Talk:For Us, the Living

Social Creditism

I wouldn't view SC as a leftist ideology. It's a strange one to peg, but I'd say it's rightwing. Where I live actually had SC once (50 years ago), and it quickly converted itself to conservatism/christian democract beliefs. (Dec 26)

I removed mention of libertarianism, since in the context of 1938, libertarianism did not exist as such. -- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen 08:55, Dec 18, 2003 (UTC)

In the edit I made today, I removed material written by Paul Robinson in an amazon.com review. Without further info, it should probably be treated as possible copyrighted material. I have appended it immediately below. Hu 01:31, 2004 Dec 25 (UTC)

Text removed. Jkelly 22:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

"Eerie foreshadowings?"

For Us, the Living contains eerie foreshadowings of Heinlein's later writings How would it be "eerie"? It doesn't seem to me that there's anything eerie about an author using certain elements in an early book that are reused in later books. Indeed, it's quite common Nik42 08:35, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Changing "eerie" to "many", which is more accurate. Oni no Maggie 22:54, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup

I removed this line:

There is even a Door Into Summer. (page 45)

The title & inspiration for The Door into Summer came from a random comment made by Virginia Heinlein in 1955. I don't think it's possible to make a connection between that comment and the glass-domed deck Heinlein wrote about in 1938. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 05:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Re the reference to Ayn Rand: In The Moon is a Harsh Mistress there are discussions of how the new government will be formed, and a "Randian" is mentioned in one of them. Presumably, a Randian is a follower of Ayn Rand's views, and as I recall, the major character known as Pop, says he could work with a Randian. Submitted by Janice Vian. 96.45.6.201 (talk) 05:08, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:RobertAHeinlein ForUsTheLiving.jpg

Image:RobertAHeinlein ForUsTheLiving.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Feminist Critique

I'm not sure who Cynthia Brown was, but giving her such space for such large quotations seems absurd when she seems to have barely skimmed the book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.15.219 (talk) 04:19, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

90% made-up WP:OR

The article is almost completely made-up analysis and opinion. Huge swaths (of said opinion) are completely uncited.

After the plot summary, the rest of the article could justifiably be removed en masse.

Instead, I plan to begin to remove some the most egregious of it one by one. That will result in a large numbers of deleting edits by an IP. You will hate me for that. But, you all should follow suit.

Wikipedia is not a place for literature enthusiasts to show off how smart they are with all their analysis and connections and made-up "themes". You might have made some very good analysis, but it's only includable if it's published somewhere in a cited reliable source -- not by you on your blog.

73.219.90.8 (talk) 01:16, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

I've read RAH's better known books but not this one. However, it seems like the article writers are not clear about the meaning of the word "secular," which only means non-religious, rather than atheistic, so that "two years" of a "completely secular" education---most Americans have thirteen years of secular education now, before the ones who go to college for another four years of secular education---is hardly revolutionary or utopian. nearly all secular colleges, including government colleges, have chapels and even paid religious staff like Catholic priests and nuns and Protestant ministers. Our secular armed forces have chaplains. It seems that For Us, the Living, presents an anti-religious (supposed) utopia, but the word "secular" simply doesn't mean anti-religious but rather non-religious. The Boy Scouts are secular, but they have religion-based awards, the Religious Emblems Programs, and they even used to ban atheists from taking part in Scouting. 2601:701:C002:FD40:D16:9BD6:9939:4A9 (talk) 14:05, 27 October 2022 (UTC)