Talk:Robert A. Heinlein/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Untitled

The article is now 35k, which is longer than the recommended limit of 32k, and it feels too long to me as well. Can we split it up? How about one summary page, which links to three shorter articles on (1) his life, (2) his writing, and (3) his ideas.--Bcrowell 01:33, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

---

Sorry to jump this up top...

I had even more reason to dislike the big edit cluster, since it ate an outlink I put in (:-), but I thought it was, overall, fairly informative, to the extent it was factually accurate. I suspect we'd be better served by reverting it back in, and then cleaning it up. Clearly, someone put a fair amount of effort into it; did we just scare away another potentially helpful editor? -- Baylink 04:19, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Having heard no response from Martin Wisse, who did the revert, I'm re-reverting; Martin, if you have problems on factual points, how 'bout fixing them rather than trashing wholesale. To the original editor, who emailed me, why not sign up, so there's a place for Martin to talk to you about such stuff? I'll roll the couple fact changes in after. -- Baylink 01:23, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hi Baylink -- I'm a little confused by all the drastic edits and reverts that you and Martin Wisse did. I've done a bunch of edits today to try to get rid of duplicative stuff, while reinserting what I thought was the best material that had been deleted. I did my best to break it up into lots of small edits, with comments on each one to explain my reasoning, when appropriate. One thing I've tried realy hard to accomplish on this round is to make the whole thing sound more balanced and less fannish. --Bcrowell 19:56, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

A new editor had come along and mightily rewritten large chunks of material, and did, I thought, a pretty good job. I saw nothing that seemed factually inaccurate or POV, but apparently Martin did, and reverted. Subsequent to that, the original editor, who is not wise in our ways yet, emailed me to inquire about it. My having gotten no reply to my original comments here, posted right after the revert, I verted it back. I need to fold back in the 3 minor link changes others had contributed since Martin's revert. I'm assuming that you, Bcrowell, are not that original anonymous editor from the tone of your query. If I'm wrong, then more power to you for the extra cleanup. -- Baylink 21:53, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hi Baylink -- No, I'm not the anonymous editor. Sounds like we're converging on what we want, and I'll look forward to seeing your edits.--Bcrowell 22:27, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

---

(That seems at least a bit questionable. It is easy to get the impression reading Heinlein's fiction that the philosophical views are being lampooned rather than propagated. People who agree with the views probably think Heinlein is putting them seriously. Those who disagree either think Heinlein is having a joke, or throw the book away. It is also worth noting that these "philosophical views" are much less visible in his earlier works and only become strong starting with The Cat Who Walks Through Walls, a work which had better be a joke at every level or it is just garbage.)

---

Heinlein's personal views are well-documented from non-fiction works and interviews. No attempt was made to make novels consistent with any overall system of ideas, but it is clear that Heinlein sympathized with the views expressed by his sympathetic characters.

---

Please provide years for the works. It would also be nice to sort by years, see discussion on Wikipedia policy.

---

Someone is going to have to justify the narrowmindedness of Kansas City, MO, more clearly than is currently done in the article. When Heinlein was born it was an incredibly dynamic place (ever heard of the Blues? Jazz? The meatpacking industry? The Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art?). Heinlein may have come from a narrowminded and provincial family, or have been packed off to visit narrowminded and provincial relatives elsewhere in Missouri, but I really think that blaming it on Kansas City is ill-informed. I am, I am quick to offer as a disclaimer, neither a Midwesterner nor even a frequent visitor. I have a strong feeling that Heinlein would have grown up to be much the same no matter where he had done the growing up. --MichaelTinkler

---

Why is it necessary to have one line stubs for each of the short stories this guy has written? There is more info on these stories in the list on this page than in those articles. PLEASE don't make these types of stubs -- they don't even give enough information to be classified as definitions. --maveric149

I'll stop making the stub articles, but I'm not entirely convinced. -- Ellmist

I thought about it, and you are right. Do you want to delete the ones that already exist? -- Ellmist

Only if you don't plan on adding any content to them. The only info you have on most of them is already in the list in this article. There just needs to be something more than just "X is a science fiction short story by Robert A. Heinlein." What was the story about? Where did it take place? Who was involved? When did this happen? and maybe even: Why did this occur? and How did it happen? Otherwise, those entries should become redirects to this article. --maveric149

Totally convinced after thinking about the obviousness of it. Do you want me to redirect these to Robert A. Heinlein?-- Ellmist

Sure, go ahead. But just remember, I'm not saying these books don't deserve encyclopedia articles, just saying that the pages created don't have any useful content (yet at least). --maveric149

Some of the short stories--By His Bootstraps being a good example, Logic of Empire being another--are sufficiently substantial as to deserve discussion. Why not put up a page for Heinlein's non-Future History shorts and another page for the Future History shorts? adamsj--not a user

Not having looked here first, I added a bit of content to the pages of By His Bootstraps and The Star Beast.

Short story titles are normally given in quotes, not italics. Do we have a different style? (Checking before I make the change). Vicki Rosenzweig

---

a biography isn't complete without an explanation of death. please add. Kingturtle 01:28 May 6, 2003 (UTC)

---

While many people believe that Heinlein expressed his own philosophy in his sympathetic characters, a careful reading of his complete works will reveal that he was logically inconsistent in these "beliefs". However, themes emerge, and most common in my opinion is one of self-reliance with a rejection of any sort of final authority. This would necessarily disqualify Heinlein himself as a final authority. In short, Heinlein wanted to make people think for themselves, not search his works for philosophical "answers".

I thought some of the "themes" listed were expressed more strongly than RAH's texts support, however I only adjusted the two I thought were most uncontroversially POV. On the matter of liberty RAH did seem biased towards societies that were relatively easy-going; the supremacy of individual liberty though was more often than not tempered by the exaltation of taking personal responsibility for oneself and larger entities upto and including the whole of humanity.

As to the "silliness of of mysticism", I challenge anyone to show how that could be characterized as a "recurring" theme in his works. In fact many of his works are based on one sort of underlying tradition of mysticism or another, and are often given quite a serious treatment. (Stranger in a Strange Land notwithstanding, as that satirized everything in sight.) -Cimon avaro

He definitely drew from Korzybski, who seems strongly anti-mystical. But no, RAH doesn't seem as anti-mystical as that might suggest. I've tried to clarify this. I also changed the part about a world without customs, because (as written) it didn't seem like one of Heinlein's goals. (Nor does it seem possible.) About contradictions: he does have a character advocate death for those who sin against drug prohibition. But do you (nameless contributor) see contradictions in the general principles of his best characters? --Dan

My personal view is that the influence of Korzybski on Heinlein is often taken out of context and over-emphasized and over-extended in duration. But I have nothing solid to back up my view. Certainly Waldo & Magic Inc.; The Unpleasant Profession of Jonathan Hoag; Time For The Stars etc. etc. etc. do stray beyond mere metaphysical speculation, pretty firmly into the mystical; and they are hard to take as satire either. Maybe they were purely explorations in form, a workman sharpening his tools, maybe not. But they aren't nugatory, no matter how you slice it.

Upton Sinclair had some curious views as well, and some of those clearly rubbed on RAH, at least to some degree. He may have sneered at faddish New Age Mysticism, but he knew that wasn't the whole picture. -- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen 05:21, Feb 7, 2004 (UTC)

---

Minor edits for clarity:

from "Loonies rebel against Warden (aided by self-aware computer) in The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" to "Residents of a Lunar penal colony, aided by a self-aware computer, rebel against the Warden in The Moon is a Harsh Mistress"

"Loonies" to "Residents of a Lunar penal colony" because "Loony" more commonly means "unbalanced" than "Lunarian".

Moved and un-parentheszed "aided by a self-aware computer", as was previously unclear if Loonies or Warden were aided by computer.

Move & deletion

Robert A. Heinlein as a redirect was deleted for Robert Heinlein to move here. Its history is:

• M 08:51, Feb 25, 2002 . . Conversion script (Automated conversion)
  • Content was: ' #REDIRECT Robert Heinlein'
• M 17:30, Apr 30, 2001 . . 206.135.133.xxx
  • Content was: 'Probably considered the greatest Science Fiction author of all time. Wrote a number of books including Stranger in a Strange Land, The Puppet Masters, and what I consider his greatest work, Starship Troopers.'

--Menchi 20:33, Aug 16, 2003 (UTC)

---

Just wanted to say thanks for such a detailed page about RAH.

Mark Millard 03:44, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

Libertarianism

I would say that Heinlein was pretty serious about Libertariansism in "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress"; his narrator is a lot like most of the Libertarians of my aquaintance, and it portrays a Libertarian society in, of all places, a lunar penal colony. I don't think it was written as "having a joke at the reader's expense", and in fact in all but one aspect holds up well today (the need, in 2076, for people to rush out to find a phone or stand in line at a pay phone; even this can be explained away by the fact that celluar phones would never work in a network of tunnels on the moon).

Heinlein was quoted in several interviews that there was a technical term which described someone who would confuse an author's views with his characters. That term is "idiot." Heinlein just as accurately and avidly propopsed rule-by-veterans, rule-by-monarch, rule-by-eldest, rule-by-technocrats and others I can't characterise in a couple of sentences. Even the blacks in Farnham's Freehold are written in an engaging and rational way, they're just not to the taste of the viewpoint character. Heinlein's politics are "complex." The best explanation that you will find outside his letters to his friends (most unpublished to date) is in Tramp Royale and "Take Back Your Government." Unless you've read those in some detail, conflating his fiction with his personal views is unlikely to get accurate results. Rick Boatright 13:38, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I think that an author can in fact be very knowledgeable about things and can display that knowledge through characters without necessarily being a supporter of those postions himself. However, when a character is generally presented in a favorable light and the character has a decided POV which is in conflict with the POV of characters generally presented in an unfavorable light, it is usually a reasonable inference that the favorably-drawn character's POV more closely resembles that of the author than that of the unfavorably-drawn characters'. Having said that, I would readily agree that drawing huge, sweeping inferences about an author's outlook based upon the utterances of his characters could be quite dangerous. User:Rlquall 17:40, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Strokes

rewrote sentence following "suffered several strokes". The fact that some people feel that the quality of his work suffered following his strokes might be apropos to an article on how to judge fiction or in an article on perceptual psychology but isn't really relevent to an article on RAH. If it gets reverted I'll go ahead and dig out the sales figures and awards RAH won pre and post stroke and include that info. murph 4.34.139.102 06:47, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I edited that part, and then User:LazLong edited it some more, because he felt my material was POV. I've reinserted the factual stuff about his health and time pressure from his publishers, but left the quality judgment, which LazLong objected to. I've posted on LazLong's talk page to invite him to discuss it here if it's still of concern. Maybe we could maintain NPOV while maknig the discussion more detailed and informative. E.g., we could say that although many people thought the quality of the books was lower for reasons xyz (I'd be happy to supply the xyz), the books sold very well and won awards. --Bcrowell 21:48, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'm just going to go ahead and add the detail and see if it's ok with people. I've invited User:LazLong and User:murph to discuss it here.

It seems ok to me, you've re-written it well enough. Even though I'm not sure about time pressure from the publishers actually, since I've never heard of it. But it's not like I know everything of course... where did you read it? Also the health factor, it really has nothing to do with those books... I mean, if they're any good they hardly can have been influenced by illnesses, and he actually started having big health problems in the late 60's. But of course it is a fact that he was often ill.

Anyway I think the article is better now than before. --Lazarus Long 09:31, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The part about health and time is actually something I heard second-hand from someone who had read Grumbles From the Grave, which I haven't read. I've just ordered a copy of it, so I'll be able to check my facts soon. --Bcrowell 19:30, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

OK, my copy of Grumbles From the Grave finally came in the mail, and it completely fails to support what I was saying, so either my memory is faulty or the person who told me that interpretation wasn't basing it on GFtG. I've cut the statement from the article.--Bcrowell 04:37, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

---

There's two references that his first book, For Us, The Living, was not published until 64 years after it was written. One of them needs to go. Mkilly 06:53, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC) (Edit: no, scratch that, three references.)

Done --Bcrowell 03:11, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Racial and gender stance

While Farnham's Freehold does, indeed, have race as a substantial undercurrent, I would not say that it is the only "prominent exception." There is a short story (which, sadly, I don't have the name of at hand) where our protagonist is an African-American female, who was the VP of the US, purely for show; upon the president's death, however, she declines to resign (despite pressure to do so), assumes the presidency, and enacts many "reforms" (eg., doing away with any sort of governmental race distinction) that attempt to turn America color/gender blind. I would have to say that this story, the name of which I will endeavor to find, is clearly the most racially motivated writing -- leastwise, of those with which I'm aware.

It was in "Expanded Universe", that I remember, though the title eludes me. Might have been "The Happy Days Ahead", or "Free Men". I think the former. grendel|khan 19:34, 2004 Dec 28 (UTC)

It's called "Over the Rainbow-", in "The Happy Days Ahead". It's a short story at the end of a political essay, that is included in Expanded Universe. AdamW 20:46, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Floruit

The word "floruit" actually is a real word, but it should be replaced where it appears in first paragraph of the Mature Work section. It means "a period of flourishing". I suggest the sentence read "His work during this flourishing period explored his most important themes, such as individualism, [...]". I believe it would be clearer to almost all readers.

Blood Donation

One of Heinlein's top causes was support for blood donation and for rare blood types. It makes an appearance in "I Will Fear No Evil". I think it needs a mention on the biography page.

Heinlein critics

Not a lot is said here about criticism of Heinlein - I don't know if it should be, but I'd find it difficult myself to write much about Heinlein without at least mentioning Alexei Panshin, "Heinlein in Dimension" - his extremely controversial 1965 critique of Heinlein, and "Rite of Passage" - his award-winning novel which consciously set out to oppose some of Heinlein's apparent philosophy. It's a contentious area, but an important one, at least in my thinking about Heinlein. There is a brief Wikipedia article on Panshin which references this page, I see. Anyone wanting to research Panshin can find him and his works at Panshin's web site

I had a look at the web site of James Gifford, who is mentioned - he appears to be on the other side of the debate from Panshin (some of his stuff looks a little sycophantic to me, but that's just my POV). Anyway, the link to Gifford's site doesn't reference an article on "Stranger in a Strange Land", as the article says, but one on "Starship Troopers".

HTH - a passing stranger. 00:40, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Please do add to the article! The danger with a page like this is that it will be written entirely by Heinlein fanboys (and I say that as an admitted Heinlein fanboy :-).--Bcrowell 01:58, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes, anyone who has read Heinlein extensively knows that he offered differing views on many subjects. R.A.H. primarily wrote fiction, and the views expressed were generally those of his characters. Further, it might be worth noting that the term "wetback" didn't always have a negative connotation. Heinlein, whatever his flaws, was one of the most influential SF writers in the history of the genre, nonetheless, he would liklely be appalled by the significance some people are evidently trying to impart to his words. Read. Enjoy. Calm down.

- cneron 21 January 2005

Political views incomplete

The section on "Heilein's politics" is seriously lacking any discussion of Take_Back_Your_Government. It's unfortunate that the only reference to the work is at the bottom of the page under the listing of his works. I don't have access to the book for a few months, so I'll have to put off writing anything now. Maybe someone else would have a go though. DH 2004-11-28

---

Starship Troopers

Does Starship Troopers count as a juvenile novel? It was a lot darker than most of his other stuff. I heard somewhere it was rejected by his original publisher for that, or some such. Maybe it should be moved to "early Heinlein novels?" -LtNOWIS 03:28, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You've heard it in several places, including the non-fiction interstitials in Expanded Universe, and, I think Grumbles. Yes, in short, Troopers was originally written as a juve. Well, a 'cadet', actually, but the US didn't have that distinction: a junior high novel. --Baylink 04:05, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Small point of accuracy

From the intro paragraph:

"He became the first science fiction writer to break into major general magazines in the late 1940s with true, undisguised science fiction..."

I'm not sure this is strictly accurate - wasn't Bradbury publishing in the SEP and such places before RAH?

Interesting -- can you give more info? The wikipedia article on Bradbury doesn't seem to have the relevant facts. What does the acronym SEP stand for -- Saturday Evening Post? A quick Google search turned up a lot of RB's later sales to the Saturday Evening Post, but I didn't persevere enough to find out his earliest sale to them.--Bcrowell 07:13, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Looks like I'm wrong - a bit of digging last night shows Bradbury's first sale to the Saturday Evening Post in '50, a good two years after RAH. My bad. I remember reading about the excitement in the SF community when he began publishing there, in terms that suggested it was a breakthrough - well, it was, for him. But Heinlein was there first.

Exact date of death?

One of the online Heinlein FAQ's give me the date as May 12th. Most of them point to May 8th. Which is the correct one?

It currently says,

• Died: 8 May 1988, Carmel, California, of emphysema and congestive heart failure.

, so if it was wrong, it's been fixed.

—wwoods 20:53, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry I forgot to mention it - I emailed the site's owner asking him the same question, turns out he was simply mistaken. Volland 19:19, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Three footnotes

All fottnote "1"? What's up with that? --Christofurio 19:07, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

fixed. --ChrisRuvolo 19:35, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Picture

Can't we find a better picture for the top--one that doesn't look like it was taken by a security cam?

Well, I moved the worldcon76 image to the top, and put a copy of the 1929 USNA yearbook photo in, but I can not _find_ a PD or Fair Use image of Robert and Virginia anywhere... although thousands of SF Fans must have shoeboxes full, But there you go. Rick Boatright 17:09, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Could we get clearance on the picture here?
--Baylink 00:21, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Featured article nomination

I'm nominating this for featured article.--Bcrowell 21:03, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

I have the unhappy duty to disagree. I just re-read the article top to bottom the other day, and I'm a little unhappy with how closely parts of it hew to non-fiction writing by Heinlein and Robinson about the author; "took it across the street" being merely the most egregious example.

I know that Heinlein isn't the best biographed author around, but I think we're stealing too much and not writing enough, personally. Comments?
--Baylink 22:47, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Hmm...I'd suggest that if you see stuff like that, you just eliminate it or rewrite it. The article's a little too long, anyway, so just cutting it might be a good idea. Do you think there's stuff in there that's actually plagiarized? I'll go ahead and get rid of the "across the street" part now. --Bcrowell 23:21, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I'd actually cut the "across the street" part already. Since Baylink thought the article might have stuff in it that was not original, I did a google on some phrases from it. All I turned up was a bunch of verbatim copies of the article on other web sites. There are legit copies, with credit to wikipedia and/or gfdl licensing info, at explore-biography.com, nationmaster.com, answers.com, encyclopedia.worldvillage.com, biblio.com, absoluteastronomy.com. At mathdaily.com and robert-heinlein.biography.ms, there are copies with no credit at all to wikipedia, and no gfdl licensing info. Baylink, can you suggest what sources you have in mind if you think there is non-original work in the article? Are they internet sources, or books?--Bcrowell 23:37, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, as I noted, the sources to which I think it hews a bit too closely are Heinlein, himself, in the non-fiction sections of Expanded Universe and the other one, and Spider Robinson, in the 5 or 6 places *he's* written non-fiction about RAH. "take across the street" was the only thing that seemed egregious, but ... well, it's the 'Anon, Ibid, and Opcit; Research Unlimited' problem: if you steal from three or more sources, you call it research. I don't think we're stealing from enough.

But yes, print, not the net. It's a rough problem to fix.
--Baylink 00:15, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

I have a copy of Expanded Universe. Can you point me to the relevant places in it? I don't have any of the Spider Robinson stuff; can you go through those and try to fix them? --Bcrowell 01:59, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Aha, I see the part you originally referred to, on p. 93 of the Ace paperback edition, the foreword to Solution Unsatisfactory. I've edited out the stuff that was in there before and replaced it with a one-sentence summary. Yeah, whoever originally put that in there was treading really close to the line of plagiarism.--Bcrowell 02:13, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Yep, more semi-plagiarism, from p. 207, foreword to Free Men. Eliminating it.--Bcrowell 02:17, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

OK, well, I've gone through all the autobiographical forewords in Expanded Universe, and those were the only two examples I found. I don't have the Robinson books, so I can't tell what might have been stolen from them.--Bcrowell 02:30, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Both the things stolen from Expanded Universe were added in an edit on 19:19 15 Feb 2005 by 209.86.18.162. Although the user was not logged in, the comment says "(~ender - some details)," and if you look at the user contributions page for that IP address, he made a bunch of edits that day, all with "~ender" in the comments as way of signing them, I guess. There are no other edits in the Heinlein article with "~ender" in the comment. It's not like a feel a spiritual need to track the guy down and spank him, or anything :-), but if we could figure out which edits were his, it might be a good way to figure out what's been plagiarized.--Bcrowell 02:47, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Quite so. Thanks for doing the legwork; my print collection is widely scattered ATM; I was working mostly from memory. Of course, when the uncut Stranger came out, I felt like I could go through it with a highlighter and mark every word that had been added back in, so... ;-}

But you can see why I thought it needed cleaned up a bit before getting featured (which I'd very like to see)...
--Baylink 04:22, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

And a quick scan suggests it might be there now; I'm a bit burnt out from trying to learn PHP5, OOP, and a framework all at the same time, at work, but I'll try to do a fine pass later tonight. Good stuff, sir.
--Baylink 23:08, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

plagiarized phrase

In an edit on 01:20, 28 Dec 2004 by an anonymous user, this was added: "Heinlein continues to have an active commercial life decades after his death." This is plagiarized from one of the bios by Bill Patterson, which says, "Heinlein has been dead for more than ten years, but he continues to have an active professional life." This was part of a massive edit to the "Life" section of the article. I've cross-checked a bunch of phrases from this edit, and didn't turn up anything else that was from the Patterson bios. I've eliminated the plagiarized phrase. Hope nothing else like this turns up -- yech! --Bcrowell 05:23, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Decades" is pushing it, but however it's phrased, Heinlein has had an unusually large number of books published since his death: Grumbles, Tramp Royale, For Us, the Living, the various uncut versions,...

—wwoods 07:24, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Three Ishtars, or just one?

I'm moving right now, and I don't have access to any of Heinlein's books to check, but I'd still bet a fair amount that those three Ishtars are all the same woman. Can someone with a library on hand check this and, if I'm right, delete the lines in question? adamsj--not a user

I've deleted the whole passage about the name Ishtar. I haven't checked whether it's correct, but it seems pointless, and doesn't relate to the subsection it's in.--Bcrowell 17:18, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

versions of photo

Raul654 reverted the potrait back to the uncropped version. I'm not sure why he reverted it, so I've undone the revert. Any opinions on which is superior? I put a lot of work into cropping, and then retouching the photo, for what I considered to be good reasons. The old photo had a lot of distracting things in it, including coke cans, etc.--Bcrowell 22:17, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The new version is significantly less informative. It's one thing to crop out extraneous parts of a photo, such as whitespace with a caption in it that you might find in navy.mil photos. On the other hand, when people click on a picture, it's an indication that they want to see more the photo (as much as is possible). Using a cropped version removes that choice. Also, the cropped version is too cropped - you chopped off the top and back of his head. →Raul654 22:26, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Hi -- Thanks for the explanation. I disagree that taking out the top of his head is a defect. Re wanting to get to the uncropped version, it is linked to, and you can get to it in a couple of clicks.--Bcrowell 02:03, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's linked from three levels deep! I found it totally by chance, and I actually know what I'm doing. Do you honestly believe someone less familiar with Wikipedia is actually going to find it? I don't think so. →Raul654 02:07, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Would you like to add a cross-reference somewhere, to make it easier to find? --Bcrowell 04:04, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Isn't it possible to use the cropped pic as the thumbnail, and link it directly to the uncropped version?
--Baylink 22:16, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Is that possible? I'm not sure that's the right thing to do, though. I didn't just crop it. After I cropped it, I retouched it quite a bit. A person who clicks on the photo might, e.g., just want a higher resolution version of the cropped and retouched one. I really don't see what's wrong with everything as it is. Anyone who really cares that much about tracking down the original can do it.--Bcrowell 22:25, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Definitely put the uncropped version of the photo back in. It has just much more information about the man than just a mug shot.Kar98 01:05, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

I'm 100% percent in favor of restoring the uncropped version. Compared to it, the cropped one is grotesque -- it has no intinsic artistic value and has removed a lot of the stuff that makes the original picture interesting. Who wants to see nothing but a egg-like portion of Heinlein's skull? I knew Heinlein beginning with the 1976 Worldcon in Kansas City until his death and the cropped version is NOT how he looked. I think he would be appalled to see it.... Hayford Peirce 01:29, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

in-betweeners

I've deleted this remark: 'In another example, another of his sympathetic leads refers to homosexuals as "the poor in-betweeners," an offhand comment that has even drawn fire from Heinlein's admitted hagiographer, Spider Robinson.' This just does not seem like Heinlein's typical attitude about homosexuality, which he handles very positively in I Will Fear No Evil. Although the point of the paragraph is to point out the apparent variation in Heinlein's opinion, this just doesn't seem to me to represent anything like his normal attitude. --Bcrowell 04:35, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm... didn't mean to suggest that it was "his normal attitude", but it is a datapoint, to the extent that Robinson saw fit to complain about it. And no, it wasn't *solely* an excuse to use the "hagiographer" reference.
--Baylink 00:17, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Heinlein was uneven on the subject of homosexuality. On the one hand, he may have been very positive in I Will Fear No Evil (I don't remember myself, but I'll take Bcrowell's word for it). And one or two of the main characters of Time Enough for Love say that sexual orientation doesn't matter. On the other hand, the heroine of The Puppet Masters says that she's sure that a man is possessed by aliens because he isn't attracted to her and, if I recall correctly, later on, they parade her in front of a group of high-level government officials and shoot the ones who aren't sexually excited.

I'm inclined to cut RAH a break and say that his views on homosexuality were progressive, but unevenly so by contemporary standards. Mitchwagner 20:10, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

*snip* On the other hand, the heroine of The Puppet Masters says that she's sure that a man is possessed by aliens because he isn't attracted to her and, if I recall correctly, later on, they parade her in front of a group of high-level government officials and shoot the ones who aren't sexually excited. *snip*

If I recall correctly, they don't shoot them because they're not sexually excited, they shoot them because they have NO reaction to her whatsoever. When they first go into the invaded area, she says something along the lines that all men have a reaction to her, one way or another, but that man had no reaction at all. I don't see this as a comment on homosexuality at all. -liltornado (not a member)

Asian character

The article say "Heinlein did include sympathetic Asian characters in his later works". But the main character of "Starship Trooper", Juan Rico, was a Filipino

Good point! I've added that info to a footnote.--Bcrowell 00:04, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

I deleteed the reference to Buenos Aires: his mother was killed in Buenos Aires when she made a trip to it, afaik in the novel it's not indicated where they live, and in the novel it's referenced as Juan or Johnnie, never as Johnny)--Moroboshi 06:41, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to encourage you to put the remark I added about Frank Matsui back up from the footnote and into the article proper. I've never heard anyone cite anything other than Sixth Column/The Day After Tomorrow as evidence of racism in Heinlein's writing. Thus, it's appropriate to demonstrate explicitly that, even in that instance and even when crippled by a racialist notion of John Campbell's, Heinlein showed nationalism (or chauvinism, if you prefer) rather than racism. adamsj--not a user

Hi -- Thanks for your work on the article! Hope I didn't make you feel unwelcome. (How about becoming a user? It's not hard, and it would help with keeping track of who's doing what.) The thing is, the article is now about 40k, which is way over the 32k recommended limit. One way to keep it readable is to avoid tangents and details, and relegate supporting examples to the footnotes. Especially since it's likely to be featured on the main page soon, I feel that it should be something that a non-fan could sit down and read with interest from end to end. "I've never heard anyone cite anything other than Sixth Column/The Day After Tomorrow as evidence of racism in Heinlein's writing." Well, I think there are a heck of a lot of examples that people *could* take as racist, and *have* taken as racist by at least some people. For instance, people have taken issue with his description of Vietnamese women in Glory Road, and Farnham's Freehold does depict the black rulers as cannibals, albeit high-tech ones.--Bcrowell 20:46, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ack--I should have said "racism toward Asians". I've not heard the complaint about Glory Road, and I take first person differently from third person--especially when dealing with a writer like Heinlein where it's hard to see where the writer stops and the character ends. And no, you didn't make me feel unwelcome--it takes a lot to do that, and I've been both an edited writer and an editor, so I don't take these things personal, unless they are.

Even in Sixth Column, the racism is diluted -- the heroes include a Japanese-American character who charges into battle for America, knowing that the death-ray (or whateveritis) will kill him because of his Asian blood.

There's also evidence to support the notion that the hero, Whitey, is black. The novel opens seconds after every scientist in the room except for Whitey has been killed by the death ray whateveritis. Later on, they figure out that they all died because the death ray was set to kill Causasians. Whitey walked away unscathed though. He's not killed by the deathray that kills Asians, either. So what's left? Mitchwagner 20:15, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hi Mitchwagner -- I haven't read the book in a long time, and don't really want to read it again, since it's such a stinker :-) So I'm not completely following the discussion here, but if you think it would be appropriate, please edit the text and/or footnote appropriately. I'd just suggest trying to keep from bloating the article any further with needless digressions. Maybe some of this discussion should go in the article on the book itself?--Bcrowell 21:48, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Farnham's Freehold plot point inaccuracy...

The article currently states: "In Farnham's Freehold, the protagonist's son allows himself to be castrated in order to gain security."

Duke (the abbreviated character in question) is duped into castration. (Sleeping powder in his food.) He doesn't volunteer. The castration does lead to security for Duke, and he doesn't complain after the fact. Maybe it's just a nit...I'm hesitant to edit the main article, since I'm a newbie.

Hi -- Don't be shy! I've made an edit that may take care of it, but if not, please edit further. I haven't read the book in a long time. BTW, it's a good idea to add your signature when you post on a talk page (click on the John Hancock squiggle in the little toolbar).--Bcrowell 21:51, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that's more accurate while still making the same point for that portion of the article. Thanks. --Imperpay 8 July 2005 17:15 (UTC)

RAH political involvements

Heinlein and 3rd wife worked on the 1964 Barry Goldwater campaign [Grumbles from the Grave, pp.244-245]. The distance many people would perceive between Upton Sinclair Socialism and Barry Goldwater Republicanism means the Goldwater connnection oughta be mentioned, but I'm not a good enough writer to do that without interrupting a good logical flow in the two places it might belong. Tribune 20:12, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Cool -- thanks for pointing that out. I've incorporated that in the text, along with some other notes about his politics and Ginny's influence.--Bcrowell 21:36, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Waldos

I'm rather dubious about the claim that "waldo" is a commonly used word coined by Heinlein (yes, I know that he coined it). I began reading Heinlein in 1956 and probably encountered the word "waldo" within a year or so. As a S.F. type I was then taken by the assertion by many people that "waldo" had become common usage. But outside the S.F. field I'm pretty sure that I've never seen it in my life. Certainly all the S.F. types have pushed it for many years now, but has it become at all mainstream, the way "grok" and "Tanstaafl" have? I mean, you can run across the last two in the New York Times (not in news articles, but in opinion or non-hard-news articles). ("Grok" is in the Merriam-Webster's 11th Collegiate -- the other two aren't.) But does a Times article about working with radioactive materials at Oak Ridge, say, ever mention "waldos"? I seriously doubt it. Can anyone here give some concrete examples in the mainsteam media? My suggestion is that we give this a month, say, and at the end of that time see if it's warranted keeping this word in the article. Hayford Peirce 23:42, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I think it's more legit than the other two, but it's a specialized engineering term, so unless you're an engineer you don't hear it as much. On this google search,

waldo engineer -emerson -"where's waldo"

the first hit is the Heinlein usage. FWIW, my father, a former semi-hippie and not an SF reader, uses "grok." Tanstaafl, I think, has the least currency of the three, but libertarians do use it as a slogan.--Bcrowell 00:40, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

space race

Hayford Peirce recently made an edit re Destination Moon that made an excellent point, which is that although I claimed the film was propaganda for the space race, the space race didn't exist in 1950 (Sputnik was 7 years in the future). However, I just recently watched the movie, and in fact it's very clearly implied that the bad guys (pretty obviously the commies) are sabotaging the project, and that if American private enterprise doesn't get to the moon first, the commies will, and will use it as a military chokepoint to take over the world. It's remarkable, in fact, how prescient Heinlein was about the space race, although the idea of dropping bombs from orbit or from the moon never made much sense in terms of physics. I've made an edit that I hope reintroduces Heinlein's intriguing idea, while taking into account Hayford Peirce's excellent correction.--Bcrowell 02:15, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

The rewrite looks fine to me. I haven't seen the movie in 55 years, so can't remember much about it.... Hayford Peirce 02:59, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

lead

I've reverted Hayford Peirce's edit to the lead re perceptions of Heinlein as a fascist. Maybe we should discuss that here. I think the lead was already NPOV, and the rewritten version made it fannish and POV in Heinlein's favor. The lead already clearly depicted both the perception of Heinlein as a fascist and his adoption by the hippie counterculture as other people's somewhat silly perceptions, not reality.--Bcrowell 02:15, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I was actually more concerned about the use of the word "contemporaneous" than the fascist reference. And, of course, it is possible to dispute the reading of the novel as being fascist. I doubt, for instance, if Spider Robinson views it that way. And I don't think Alexis Panshin did either. So I stuck in "disputed reading", not because I care a hoot one way or another, but simply because I thought it gave a better picture of the issue. Is "Troopers" universally considered fascist? Maybe it is, but I gotta say that I really doubt it.... Hayford Peirce 02:59, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I think it's universally not considered fascist, at least among people who have taken the trouble to read it and think about it. But that sentence in the lead only states that he was "cast as" a fascist, and it comes right after the part about his being thrust willy-nilly into the role of Guru Grampa to the counterculture. It's a discussion of people's wildly contradictory perceptions of him. I wrote that part in response to some discussion when the article was being voted on for FA. Voters complained that the lead was boring, which I think was true. Heinlein was an extremely controversial figure, and elicits strong knee-jerk reactions; I think it's appropriate to mention that in the lead.--Bcrowell 03:08, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, I remember being in a freshman dorm at Stanford in 1960 when the book came out (I had earlier read the serialized version) and being astonished and flabbergasted when the San Francisco Chronicle had a book review of that it flatly called it fascist. And I've certainly seen similar other references to it over the years that apparently came from people who had read it -- but had obviously drawn different conclusions about it than I had. Whatever the case, I myself think it's a boring book. Hayford Peirce 15:23, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

new Heinlein photo

I just remembered I have a color photo of Heinlein and his wife sitting on a couch in my library along with my own wife and a distinctly more youthful version of myself (taken about 1980); he looks far healthier and more viril than in the present cropped photo. Perhaps I should try to figure out some way to put it in the article. And there's no copyright issues involved, either.... Hayford Peirce 01:34, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

That would be excellent! Would you be willing to GFDL license it?--Bcrowell 01:54, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, get rid of the strange egghead pic and the controversy in one fell swoop! Tafinucane 02:40, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Sure, I'll release all the rights, or whatever we do here in Wiki. If any of you are expert photo guys I can send a *big* JPG version of it to you (once I've scanned it in with Photoshop) and let you fiddle around with it. Or I can just upload my own smaller JPG to the normal Wiki place and let others try to improve it. I'll look to see if I still have the original negative somewhere. What I have hanging on the wall of my breakfast nook is an 8x10.... If I still have the negative, I might try either scanning it in or having a hardcopy made of it. Hayford Peirce 03:00, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Sure, just upload it and I'll be happy to retouch it. Would it make a good Robert-and-Ginny photo if cropped?--Bcrowell 04:56, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes. Also there's a beautiful French blonde next to him on the other side and Robert had a keen appreciation for female beauty. My photo seems more faded than I had thought. I'll try scanning it in Photoshop as a color photo, also with grayscale etc to see which one is best. If none seem to work, I'll try to find the original negative, but it may have disappeared over the years.... If anything appears reasonably satisfactory, I'll upload it and let you play around with it. But it may take a day or so. Hayford Peirce 05:11, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

• I can't find the original negatives for the Heinlein photos but they may turn up one day. In the meantime I've found a color scan I did of the picture a couple of years ago when its colors were much better. It's only 412 KB -- I've other versions of it that I've improved with Photoshop, but I would send the original and let people with more knowledge of editing do their own thing with it. I've also rescanned the photo today in two ways: first with the Grayscale setting on. This gives a black and white result of 6,615 KB. I then scanned it again in color and came up with a somewhat faded picture of 21,491 KBs. Obviously I can reduce all of these sizes before sending, or I can send "as is". If anyone wants them, of course, and if sending the large one(s) wouldn't tie up Wikipedia for hours and hours. Let me know what you want me to do.... Hayford Peirce 18:20, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I'd say the high-res color scan is probably what we should start from, since the fading colors can be easily corrected. How about attempting to upload it to WP? I just don't know if they'll let you upload a file that big. If not, then maybe you could reduce the resolution a little and/or pre-crop it a little. Assuming WP lets you upload the huge file, I can work on it and reduce it to a more reasonable size, and then overwrite the huge version with the smaller, retouched one, so it doesn't permanently take up 21 Mb on Wikipedia.--Bcrowell 18:33, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Okay, it's a done deal. The picture is there in the Image files, I guess, as Robert_Heinlein_in_Tahiti.jpg. I was about 1,400 KB when I sent it -- I dunno what it is now. I put a bunch of boilerplate jargon under the text. Lemme know if some other picture would be better. Hayford Peirce 19:07, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Excellent! I've cropped out your (very photogenic!) wife to make it a portrait of Robert and Virginia Heinlein together. I did my best to correct the colors.--Bcrowell 20:18, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Okie, it looks pretty good but the colors really haven't come back. I think that I can do a better job with my scanned photo of a couple of years ago. I'll play around with it later on and, if it seems justified, will put it in (cropped as you have done to this one) in place of the present one. Hayford Peirce 20:27, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Influence

I'm too lazy to do it myself, but someone ought to seriously rewrite many parts of the main article to bring into focus Heinlein's most important legacy -- the fact that once he started writing almost every other writer in the field recognized that the Heinlein way of writing was the correct or best way of writing science fiction. And began copying it, or at least trying to. No one before had ever melded exposition, science, character, and story interest together in the way he had. And in a way in which the reader was swept along with the narrative, hardly noticing all of the information that Heinlein was subtly conveying as the story progressed. Just as Raymond Chandler was the most influential mystery writer (for other writers) in the last 65 years, so was Heinlein in his field, primarily through the ways they changed how the narrative structure progressed. Compared to how Heinlein formed two or three generations of subsequent writers, his "contributions" of words such as "grok" or "waldo" to the language are trivial.... Hayford Peirce 05:04, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I think this depends strongly on whether you're a science fiction reader or not. To people who don't read science fiction (i.e., the majority of the population), it's irrelevant whether he influenced other science fiction writers, and the other stuff is more interesting. As far as his influence on society in general, I think Stranger is clearly the book that the largest number of non-SF-readers have read and been influenced by, and I think there's also an argument to be made that Heinlein was an important early booster of space exploration (starting in the Navy, when he attempted to get the military interested in space exploration, and continuing with Destination Moon, and his congressional testimony). The stuff about "grok," and the waterbed, and so on are obviously not important in an absolute sense, but they are interesting to non-fans. My wife read the article last night after seeing it on the front page, and her only remark was, "Did he really invent the waterbed?" I think sometimes seemingly trivial stuff like this tells you more about the real man.--Bcrowell 16:14, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

That's a good point, of course. If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. I look at S.F. writers from the point of view of a writer. But even so, I think at least *some* reference to his importance to other writers ought to be here. I haven't read the Wiki article about Hemingway -- is there anything there about his influence on the style of at least some mainsteam writers (and genre writers)? Hayford Peirce 17:25, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

On a whole different topic, since you met the Heinleins, I'm curious: is their depiction in Tramp Royale (Robert as the calm one, Ginny the hothead) completely fictional? The main thing I recall getting from accounts of people who met him was his very polite and considerate manner, and his precise and articulate speech.--Bcrowell 16:14, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Haven't read Tramp Royale. From what I saw of Ginny she appeared perfectly calm to me. Of course, at our ages, and circumstances of meeting, calmness is to be expected. What went on in their strictly private life I have no idea. Robert, of course, although enormously dignified, was outgoing and jovial, as well as being, as you say, "polite, considerate, precise, and articulate." But I know from other people who lost his friendship, he could be stubborn, overly punctilious, and absolutely dogmatic about things that admit of two opinions. I know that in talking to me, he refused to admit that Johnson's "patriotism is the last refuge of scroundrels" could have any meaning other than what he himself assigned to it. (His interpretation of it I take to be completely wrong-headed, and Heinlein's view of it is distinctly a minority one, I'd say....) Hayford Peirce 17:25, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Starship Troopers

There is just no way that ST is a 'libertarian manifesto' - the military franchise idea mostly comes across as conservative and militaristic, not libertarian. I've edited the article to make this clear. The main question I have abou ST is whether the idea was intended seriously or as a pastiche; reading the rest of the article I suppose it coudl have been serious, but nevertheless not exactly libertarian. (missed sig, sorry The Land 14:37, 21 July 2005 (UTC) )

Not surprisingly, the material on Starship Troopers has been vigorously edited during this time when the article has been on the front page :-) I've corrected some errors, and scaled back on the discussion, which had gotten way too long, and was bringing in stuff about the (horrible) film from 40 years later.--Bcrowell 16:00, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress could be considered a 'libertarian manifesto' but Starship Troopers doesn't have any overarching libertarian theme. For such a short book it contains many themes. To me it is primarily a story of the formation of a soldier. Secondarily it is an ethical treatise. The only genuine libertarian issue is its principled (as opposed to utilitarian) opposition to conscription.

His Pedigree

• Is his(father's) family a German immigrant? --Sheynhertz-Unbayg 14:31, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

(;_;) --Sheynhertz_געשׁ״ך 07:26, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Rico's race revealed on last page?

The article says, "In Starship Troopers it is revealed on the last page that the protagonist is in fact Filipino." Is this really true? I'm going to delete it, because it doesn't match with my memory. I think it's revealed much earlier.--Bcrowell 16:02, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

It's true. There are no earlier revelations. Rico states (on the last page) that his native language is Tagalog. Of course this was an off-hand comment by Heinlein, who would likely be amused at the fuss we're making over it. Most people don't even know what Tagalog is. I didn't when I first read the book. I'd wager his point was "race doesn't matter", not "Look, brown people can be sympathetic characters! Fooled you!". Let's be sure this article contains a maximum of one reference to it.

I thought there was an earlier part where it was implied. He's having a conversation with someone about their cultures, and they joke about Simon Bolivar building the pyramids.--Bcrowell 18:27, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

That's it. It's at the end of the second-to-last chapter, but that last chapter is just a couple of pages; "at the end of the book" would be a more accurate phrase. On rereading, there are bits of background which are consistent with the Philippines.

—wwoods 22:37, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I'd never spotted that, I just assumed that Rico was a Brazilian Hispanic. Which is equally radical for the time. The Land 14:40, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Masonic Influence in His Works

I think it is important to point out that L. Long in "Time Enough for Love" and the secret society that overthrow the dictatorship in "If This Goes On -" are both related to Freemasonry as practiced in America.

Long is able to respond as a Mason when he returns to his childhood, but chooses not to. Likewise, the rituals depicted in "If This Goes On - " are initiation rituals from Masonic practice (with some alterations). This, technically, means that the society is not "secularist" as much as it is "non-denominational".

-JMG

Interesting from a fan-trivia point of view, but not notable IMO.--Bcrowell 16:43, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, FWIW, I didn't realize it at the time, because I had no clue about Masonic ritual until I read about them in Bigger Secrets...
--Baylink 23:31, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Nebula Awards

The opening paragraph of the article on Heinlein indicates he won five Nebula Awards and seven Hugo Awards. The Hugo wins (including the three retroactive wins for works written before the Hugos came into existence) are marked next to the list of his works. But the Nebula wins are not so marked. And after looking at Wikipedia's Nebula wins, I could not find Heinlein's name in the winner column at all (although he was nominated several times). Is the opening paragraph mistaken? Or am I missing some category (other than Novel, Novella, Novelettes, and Short Stories) where Heinlein came out on top? Or perhaps Wikipedia's list of Nebula winners is flawed?

Oops, you're right, I goofed. I counted the nominations column. I'll fix the article.--Bcrowell 18:44, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

contemporaneous

I'm the "idiot" who keeps putting in "contemporaneous." The word was intended to say that the two books were contemporaneous. I'll reword it. No need to get insulting about it.--Bcrowell 21:33, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I've eliminated the reference to "1960's," which should clarify that it's the two novels that are contemporaneous. The novels were two years apart.--Bcrowell 21:39, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

No, I'm afraid that you're back to where you started. If you read this carefully: "The novel Stranger in a Strange Land put him in the unexpected role of Pied Piper of the sexual revolution and counterculture. He has also been cast as a fascist, based on his contemporaneous novel Starship Troopers." you will see that "contemporanous novel" refers NOT to Stranger but to sexual revolution and counterculture. In any case "contemporaneous" clearly means, according to my dictionary "at the same time" or "simultaneous" -- 2 years apart may be close but they are NOT contemporaneous. Why don't you just leave it the way you had in the previous edit, with the two dates and no use of the word "contemporaneous"? The primary function of this encyl. is to be clear, precise, and accurate. If the reader can derive misinformation from a sentence that allows two different readings of it, then the encyl. job hasn't been done. In this case it seems very clear, at least to me, that 1959 is being conflated with a latter period. This is not your intention but that is the result. Hayford Peirce 21:49, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Obviously I'm too much of an idiot to help out here, so go ahead and do it yourself.--Bcrowell 21:55, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Guys, guys... calm down, before I have to go judge.  :-) In this case, Hayford, I'm going to have to say that, IMHO, contemporaneous novel suggests to me that the comparative item is being reassigned, to be the other novel, rahter than the interposed nouns. I can see that it could play either way, but that was how I read it...
--Baylink 23:34, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

I've got a friend who spent 10 years as a copy editor for the New Yorker, straightening out exactly this sort of mishmash. I could ask her to judge. On the other hand, the way I've rewritten the article makes it absolutely clear what, apparently, the original editor meant when he used the word contemporaneous in the first place and that I, stubbornly, perhaps, persisted in interpreting the other way. So, unless there's some objection to my rewrite, I don't think there's any point in bothering her.... As I think I've written before, if there's any chance of a misintrepretation in an encyl. article, then why not simply rewrite it so that misinterpretation is no longer possible? Hayford Peirce 00:05, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Heinlein started Stranger in the mid-50s--before Troopers, so you could make a case for "contemporanous", which I thought connoted 'of the same period' rather than strict simultaneity. But I don't know how much of that first draft made it into the final version.

—wwoods 22:57, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

From Expanded Universe:

"...on 5 April 1958 I was working on THE HERETIC (later to be published as STRANGER IN A STRANGE LAND). I stopped at once and for several weeks Mrs. Heinlein and I did nothing but work on this "Patrick Henry" drive. ...

Presently I resumed writing--not STRANGER but STARSHIP TROOPERS.

...

After I got STARSHIP TROOPERS out of the way, I indulged in some stone masonry ... --then got back to work on THE HERETIC aka STRANGER IN A STRANGE LAND, and finally finished it more than ten years after I had plotted it.

Which sounds about as close to simultaneous as he could get, short of driving a different typewriter with each hand. I think the point should be the wildly different perceptions of Heinlein, based on two books written at roughly the same time--though obviously not in the same mood.

—wwoods 23:21, 20 July 2005 (UTC)