![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Based on both recommendations and easy availability, I have obtained Space Cadet, Time for the Stars, Have Space Suit - Will Travel, The Door Into Summer, Podkayne of Mars, and Tunnel in the Sky.
I read Tunnel in the Sky, which I generally enjoyed and will report on individually, and three pages of Podkayne of Mars, which was all I could get through before I was overcome with the urge to vomit and/or hurl the book across the room. Those pages consist of 15-year-old Podkayne talking about being a giiiiiirl and going on about how pretty she is and giving her exact measurements and how she's smart enough to not reveal that she's smart because why would any giiiiiirl want to do things herself when she can bat her eyelashes at a man twice her age and have him do things for her? ICK ICK EW. Also, written in a rather twee style. I hate twee.
If it was about her learning better I'd keep reading, but I recall from the last time I read it that she gets blown up because she goes back to a house where she knows there's a bomb to rescue a cute alien kitten, and then her uncle lectures her mom over her comatose body about how it's all her mom's fault for having a career. (Flips to end.) "A woman has more important work to do." Barf. Nix on Podkayne.
Podkayne of Mars
Though I may change my mind after I've read more, my preliminary reading of one book and three pages of another suggests a theory on why people get so outraged over sexism in Heinlein's work, as opposed to getting outraged over sexism in the work of other male sf writers of the same time - especially when, as Heinlein's defenders argue, Heinlein actually has more interesting/badass/competent women than the others.
It's due to bait-and-switch. Because his women are more badass/competent/etc, the female or sympathetic male reader thinks, "Hey! Badass female soldier! Awesome!" Then, two pages later, the badass female soldier says, "Oh, I have no interest in the military at all! I'm only doing this because men outnumber women in outer space, so out there I can get a man and have lots of babies! I don't care of he's a total jerk and hideous, all that matters is that he's male. Oh to be pregnant!"
At that point, the reader is much more likely to be surprised and irate, their expectations having been unpleasantly thwarted, than if, as many other writers of the time did, no non-stereotypically feminine characters had been introduced at all.
As Jo Walton and others mentioned over at the Tor discussion, Heinlein has a trick of sounding extremely authoritative, in a manner which either seduces you into wanting to measure up to his rather eccentric requirements for true manliness/womanliness/awesomess, or else makes you instantly begin deconstructing them in your head. Or both at once. Again, this is unlike other authors of his time whom I've read, who were less concerned with what makes a Proper Man or whose opinions were not presented in such a compelling and forceful manner.
For instance, though I had to look this up as it's not in one of the ones I read, "Specialization is for insects." I'm sure not everyone has this reaction, but I bet I'm not the only person who reads that and instantly, defensively thinks, "I can do lots of stuff!" and then, "Tell that to a cardiac surgeon."
ETA: Complete quote: A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
This is being discussed in the DW comments.
Link to edition I'm reading, with strangely-proportioned hero: Tunnel in the Sky
I read Tunnel in the Sky, which I generally enjoyed and will report on individually, and three pages of Podkayne of Mars, which was all I could get through before I was overcome with the urge to vomit and/or hurl the book across the room. Those pages consist of 15-year-old Podkayne talking about being a giiiiiirl and going on about how pretty she is and giving her exact measurements and how she's smart enough to not reveal that she's smart because why would any giiiiiirl want to do things herself when she can bat her eyelashes at a man twice her age and have him do things for her? ICK ICK EW. Also, written in a rather twee style. I hate twee.
If it was about her learning better I'd keep reading, but I recall from the last time I read it that she gets blown up because she goes back to a house where she knows there's a bomb to rescue a cute alien kitten, and then her uncle lectures her mom over her comatose body about how it's all her mom's fault for having a career. (Flips to end.) "A woman has more important work to do." Barf. Nix on Podkayne.
Podkayne of Mars
Though I may change my mind after I've read more, my preliminary reading of one book and three pages of another suggests a theory on why people get so outraged over sexism in Heinlein's work, as opposed to getting outraged over sexism in the work of other male sf writers of the same time - especially when, as Heinlein's defenders argue, Heinlein actually has more interesting/badass/competent women than the others.
It's due to bait-and-switch. Because his women are more badass/competent/etc, the female or sympathetic male reader thinks, "Hey! Badass female soldier! Awesome!" Then, two pages later, the badass female soldier says, "Oh, I have no interest in the military at all! I'm only doing this because men outnumber women in outer space, so out there I can get a man and have lots of babies! I don't care of he's a total jerk and hideous, all that matters is that he's male. Oh to be pregnant!"
At that point, the reader is much more likely to be surprised and irate, their expectations having been unpleasantly thwarted, than if, as many other writers of the time did, no non-stereotypically feminine characters had been introduced at all.
As Jo Walton and others mentioned over at the Tor discussion, Heinlein has a trick of sounding extremely authoritative, in a manner which either seduces you into wanting to measure up to his rather eccentric requirements for true manliness/womanliness/awesomess, or else makes you instantly begin deconstructing them in your head. Or both at once. Again, this is unlike other authors of his time whom I've read, who were less concerned with what makes a Proper Man or whose opinions were not presented in such a compelling and forceful manner.
For instance, though I had to look this up as it's not in one of the ones I read, "Specialization is for insects." I'm sure not everyone has this reaction, but I bet I'm not the only person who reads that and instantly, defensively thinks, "I can do lots of stuff!" and then, "Tell that to a cardiac surgeon."
ETA: Complete quote: A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
This is being discussed in the DW comments.
Link to edition I'm reading, with strangely-proportioned hero: Tunnel in the Sky
Tags:
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
From:
no subject
I have his fan letter still. It gives me the blushes to read it. Some bits of it would make the best front-cover blurb ever... but I just can't use it, as he really hated having his private correspondence quoted. Oh well.
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
He was very sweet at a 1977 Star Trek conference I attended -- had a blood drive, of course, but he also let me win the bidding for a signed Ellison book.
None of that has any effect on the impact of his books and characters (I really came to loathe Lazarus Long over the years), and those of us who became increasingly disappointed by the gender issues in his work.
It is about the texts, not the authors as people, something that it's difficult for many to keep in mind. Here's my post about my reading relationship with Heinlein's work:
http://ithiliana.livejournal.com/1396501.html
And I'd still rather spend time with Herewiss than with any of Heinlein's male characters, most of his female characters (the only one I still have any fondness for is Mike the Computer in MOON)>
From:
no subject
Though sometimes I have to be careful how I read it. In one spot in the letter he takes me to task for (spoiler-censoring here) taking so long in the last chapter to reveal what was really going on with a certain character. Other people have occasionally taken me to task for treating other characters similarly in other books... and at such times, and the temptation to take out the letter and reread it, and then go away thinking, "Haha, you guys can make all the noise you like but HE said it was okay!" can be considerable. ;)
From:
no subject
I came to Heinlein early (Starship Troopers at eight or nine, I think: an interesting juxtaposition it made with all the Andre Norton I was reading) and read him still, though not for a whole packet of years now with the unwavering suspension-of-(critical)-belief that I used to. For example, I love 'The Number of the Beast' for some things, and nonetheless want to bitchslap the whole damn bunch of them when their arguments start interfering with their ability to stay alive (or when they simply get on my nerves). And as for Lazarus Long, nngh... I sometimes wonder if RAH may have found himself stuck with a character he'd given a little too much wonderfulness-mojo, and now felt unwilling to retcon him. Hard to say.
Yet at the same time, RAH is on my mind often when SF is at issue. My new one, Omnitopia Dawn, is a direct result of many, many rereadings of The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, and here I agree with you about Mike: that last scene routinely leaves me teary-eyed.
Meanwhile, as regards Herewiss... :) I agree, he's good company: I'd forgotten how much so (but getting the ebooks into shape has been reminding me).
From:
no subject
I even recall my dad and grandfathers doing hog killing when I was very young. That was when we also still smoked our own hams. After that we had the hogs we ourselves were eating slaughtered and butchered by a professional. By then too, our meat was stored at 'the Locker,' part of the local butcher's (though that butcher did not kill the animals, merely cut them up as traditional butchers still do) service, for a fee. We stored the chickens at home in the home freezer in the basement. But the cow, pig, deer meat was too much even for our giant freezer, so the 'Locker' it was. We'd pick up a few week's worth of meat from the Locker periodically and transfer it to our home freezer.'
In fact, this is still done where I came from. We are the hinterlands.
Love, C.
From:
no subject
Love, C.
From:
no subject
Love, C.
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
The sort of rural poverty I grew up in had changed significantly from my grandmother's day but there were similarities, especially in the area of using any and all available resources... TWICE (at least)... and poaching to feed the family.
Oh, and for the people who asked, "Why not chickens?" Poultry are comparatively wasteful of resources (within the British and similar combinations of ecosystem/social system that can sustain pigs). You can't use poultry intestines for sausages/puddings, or preserve their meat easily with salt and water, or use their bones for tools, or....
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
Heinlein was asked by his editor to make two changes to Red Planet, both of which he protested vigorously.
First, he was told to make the protagonist child's use of guns subject to regulation and restriction -- in the original, he carries a blaster, full stop. In the revised version, he carries a blaster because he's done the safety training and passed all the tests and qualifications.
Second, Heinlein was told to excise references to the Martian reproductive cycle. In the original, Willis lays some eggs when the boys are staying in the Martian city, and there's an explanation at the end that Willis has to go back to be with the Martians in order to pupate and metamorphosize from juvenile (female) into adult (male) form. All of this (maybe half a dozen paragraphs scattered throughout the novel) was cut from the version originally published. According to Heinlein, his editor felt that discussions of alien biology and reproduction were too sexual for a children's book. Heinlein, in turn, thought his editor was a nut with a dirty mind.
Note that editions of Red Planet printed since the early-mid 90's probably are of the original version with the Martian sex and unrestricted gun ownership restored... not sure how you'd check (if it doesn't say so on the cover) except to find the scene in the first or second chapter where the protagonist (I forget his name) goes back inside and has to prevent his baby sister from playing with his blaster and see if there's a reference to gun ownership tests and suchlike or not.
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
That's separate from both the idea of being persuaded by someone he's close to (you love someone, you're more likely to take their arguments seriously) and the idea that there are things he might not care enough about to maintain a position on, if not doing so caused stress at home. (A male version of the character in Job saying "I certainly don't disagree" when someone asks her opinion of her husband's fringe beliefs; when alone she explains to him that she doesn't think husband and wife should argue in public, with the implication that if either of them takes a strong position in public first the other should back it.)
From:
no subject
You would think that I would look back on it with horror, rather than it just being a big old blank in my mind. But then again, I guess there were an awful lot of books I had to just blank out ... and perhaps the teacher's sneeriness made me give it a bit of a pass.
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
My favorite of all of his is "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress".
From:
no subject
Your point about the bait-and-switch is an excellent one. (There were some related interesting comments made here.)
He occasionally managed to avoid this, but not as often as one might hope. The best example is probably Glory Road, which has a lot of weird gender stuff but does not end at all in the sadly typical way you describe. (Gur znva srznyr punenpgre vf erirnyrq gb or gur rzcerff (zber be yrff) bs gjragl havirefrf, naq cebprrqf gb trg ba jvgu ure wbo. Gur ureb funpxf hc jvgu ure sbe n juvyr, ohg riraghnyyl ernyvmrf ur vf onfvpnyyl n xrcg zna jvgu abguvat hfrshy gb qb, fb ur yrnirf, jvgu ab uneq srryvatf ba rvgure fvqr.)
From:
no subject
When I got a little older I went upstairs and started reading his adult stuff. Blink blink. A real eye opener.
The one that skeeved me out was an adult one where the dad started having sex with his daughter and it was presented as a great thing.