Which Heinlein book should i read next????

[TTBRAHWTMG]

Originally Posted by j. d. worthington

Actually, that's precisely what you don't want to do; not if you want Howard the way he wrote it. It's actually the more recent editions, such as those from Del Rey, that are disencumbering Howard of all the encrustations that have gathered about his work over the past 70 years.

Thanks for the tip here...I put out calls to a couple of my closest used book contacts...didn't like what I got back. I discussed how I was looking for "pure" Howard, and the only hit I got was an original December 1933 Weird Stories. He wanted a pretty penny for it, and I don't doubt that there are plenty (okay maybe a few) who would be willing to pay it...but I'm not one of them. He was probably trying to pawn it off on me as he knows I've been willing to pay through the nose for some of my original Heinlein's and some of my 1st printings. Was feeling a little dejected about my lack of success...that is until I came back here and read the above. New mission tomorrow!

[TTBRAHWTMG]

Originally Posted by j. d. worthington

I'd just caution you to read him critically (something I do do with HPL, though many might dispute that ); this helps to keep him in perspective, and still to learn the lessons he has to teach, without losing one iota of respect for the man or his work. (An unnecessary caution, perhaps; but useful nonetheless.)

Oh...and thanks for this too. I'd like to think that it is indeed "an unnecessary caution", although I am sure "many might dispute that" as well. It is actually when I find Heinlein hardest to believe, or disagree with him completely, or find myself taking offense at something he states, that I find I learn the most. I have this drive to get to the source for myself that leads me to chasing loose ends of arguments all over. It reminds me of something else Heinlein said (I just spent 3 hrs unsuccessfully chasing another quote, I'm not even going to bother to try to get this one right)...something along the lines of preferring to read things that don't agree with his point of view, and that you can't learn from a man that agrees with you.

[j. d. worthington]

Yes, Pyan quoted that one a while back: "I never learned anything from a man who agreed with me", I believe is the way it goes.

As for the Weird Tales magazine you were offered. Yes, I'm sure it was a pretty penny, as the WT issues with Howard, Clark Ashton Smith, or H. P. Lovecraft go for a young mint these days. Even 20+ years ago they were worth one heck of a lot. For those who have the money, well worth it, both because that particular magazine is one of the most highly prized of the pulp era, and because -- having a Howard story -- the value is only going to appreciate as long as it is well taken care of. (I know not only from knowing collectors, but because I once had a fairly good run of them... had to sell them at one point, which was one heck of a wrench, believe me... but I didn't lose anything monetarily on it... only the intangibles. )

Also, thought you might enjoy taking a look at this (though it ties in more with your other thread on RAH):

Heinlein Society Updates

And this will give you information on which of the Howard volumes are out there from the Del Rey series:

Del Rey Online

As for the other -- yes, that's been my experience with Lovecraft, for instance; as he was so well-read, and had such wide-ranging interests, he's led me into numerous places literarily, scientifically, philosophically, historically, and otherwise, that have enriched my life; things I most likely would never have known had it not been for my interest in HPL. So I can quite understand what you say about Heinlein -- another man who was prodigiously well-read, in truth. (Besides, his work was where I first heard of Burton's Anatomy of Melancholy....)

The Anatomy of Melancholy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[TTBRAHWTMG]

Originally Posted by j. d. worthington

Also, thought you might enjoy taking a look at this (though it ties in more with your other thread on RAH):

Heinlein Society Updates

Thanks for the link. Quite the comprehensive study...I think most of what the author was saying I've absorbed through osmosis while reading and rereading Heinlein, although it was quite enjoyable to read another person's articulation of the summary. I have always thought that it was interesting that Heinlein wrote so much about youth, and especially parenting, considering he never had children. I often debated with myself whether it was sincere respect for young minds, or whether Heinlein was campaigning for influence over young minds in an effort to cultivate future proponents for the space program. Af first I decided it was the former...now I'm not certain the two are mutually exclusive.

I read through the first two thirds of the essay pretty much nodding my head. My only exceptions were that I found myself getting defensive when Podkayne was attacked for poor parenting, but being honest with myself it wasn't so much disagreement as just a gut feeling, I really liked that Clark kid personally...and had little doubt that he would find his way. I felt that Farnham's Freehold should have been in here too, instead of lumped into the final third about incest. It felt like the author knew his final argument was weak so he purposely forced Farnham's in there to help balance the citings. Incest was touched very briefly, and wasn't a theme, but rather more an exploration of the realities of being stuck in such a situation. In fact, when I think of Farnham's...it's been awhile, I must re-read soon...I can barely remember that passage. I think Heinlein put much greater emphasis on the destructiveness of the Mother Son relationship in that book, and Farnham's really belonged in the second section.

The final third is where I think the author completely fell off the rails. It almost seems like they are arguing that Heinlein's purpose in his later works was purely to titilate. It seems to suggest a lack of maturity that I just never smelled when reading Heinlein. I see his exploration of the theme as a typical Heinlein "what if?" scenario, and his following through to completion, even at the risk of turning off some readers. He starts with the premise that incest's taboo is purely a product of socialization built up around the necessary moral, Heinlein's definition of moral, avoidance of genetic consequence. He always divorces these character's from our society before he allows them to explore how relief from socialization would affect the taboo. Ira and following generations were already divorced in many ways as they were breeding for long-life, and it seems as each generation was liberated more and more from socialization...actually until eventually they were so different they had to leave the planet. Glory Road showed a culture developed in a different dimension, and in Stranger Mike had to be raised by Martians to be taboo-free enough to explore sexuality the way he did.
I also noticed the author used alot more external references in the third section, where the first two thirds were almost completely Heinlein references. It almost seemed like he knew he couldn't make his point referring to Heinlein's work, so had to go to others' criticism of Heinlein's work to support his premise. Maybe I'm missing his point...but if it is that Heinlein's inclusion of these themes was purely to titilate, I'll let Heinlein speak for himself as he does in The Robert Heinlein Interview "...and all I can say about that is that it was not intended to have that effect but if it did, my congratulations to you!"
Admittedly, I'm shooting from the hip on this one, and just expressing my first reaction to it. As I like to say...I'm going to need to think about this one. There were some references in the third section that I'm going to have to chase down now, and read first hand. I often wonder if Heinlein did have children of his own, would he have been able to explore the incest theme as capably as he did? I for one, am a product of my socialization on this one, but found his exploration stimulating, atleast mentally.

[TTBRAHWTMG]

Originally Posted by j. d. worthington

(Besides, his work was where I first heard of Burton's Anatomy of Melancholy....)

The Anatomy of Melancholy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I wonder if Bob Howard would have benefited at all from a study of such a book? Where did you pick him up through Heinlein? It isn't one of the one's that really provoked me, and I can't immediately figure out the reference. Time to do some more digging...stretching, stretching, stretching...thanks once again.

[TTBRAHWTMG]

Aaaaah....Farnham's Freehold...how coincidental that I had that book in the forefront of my mind while reviewing Rafeeq McGiveron's essay. Two reasons for a re-read now.

[j. d. worthington]

It's been a while since I've read my Heinlein (it's been in storage for some years now -- along with about half, or better than, of my library -- and I've only pulled it out this week, in an attempt to work it in with the research reading), so I don't recall the exact mention. I just remember the title struck me, as a youth, as somewhat unusual for something in Heinlein....

Come to think of it... and this may be completely erroneous ... I think it was in Stranger in a Strange Land... Jubal, if I remember correctly.

As for Robert E. Howard... No, I don't think Two-Gun would have benefited from that. He had a strong streak of romanticism in his nature, and had an interesting view of the Irish character which bolstered his stubbornness and rapid emotional swings. I'd say he had some genuine psychological disorders with an organic basis, myself... but -- tragic though his end was -- I'm not sure I'd have changed him. Without that personality, I don't think his work would have near the power it does; and there have been no few great writers, artists, and musicians whose very intensity of feeling led to short lives. Even those who didn't commit suicide, it's almost as if they were such a distillation of powerful human emotions that they couldn't have lasted very long (Keats, for example, or C. M. Kornbluth with his astringent, biting satirical view of humanity).

On the essay... yes, it's food for thought. I've run into a lot of people who are at least a bit troubled by the incest theme in Heinlein... but it's a fairly common theme in literature in general, when you look at it. One of the best sf stories on the theme I've found is Theodore Sturgeon's "If All Men Were Brothers, Would You Let One Marry Your Sister..." in Harlan Ellison's Dangerous Visions anthology. Sturgeon was one who explored the theme of love in various permutations, as well as human relationships in general, with a probing and questioning manner that was both entertaining and thought-provoking; and he didn't mind asking uncomfortable questions. He's been perceived as arguing for incest in that story, but I don't see that as the case. He was asking questions about why it engenders such strong reactions rather than allowing for calm and rational debate, whether this is a good thing or not, and what the bases for such a reaction might be, and whether they are genuine or apparent. As he says in his afterword to the story, with this -- as with nearly everything he did in his stories -- he brings out a common argument for or against something, and asks "Why?". Then when that one gets answered with an ad hominem response, he asks a further "Why?" and so on, until some actual thinking on the subject has to be done, and the person must either think it through and come up with good solid answers on their own, or go researching the facts to bolster whatever the position is... which was the point. To make people think about their stance on any subject -- much like Heinlein himself (who sometimes had a main character take a stance completely alien to Heinlein's own, and quite often deliberately took an outrageous stance to poke the reader into thinking through an issue).

[TTBRAHWTMG]

Originally Posted by j. d. worthington

It's been a while since I've read my Heinlein (it's been in storage for some years now -- along with about half, or better than, of my library -- and I've only pulled it out this week, in an attempt to work it in with the research reading), so I don't recall the exact mention. I just remember the title struck me, as a youth, as somewhat unusual for something in Heinlein...

Work it in with the research reading? Lost me. I don't recall Jubal ever mentioning it, and he is one of my favourites. It does appear in a list of works that Farnham felt necessary to take into his shelter. Could this be it? Was it just a title reference or do you have recollection of Heinlein discussing his work at all?

Originally Posted by j. d. worthington

One of the best sf stories on the theme I've found is Theodore Sturgeon's "If All Men Were Brothers, Would You Let One Marry Your Sister..." in Harlan Ellison's Dangerous Visions anthology.

Adding it to my reading list Prof....uhmmm...I mean JD.

Originally Posted by j. d. worthington

As he says in his afterword to the story, with this -- as with nearly everything he did in his stories -- he brings out a common argument for or against something, and asks "Why?". Then when that one gets answered with an ad hominem response, he asks a further "Why?" and so on, until some actual thinking on the subject has to be done, and the person must either think it through and come up with good solid answers on their own, or go researching the facts to bolster whatever the position is... which was the point.

This reminds me of root-cause analysis theory from my early industrial employment. When I was a process engineer in the automotive industry we used a principle called "The 5 Whys". The idea was when you ran into a production or quality defect you were to ask yourself why? Once answered you should ask yourself why? and so on. Statistically the theory indicates that once you've carved through 5 layers of whys you were probably at or approaching root cause.

[j. d. worthington]

Originally Posted by TTBRAHWTMG

Work it in with the research reading? Lost me. I don't recall Jubal ever mentioning it, and he is one of my favourites. It does appear in a list of works that Farnham felt necessary to take into his shelter. Could this be it? Was it just a title reference or do you have recollection of Heinlein discussing his work at all?

Ah. The "research reading" is a very long research project I've been working on for some time, and will be for at least another 5-6 years, it looks like, as the secondary (and even some primary) sources keep burgeoning, if I'm going to do this well. However, it is enjoyable... just doesn't leave much time for reading other things.

And I recall it just being a mention of, and a brief note on -- a fondness for, as I recall. If I should remember the details, or be able to track it down, I'll let you know.

As for Dangerous Visions -- it had a fairly recent re-release with a new retrospective introduction by Ellison, looking at the book over a quarter century later (it was first published in 1967). There is another such anthology, Again, Dangerous Visions, you might also want to look into. And, for that matter, Ellison as a whole might be worth reading, as he's as strong on personal responsibility in his own way as Heinlein is on his... but he has a different style and is very aggressive in tone. Damned fine writer, once he hit his stride:

Harlan Ellison - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Here's a short version (lacking individual citations for short stories, essays, etc.) of a bibliography of his work I posted:

http://www.chronicles-network.com/fo...liography.html

Unfortunately, a lot of these are no longer in print, so you'll have to get them through libraries. I'd suggest starting with his work from the mid-1960s, as some of his earlier work is a young writer's work, and a bit rough around the edges (some of, though, is very, very good, such as Spider Kiss and Memos from Purgatory, or most of the work in Gentleman Junkie). Also, his screenplays, where available, are well worth reading -- easy to read, and quite an experience -- he has a very good visual sense, and his scripts are visual experiences....

This reminds me of root-cause analysis theory from my early industrial employment. When I was a process engineer in the automotive industry we used a principle called "The 5 Whys". The idea was when you ran into a production or quality defect you were to ask yourself why? Once answered you should ask yourself why? and so on. Statistically the theory indicates that once you've carved through 5 layers of whys you were probably at or approaching root cause.

Could be where Sturgeon got it... or this could simply be his own nature -- I'm inclined to think the latter. Incidentally, if you can find a copy of his "The [Widget], the [Wadget], and Boff", I highly recommend this one. I know it can be found in A Treasury of Great Science Fiction, vol. 1 (it's a two-volume set) ed. by Anthony Boucher -- which in itself (the two volumes) is a wonderful anthology of sf up to 1959 (incidentally, it includes "The Man Who Sold the Moon" and "Waldo"), including four novels: Re-Birth (a.k.a. The Crysalids) by John Wyndham; The Weapon Shops of Isher by A. E. van Vogt; Brain-Wave by Poul Anderson, and The Stars My Destination by Alfred Bester -- as well as a host of short stories, novelettes, and novellas.

[TTBRAHWTMG]

Originally Posted by j. d. worthington

Ah. The "research reading" is a very long research project I've been working on for some time, and will be for at least another 5-6 years, it looks like, as the secondary (and even some primary) sources keep burgeoning, if I'm going to do this well. However, it is enjoyable... just doesn't leave much time for reading other things.

Yikes! Professional or personal? I hope you get paid...big...whether it be in dollars or personal satisfaction.

[j. d. worthington]

Originally Posted by TTBRAHWTMG

Yikes! Professional or personal? I hope you get paid...big...whether it be in dollars or personal satisfaction.

Began as personal... I'm hoping to make it professional before it's all over....