Heinlein’s greatness was the way he could flesh out an imaginary society. The little-known TIME FOR THE STARS concentrates not on exciting adventure in space but on what everyday life on a spaceship would be like, and does it better than any other sci-fi novel I’ve ever read (with Panshin’s RITE OF PASSAGE a close second.)

Heinlein is at his worst when he tries to preach his political ideas. His favorite gimmick is to invent a political crisis requiring some extreme measures, then to turn the extreme into a rule. Example: (in TIME ENOUGH FOR LOVE) a plague is blamed on the failure of a society to practice Heinlein’s eugenics and breed for resistance to disease. Most of the time, of course, plagues don’t occur and we don’t need his eugenics, but that’s the way Heinlein’s political arguments work.

Just wanted to flesh out why Heinlein sometimes awes readers and sometimes drives them up the wall.

Since an author isn’t in the room to explain his book to you, his opinion or explanation of the works meaning is not as important as what you take it to mean. Different people have different interpretations from the same novel.

Still, I imagine that from somewhere in his restlessness, nostalgia, skepticism, “in it for the species” almost mercenary brand of hope, humor, and the “why not?” of it all, he might just have taken up the mitre.

No doubt rubbing blue mud in his navel just as solemnly as the natives, at least for a while.

Cam, sorry not to reply sooner, but I don’t think I saw your post about starting a SF book on religion. Any ideas? Now I’ve wanted to start a real religion, one based on science and atheism, but I don’t think it would work.

After reading “Grumbles from the Grave” in which we see letters written to and from Heinlein himself, it is obvious that the sexual liberation in SIASL is at least partially influenced by the times and society, and also that the cult-like ideals in the book spawned real-life copy cults.

Having not personally seen the 70s as an adult, I’d contend that the word ‘hippie’ is likely a brash generalization on my part, and I apologize for it. However, as a stereotype it’s certainly not too far off.

I also agree that this is not the ONLY influence on the book and that Heinlein’s own libertarianism played a large role.

Lastly, you are right. SIASL has not aged well.. unless you’re a horny teenager with a love for Mars.

If you are a Heinlein fan, I highly recommend Grumbles from the Grave, even if it’s not a good book itself, it’s certainly a good back story to our favorite memories.

Arguably, the book’s enthusiastic acceptance for “sexual freedom, individuality and polyamory” grew more out of Heinlein’s own libertarianism than from early hippie culture– thus providing the book’s unusual mixture of viewpoint characters with strongly conservative power politics combined with radically permissive social/sexual politics.

Since this book was Heinlein’s big breakout from his much smaller hardcore SF audience, it surely belongs in the “must read” category (even though I would have to agree that much of it has not aged all that well).

I just checked out the chronology of Heinlein’s works (since I read ALL of them after he died, I didn’t read them in any sort of order). I loved everything written before 1960, then enjoyed only 3 novels after that: SIASL, MIAHM and Friday. So I’d agree that the tipping point was sometime in the early 60′s.

Thanks for making me think about that.

For the record: Friday (1982) is more of a beach-in-the-summer read than a solid SciFi. I enjoyed it, but I was on the beach when I read it, so that might have something to do with it.

Even The Number of the Beast, a novel I can’t make myself read, has some good ideas in it. Charlie Stross is coming out with a new novel that’s suppose to be in reaction to Heinlein’s later novels. I’m looking forward that.

I’m a lifelong fan of Heinlein, and reread many of his novels on a periodic basis, but I can’t read his later novels.

Jim