ConCarolinas 2006 is coming!

seawolf

unread,

Apr 12, 2006, 7:22:51 PM4/12/06

to

Hello,

Just a reminder about ConCarolinas 2006. It's building up to be the best CC
ever.

ConCarolinas 2006
June 2-4, 2006
Charlotte, NC
http://www.concarolinas.org

Here is a short list of the things we're planning...

Writer Guest of Honor - Spider and Jeanne Robinson. Spider is the author of
the Callahan series, and will soon be releasing the first Heinlein novel in
18 years. They not only are fantastic authors, but also are also musicians
and entertainers.

Media Guest of Honor - Tony Amendola. He's best known as Master Bra'tac of
"Stargate SG-1", he also has stared in the two Zorro movies as well as
"CSI:"

Special Music Guest - Boogie Knights. They are regulars at DragonCon and
bring their form of fandom spoof music to ConCarolinas.

And we have a fan-made full sized Stargate from SG-Atlanta coming.

Programming will include .... Writers Workshop, Heinlein panels, Sci Fi
Weakest Link and Sci Fi Jeopardy, Several Anime panels and movie viewings,
Costuming programming including a Costume Contest, Charity Auction to
benefit the North Carolinas Search and Rescue Dog Association, Several Flik
Panels and events, panels on Top Ten Sci Fi Films, Stargate, Battlestar
Galactic, Adult Swim, a Special Screenings of William Winckler's
Frankenstein Vs. The Creature From Blood Cove and much more.

Of course we also have a dealers room (doubled in size this year) and a con
suite.

We also have the SG-Atlanta Stargate, a fan built full sized Stargate.
We'll be allowing posed picutes around the Stargate with costumed Stargate
fan group members for a small fee that will go to charity.

In terms of RPGA gaming - the RPGA will have a battle interactive again, as
well as Living Death and Living Greyhawk Premier scheduled and we are
negotiating for a Living Arcanis Premier.

Other gaming includes a Blood Bowl tournament, Steven Cobb's $150
Deathstacks Tournament 2006, official Wizards of the Coast and Wizkids demos
and sanctioned events, a Stargate LARP, and a SOLAR Shadowmoor events
(http://www.solarinc.org/shadowmoor) and much more. We of course will have
our usual array of RPGs, board games and card games as well.

IF you want to stay in touch with ConCarolinas and its progress, join our
Yahoo Group ConCarolinas_Info or join our forums on our web site.

Thanks for being a part of ConCarolinas past and we hope to see you back
this year.

Thanks for your time

Ron McClung
Con Chair
ConCarolinas 2006

Keith F. Lynch

unread,

Apr 12, 2006, 8:55:54 PM4/12/06

to

seawolf <sea...@ctc.net> wrote:
> Writer Guest of Honor - Spider and Jeanne Robinson. Spider is the
> author of the Callahan series, and will soon be releasing the first
> Heinlein novel in 18 years.

What does it mean for Spider Robinson to release a Heinlein novel?
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.

Dorothy J Heydt

unread,

Apr 12, 2006, 9:34:17 PM4/12/06

to

In article <e1k7iq$ank$1...@panix1.panix.com>,

Keith F. Lynch <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>seawolf <sea...@ctc.net> wrote:
>> Writer Guest of Honor - Spider and Jeanne Robinson. Spider is the
>> author of the Callahan series, and will soon be releasing the first
>> Heinlein novel in 18 years.
>
>What does it mean for Spider Robinson to release a Heinlein novel?

That (a) an old manuscript was discovered, (b) Robinson edited
it, (c) Robinson, long-time Heinlein maven, is formally ushering
it into the world.

I believe (a) has already been announced, like, last year. (b)
and (c) may either or both be true.

Dorothy J. Heydt
Albany, California
djh...@kithrup.com

David Dyer-Bennet

unread,

Apr 13, 2006, 2:40:08 AM4/13/06

to

<http://www.spiderrobinson.com/>:

Based on an outline Robert created in November 1955 (when I was 7),
it will be his 53rd book, and my 33rd.

They didn't find a whole manuscript, just an outline.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd...@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>

Kip Williams

unread,

Apr 13, 2006, 5:37:37 AM4/13/06

to

David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
> djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) writes:
>
>>In article <e1k7iq$ank$1...@panix1.panix.com>,
>>Keith F. Lynch <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>>
>>>seawolf <sea...@ctc.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Writer Guest of Honor - Spider and Jeanne Robinson. Spider is the
>>>>author of the Callahan series, and will soon be releasing the first
>>>>Heinlein novel in 18 years.
>>>
>>>What does it mean for Spider Robinson to release a Heinlein novel?
>>
>>That (a) an old manuscript was discovered, (b) Robinson edited
>>it, (c) Robinson, long-time Heinlein maven, is formally ushering
>>it into the world.
>>
>>I believe (a) has already been announced, like, last year. (b)
>>and (c) may either or both be true.
>
> <http://www.spiderrobinson.com/>:
>
> Based on an outline Robert created in November 1955 (when I was 7),
> it will be his 53rd book, and my 33rd.
>
> They didn't find a whole manuscript, just an outline.

So I guess Robinson colored it in.

Kip W

David Friedman

unread,

Apr 13, 2006, 1:51:42 PM4/13/06

to

In article <PIGdnUV_i-r...@comcast.com>,
Kip Williams <ki...@comcast.net> wrote:

Interesting question. If you were picking someone to do the job, who
would be your first pick?

I think mine would be Bujold. Her early stuff reminded me of Heinlein,
although it's hard to say exactly why.

--
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/ http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
Author of _Harald_, a fantasy without magic.
Published by Baen, in bookstores now

mike weber

unread,

Apr 14, 2006, 3:59:51 AM4/14/06

to

David Friedman wrote:
> In article <PIGdnUV_i-r...@comcast.com>,

> Interesting question. If you were picking someone to do the job, who
> would be your first pick?
>
> I think mine would be Bujold. Her early stuff reminded me of Heinlein,
> although it's hard to say exactly why.
>

Is Alexei Panshin still around?

John Varley's early stuff had a Heinkeinish feel about it, too.

mike weber

unread,

Apr 14, 2006, 4:01:10 AM4/14/06

to

Arrrgh.

"Heinkeinish"?

James Nicoll

unread,

Apr 14, 2006, 7:57:10 AM4/14/06

to

In article <1145001591.3...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,

mike weber <fairp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>David Friedman wrote:
>> In article <PIGdnUV_i-r...@comcast.com>,
>
>> Interesting question. If you were picking someone to do the job, who
>> would be your first pick?
>>
>> I think mine would be Bujold. Her early stuff reminded me of Heinlein,
>> although it's hard to say exactly why.
>>
>
>Is Alexei Panshin still around?

Yes but as far as I know he has not written an SF novel since
1969 (1978 if you count fantasy within SF and that one was co-authored).
Almost all his short fiction predates 1972, although there are stragglers
out to 1982.

--
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/immigrate/
http://www.livejournal.com/users/james_nicoll

Petrea Mitchell

unread,

Apr 14, 2006, 1:13:10 PM4/14/06

to

At Thu, 13 Apr 2006 01:34:17 GMT,
Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> strode forth and proclaimed:

> In article <e1k7iq$ank$1...@panix1.panix.com>,
> Keith F. Lynch <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:

> >What does it mean for Spider Robinson to release a Heinlein novel?
>
> That (a) an old manuscript was discovered, (b) Robinson edited
> it, (c) Robinson, long-time Heinlein maven, is formally ushering
> it into the world.

Or (d) Robert Heinlein and Spider Robinson were really the same person
all long,
or (e) Heinlein dictated it from the beyond with Robinson acting as medium,
or (f) Heinlein mastered arcane psychic powers which permitted him to
implant his personality in Robinson's subconscious such that at some pre-
arranged signal it would rise up, taking over Robinson's body, and start
writing again,
or (g) there was a terrible accident with an experimental time machine
which catapulted the manuscript forward to Robinson's house in 2005,
or...

--
/
Petrea Mitchell <|> <|> <pr...@m5p.com> <mit...@osm.com>
"I'm poor, I'm Welsh, and I'm not Richard Burton yet. Do you hear me? I'm
poor, I'm Welsh, and I'm NOT RICHARD BURTON YET!" ---MST3K

Aaron Denney

unread,

Apr 14, 2006, 1:18:29 PM4/14/06

to

On 2006-04-14, Petrea Mitchell <pr...@parkstreet.m5p.com> wrote:
> At Thu, 13 Apr 2006 01:34:17 GMT,
> Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> strode forth and proclaimed:
>> In article <e1k7iq$ank$1...@panix1.panix.com>,
>> Keith F. Lynch <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>
>> >What does it mean for Spider Robinson to release a Heinlein novel?
>>
>> That (a) an old manuscript was discovered, (b) Robinson edited
>> it, (c) Robinson, long-time Heinlein maven, is formally ushering
>> it into the world.
>

> or (g) there was a terrible accident with an experimental time machine
> which catapulted the manuscript forward to Robinson's house in 2005,
> or...

I'll pick (g), but it's "there will have been a terrible accident".
It will have happened in roughly 80 years, causing both cross time-line
(i.e. the man who walked around a horse), and time-travel incidents.

--
Aaron Denney
-><-

Kip Williams

unread,

Apr 14, 2006, 6:00:20 PM4/14/06

to

Petrea Mitchell wrote:
> At Thu, 13 Apr 2006 01:34:17 GMT,
> Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> strode forth and proclaimed:
>
>>In article <e1k7iq$ank$1...@panix1.panix.com>,
>>Keith F. Lynch <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>
>>>What does it mean for Spider Robinson to release a Heinlein novel?
>>
>>That (a) an old manuscript was discovered, (b) Robinson edited
>>it, (c) Robinson, long-time Heinlein maven, is formally ushering
>>it into the world.
>
> Or (d) Robert Heinlein and Spider Robinson were really the same person
> all long,
> or (e) Heinlein dictated it from the beyond with Robinson acting as medium,
> or (f) Heinlein mastered arcane psychic powers which permitted him to
> implant his personality in Robinson's subconscious such that at some pre-
> arranged signal it would rise up, taking over Robinson's body, and start
> writing again,
> or (g) there was a terrible accident with an experimental time machine
> which catapulted the manuscript forward to Robinson's house in 2005,
> or...

Or (g)...

"(h)..."

"...(h), I mean: you have dialed the wrong number and I am not Chicken Man."

Kip W

Keith F. Lynch

unread,

Apr 15, 2006, 1:44:22 PM4/15/06

to

Aaron Denney <wno...@ofb.net> wrote:
> I'll pick (g), but it's "there will have been a terrible accident".
> It will have happened in roughly 80 years, causing both cross

> time-line (i.e. the man who walked around a horse), ...

He (Sir Benjamin Bathurst) walked around "the horses," plural.

-- Keith "nitpicker extraordinaire" Lynch

Keith F. Lynch

unread,

Apr 15, 2006, 2:00:44 PM4/15/06

to

mike weber <fairp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> John Varley's early stuff had a Heinkeinish feel about it, too.

Did to much Heineken cause you to misspell Heinlein?

Some of Varley's recent stuff also has a Heinleinish feel. Have you
read _Red Thunder_?

Kip Williams

unread,

Apr 15, 2006, 2:51:23 PM4/15/06

to

Keith F. Lynch wrote:
> Aaron Denney <wno...@ofb.net> wrote:
>
>>I'll pick (g), but it's "there will have been a terrible accident".
>>It will have happened in roughly 80 years, causing both cross
>>time-line (i.e. the man who walked around a horse), ...
>
> He (Sir Benjamin Bathurst) walked around "the horses," plural.

Then it is undeniable that he also walked around "a" horse in the
process of walking around the horses.

Kip W

Samuel Kleiner

unread,

Apr 15, 2006, 7:20:42 PM4/15/06

to

David Friedman wrote:

> Interesting question. If you were picking someone to do the job, who
> would be your first pick?

Gerrold, no question.

--
Internet, I'm bored. What plaything can you offer me today?
--Postmodernbarney.com

Steve Glover

unread,

Apr 18, 2006, 3:37:19 PM4/18/06

to

In article <1145001591.3...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, mike

weber <fairp...@gmail.com> writes

>Is Alexei Panshin still around?
>
>John Varley's early stuff had a Heinkeinish feel about it, too.

And the above typing has a Heinekenish feel....

For more Martian Goodness from Heineken:

http://www.lookatentertainment.com/v/v-1206.htm

[There are two versions - one draught, one bottled. This is the draught
one - note the use of the decapitating knife]

Steve

--
Steve Glover, Fell Services Ltd.
Home: steve at fell-services dot net, 0131 551 3835
Away: steve.glover at ukonline dor co dot uk, 07961 446 902

Seth Breidbart

unread,

Apr 20, 2006, 1:39:34 AM4/20/06

to

In article <1145001591.3...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
mike weber <fairp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>David Friedman wrote:

>> Interesting question. If you were picking someone to do the job, who
>> would be your first pick?
>>
>> I think mine would be Bujold. Her early stuff reminded me of Heinlein,
>> although it's hard to say exactly why.
>
>Is Alexei Panshin still around?

That sound you hear is RAH spinning in his grave.

Seth

Jerri

unread,

Apr 20, 2006, 11:24:11 AM4/20/06

to

Seth wrote

> That sound you hear is RAH spinning in his grave.

I am inclined to agree with this. The man said what he had to say, at
length. Boy howdy! did he say what he had to say, at length. Then he
died. I don't get the point of extracting *more* from his works without
benefit to him. And he's dead. What does *he* have to gain from this?
Jerri

James Nicoll

unread,

Apr 20, 2006, 11:36:04 AM4/20/06

to

In article <1145546651....@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>,

As you say, he's dead. It's not his direct interests that
are driving the recent burst of material RAH or his wife did not
see fit to publish while they were alive, because he no longer has
interests.

It might help his reputation, though. There are two possible
outcomes: it might be good, in which case everyone can say how RAH
could pull up even a tired old duffer like Spider, or it could be
bad, in which case everyone can say "See? Nobody can write them like
Heinlein, even using his material."

I'm guessing the sum of "I chose not to finish this" and
"There are no fat Callahan's chicks" is more likely to be over
towards the Spork Your Eyes out end of the scale, because this
kind of collaboration is hard and we're not talking the most
talented writer in the field as the living partner.

Did Heinlein ever collaborate with anyone else? I can't recall
an example.

Matthew B. Tepper

unread,

Apr 20, 2006, 12:53:27 PM4/20/06

to

jdni...@panix.com (James Nicoll) appears to have caused the following
letters to be typed in news:e289p4$4jo$1...@reader1.panix.com:

Elma Wentz.

--
Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!
My personal home page -- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/index.html
My main music page --- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/berlioz.html
To write to me, do for my address what Androcles did for the lion
Take THAT, Daniel Lin, Mark Sadek, James Lin & Christopher Chung!

James Nicoll

unread,

Apr 20, 2006, 1:04:49 PM4/20/06

to

In article <Xns97AB649ACEF...@207.217.125.201>,

Who?

Jerri

unread,

Apr 20, 2006, 1:26:18 PM4/20/06

to

James Nicoll wrote

> It might help his reputation, though. There are two possible
> outcomes: it might be good, in which case everyone can say how RAH
> could pull up even a tired old duffer like Spider, or it could be
> bad, in which case everyone can say "See? Nobody can write them like
> Heinlein, even using his material."

I used to be way heavy-deep into Heinlein ... he had the answers for
absolutely everything. And then I started thinking about his female
characters and how horribly insecure they all were, and how RAH made
them that way. They could kick ass physically, but emotionally they
were just so many trainwrecks. I never got much into Spider, so I
can't really recommend him as *the* guy to take on an unfinished
Heinlein and do it justice of any sort. Their styles and political
outlooks don't seem to be at all similar. Really. I'm not getting the
whole post mortem collaboration. Heckfire, I'm still trying to figure
out how L Ron Hubbard managed to write / publish allllllllllll those
books after he croaked. Not that I care. I sampled one or two and they
were unreadable.
Jerri

Matthew B. Tepper

unread,

Apr 20, 2006, 1:26:33 PM4/20/06

to

jdni...@panix.com (James Nicoll) appears to have caused the following

letters to be typed in news:e28evg$b6r$1...@reader1.panix.com:

E-L-M-A W-E-N-T-Z. Can't you read?

Bill Higgins

unread,

Apr 20, 2006, 1:26:15 PM4/20/06

to

On Tue, 18 Apr 2006, Steve Glover wrote:

> In article <1145001591.3...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, mike
> weber <fairp...@gmail.com> writes
>> Is Alexei Panshin still around?
>>
>> John Varley's early stuff had a Heinkeinish feel about it, too.
>
> And the above typing has a Heinekenish feel....
>
> For more Martian Goodness from Heineken:
>
> http://www.lookatentertainment.com/v/v-1206.htm

"Never thirst."

--
Bill Higgins | I made a proposal that those of us
Fermilab | around when people still used "!" paths
Internet: | should form "F!rst F@ndom."
hig...@fnal.gov | --Evelyn C. Leeper

Dorothy J Heydt

unread,

Apr 20, 2006, 1:32:54 PM4/20/06

to

In article <e289p4$4jo$1...@reader1.panix.com>,

James Nicoll <jdni...@panix.com> wrote:
>
> I'm guessing the sum of "I chose not to finish this" and
>"There are no fat Callahan's chicks" is more likely to be over

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Can you provide a context for this statement, and its
significance? I have read a few Callahan's stories, but it was a
while ago.

>towards the Spork Your Eyes out end of the scale, because this
>kind of collaboration is hard and we're not talking the most
>talented writer in the field as the living partner.

Dorothy J. Heydt
Albany, California
djh...@kithrup.com

Dorothy J Heydt

unread,

Apr 20, 2006, 1:38:36 PM4/20/06

to

In article <Pine.SOL.4.63L.0...@fsui03.fnal.gov>,

Bill Higgins <hig...@fnal.gov> wrote:
>On Tue, 18 Apr 2006, Steve Glover wrote:
>
>> In article <1145001591.3...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, mike
>> weber <fairp...@gmail.com> writes
>>> Is Alexei Panshin still around?
>>>
>>> John Varley's early stuff had a Heinkeinish feel about it, too.
>>
>> And the above typing has a Heinekenish feel....
>>
>> For more Martian Goodness from Heineken:
>>
>> http://www.lookatentertainment.com/v/v-1206.htm
>
>"Never thirst."

Huh. I not only can't get it to display the picture, I can't get
it to "Save Picture As."

Care to give a few words of description?

unread,

Apr 20, 2006, 3:03:52 PM4/20/06

to

In article <e28l6u$k0r$1...@reader1.panix.com>,

James Nicoll <jdni...@panix.com> wrote:
>In article <Iy1Aq...@kithrup.com>,
>Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:
>>In article <e28jv9$ha$1...@reader1.panix.com>,
>>James Nicoll <jdni...@panix.com> wrote:
>>>In article <Iy17E...@kithrup.com>,
>>>Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:
>>>>In article <e289p4$4jo$1...@reader1.panix.com>,
>>>>James Nicoll <jdni...@panix.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm guessing the sum of "I chose not to finish this" and
>>>>>"There are no fat Callahan's chicks" is more likely to be over
>>>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>>Can you provide a context for this statement, and its
>>>>significance? I have read a few Callahan's stories, but it was a
>>>>while ago.
>>>>
>>> Not so much fat as ugly: in one of the later Callahan's books
>>>(Legacy?), an ugly woman is the target of much hilarity from the
>>>empaths at Callahan's.
>>
>>Hm. But did anyone (either Robinson, or one of his characters)
>>actually make the statement as shown? Or who did coin it? Or is
>>it known?
>
> No, sorry. It's a restatement of something from the Draka
>series, that there are no fat Draka.

Oh, ok.

But the Draka work out a lot, don't they? They have a reason for
not being fat. Whereas considering Callahan's is a bar, and a
bar where people go to lament their miserable lot too, you'd
think the place would be stuffed with people who are fat, ugly,
alcoholics, relationshipholics, bores, whiners, et cetera along
with the more tolerant and compassionate types who are willing
to listen to them ... wait, you say those are missing too?

/shrug

Thanks for clearing that up.

James Nicoll

unread,

Apr 20, 2006, 3:31:53 PM4/20/06

to

In article <Iy1BM...@kithrup.com>,

Name a nation where social sanctions were 100% effective at
their goals.

> Whereas considering Callahan's is a bar, and a
>bar where people go to lament their miserable lot too, you'd
>think the place would be stuffed with people who are fat, ugly,
>alcoholics, relationshipholics, bores, whiners, et cetera along
>with the more tolerant and compassionate types who are willing
>to listen to them ... wait, you say those are missing too?

In the old days, the Callahan's crowd leaned towards
acceptance more than rejection, as long as you were a touchy
feeling type who wanted to fight depression with alcohol (Hey,
the series started in the 1970s, if you can relate to that).

These days, anyone not in the ingroup is fair game and
it's the Robinson who wrote the "mock the ugly woman" who will
be cowriting with RAH.

Howard S Shubs

unread,

Apr 20, 2006, 3:40:45 PM4/20/06

to

In article <1145553978.8...@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
"Jerri" <Jerri....@gmail.com> wrote:

> They could kick ass physically, but emotionally they
> were just so many trainwrecks.

How do you figure?

--
We are the music makers, And we are the dreamers of dreams,
Wandering by lone sea-breakers, And sitting by desolate streams.
from "Ode", Arthur O'Shaughnessy

Jerri

unread,

Apr 20, 2006, 3:44:32 PM4/20/06

to

Bill Higgins wrote

> I think you miss Seth's point, which I take to be that Alexei Panshin, however skilled a novelist he may > be, would not be on Heinlein's list of possible collaborators. RAH was not pleased with what Panshin > had written in his criticism.

Did Heinlein have a list of possible collaborators? He put out a
tremendous body of work under his own name. I don't recall his ever
taking another writer under his wing and doing the collaboration thing
in order to promote that other writer. He certainly stole ideas from
other writers, many times giving them credit right there in the
narrative, but an actual collaboration? Not thinking so. He would have
had as little to gain from collaboration *alive* as he does *dead*.
In my own very personal opinion.
Jerri

Dorothy J Heydt

unread,

Apr 20, 2006, 4:15:39 PM4/20/06

to

In article <howard-F5D575....@news.supernews.com>,

Howard S Shubs <how...@shubs.net> wrote:
>In article <1145553978.8...@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
> "Jerri" <Jerri....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> They could kick ass physically, but emotionally they
>> were just so many trainwrecks.
>
>How do you figure?

Restoring some of the snipped content: we were talking about
Heinlein's female characters, weren't we? Who kick ass in one
realm or another, maybe not literally, but metaphorically; but
whose emotional strength is that of a tender clinging vine
seeking a mighty oak to ... uh ... cling to, and who want nothing
more out of life than Twue Wuv and BABIES. I don't call that an
emotional trainwreck, necessarily, but it sure is unimaginative.
Still, Heinlein was imaginative in many other directions; we all
have our weaknesses.

Incidentally, there's a filksong in the West Kingdom of the SCA,
about a briar that grew up a mighty oak; and a forest fire came
raging through, and the oak was killed; but the briar grew back
from the root. (Take heed.)

And, as I recall, grew up all over the corpse of the oak and
covered it with blossom. You could get an interesting
characterization out of it, There's Faulkner's "A Rose for
Emily" already, but IIRC he didn't characterize the old woman
much, just made a mystery out of it.

Oh, I know. Cosima Wagner.

With which digression at an end, we return you to your regularly
scheduled Heinlein thread.

mike weber

unread,

Apr 20, 2006, 4:51:38 PM4/20/06

to

Bill Higgins wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Apr 2006, Jerri wrote:
>
> > Seth wrote
> >
> >> That sound you hear is RAH spinning in his grave.
> >
> > I am inclined to agree with this. The man said what he had to say, at
> > length. Boy howdy! did he say what he had to say, at length. Then he
> > died. I don't get the point of extracting *more* from his works without
> > benefit to him. And he's dead. What does *he* have to gain from this?
>
> I think you miss Seth's point, which I take to be that Alexei Panshin,
> however skilled a novelist he may be, would not be on Heinlein's list of
> possible collaborators.
>
> RAH was not pleased with what Panshin had written in his criticism.
>

RAH was not pleased with a lot of things, mostly anything that implied
that RAH might be wrong.

OTOH, "Rite of Passage" hiut a lot of the same buttons for me that
RAH's juveniles did...

Matthew B. Tepper

unread,

Apr 20, 2006, 5:04:23 PM4/20/06

to

Bill Higgins <hig...@fnal.gov> appears to have caused the following
letters to be typed in news:Pine.SOL.4.63L.0604201256320.9286
@fsui03.fnal.gov:

unread,

Apr 20, 2006, 5:55:01 PM4/20/06

to

Howard S Shubs wrote
> Jerri wrote

> > They could kick ass physically, but emotionally they
> > were just so many trainwrecks.

> How do you figure?

My primary example of a Heinlein heroine emotional trainwreck: FRIDAY.
Strong, smart, inventive ... and absolutely empty of any sense of self
esteem. Everything about her depended upon the opinion of the man she
was with. And let's see ... she ended up with a guy who had raped her,
didn't she?
It's interesting that so late in his career, RAH still apparently held
to the belief that women who get raped in some way deserved it [or what
is worse is that his female characters seem to believe it].
Shoot-fire, I can get past all the incest in his later works, but rape
is a whole 'nother animal. Or is it?
Jerri

Dorothy J Heydt

unread,

Apr 20, 2006, 5:58:33 PM4/20/06

to

In article <howard-C5ACCF....@news.supernews.com>,

Howard S Shubs <how...@shubs.net> wrote:

>In article <Iy1Ey...@kithrup.com>,
> djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:
>
>> Restoring some of the snipped content: we were talking about
>> Heinlein's female characters, weren't we? Who kick ass in one
>> realm or another, maybe not literally, but metaphorically; but
>> whose emotional strength is that of a tender clinging vine
>> seeking a mighty oak to ... uh ... cling to, and who want nothing
>> more out of life than Twue Wuv and BABIES. I don't call that an
>> emotional trainwreck, necessarily, but it sure is unimaginative.
>> Still, Heinlein was imaginative in many other directions; we all
>> have our weaknesses.
>
>Supposedly, he based his female characters on women he knew, most
>notably his wife. ...according to Spider Robinson.
>
>
>> Incidentally, there's a filksong in the West Kingdom of the SCA,
>> about a briar that grew up a mighty oak; and a forest fire came
>> raging through, and the oak was killed; but the briar grew back
>> from the root. (Take heed.)
>
>WTF?

Maybe I was too terse. The briar was growing up the oak, and the
fire came and the oak was all, "Oh, with my mighty strength I can
withstand this disaster, but poor little you will be destroyed."
But it was the other way around. Metaphor [though AFAIK the
songwriter didn't intend it as such] for a big strong heroic male
who caves in under pressure while the frail little female hangs
on and survives.

Dorothy J Heydt

unread,

Apr 20, 2006, 6:03:54 PM4/20/06

to

In article <87wtdj9...@gw.dd-b.net>,

David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) writes:
>
>> Restoring some of the snipped content: we were talking about
>> Heinlein's female characters, weren't we? Who kick ass in one
>> realm or another, maybe not literally, but metaphorically; but
>> whose emotional strength is that of a tender clinging vine
>> seeking a mighty oak to ... uh ... cling to, and who want nothing
>> more out of life than Twue Wuv and BABIES. I don't call that an
>> emotional trainwreck, necessarily, but it sure is unimaginative.
>> Still, Heinlein was imaginative in many other directions; we all
>> have our weaknesses.
>
>And, surprisingly, his books weren't all the same. That certainly
>does not describe Hazel Meade Stone, for example. Or Pee-wee,
>either.

Hazel, when we see her in _The Rolling Stones,_ has already
married and had children and grandchildren. The other Hazel, in
_TMiaHM,_ starts out rather too young, but by the end of the book
has married into the Stone Gang. Pee-Wee is likewise too young
when we meet her, but she's clearly already setting her cap for
Kip and her father, at least, realizes it.

>
>It perhaps *does* describe too many characters; or at least too many
>characters have strong leanings that direction.
>
>And it's pretty strongly established throughout literature (and
>sociology for that matter) that the urge to procreate is pretty
>strong. People like me (and the vast majority of my friends) are rare
>outliers.

Yes, but ALL Heinlein's females want to procreate to the
exclusion of everything else ... including Podkayne's mother,
whom however Heinlein reportedly considered a Bad Female because
she wanted to go on with her research too, instead of giving total
attention to her kids. Heinlein's males occasionally procreate,
but as a sideline.

But of course he was born in 1907; his mind-set was set before I
was born, and I'm no youngster either. You have to grow from where
you're planted.

David Dyer-Bennet

unread,

Apr 20, 2006, 6:40:20 PM4/20/06

to

djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) writes:

> In article <87wtdj9...@gw.dd-b.net>,
> David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
> >djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) writes:
> >
> >> Restoring some of the snipped content: we were talking about
> >> Heinlein's female characters, weren't we? Who kick ass in one
> >> realm or another, maybe not literally, but metaphorically; but
> >> whose emotional strength is that of a tender clinging vine
> >> seeking a mighty oak to ... uh ... cling to, and who want nothing
> >> more out of life than Twue Wuv and BABIES. I don't call that an
> >> emotional trainwreck, necessarily, but it sure is unimaginative.
> >> Still, Heinlein was imaginative in many other directions; we all
> >> have our weaknesses.
> >
> >And, surprisingly, his books weren't all the same. That certainly
> >does not describe Hazel Meade Stone, for example. Or Pee-wee,
> >either.
>
> Hazel, when we see her in _The Rolling Stones,_ has already
> married and had children and grandchildren. The other Hazel, in
> _TMiaHM,_ starts out rather too young, but by the end of the book
> has married into the Stone Gang. Pee-Wee is likewise too young
> when we meet her, but she's clearly already setting her cap for
> Kip and her father, at least, realizes it.

And if there *wasn't* romance going on, people would complain it was
unrealistic.

> >It perhaps *does* describe too many characters; or at least too many
> >characters have strong leanings that direction.
> >
> >And it's pretty strongly established throughout literature (and
> >sociology for that matter) that the urge to procreate is pretty
> >strong. People like me (and the vast majority of my friends) are rare
> >outliers.
>
> Yes, but ALL Heinlein's females want to procreate to the
> exclusion of everything else ... including Podkayne's mother,
> whom however Heinlein reportedly considered a Bad Female because
> she wanted to go on with her research too, instead of giving total
> attention to her kids. Heinlein's males occasionally procreate,
> but as a sideline.

No, I deny the "to the exclusion of everything else". That's nonsense
-- they do many other things. With the exception perhaps of the
nearly-offstage bad wife in Door into Summer, I can't remember *one*
that wants *only* to procreate.

> But of course he was born in 1907; his mind-set was set before I
> was born, and I'm no youngster either. You have to grow from where
> you're planted.

Yes, I was thinking of saying something along those lines too.

David Dyer-Bennet

unread,

Apr 20, 2006, 6:43:07 PM4/20/06

to

"Jerri" <Jerri....@gmail.com> writes:

> Howard S Shubs wrote
> > Jerri wrote
>
> > > They could kick ass physically, but emotionally they
> > > were just so many trainwrecks.
>
> > How do you figure?
>
> My primary example of a Heinlein heroine emotional trainwreck:
> FRIDAY. Strong, smart, inventive ... and absolutely empty of any
> sense of self esteem. Everything about her depended upon the opinion
> of the man she was with. And let's see ... she ended up with a guy
> who had raped her, didn't she?

But you've picked a completely exceptional character, with traumas in
her background completely unlike those of any of his others. I'd call
her the *only* example, myself.

> It's interesting that so late in his career, RAH still apparently
> held to the belief that women who get raped in some way deserved it
> [or what is worse is that his female characters seem to believe it].
> Shoot-fire, I can get past all the incest in his later works, but
> rape is a whole 'nother animal. Or is it?

Remember that she'd been taught to think of herself as a non-person,
and had special training to enable her to withstand rape in the
context of torture/interrogation. Maybe it's still a bit much, but
it's not anything like the same as having a character who's a "normal
schoolgirl" react that way.

Bill Higgins

unread,

Apr 20, 2006, 7:29:56 PM4/20/06

to

On Thu, 20 Apr 2006, Jerri wrote:

> Bill Higgins wrote
>
>> I think you miss Seth's point, which I take to be that Alexei Panshin,
>> however skilled a novelist he may be, would not be on Heinlein's list
>> of possible collaborators. RAH was not pleased with what Panshin had
>> written in his criticism.

> Did Heinlein have a list of possible collaborators?

No, he did not, as far as I know.

Nevertheless, we were discussing possible posthumous collaboration with
Spider Robinson and with other writers.

Assuming, for the purposes of discussion, Heinlein HAD wished someone to
complete his novel after he died, and assuming you had asked Heinlein which
authors he preferred to accomplish this, I feel sure (and Seth feels sure)
that he would NOT have named Panshin. That's all I'm saying.

> He put out a
> tremendous body of work under his own name. I don't recall his ever
> taking another writer under his wing and doing the collaboration thing
> in order to promote that other writer. He certainly stole ideas from
> other writers, many times giving them credit right there in the
> narrative, but an actual collaboration? Not thinking so. He would have
> had as little to gain from collaboration *alive* as he does *dead*.
> In my own very personal opinion.

I agree with this paragraph. He had plenty of opportunity to collaborate
with congenial fellow authors, had he chosen to do so, and evidently (with
the exception of Mrs. Wentz) preferred not to.

Heinlein was friendly with other writers, and he assisted them in
various ways. But for the most part, when it came time to write stories,
it was just him and a typewriter in a room.

(There may be a few other exceptions to this. *Sixth Column* was erected on
the corpse of a failed John Campbell story, for example.)

Matthew B. Tepper

unread,

Apr 20, 2006, 7:37:24 PM4/20/06

to

djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) appears to have caused the following
letters to be typed in news:Iy1Ey...@kithrup.com:

> Incidentally, there's a filksong in the West Kingdom of the SCA, about a
> briar that grew up a mighty oak; and a forest fire came raging through,
> and the oak was killed; but the briar grew back from the root. (Take
> heed.)
>
> And, as I recall, grew up all over the corpse of the oak and covered it
> with blossom. You could get an interesting characterization out of it,
> There's Faulkner's "A Rose for Emily" already, but IIRC he didn't
> characterize the old woman much, just made a mystery out of it.
>
> Oh, I know. Cosima Wagner.

Cosima Wagner is just too objectionable in too many ways. And let's not
even bring up her daughter-in-law Winifred, as it would surely Godwinize
this thread in no time.

> With which digression at an end, we return you to your regularly
> scheduled Heinlein thread.

Lotsa luck with that.

Matthew B. Tepper

unread,

Apr 20, 2006, 7:37:29 PM4/20/06

to

"Jerri" <Jerri....@gmail.com> appears to have caused the following

letters to be typed in

news:1145562272.8...@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:

> Did Heinlein have a list of possible collaborators? He put out a
> tremendous body of work under his own name. I don't recall his ever
> taking another writer under his wing and doing the collaboration thing
> in order to promote that other writer. He certainly stole ideas from
> other writers, many times giving them credit right there in the
> narrative, but an actual collaboration? Not thinking so. He would have
> had as little to gain from collaboration *alive* as he does *dead*.
> In my own very personal opinion.

Already noted: Elma Wentz.

Matthew B. Tepper

unread,

Apr 20, 2006, 7:37:34 PM4/20/06

to

Howard S Shubs <how...@shubs.net> appears to have caused the following
letters to be typed in news:howard-C5ACCF....@news.supernews.com:

> Supposedly, he based his female characters on women he knew, most
> notably his wife. ...according to Spider Robinson.

All of them, or just #3?

Dorothy J Heydt

unread,

Apr 20, 2006, 7:52:10 PM4/20/06

to

In article <Xns97ABA91D1B0...@207.217.125.201>,

Matthew B. Tepper <oy兀earthlink.net> wrote:
>Howard S Shubs <how...@shubs.net> appears to have caused the following
>letters to be typed in news:howard-C5ACCF....@news.supernews.com:
>
>> Supposedly, he based his female characters on women he knew, most
>> notably his wife. ...according to Spider Robinson.
>
>All of them, or just #3?

I suppose it's possible that the answer is "all of them",
particularly if he was the kind of man (and they exist) who tends
to marry very similar women, the next thing to marrying the same
woman over and over.

We don't know much about his #1, do we?

Nos. 2* and 3 both had red hair, I note.

*Whom you can see portrayed, and by the (objective, one would
hope) Anthony Boucher, in _Rocket to the Morgue_. Bernice Carter
isn't the postwar Virginia, she's the prewar Leslyn. _RttM_ is
set just before the war and was published in 1942.

Marilee J. Layman

unread,

Apr 20, 2006, 8:42:37 PM4/20/06

to

On 14 Apr 2006 00:59:51 -0700, "mike weber" <fairp...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>David Friedman wrote:
>> In article <PIGdnUV_i-r...@comcast.com>,
>
>> Interesting question. If you were picking someone to do the job, who
>> would be your first pick?
>>
>> I think mine would be Bujold. Her early stuff reminded me of Heinlein,
>> although it's hard to say exactly why.
>>
>
>Is Alexei Panshin still around?
>
>John Varley's early stuff had a Heinkeinish feel about it, too.

I don't drink, so I can't comment.
--
Marilee J. Layman
http://mjlayman.livejournal.com/

unread,

Apr 20, 2006, 9:43:14 PM4/20/06

to

djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) appears to have caused the following
letters to be typed in news:Iy1oy...@kithrup.com:

> In article <Xns97ABA91D1B0...@207.217.125.201>,
> Matthew B. Tepper <oy兀earthlink.net> wrote:
>>Howard S Shubs <how...@shubs.net> appears to have caused the following
>>letters to be typed in
>>news:howard-C5ACCF....@news.supernews.com:
>>
>>> Supposedly, he based his female characters on women he knew, most
>>> notably his wife. ...according to Spider Robinson.
>>
>>All of them, or just #3?
>
> I suppose it's possible that the answer is "all of them", particularly if
> he was the kind of man (and they exist) who tends to marry very similar
> women, the next thing to marrying the same woman over and over.

Oh, tell me about it. Years ago, my then-girlfriend M. introduced me to
her mother (her father's wife #1), then later on to her father and
stepmother (her father's wife #3). The resemblance between mother and
stepmother (who were not related to one another) was distinct.

I've found myself attracted to various types over the years: brunettes,
generally; for a while, women under five feet tall; left-handed women; and
for a couple of years after a bad breakup (from a left-handed brunette
shorter than five feet), I kept winding up for some reason with blondes,
blondes, nothing but blondes (and one albino). But no two of these women
resembled one another as much as M.'s mother and stepmother did!

> We don't know much about his #1, do we?
>
> Nos. 2* and 3 both had red hair, I note.
>
> *Whom you can see portrayed, and by the (objective, one would hope)
> Anthony Boucher, in _Rocket to the Morgue_. Bernice Carter isn't the
> postwar Virginia, she's the prewar Leslyn. _RttM_ is set just before
> the war and was published in 1942.

The composer Dmitri Shostakovich visited New York in 1949 as part of an
official delegation to some ostensible "peace conference" which was
affiliated with the CPUSA. As he arrived, some smartass reporter is said
to have shouted, "Hey, Shosty, do you prefer blondes or brunettes?"

Shostakovich married three times: His first wife was his childhood
sweetheart, but she died young. This was soon followed by what appears to
have been a marriage of convenience which ended in a bitter divorce. Then
he married a third time, far more happily, to a much younger woman who has
survived him and who continues to serve as executrix of his estate.

About a dozen years ago, I attended a Shostakovich Festival in Long Beach,
and Shostakovich's widow was introduced to the crowd. She's a redhead.

Dorothy J Heydt

unread,

Apr 20, 2006, 9:23:57 PM4/20/06

to

In article <howard-A4FDA8....@news.supernews.com>,

Howard S Shubs <how...@shubs.net> wrote:

>In article <Iy1oy...@kithrup.com>,
> djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:
>
>> We don't know much about his #1, do we?
>>
>> Nos. 2* and 3 both had red hair, I note.
>
>I thought he "only" had 2. Not that it matters. He likely knew more
>women than only women he married.

He was married, young and briefly, to somebody else before
Leslyn. We know very little about her.

Dorothy J Heydt

unread,

Apr 20, 2006, 9:25:24 PM4/20/06

to

In article <howard-5B87E7....@news.supernews.com>,

Howard S Shubs <how...@shubs.net> wrote:

>In article <Xns97ABA91D1B0...@207.217.125.201>,
> "Matthew B. Tepper" <oy兀earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> Howard S Shubs <how...@shubs.net> appears to have caused the following
>> letters to be typed in news:howard-C5ACCF....@news.supernews.com:
>>
>> > Supposedly, he based his female characters on women he knew, most
>> > notably his wife. ...according to Spider Robinson.
>>
>> All of them, or just #3?
>
>Excuse me?

Heinlein was married three times. Once, briefly, in his youth,
to someone about whom we know very little. Then, in the
1930s/early 40s, to a woman named Leslyn who had red hair and (so
I'm told) drank. He divorced her right after the war and
presently married his #3, Virginia, who also had red hair and
survived him.

Christopher J. Henrich

unread,

Apr 20, 2006, 10:06:13 PM4/20/06

to

In article <1145562272.8...@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
Jerri <Jerri....@gmail.com> wrote:

If I recall correctly, Theodore Sturgeon told this story about Heinlein:

Once upon a time, Sturgeon was in a bad bind with writer's block - he
couldn't think of a good story line to get started with. He told
Heinlein about this, and Heinlein promptly sent him a whole page full
of one- or two-sentence story lines. Sturgeon felt this was almost the
most generous thing anyone had ever done for anybody.

--
Chris Henrich
http://www.mathinteract.com
The total lack of evidence is the surest sign that the conspiracy is working.

Howard S Shubs

unread,

Apr 20, 2006, 10:28:15 PM4/20/06

to

In article <Iy1tA...@kithrup.com>,

djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:

> Heinlein was married three times. Once, briefly, in his youth,
> to someone about whom we know very little. Then, in the
> 1930s/early 40s, to a woman named Leslyn who had red hair and (so
> I'm told) drank. He divorced her right after the war and
> presently married his #3, Virginia, who also had red hair and
> survived him.

I'd heard of #'s two and three. Number one is new to me. Hadn't heard
about her. Thanks.

Keith F. Lynch

unread,

Apr 20, 2006, 10:30:18 PM4/20/06

to

Matthew B. Tepper <oy兀earthlink.net> wrote:

> Bill Higgins <hig...@fnal.gov> wrote:
>> I think you miss Seth's point, which I take to be that Alexei
>> Panshin, however skilled a novelist he may be, would not be on
>> Heinlein's list of possible collaborators.

>> RAH was not pleased with what Panshin had written in his criticism.

> Which suggests to me that Panshin was straight-on with some
> observations.

My understanding is that Heinlein believed that Panshin had done
something grossly unethical to invade Heinlein's privacy, when working
on his biography of Heinlein.
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.

Keith F. Lynch

unread,

Apr 20, 2006, 10:46:20 PM4/20/06

to

Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:
> James Nicoll <jdni...@panix.com> wrote:

>>>>> James Nicoll <jdni...@panix.com> wrote:
>>>>>> I'm guessing the sum of "I chose not to finish this" and

>>>>>> "There are no fat Callahan's chicks" ...

There was at least one fat Callahan's chick. She was secure in
her size.

>> No, sorry. It's a restatement of something from the Draka series,
>> that there are no fat Draka.

> But the Draka work out a lot, don't they?

Only because they enjoy it. They don't get fat because they edited
out the genes for fatness.

They also have diet pills that work on unmodified human beings, with
no side effects. (Other than the fact that the Draka who gives you
the pills intends has enslaved you, and intends to kill most of
mankind and enslave the rest.)

James Nicoll

unread,

Apr 20, 2006, 11:12:24 PM4/20/06

to

In article <1145570101.9...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,

I disagree. I think Friday was broken and meant to be taken
by the reader as broken, thanks to the charming cultural beliefs about
APs in that society.

--
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/immigrate/
http://www.livejournal.com/users/james_nicoll

Fred C. Moulton

unread,

Apr 21, 2006, 2:04:41 AM4/21/06

to

On Thu, 20 Apr 2006 14:55:01 -0700, Jerri wrote:
> It's interesting that so late in his career, RAH still apparently held to
> the belief that women who get raped in some way deserved it [or what is
> worse is that his female characters seem to believe it].

The book is a novel; a work of fiction. The actions of the characters do
not necessarily describe the personal believes of the author. Do you have
any evidence in the personal life of RAH or any of his non-fiction that he
held views you describe?

Fred

Fred C. Moulton

unread,

Apr 21, 2006, 2:11:21 AM4/21/06

to

On Fri, 21 Apr 2006 01:23:57 +0000, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
> He was married, young and briefly, to somebody else before Leslyn. We
> know very little about her.

Bill Patterson is working on a biography of Heinlein and has done some
research on the first wife. The name of the first wife and other details
will be published in the biography. Patterson is working with the
Heinlein papers archived at Univ. Cal. Santa Cruz.

Fred

Matthew B. Tepper

unread,

Apr 21, 2006, 2:52:19 AM4/21/06

to

Howard S Shubs <how...@shubs.net> appears to have caused the following

letters to be typed in news:howard-4F6875.22281520042006
@news.supernews.com:

> In article <Iy1tA...@kithrup.com>,
> djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:
>
>> Heinlein was married three times. Once, briefly, in his youth, to
>> someone about whom we know very little. Then, in the 1930s/early 40s,
>> to a woman named Leslyn who had red hair and (so I'm told) drank. He
>> divorced her right after the war and presently married his #3, Virginia,
>> who also had red hair and survived him.
>
> I'd heard of #'s two and three. Number one is new to me. Hadn't heard
> about her. Thanks.

I've got something else I'm wondering about, and I'll give it just as I was
told it. A friend of mine, who used to be the literary agent for another
very well-known science fiction writer (now deceased -- the writer, not the
friend, that is), insisted that Heinlein had fathered children. Plural.
This was news to me and I have never seen it substantiated anywhere.

Matthew B. Tepper

unread,

Apr 21, 2006, 2:52:30 AM4/21/06

to

"Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> appears to have caused the following
letters to be typed in news:e29g3q$6i1$1...@panix1.panix.com:

> Matthew B. Tepper <oy兀earthlink.net> wrote:
>> Bill Higgins <hig...@fnal.gov> wrote:
>>> I think you miss Seth's point, which I take to be that Alexei
>>> Panshin, however skilled a novelist he may be, would not be on
>>> Heinlein's list of possible collaborators.
>
>>> RAH was not pleased with what Panshin had written in his criticism.
>
>> Which suggests to me that Panshin was straight-on with some
>> observations.
>
> My understanding is that Heinlein believed that Panshin had done
> something grossly unethical to invade Heinlein's privacy, when working
> on his biography of Heinlein.

I recall reading that Heinlein expressed outrage that Panshin had read
somebody's private correspondence without having first obtained permission
from both parties.

Matthew B. Tepper

unread,

Apr 21, 2006, 2:52:41 AM4/21/06

to

"Fred C. Moulton" <mou...@NoSpamHere.moulton.com> appears to have caused

the following letters to be typed in

news:pan.2006.04.21....@NoSpamHere.moulton.com:

I've seen this argument more than a few times over the past several
decades. When an author has lots of characters, each of them obviously
intended as a sympathetic, even preachy, protagonist, hammer home virtually
the same points in book after book after book, it's difficult to accept
that the author behind them thinks what those characters say is rubbish.

mike weber

unread,

Apr 21, 2006, 3:47:32 AM4/21/06

to

Dorothy J Heydt wrote:

> presently married his #3, Virginia, who also had red hair and
> survived him.
>

He was a bit difficult and wearing, wasn't he?

mike weber

unread,

Apr 21, 2006, 3:55:02 AM4/21/06

to

Matthew B. Tepper wrote:

> I recall reading that Heinlein expressed outrage that Panshin had read
> somebody's private correspondence without having first obtained permission
> from both parties.
>

THAT might annoy me. OTOH, if i'm doing an unauthorised biography or
study of someone who's actively trying to obstruct my work, i might see
it the other way, too.

Robert Sneddon

unread,

Apr 21, 2006, 3:52:38 AM4/21/06

to

In message <200420062206140285%chen...@monmouth.com>, Christopher J.
Henrich <chen...@monmouth.com> writes

>If I recall correctly, Theodore Sturgeon told this story about Heinlein:
>
>Once upon a time, Sturgeon was in a bad bind with writer's block - he
>couldn't think of a good story line to get started with. He told
>Heinlein about this, and Heinlein promptly sent him a whole page full
>of one- or two-sentence story lines. Sturgeon felt this was almost the
>most generous thing anyone had ever done for anybody.

I believe there was also a cheque for two hundred dollars enclosed.
--
To reply, my gmail address is nojay1 Robert Sneddon

mike weber

unread,

Apr 21, 2006, 3:55:53 AM4/21/06

to

Samuel Kleiner wrote:

> David Friedman wrote:
>
> > Interesting question. If you were picking someone to do the job, who
> > would be your first pick?
>

> Gerrold, no question.

Maybe...

David Harmon

unread,

Apr 21, 2006, 5:11:58 AM4/21/06

to

On 20 Apr 2006 22:30:18 -0400 in rec.arts.sf.fandom, "Keith F.
Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote,

>My understanding is that Heinlein believed that Panshin had done
>something grossly unethical to invade Heinlein's privacy, when working
>on his biography of Heinlein.

Except not a biography; literary criticism.
Panshin's side of the story -
http://www.enter.net/~torve/critics/StoryHiD/HiDcontents.html

Desideria

unread,

Apr 21, 2006, 5:31:14 AM4/21/06

to

"James Nicoll" <jdni...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:e28nj9$3jt$1...@reader1.panix.com...
> In article <Iy1BM...@kithrup.com>,

> Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:

>>In article <e28l6u$k0r$1...@reader1.panix.com>,
>>James Nicoll <jdni...@panix.com> wrote:
>>>In article <Iy1Aq...@kithrup.com>,

>>>Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:

>>>>In article <e28jv9$ha$1...@reader1.panix.com>,
>>>>James Nicoll <jdni...@panix.com> wrote:
>>>>>In article <Iy17E...@kithrup.com>,

>>>>>Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:

>>>>>>In article <e289p4$4jo$1...@reader1.panix.com>,

>>>>>>James Nicoll <jdni...@panix.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm guessing the sum of "I chose not to finish this" and

>>>>>>>"There are no fat Callahan's chicks" is more likely to be over
>>>>>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>>>>Can you provide a context for this statement, and its
>>>>>>significance? I have read a few Callahan's stories, but it was a
>>>>>>while ago.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Not so much fat as ugly: in one of the later Callahan's books
>>>>>(Legacy?), an ugly woman is the target of much hilarity from the
>>>>>empaths at Callahan's.

Well, it wasn't JUST that. IIRC, it was a combination of the protagonist
being surprised while nude and carrying his wife's urine sample. The woman
that surprised him was unusually ugly, yes, and didn't speak English, but
mostly her sudden appearance caused him to jump and spill the sample over
both of them.

And things went downhill from there. Generally, it could be considered an
example that what you give is sometimes what you get back--on both sides.

>>>>
>>>>Hm. But did anyone (either Robinson, or one of his characters)
>>>>actually make the statement as shown? Or who did coin it? Or is
>>>>it known?

>>>
>>> No, sorry. It's a restatement of something from the Draka
>>>series, that there are no fat Draka.

True. As a Callahan's fan, I can attest that there's nothing in the series
about fat women not being allowed. In fact, Jake--the protagonist in the
more recent books--has a strong attraction to big women. No rule against
ugly women (or men!) either.

>>
(snip)

>> Whereas considering Callahan's is a bar, and a
>>bar where people go to lament their miserable lot too, you'd
>>think the place would be stuffed with people who are fat, ugly,
>>alcoholics, relationshipholics, bores, whiners, et cetera along
>>with the more tolerant and compassionate types who are willing
>>to listen to them ... wait, you say those are missing too?
>
> In the old days, the Callahan's crowd leaned towards
> acceptance more than rejection, as long as you were a touchy
> feeling type who wanted to fight depression with alcohol (Hey,
> the series started in the 1970s, if you can relate to that).
>
> These days, anyone not in the ingroup is fair game and
> it's the Robinson who wrote the "mock the ugly woman" who will
> be cowriting with RAH.

Wander by alt.callahans sometime, if you're curious. We're certainly far
from perfect, but sometimes we seem to capture a bit of the mood.

Desideria

Kip Williams

unread,

Apr 21, 2006, 5:45:23 AM4/21/06

to

Farmer.

Kip W

unread,

Apr 21, 2006, 9:11:33 AM4/21/06

to

In article <Xns97ABF2D38B2...@207.217.125.201>,

"Matthew B. Tepper" <oy兀earthlink.net> wrote:

> I've got something else I'm wondering about, and I'll give it just as I was
> told it. A friend of mine, who used to be the literary agent for another
> very well-known science fiction writer (now deceased -- the writer, not the
> friend, that is), insisted that Heinlein had fathered children. Plural.
> This was news to me and I have never seen it substantiated anywhere.

My understanding is that he had daughters. Also, that he was VERY
private about them.

Howard S Shubs

unread,

Apr 21, 2006, 9:15:36 AM4/21/06

to

In article <YYKdnStjiv7HO9XZ...@comcast.com>,
"Desideria" <Desi...@comcast.net> wrote:

> True. As a Callahan's fan, I can attest that there's nothing in the series
> about fat women not being allowed. In fact, Jake--the protagonist in the
> more recent books--has a strong attraction to big women. No rule against
> ugly women (or men!) either.

And in the final book in the series, he has Jake realize his error and
apologize. Very key point, and about the only interesting thing in that
book. :-/

Dorothy J Heydt

unread,

Apr 21, 2006, 9:11:30 AM4/21/06

to

In article <YYKdnStjiv7HO9XZ...@comcast.com>,
Desideria <Desi...@comcast.net> wrote:
>

[huge discussion of whether Robinson's Callahan's characters,
advertised as tolerant and compassionate, are anything of the
sort, snipped]

>
>Wander by alt.callahans sometime, if you're curious. We're certainly far
>from perfect, but sometimes we seem to capture a bit of the mood.

Yes, but that's not the point ... we were talking about
*Robinson's* *fictional* Callahan's, as a hint to what kind of
shambles he might make of Heinlein's outline. If you manage to
be tolerant and compassionate online, that's good, but not
relevant.

Bernard Peek

unread,

Apr 21, 2006, 9:28:10 AM4/21/06

to

In message <howard-E8D945....@news.supernews.com>, Howard S
Shubs <how...@shubs.net> writes

>In article <Xns97ABF2D38B2...@207.217.125.201>,
> "Matthew B. Tepper" <oy兀earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> I've got something else I'm wondering about, and I'll give it just as I was
>> told it. A friend of mine, who used to be the literary agent for another
>> very well-known science fiction writer (now deceased -- the writer, not the
>> friend, that is), insisted that Heinlein had fathered children. Plural.
>> This was news to me and I have never seen it substantiated anywhere.
>
>My understanding is that he had daughters. Also, that he was VERY
>private about them.

My understanding was that he and Virginia were unable to have children,
but I know no more than that. It was suggested as the reason why he
focussed so much on the immortality theme.

--
Once more in search of cognoscenti
Bernard Peek
b...@shrdlu.com

David Dyer-Bennet

unread,

Apr 21, 2006, 12:40:03 PM4/21/06

to

db...@zhochaka.org.uk ("David G. Bell") writes:

> While I realise there's been changes in the particular area where he
> grew up, am I right in thinking Heinlein's background strongly resembles
> the modern concept of "red-stater"?

His *background*, yes. However, _For Us, the Living_ is not a very
red-state book -- it's much closer to being a "red" book in the
*OTHER* sense :-).

> Not, I think, he would approve of the documented imcompetence of recent
> years.

If he recognized it as such; it's amazing what people can manage to
overlook.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd...@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>

Randolph Fritz

unread,

Apr 21, 2006, 12:47:30 PM4/21/06

to

On 2006-04-20, Howard S Shubs <how...@shubs.net> wrote:
> In article <Iy1Ey...@kithrup.com>,

> djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:
>

>> Restoring some of the snipped content: we were talking about
>> Heinlein's female characters, weren't we? Who kick ass in one
>> realm or another, maybe not literally, but metaphorically; but
>> whose emotional strength is that of a tender clinging vine
>> seeking a mighty oak to ... uh ... cling to, and who want nothing
>> more out of life than Twue Wuv and BABIES. I don't call that an
>> emotional trainwreck, necessarily, but it sure is unimaginative.
>> Still, Heinlein was imaginative in many other directions; we all
>> have our weaknesses.
>

> Supposedly, he based his female characters on women he knew, most
> notably his wife. ...according to Spider Robinson.
>

His observation of character was extremely poor, though, outside of
those areas required for management or command; his Jewish and Arab
characters in *Stranger in a Strange Land* were like no Jews or Arabs
I have ever known.

Randolph

James Nicoll

unread,

Apr 21, 2006, 12:51:20 PM4/21/06

to

In article <87hd4mj...@gw.dd-b.net>,

David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>db...@zhochaka.org.uk ("David G. Bell") writes:
>
>> While I realise there's been changes in the particular area where he
>> grew up, am I right in thinking Heinlein's background strongly resembles
>> the modern concept of "red-stater"?
>
>His *background*, yes. However, _For Us, the Living_ is not a very
>red-state book -- it's much closer to being a "red" book in the
>*OTHER* sense :-).
>

Judging by our SoCred parties up here, SoCredulism is most
easily marketed to conservatives.

Jerri

unread,

Apr 21, 2006, 1:13:20 PM4/21/06

to

Dorothy J. Heydt wrote

> Maybe I was too terse. The briar was growing up the oak, and the
> fire came and the oak was all, "Oh, with my mighty strength I can
> withstand this disaster, but poor little you will be destroyed."
> But it was the other way around. Metaphor [though AFAIK the
> songwriter didn't intend it as such] for a big strong heroic male
> who caves in under pressure while the frail little female hangs
> on and survives.

Yikes, this is filk? Putting aside the possibility that the briar
would have survived while the oak croaked, isn't it very likely that
the oak would be reborn from all the acorns it dropped? Isn't this how
mighty forests regenerate after fires? I think the briar would be
burned up entirely. Never mind, never mind. A person should never get
too wrapped up in the "meanings" of songs. Otherwise, pore Neil
Diamond's chair would have spoken to him and told him everything was
going to be okay. And that pore horsie Wildfire would have noticed that
his hooves might have gotten chilly in that killing frost, but it would
be very hard to get lost in it. Even metaphorically speaking.
Jerri

DocJ...@aol.com

unread,

Apr 21, 2006, 1:27:56 PM4/21/06

to

Elma Wentz was Upton Sinclair's secretary, and a good friend of Robert
and Leslyn Heinlein. She went on to work in Hollywood as a story
doctor for one of the studios, iirc. Her husband was Roby Wentz, who
published four stories in Campbell's Astounding in WWII -- he was one
of the men (along with people like Anthony Boucher) who Heinlein
recruited and "trained" to write for Campbell when he was thinking of
"retiring" from writing before WWII. Elma and Roby Wentz were major
players in the EPIC movement of Upton Sinclair, as was Robert Heinlein.

Heinlein also collaborated with his Cal Laning, his best friend and
fellow naval officer, on a nonfiction article right after WWII --
"Flight into the Future" -- published in the August 30 1947 Collier's.
Other collaborations went unpublished.

As for the genesis of Spider's "collaboration" with Heinlein, what
Spider received from the estate was a very detailed outline for a
Heinlein juvenile that was in the archives. Spider has used that as a
starting point for his novel.

Hope that clears things up a bit.

Robert James

DocJ...@aol.com

unread,

Apr 21, 2006, 1:37:40 PM4/21/06

to

Well, not quite..

His first wife, for the most part, simply refused to be a wife.
Heinlein was stationed in Long Beach, California, and she refused to
leave Missouri. How she could have married a naval man and expected
him to stay in Missouri is beyond me. The divorce happened quickly.

His second wife, Leslyn, most assuredly, was not a redhead.

Many of his female characters from the pre-WWII writings share
characteristics with Leslyn, who was quite brilliant. She went to UCLA
with Ralph Bunche, and earned her BA in Philosophy in the late twenties
-- she also was an actress, doing a season at the Pasadena Playhouse.
She also earned her MA in Philosophy from USC, and was actually the
head of the entire Music Department at Columbia Pictures when she met
and married Heinlein. She was a published poet, and until her
alcoholism sent her into a wasted life, was by far the most amazing
woman Heinlein had ever met.

Ginny was a redhead, and her accomplishments and abilities are far
better known.

Robert James

Bill Higgins

unread,

Apr 21, 2006, 1:45:01 PM4/21/06

to

On Thu, 20 Apr 2006, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:

> In article <Pine.SOL.4.63L.0...@fsui03.fnal.gov>,
> Bill Higgins <hig...@fnal.gov> wrote:
>> On Tue, 18 Apr 2006, Steve Glover wrote:
>>> For more Martian Goodness from Heineken:
>>>
>>> http://www.lookatentertainment.com/v/v-1206.htm
>>
>> "Never thirst."
>
> Huh. I not only can't get it to display the picture, I can't get
> it to "Save Picture As."
>
> Care to give a few words of description?

It's a movie of a Dutch TV commercial for Heineken beer, portraying a
multinational European effort to land a robot rover on Mars.

The scenes keep cutting between the crowded, tense control room on Earth
and the spacecraft entry into the Martian atmosphere, parachutes
opening, airbags inflating, lander unfolding, etc.

Different nations are assigned different tasks in the mission. Upon
landing, it is the job of the Dutch to search for life. "If there is life
on Mars, the Dutch will find it!"

[SPOILER below for brief TV commercial]

The Dutchman works his controls. The robot rolls a short distance, then
stops. To everyone's amazement, it begins to transform. Wheels retract,
gadgets rotate and extend. The robot produces a glass, draws beer from a
nozzle, neatly slices off the excess foam, and places the glass on top of
its bar. A neon Heineken sign is illuminated.

Says the Dutch controller: "Now, we wait."

DocJ...@aol.com

unread,

Apr 21, 2006, 1:48:36 PM4/21/06

to

I had an incredibly difficult time with that book myself, until I had
it very patiently explained to me, in very small words, that Friday's
problem is that she doesn't see herself as human. She is a broken
person, and the novel is about her accepting herself as fully human,
and learning to love herself, and stop accepting abuse (which she does
throughout much of the book, from men as well as women).

It has also been pointed out to me that one of the major plots of
romance novels -- a genre largely written by, and read by, women -- is
to have the main character raped, then end up falling in love with, and
marrying, her rapist.

On that level, Friday is a satire of the romance novel.

I have learned, to my chagrin, not to take Heinlein at face value,
particularly in those later novels everybody disparages. The more you
read them, particularly in a number of different literary contexts, the
richer and more layered they become.

Robert James

James Nicoll

unread,

Apr 21, 2006, 2:01:41 PM4/21/06

to

In article <1145641416.8...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,

Unless they didn't know or there was a legal agreement not
to blab or something.

I would mention Essie Mae Washington-Williams here as an
example of father-daughter confidentiality.

Randolph Fritz

unread,

Apr 21, 2006, 2:15:04 PM4/21/06

to

On 2006-04-21, James Nicoll <jdni...@panix.com> wrote:
> In article <87hd4mj...@gw.dd-b.net>,
> David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>>db...@zhochaka.org.uk ("David G. Bell") writes:
>>
>>> While I realise there's been changes in the particular area where he
>>> grew up, am I right in thinking Heinlein's background strongly resembles
>>> the modern concept of "red-stater"?
>>
>>His *background*, yes. However, _For Us, the Living_ is not a very
>>red-state book -- it's much closer to being a "red" book in the
>>*OTHER* sense :-).
>>
> Judging by our SoCred parties up here, SoCredulism is most
> easily marketed to conservatives.
>

He was an elitist state socialist, rather than an anarchist as is more
popular in North America. When state socialism failed him, he became
a "libertarian", retaining his elitism, but feeling that politics
would interfere with the rise of natural leaders and rulers to the
top. He expressed these views repeatedly in his later writings.

I think he was a brillant man and better than his political and
philosophical thinking, which strikes me as quite limited.

Randolph