McFadden earlier.
--Steve B.
lal_truckee
You weren't supposed to notice her as an object of appropriate male
lust. The other one, with the Radar Domes, was supposed to be the object
for appropriate male lust. The Star Trekie franchise owners don't know
about men who are attracted to intelligence, knowledge, and strength, so
they couldn't anticipate it. The Star Trekie franchise owners don't
learn either, since the Radar Domes pop out again in the next two series.
Any ideas why the regression? STNG had at least McFadden for the rest of
us. STV had no one - a whiney psuedo Klingon (whats-her-forgetable-name)
and a moronic captain - no smart women at all. Enterprise has tried to
package the Radar Domes with Smart (doomed to failure IMO - the Domes
are too big) and surrounded the leads with even whinier whiners.
The Star Trekie franchise owners need a Sigorney Weaver type - Sigorney
has no Radar Domes at all (no nothing actually) except she exudes brains
out of every pore, so she's the sexiest thing around filmic SF.
David Wright
> David Wright wrote:
>
> > "Alexei & Cory Panshin" <to...@enter.net> wrote in message
> > news:3C572ED4...@enter.net...
>
(snip)
> I agree with you that Heinlein imbedded different philosophical
> premises in different stories. The very fact that he could and
> did put his head in the places necessary to imagine stories that
> are deterministic on the one hand and on the other can involve
> the Realm of 666 is endlessly intriguing to me.
>
See below
> But having said that, I still don't understand what question
> you were originally asking me. Perhaps this was because you
> were not asking about something I said, but about something that
> I didn't say. I'm good at answering about things that I said;
> not so good on things I didn't.
>
My initial question had to do with my incorrectly inferring that you were
claiming that Heinlein believed in a deterministic viewpoint. I've already
explained this and my response in the last post was to clear up where I was
coming from on the 'determinism' vs 'non-determinism' issue in looking at
his stories.
> I'm a little surprised to have you suggest that your personal
> reactions are so different from mine that you and I have nothing
> to say to each other. If you can't temporarily accept premises
> and points of view that are different from those you usually
> hold, I would think you would find it difficult to read science
> fiction.
>
To make this absolutely clear. I am only saying that your 'personal
reactions' to Heinlein's stories as outlined in what I have read of HiD do
not match mine at all, that is to say, your opinions and ways that you look
at the the stories, (to which you are perfectly welcome), do not match *my*
opinions or ways, for the most part, and having said that, that exhausts for
me the possibility of any further discussion on them. The only possible
exception to this would be for me to try to 'explain' why we hold these
different opinions and frankly, that is of absolute no interest to me.
To illustrate what I mean, there is a specific example, not from HiD, but
from your comments above, "The very fact that he could and did put his head
in the places necessary to imagine stories that are deterministic on the one
hand and on the other can involve the Realm of 666 is endlessly intriguing
to me". Such an apparently intriguing contrast, to you, seems to me to be
perfectly natural and not particularly intriguing. Furthermore, the
questions that said he should have asked about in 'Life-line' seem to me to
be totally irrelevant and not worthy of any interest.
I can accept *temporarily* any premise or point of view for as long as it
interests me, even if I disagree with it. I have not agreed or been
particularly interested in HiD, with respect to what I have read so far, but
I will continue to read the remainder when available to insure that I
haven't made a mistake in my evaluation of it.
As to SF or any other kind of writing, If something, *in my opinion*, is
done well enough, I can overlook any kind of perceived flaw or point of
disagreement even to the extent of re-reading it whenever the mood strikes
me.
> I don't remember having said anything about "documented sources,"
> so I don't know whom you are quoting. What I said was -- and you
> do quote me accurately -- "Those things treated as facts in this book
> are, to the best of my knowledge, actually facts."
>
> I accept your challenge:
> Present three examples from _Heinlein in Dimension_ of things
> given as fact that you doubt. Quote me exactly. Tell me why you
> think they weren't a fact. I will then do my best to either show that
> they were a fact in 1965 or tell why my state of knowledge then
For personal reasons, I withdraw the challenge. You may speak or not as you
wish. I don't wish to belabor these aspects.
David Earl Wright Sr.
Randy J. Jost
>
> Skylark spake:
> > While Marina is definitely a sweet looking lady, I have to agree with
> > you about Gates McFadden. She can start my engine anytime!
>
> My dream usually starts with her saying "Crusher to Enterprise... two to
> beam directly to my quarters."
>
Yeah, well my dream usually starts with Picard saying, "Mr. Worf!
Activate the Wesley crusher!" Then on to the lasses.....
Randy
jump101
> Yeah, well my dream usually starts with Picard saying, "Mr. Worf!
> Activate the Wesley crusher!" Then on to the lasses.....
>
> Randy
You WOULD bring up that obnoxious little twit. The best thing that happened
to TNG was letting that brat run off with the Traveler. Am I the only one
who noticed a resemblance between Wesley and Will Robinson on the original
Lost in Space series?
jump101
> That's just it. I never had a thing for Sirtis. So I'm not sure why I
didn't
> notice McFadden earlier.
>
> --Steve B.
Aha! You must be a closet Tasha Yar fan.