Questions for the R.P.O.E.
Dr. Rufo
I found myself recently with a few moments to spare and used that time
to sort through some Heinlein ephemera I had on my hard drive. During that
round of electronic housecleaning, I discovered some apparently unattributed
notes on RAH's life & work.
This is what caught my attention:
In the mid-1970's, Heinlein suffered from a serious blockage of the
carotid artery that reduced the flow of blood to his brain. He said of
himself that he "slept 16 hours a day and wasn't worth a hoot the other
eight." During this period, he wrote a novel that on the advice of his
wife was never published .
As I say, I seem to have neglected to assign a source for this
statement when I included it in my own notes. Definitely my bad!
Here's my question(s):
Is this unpublished novel, possibly, the *Panki Number of the Beast* of
which Dave Silver has spoken?
If that's too simple and direct for y'all, How's this one:
Is there a "Lost Heinlein" still to surface from the Archives?
What do all y'all think?
Rufe
MajorOz
...depends on how handy my tin hat is, I suppose :>)
I really don't think so.
There are enough Heinlein scholars out there -- both professional and
amateur -- that I doubt there could be something hidden.
H wasn't the kind to wad up a manuscript and stuff it behind the
wallboard in the guest bedroom for some remodeler in 2058 to discover.
Were I so inclined, and a LOT more ambitious (and talented), I would,
as others have probably been tempted to do, try to write something and
pass it off. But, there are too many fish to catch and songs to sing
to make such effort.
cheers
oz, off to sing some Gospel blues in about three hours
David M. Silver
"Dr. Rufo" <bay...@verizon.net> wrote:
> Hey, Y'all,
>
> I found myself recently with a few moments to spare and used that time
> to sort through some Heinlein ephemera I had on my hard drive. During that
> round of electronic housecleaning, I discovered some apparently unattributed
> notes on RAH's life & work.
>
> This is what caught my attention:
>
> In the mid-1970's, Heinlein suffered from a serious blockage of the
> carotid artery that reduced the flow of blood to his brain. He said of
> himself that he "slept 16 hours a day and wasn't worth a hoot the other
> eight." During this period, he wrote a novel that on the advice of his
> wife was never published .
>
There is a little confusion about sequence of events here that we should
avoid.
The significant point is this: the blockage to the brain didn't appear
to manifest itself until after the minor stroke -- the so-called
Transient Ischemic Attack (TIA), which is really nothing other than a
minor stroke in which the symptoms _appear_ to be wholly resolved or the
patient recovers functionality over the affected body part[s] within 24
hours -- that TIA occurred in Tahiti in January 1978 well over two
months after Heinlein had finished writing (and Ginny had read and
critiqued) the so-called "Panki Number of the Beast."
The partial paralysis Heinlein suffered on the beach in Tahiti wore off
within 24 hours, as well as whatever other symptoms that were present
[that's why it was called a "transient" attack -- had it been longer
than 24 hours, the practice then, as now, was to call it simply what it
was: a stroke]. Then Heinlein went on home (back to California), and
they did various tests which determined there was a blockage of the
carotid artery. The medics then spent time determining what course of
action they intended to recommend. It was only while they were testing
and evaluating that Heinlein started to sleep "16 hours a day and wasn't
worth a hoot" etc.
Ginny recalled in an interview with Patterson that Heinlein told her
that on one vague occasion while he was still writing the Panki NotB he
had a brief moment of dizziness and "disconnect," but it immediately
passed, he continued working on writing, and he never mentioned it to
anyone until after the TIA. Ginny couldn't give a date, perhaps because
she didn't receive one from RAH. The "dizziness" and "disconnect" could
have been another even more minor symptom of the blocked carotid artery,
but you cannot count on that as it also might have been umpty-ump other
events for a man seventy years of age (e.g., you can have dizziness and
disconnect standing up to go get a cup of coffee suddenly from a seated
position at that age, because your blood circulation isn't likely to be
working as well as it did when you were thirty). Heinlein wasn't and
didn't begin sleeping sixteen hours daily back whenever this event,
whatever it was, occurred; he started, as noted above, only after the
trip to Tahiti, more than three months after finishing the Panki NotB,
and only after the TIA took place.
So it wasn't a "mid-1970s" event, rather, suffering from the blockage
appeared to commence only in 1978.
> As I say, I seem to have neglected to assign a source for this
> statement when I included it in my own notes. Definitely my bad!
>
> Here's my question(s):
>
> Is this unpublished novel, possibly, the *Panki Number of the Beast* of
> which Dave Silver has spoken?
>
> If that's too simple and direct for y'all, How's this one:
>
> Is there a "Lost Heinlein" still to surface from the Archives?
>
> What do all y'all think?
>
> Rufe
--
David M. Silver
http://www.heinleinsociety.org
"The Lieutenant expects your names to shine!"
Robert Anson Heinlein, USNA '29
Lt.(jg), USN, R'td
Bill Patterson
I wasn't easily able to attribute the quotation -- but it's one I've
definitely run across as well. I'm wondering if it might be one of
the minor-error-ridden Wikipedia entry versions?. I never mined the
Wikipedia entries for the biography chronology.Some of the phrasing
sounds like something I might write, trying to get it extremely
concise and condensed.
As David says downthread, its not "mid-1970's" at all: Iin the middle
of the decade he was going great guns with blood drives and SF
conventions. His TIAs which wer called in the literature of the time
"precursors to a stroke" started late in 1977; then came the Moorea
Beach TIA. He had another TIA while in Hawaii on his way home from
Tahiti
Yes, the book he wrote in 1977 was The Panki-Barsoom Number of the
Beast.
And, yes, there is another full Heinlein novel yet to emerge from the
Archive..
David M. Silver
<854b0e1a-191e-4151...@u18g2000pro.googlegroups.com>,
Bill Patterson <whpat...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > In the mid-1970's, Heinlein suffered from a serious blockage of the
> > carotid artery that reduced the flow of blood to his brain. He said of
> > himself that he "slept 16 hours a day and wasn't worth a hoot the other
> > eight." During this period, he wrote a novel that on the advice of his
> > wife was never published .
> >
[snip]
>
> I wasn't easily able to attribute the quotation -- but it's one I've
> definitely run across as well. I'm wondering if it might be one of
> the minor-error-ridden Wikipedia entry versions?. I never mined the
> Wikipedia entries for the biography chronology.
The "mid-1970's" attribution doesn't come from it but the "slept 16
hours a day and wasn't worth a hoot" bit comes from Heinlein's own
description of his condition in "Spin-Off" the Congressional testimony
on July 19, 1979. Heinlein, in his testimony, dated the period he
referenced as "Fourteen months ago," or "in only two months" after the
incident on Tahiti, i.e., in April 1978. The operation that took place
to correct the stoppage was also in April 1978. See, pp. 415, et seq.,
Expanded Universe (first Baen printing, October 2003).
djinn
> And, yes, there is another full Heinlein novel yet to emerge from the
> Archive..
!!!!!?????!!!!!!
Chris Zakes
Indeed. *Please* don't give that one to Spider Robinson to "finish
up."
-Chris Zakes
Texas
Man's mind, once stretched by a new idea, never regains its original dimensions.
-Oliver Wendell Holmes
Bill Patterson
No *danger* (for some values of danger) -- it's completely finished as
is (twice!)
jeanette
Jeanette
James Nicoll
Chris Zakes <dont...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 03:18:31 -0800 (PST), an orbital mind-control
>laser caused djinn <dje...@gmail.com> to write:
>
>>On Dec 9, 10:42�am, Bill Patterson <whpatter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> And, yes, there is another full Heinlein novel yet to emerge from the
>>> Archive..
>>
>>!!!!!?????!!!!!!
>
>Indeed. *Please* don't give that one to Spider Robinson to "finish
>up."
He's be too busy writing the three sequels to VARIABLE STAR
Tor reportedly purchased.
Speaking of the Robinsons, I don't know if it's been mentioned
here but Jeanne Robinson is quite sick and there are financial implications:
http://stardancemovie.blogspot.com/2009/08/third-act.html
I don't know enough about how British Columbia runs its
health care system (funding is federally mandated but provincially
run) to comment intelligently but from the other side of the country
it looks like part of the problem is that some treatments she believes
are effective are not listed and so not paid for by the provincial
system.
ObHeinlein: Remember the Social Credit stuff from FOR US THE LIVING? The
SoCreds under Wacky Bennett and to a lesser extent his kid had a long
and successful run in BC. Ditto with the SoCreds in Alberta, whre
the shadows lie.
--
http://www.livejournal.com/users/james_nicoll
http://www.cafepress.com/jdnicoll (For all your "The problem with
defending the English language [...]" T-shirt, cup and tote-bag needs)
Dr. Rufo
MajorOz wrote:
> On Dec 8, 3:03 pm, "Dr. Rufo" <bay...@verizon.net> wrote:
< snip >
>> Is there a "Lost Heinlein" still to surface from the Archives?
>>
>> What do all y'all think?
>>
>> Rufe
>
> ...depends on how handy my tin hat is, I suppose :>)
Shucks, Oz, I thought each of us was supposed to make our own
"hats" out of aluminum foil.
< snip again >
>
> cheers
>
> oz, off to sing some Gospel blues in about three hours
Hope you had a great time!
Rufe
Dr. Rufo
David M. Silver wrote:
< snip -- but please go back and read all of Dave's very detailed post >
I wanted only to say Thanks for sorting out the many conflated and
confused details
in the snippet I'd found in my notes.
Rufe
Dr. Rufo
Bill Patterson wrote:
> On Dec 8, 1:03�pm, "Dr. Rufo" <bay...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> Hey, Y'all,
< snip for brevity >
>
> I wasn't easily able to attribute the quotation -- but it's one I've
> definitely run across as well. I'm wondering if it might be one of
> the minor-error-ridden Wikipedia entry versions?. I never mined the
> Wikipedia entries for the biography chronology.Some of the phrasing
> sounds like something I might write, trying to get it extremely
> concise and condensed.
Not to re-open any wounds but I stay away from any wiki-pages anywhere
they exist! I believe the features that make them accessible are the
same that make them most unreliable.
>
> As David says downthread, its not "mid-1970's" at all: Iin the middle
> of the decade he was going great guns with blood drives and SF
> conventions. His TIAs which wer called in the literature of the time
> "precursors to a stroke" started late in 1977; then came the Moorea
> Beach TIA. He had another TIA while in Hawaii on his way home from
> Tahiti
>
> Yes, the book he wrote in 1977 was The Panki-Barsoom Number of the
> Beast.
>
> And, yes, there is another full Heinlein novel yet to emerge from the
> Archive..
Now then, is that all you can say?
Have you been sworn to secrecy by Art Dula and the Members of the
Heinlein Trust?
Are you leaving the next steps to our inference?
Will some agency of the Heinlein Trust and or the Heinlein Society be
making some sort of announcement
Is it safe to infer from this assertion that we (The Great Unwashed and
Untutored Hoi Polloi) will soon (that is "soon" in human terms rather
than in geological terms)be told of the New Find ??
"Tell the Truth, Bill -- and Shame the Devil!"
Rufe
Dr. Rufo
And may I add !!!!!?????!!!!!! !!!!!?????!!!!!! !!!!!?????!!!!!! on
my own behalf.
Rufe
Mike Van Pelt
Dr. Rufo <bay...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> ...depends on how handy my tin hat is, I suppose :>)
> Shucks, Oz, I thought each of us was supposed to make our own
> "hats" out of aluminum foil.
Ha! That's what they *want* you to think. Why do you think
actual tin foil is nearly impossible to find? It's because
tin foil actually *does* block the mind control rays.
Aluminum amplifies them. <fnord>
--
Mike Van Pelt "If they're going to talk about
mvp.at.calweb.com Camelot, then we get to talk about
KE6BVH The Lady in the Lake." - ?
Dr. Rufo
Bill Patterson wrote:
< snip >
> No *danger* (for some values of danger) -- it's completely finished as
> is (twice!)
1. Are you referring to the TWO endings Dave Silver has previously
mentioned
for the "Panki NotB"?
2. Is the "Panki NotB" the "finished novel" to which you've referred?
3. If so, I cast my (completely imaginary) vote, with Mrs. H. -- That
is, if *she*
thought is wasn't good enough to print, leave it in the Archives as a
Curiosity.
Of course, the likely determinant will be whether there's money to be
made on
publishing it.
<Sigh.>
Rufe
Dr. Rufo
Mike Van Pelt wrote:
> In article <hfov3f$dns$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> Dr. Rufo <bay...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>> ...depends on how handy my tin hat is, I suppose :>)
>> Shucks, Oz, I thought each of us was supposed to make our own
>> "hats" out of aluminum foil.
>
> Ha! That's what they *want* you to think. Why do you think
> actual tin foil is nearly impossible to find? It's because
> tin foil actually *does* block the mind control rays.
> Aluminum amplifies them. <fnord>
>
Kewl!
Hail to the Veiled Non-Prophets of FNORD!
Michael Black
> In article <hfov3f$dns$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> Dr. Rufo <bay...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>> ...depends on how handy my tin hat is, I suppose :>)
>> Shucks, Oz, I thought each of us was supposed to make our own
>> "hats" out of aluminum foil.
>
> Ha! That's what they *want* you to think. Why do you think
> actual tin foil is nearly impossible to find? It's because
> tin foil actually *does* block the mind control rays.
> Aluminum amplifies them. <fnord>
>
Are you sure?
Maybe they don't sell tin foil because it can be soldered, to make
a better shield, while aluminum can only be soldered under fairly
difficult conditions, so you don't get the shielding.
Michael
Chris Zakes
laser caused Bill Patterson <whpat...@gmail.com> to write:
>On Dec 9, 4:32?am, Chris Zakes <donti...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 03:18:31 -0800 (PST), ?an orbital mind-control
>> laser caused djinn <dje...@gmail.com> to write:
>>
>> >On Dec 9, 10:42?am, Bill Patterson <whpatter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> And, yes, there is another full Heinlein novel yet to emerge from the
>> >> Archive..
>>
>> >!!!!!?????!!!!!!
>>
>> Indeed. *Please* don't give that one to Spider Robinson to "finish
>> up."
>>
>> ? ? ? ? -Chris Zakes
>> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Texas
>>
>> Man's mind, once stretched by a new idea, never regains its original dimensions.
>>
>> ? ? ? ? -Oliver Wendell Holmes
>
>No *danger* (for some values of danger) -- it's completely finished as
>is (twice!)
That's good. Why not publish both versions? (For that matter, I
*still* want to see the original Heinlein notes on "Variable Star.")
Chris Zakes
laser caused jdni...@panix.com (James Nicoll) to write:
>In article <646vh5pjan85ojqem...@4ax.com>,
>Chris Zakes <dont...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 03:18:31 -0800 (PST), an orbital mind-control
>>laser caused djinn <dje...@gmail.com> to write:
>>
>>>On Dec 9, 10:42�am, Bill Patterson <whpatter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> And, yes, there is another full Heinlein novel yet to emerge from the
>>>> Archive..
>>>
>>>!!!!!?????!!!!!!
>>
>>Indeed. *Please* don't give that one to Spider Robinson to "finish
>>up."
>
> He's be too busy writing the three sequels to VARIABLE STAR
>Tor reportedly purchased.
<shrug> If they're anything like "Variable Star" or the sequels to
"Stardance" *I* won't be buying them. I pretty much gave upon Robinson
after the second or third Lady Sally story (whichever one it was that
had the woman with one mind in two bodies.) VS certainly gave me no
incentive to read any more of his writing.
Quadibloc
> Ditto with the SoCreds in Alberta, whre
> the shadows lie.
In that case, instead of making a bid for Expo 2017, maybe Edmonton
should bid for the Summer Olympics, if this is where rings draw
things...
John Savard
Quadibloc
> On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 03:18:31 -0800 (PST), an orbital mind-control
> laser caused djinn <dje...@gmail.com> to write:
> >On Dec 9, 10:42 am, Bill Patterson <whpatter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> And, yes, there is another full Heinlein novel yet to emerge from the
> >> Archive..
>
> >!!!!!?????!!!!!!
>
> Indeed. *Please* don't give that one to Spider Robinson to "finish
> up."
If indeed it was a novel that was too horrible to publish because it
was written when Heinlein was not himself, then it could be so really,
really bad that so doing would _not_ make it worse. I know that's only
a slim possibility, but it still shouldn't be dismissed out of hand.
John Savard
David M. Silver
"Dr. Rufo" <bay...@verizon.net> wrote:
> Bill Patterson wrote:
> < snip >
> > No *danger* (for some values of danger) -- it's completely finished as
> > is (twice!)
>
> 1. Are you referring to the TWO endings Dave Silver has previously
> mentioned
> for the "Panki NotB"?
>
> 2. Is the "Panki NotB" the "finished novel" to which you've referred?
I think it is, although Bill can speak for himself. It's the only
Heinlein novel-sized work as yet unpublished. It contains two endings
[not counting the third one that became the beginning with the meeting
with the ship Dora, the sisters Laz and Lori, Woody, and the female
version of Andrew Libby, and ends with the L'Envoi chapter]. Two endings
aren't unique for Heinlein. Podkayne, at the publisher's request, had a
second ending.
>
> 3. If so, I cast my (completely imaginary) vote, with Mrs. H. -- That
> is, if *she*
> thought is wasn't good enough to print, leave it in the Archives as a
> Curiosity.
>
That may be a little too hasty a judgment. Just as _For Us, the Living_
did, the Panki-Barsoom NotB may shed some more than little light on what
came after, because it's evident from the two unpublished endings that
Heinlein was ambivalent about the resolution of the theme facing the
four who flee in Gay. They've fled an alien species which poses a deadly
menace not only for they who have discovered its existence but also for
all of humanity itself (moreover, Zeb at least owes the "Black Hats"
some payback for "Ed"). They suspect that the Black Hats have
infiltrated at least some other worlds and fear they have taken over
entirely in some lines. In fact, this is true in the unpublished
versions. The duty, if I may call it that, Heinlein is trying to resolve
is conflict between a patriotism to the entire human race, placing their
"stand // Between their loved home and the war's desolation!" --
something Heinlein had a bit to say about from time to time -- and yet
another duty Heinlein also had a bit to say about, the duty to protect
women and children _first_.
Their mission to protect their wives and future children is complicated
by the lack of proper natal care in some of the worlds they visit.
Barsoom (the real one written by Burroughs which they visit in the Panki
version), for example, lacks obstetrics because the females on Barsoom
lay eggs, and human birth is unknown. Barsoon (the one written later
that was published) also lacks modern obstetrics because medicine and
technology are still at the nineteenth century level, at best.
In the first instance they have to find a safe refuge that has proper
medical care.
Protection of children doesn't end when they are birthed -- there's the
question of care, maintenance and education, during childhood and
adolescence (at least until thirteen years of age, and today for longer
and longer so far as education is concerned).
There's no question that Heinlein felt that married men and fathers owed
a duty to stand in defense of your society just as bachelors do; but
what if you two (Zeb and Jake) are the only members of your species you
may count upon (you cannot automatically count on telling the society
into which you find refuge -- you may wish to remain anonymous lest the
Black Hats hear of you, track you down, and dispose of you and your
wives and children -- so you cannot plan on depending on the society
into which you seek refuge to back your family up if you fall fighting
the Black Hats -- and the more libertarian the society is, the less
"safety nets" there are to depend upon).
These are only some of the considerations that led Heinlein to a certain
ambivalence of ending.
I think the ambivalence may have been or led to writing of what Ginny
considered "not Heinlein." I think it should be studied.
> Of course, the likely determinant will be whether there's money to be
> made on
> publishing it.
>
> <Sigh.>
>
> Rufe
--
Bill Patterson
You're quite right about wikipedia -- a matter of heated discussion
from time to time.
This book is not exactly a "new find" -- I remember David Silver
discussing the book in this very venue. The ms. has been available
online for a couple of years now. So "emerge" is a relative term here
-- "for some values of 'emerge.'"
I considered what I might say without stepping on the Prize Trust's
prerogatives, but I realized that I don't really know what, when, and
how they plan to say, to say nothing of "if," so my most prudent
course is to say nohing about that and leave it to them. Anything I
say would be speculative. The bare facts are that there is one
fragmentary ms. of a completed unpublished novel in the Archive, which
might be reconstructed and published one of these days.
Bill Patterson
Yes, yes, OK, but I'm not the one to voice this opinion to, and I
dunno. Maybe so.
Bill Patterson
It wasn't horrible -- it just wasn't a *heinlein* novel. While there
was a lot of interesting *stuff* going on, it simply doesn't have the
complexity and depth we had come to expect from Heinlein's fiction by
that time. Ginny's judgment, as I understand it was not on the book
per se, but on what it might do to his personal commercial
reputation. The very last thing in the world either of them wanted
was to publish a book that was "less than."
Ginny herself couldnt' remember any details about it after 24 years,
but when she allowed me to read it in 2001 (when it was still deep-
restricted; Stover never got to read it, for example), I found it on
the whole competent yard goods, with some better-than-yard-goods bits
-- and some tedious parts, too.
Bill Patterson
> I think the ambivalence may have been or led to writing of what Ginny
> considered "not Heinlein." I think it should be studied.
Bingo. Could not agree more.
The parallel set-ups of Panki-Barsoom and TNOTB give a great light on
how Heinlein took an idea and put it through several dimensions to
come up with the uniquely dense and complex fictions he wrote.
Chris Zakes
laser caused Bill Patterson <whpat...@gmail.com> to write:
>On Dec 9, 3:00?pm, Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>> On Dec 9, 5:32?am, Chris Zakes <donti...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 03:18:31 -0800 (PST), ?an orbital mind-control
>> > laser caused djinn <dje...@gmail.com> to write:
>> > >On Dec 9, 10:42?am, Bill Patterson <whpatter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > >> And, yes, there is another full Heinlein novel yet to emerge from the
>> > >> Archive..
>>
>> > >!!!!!?????!!!!!!
>>
>> > Indeed. *Please* don't give that one to Spider Robinson to "finish
>> > up."
>>
>> If indeed it was a novel that was too horrible to publish because it
>> was written when Heinlein was not himself, then it could be so really,
>> really bad that so doing would _not_ make it worse. I know that's only
>> a slim possibility, but it still shouldn't be dismissed out of hand.
>>
>> John Savard
>
>It wasn't horrible -- it just wasn't a *heinlein* novel. While there
>was a lot of interesting *stuff* going on, it simply doesn't have the
>complexity and depth we had come to expect from Heinlein's fiction by
>that time. Ginny's judgment, as I understand it was not on the book
>per se, but on what it might do to his personal commercial
>reputation. The very last thing in the world either of them wanted
>was to publish a book that was "less than."
>
>Ginny herself couldnt' remember any details about it after 24 years,
>but when she allowed me to read it in 2001 (when it was still deep-
>restricted; Stover never got to read it, for example), I found it on
>the whole competent yard goods, with some better-than-yard-goods bits
>-- and some tedious parts, too.
So kind of like "For Us, the Living" then?
Michael Black
But isn't there an excuse there? Being so early, he hadn't had time to
find out what "Heinlein" meant. He was defining it, not following. Any
first attempt is likely to be less than great.
Later, he had no excuse, he'd refined and defined his writing style,
and there were expectations because of his success. By the seventies,
he should have known better. In the thirties, he was just starting out.
Michael
Quadibloc
> It wasn't horrible -- it just wasn't a *heinlein* novel. While there
> was a lot of interesting *stuff* going on, it simply doesn't have the
> complexity and depth we had come to expect from Heinlein's fiction by
> that time. Ginny's judgment, as I understand it was not on the book
> per se, but on what it might do to his personal commercial
> reputation. The very last thing in the world either of them wanted
> was to publish a book that was "less than."
In that case, of course, its publication in an unaltered form is
entirely appropriate now, as people are fond of the existing corpus of
Heinlein's work, and would want to read all there is, such as it may
be, and will make appropriate allowances - just as might be said of
Tolkien's work.
It is a tragedy that, because of the long interregnum when he could
only sell juveniles (good juveniles though they were) that the number
of novels which fully represent Heinlein at his best is so much more
limited than it otherwise might have been.
John Savard
Michael Stemper
>In article <hfp0lb$te0$1...@news.eternal-september.org>, "Dr. Rufo" <bay...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> Bill Patterson wrote:
>> 1. Are you referring to the TWO endings Dave Silver has previously
>> mentioned
>> for the "Panki NotB"?
>That may be a little too hasty a judgment. Just as _For Us, the Living_
>did, the Panki-Barsoom NotB
I give up. What is "Panki"? Is it half of what my baby does?
--
Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Disclaimer>
The name of the story is "A Sound of Thunder".
It was written by Ray Bradbury. You're welcome.
Quadibloc
wrote:
> I give up. What is "Panki"? Is it half of what my baby does?
Some Google searching turned up this page:
http://www.heinleinsociety.org/readersgroup/AIM_03-08-2007.html
in which I find the following:
The original version of "The Number of the Beast" was shelved as it
was declared - by Virginia Heinlein - to be unpublishable. And the
title on the manuscript was "The Panki-Barsoom Number of the Beast".
"Hakkn'i panki" is said to be Romany for "big con" - I doubted that it
was the true origin of "hanky panky", until I found this reference:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hokkani_boro
In another part of the discussion, the "Panki" or Pankera are supposed
to be a race of beings that appeared in the "real" version of E. R.
Burroughs' Barsoom. (They're nowhere mentioned in the version we're
familiar with.)
Also, it's the name of an administrative block in India, but that
apparently has nothing to do with the book.
John Savard
Bill Higgins
> On Dec 9, 7:30 pm, Bill Patterson <whpatter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > The very last thing in the world either of them wanted
> > was to publish a book that was "less than."
>
> It is a tragedy that, because of the long interregnum when he could
> only sell juveniles (good juveniles though they were) that the number
> of novels which fully represent Heinlein at his best is so much more
> limited than it otherwise might have been.
I'd like to point out that the non-juvenile novels *The Puppet
Masters*, *Double Star*, and *The Door into Summer* were published
during the years that Heinlein was selling juveniles. So were some of
his short stories.
I don't recognize a "long interregnum." Heinlein could easily sell
fiction to adult markets during those years, and frequently did.
--
Bill Higgins
Fermilab
hig...@fnal.gov
<http://beamjockey.livejournal.com>
Chris Zakes
In the post that started this particular thread, Dr. Rufo posted a
quote which said:
"In the mid-1970's, Heinlein suffered from a serious blockage of the
carotid artery that reduced the flow of blood to his brain. He said of
himself that he "slept 16 hours a day and wasn't worth a hoot the
other eight." During this period, he wrote a novel that on the advice
of his wife was never published ."
So Heinlein *did* have an excuse for substandard writing at that
particular point in his life.
But acknowledging that it probably won't be up to his usual standard,
I'd still be interested in reading it, just as I was interested in
reading FUTL and the three stinkeroos.
Bill Patterson
Not quite sure what you mean by "the long interregnum when he could
only sell juveniles." He was publishing "adult" novels every 2-3
years during the 1950's -- Puppet Masters, then Double Star and The
Door Into Summer, to say nothing of his collections and miscellaneous
shorter works. Moreover, he did a lot of "utility" writing during the
1950's -- encyclopedia articles, articles telling librarians how to
buy SF, introductions to books, that sort of thing
Quadibloc
I read about his frustration with writing juveniles, and not being
familiar enough with his works.
John Savard
David M. Silver
Chris Zakes <dont...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> So kind of like "For Us, the Living" then?
> >>
> >But isn't there an excuse there? Being so early, he hadn't had time to
> >find out what "Heinlein" meant. He was defining it, not following. Any
> >first attempt is likely to be less than great.
> >
> >Later, he had no excuse, he'd refined and defined his writing style,
> >and there were expectations because of his success. By the seventies,
> >he should have known better. In the thirties, he was just starting out.
> >
> > Michael
>
> In the post that started this particular thread, Dr. Rufo posted a
> quote which said:
>
> "In the mid-1970's, Heinlein suffered from a serious blockage of the
> carotid artery that reduced the flow of blood to his brain. He said of
> himself that he During this period, he wrote a novel that on the advice
> of his wife was never published ."
>
> So Heinlein *did* have an excuse for substandard writing at that
> particular point in his life.
>
The point of my noting (and Bill confirming) that the phrase
"mid-1970's" was misleading and incorrect, Chris, was this: His 'excuse'
didn't manifest itself until after January 1978, when the (small stoke)
TIA occurred. Then, some time in maybe February or March or April, the
"slept 16 hours a day and wasn't worth a hoot the other eight" started.
But Heinlein wasn't trying to write by the time of his clear diagnosed
TIA and the TIA-caused "slept 16 hours" etc. He'd finished the so-called
Panki-Barsoom NotB back in November 1977, Ginny had read it, told him
she didn't think it was up to his usual standards, and he'd put it aside
and went traveling to Atlanta to receive an award, still in November,
and then on to Tahiti in December and on into the next January on
vacation.
So, no, at the time he wrote Panki-Barsoom NotB, he didn't have an
excuse that has been established. There could have been some blockage,
most probably was, before the event in January, but the TIA occurred,
most likely, because some of the plaque upstream (between the pumping
heart and the blood-needing brain) broke loose and, traveling on,
clotted and blocked his artery at the point they later by-passed,
proximately causing the TIA; and, subsequently, later after yet another
TIA that occurred on the way back to California, in Hawaii, the "slept
16 hours a day" etc. began. The surgeons corrected that with surgery in
April 1978 before he resumed writing.
> But acknowledging that it probably won't be up to his usual standard,
> I'd still be interested in reading it, just as I was interested in
> reading FUTL and the three stinkeroos.
--
Quadibloc
> The point of my noting (and Bill confirming) that the phrase
> "mid-1970's" was misleading and incorrect, Chris, was this: His 'excuse'
> didn't manifest itself until after January 1978, when the (small stoke)
> TIA occurred. Then, some time in maybe February or March or April, the
> "slept 16 hours a day and wasn't worth a hoot the other eight" started.
> But Heinlein wasn't trying to write by the time of his clear diagnosed
> TIA and the TIA-caused "slept 16 hours" etc. He'd finished the so-called
> Panki-Barsoom NotB back in November 1977, Ginny had read it, told him
> she didn't think it was up to his usual standards, and he'd put it aside
> and went traveling to Atlanta to receive an award, still in November,
> and then on to Tahiti in December and on into the next January on
> vacation.
>
> So, no, at the time he wrote Panki-Barsoom NotB, he didn't have an
> excuse that has been established. There could have been some blockage,
> most probably was, before the event in January, but the TIA occurred,
> most likely, because some of the plaque upstream (between the pumping
> heart and the blood-needing brain) broke loose and, traveling on,
> clotted and blocked his artery at the point they later by-passed,
> proximately causing the TIA; and, subsequently, later after yet another
> TIA that occurred on the way back to California, in Hawaii, the "slept
> 16 hours a day" etc. began. The surgeons corrected that with surgery in
> April 1978 before he resumed writing.
This could possibly indicate that the forthcoming novel is not the
original draft of "Number of the Beast", but a different novel,
written later - which unlike the also unpublishable "Panki-Barsoom
Number of the Beast", was also _unsalvageable_.
Not encouraging, but then the worst of Heinlein stands above the best
of so many other authors, and whatever it is, it is of great interest
just from curiosity value, I still eagerly await the publication of
whatever it is.
John Savard
John David Galt
>>> And, yes, there is another full Heinlein novel yet to emerge from the
>>> Archive..
> djinn wrote:
>> !!!!!?????!!!!!!
Chris Zakes wrote:
> Indeed. *Please* don't give that one to Spider Robinson to "finish
> up."
I beg to differ most strenuously.
Chris Zakes
<shrug> Tastes differ, of course, but I wasn't particularly impressed
with the job Robinson did on "Variable Star", and I'd just as soon not
have to deal with another such.
-Chris Zakes
Texas
I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they
will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.
-Martin Luther King Jr.
MajorOz
> On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 11:50:21 -0800, an orbital mind-control laser
> caused John David Galt <j...@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us> to write:
>
> >>> Bill Patterson wrote:
> >>>> And, yes, there is another full Heinlein novel yet to emerge from the
> >>>> Archive..
>
> >> djinn wrote:
> >>> !!!!!?????!!!!!!
>
> >Chris Zakes wrote:
> >> Indeed. *Please* don't give that one to Spider Robinson to "finish
> >> up."
>
> >I beg to differ most strenuously.
>
> <shrug> Tastes differ, of course, but I wasn't particularly impressed
> with the job Robinson did on "Variable Star", and I'd just as soon not
> have to deal with another such.
"...job Robinson did on 'Variable Star'..." accurately describes it,
in the vernacular of the time.
I have no respect for the pretentiously self-promoting example of all
that is wrong with yuppies.
He did one good thing: created the Crosstime Saloon. Beyond that, he
has nothing for me.
YMMV, and probably does........
cheers, anyway
oz
ED WILKINSON
"MajorOz" <Maj...@centurytel.net> wrote in message
news:15a6a8db-5e1d-4fdf...@e37g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
>"...job Robinson did on 'Variable Star'..." accurately describes it,
>in the vernacular of the time.
>
>I have no respect for the pretentiously self-promoting example of all
>that is wrong with yuppies.
>
>He did one good thing: created the Crosstime Saloon. Beyond that, he
>has nothing for me.
>
>YMMV, and probably does........
>
>cheers, anyway
>
>oz
I really dug the Stardance books...especially the first two.
I enjoyed Variable Star....it was more Robinson than Heinlein, but
it was a pleasant read.
-Ed