SciFi and Fantasy Book Club discussion

Ha! One of my absolute favourite quotes. And notice he uses "human being" and not "woman." That's one of the things I loved about his writing, the assumption that we all are equals, that we are limited only by our own abilities, intelligence, willingness and prejudices.

I'm also a Heinlein fan, although I haven't read everything he's written. Even his sexual "obsession" and his insistence on polygamy was liberating because there was no judgement attached to them. It wasn't that it was okay for men but not okay for women. They all did it, but he also insisted that women had a wisdom men lacked (which is, of course, true :-)). Unlike Donaldson, for instance, he never mixed violence and sex. Not in the books I've read, anyhow.

He was also one of the first to have "real" characters in his stories, something even Asimov wasn't quite able to achieve.

you and i will already had this conversation, but for the sake of starting a conversation in the thread and devil's advocating i will throw my two cents in here.
i give heinlein credit for moving the genre forward. i give him credit for having some amazing quotes and i give him credit for TRYING to get over his gender bias.
i have read of his:
time enough for love
glory road
starship troopers
job
and a big book of the sayings of lazarus long.
but wow did he manage to have his main characters be essentially all the same character, and wow did he manage to talk down to the very women he proposed to elevate above men and WOW, did he manage to turn every woman outside of his YA work into a sex object.
i got so sick of the sex - in some cases offensive sex (with cloned under-age copies of himself in the opposite gender) that i won't read anything else of his stuff that isn't geared for YA (and therefore minus the sex). he does challenge our boundaries...but i don't think challenging boundaries when it comes to sex with our children is necessarily a good thing.

I read The Moon is a Harsh Mistress several years ago and really enjoyed it. I remember the mood feeling very cold, but the character being very swashbuckling. I do not remember any female characters at all. (As stated, this was a while ago so I can't comment past that - but completely forgetting all female characters is a little odd to me.)

Currently, I'm reading The Cat Who Walked through Walls and the main female character reminds me of the fast talking dames of B&W cinema. The male character reminds me of the main character from "Moon." Perhaps if I reread I would find many differences, but the essence is eerily familiar. That's not necessarily a bad thing though.

I've really enjoyed Heinlein so far and this discussion makes me want to read more of his work in order to form my own opinion about his writing and treatment of female characters. I definitely like that I haven't seen any swooning or standing to the side while the men fight. It is nice to see a female character take action.

Also pertinent to this discussion, IMHO, is there a "rule" for books similar to "The Rule" for movies regarding female characters? (That being: must have two women in it, who talk to each other, and about something other than a love interest) I would be interested to know how many of Heinlein's novels meet these requirements.

Oh, now I'll have to reread Moon. It's been so long since I read it, I'd forgotten the plot. Thanks, Donna, for adding to my TBR pile.

I read "Stranger in a Strange Land" back in the late Seventies when I was in high school. I loved science fiction and this was a "classic". I just hated it. I haven't read anything by Heinlein since.

As I look at the list, I do see that he wrote "Puppet Masters". There was a movie made of that quite a few years ago that I really enjoyed. Maybe I need to give Heinlein one more chance.

Aaaaargh! I've read everything starting from Methuselah's Children --I think-- but now I may have to start at the beginning and see what kind of progression he's made over the years. I'm not much of a short story reader, so I may skip those, unless you recommend one I absolutely ought to read.

Donna: No offense taken! :) I guess the ol' memory is going faster than I thought! Reading your response does help me to recall a few key sequences - thank goodness! Perhaps I'll read it again when I'm done with "Cat."

Speaking of which, SPOILER ALERT ..

I just got to the scene where Richard/Senator/etc is complimented by a 12 year old wanting to have relations with him. I can see where he'd be complimented, but the thought of a middled aged man and a 12 year old makes me a little queasy. I know puberty has been hitting earlier and earlier and clearly remember thinking about guys at that age, but back then, I thought "older men" were 20 year olds. That section had me wondering whether Gretchen was empowered or not. Still settling the debate in my head. Anyone else remember that scene? Have thoughts?

I am a huge Heinlein fan but I have to say that I was not a big fan of his later works -- that is:

I Will Fear No Evil, 1970
Time Enough for Love, 1973
The Number of the Beast, 1980
Friday, 1982
Job: A Comedy of Justice, 1984
The Cat Who Walks Through Walls, 1985
To Sail Beyond the Sunset, 1987

The only one that I liked was Friday. I never finished Job but the first three books were rambling and at times incoherent.

I would put, however, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress as one of the top 5 sf books of all time, and I cut my eyeteeth on the Heinlein juveniles.

Of the later stuff I've read The Number of the Beast, Friday, Job, and Cat Who Walks. Plus parts of Time Enough and To Sail, but none of I Will Fear No Evil.

So many of those books are interconnected I always get the feeling that RAH was just trying to flesh out and tie up a overarching "super multi universe" concept that he just really thought was neat. While the stories themselves aren't his best stuff, I really do enjoy his concept that perhaps every well told story is actually some alternate reality somewhere and it's not just a story to the characters. I really do enjoy that dream. And it makes the Cat Who Walks' final chapters very enjoyable for me.

I really did enjoy Job. I think it's better to read it as more of a literary criticism/rewriting of the Bible story of Job. Sort of a "this is how I would have done it" tale rather than an actual stand alone concept. Rather than give away too much of the story I'll merely say that I think modern readers will much prefer the resolution of 'justice' within Heinlein's take than the story within the Bible. You should really read both the Bible version and RAH's version to get the full feel.

I do agree that the fixation on sex and relationships hurts some of the books but adds nicely to other books. Moon is a Harsh Mistress uses the line marriages, etc. to good effect to show the differences between living on the Moon compared to Earth. There are definitely some scenes in Cat Who Walks, Friday, and others of the later works that could've been left out with no loss to the stories.

Donna,

Thanks, that helps.

*Spoiler alert*

I've always loved Heinlein and miss him dearly. However, I will admit that he became, more or less, a "dirty old man" in his later years, for example, one of his last books was written in first person from a woman's point of view, who basically was nude throughout the whole book.

That being said, The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress is a marvelous book, and I was so surprised when Mycroft Holmes shows back up in a later book! Was it The Cat Who Walks Through Walls?

I also love Starship Troopers, although the movie was less than desirable. Much of his "juvenile" work is flat out adorable. I think it was Red Planet that had the adorable little ball of fur named Willis??

Oh, and one of my favorite short stories, mentioned in the quite extensive list above, is "All You Zombies." What a disturbing notion is presented in THAT story!!

Anyone ever read his "first" novel that didn't get published until about two years ago, called For Us the Living? It contains a very interesting economic model.

Ok. I'll shut up now... :-)

Did a little thinking over the weekend about women in Heinlein novels and why I completely forgot all the strong women in The Moon is a Harsh Mistress. In both Moon and Cat, the story is told through the male viewpoint. Although the women are strong, independent, and are in leadership roles - they are still filtered through the male perspective which, after reading, eventually made them fade to the background (for me).

To compare apples and oranges, in the Tanya Huff novels I've read, the story is told from the woman's viewpoint. They are silly, fun novels but somehow I can easily remember many women from each and in a powerful leadership role. I know there was romance in her novels, but I tend to forget those bits and focus on the achievements of the women. With Heinlein, the male point of view blurs the accomplishments of the women and I have a hard time seeing the female characters acting alone (outside a male influence) even when the text specifically states that they are acting independently.

This isn't to say that Heinlein writes weenie women, just that the male perspective clouds their character. Again, his female characters remind me of the fast talking dames of Noir films. While they were strong smart women, they were often murderesses or simply a bit of window dressing to cloud the "real" story involving the male characters.
~~~
As for Gretchen, she is moving towards her first taste of womanhood and adulthood. I agree with Donna's take on what was going on, but I think my oogy-sense was tingling not just b/c of the age difference but because her transition to adulthood seemed to rely on sex and marriage EVEN THOUGH it is the female choosing her mate(s)/husband(s). I would see her transition to adulthood in a stronger way were it not associated in any way with sex/marriage. That's not to say sex or marriage are bad things, but that I think an alternate indicator of adulthood would make for a stronger role for women in Luna's society. There has to be a way for women to be "empowered" without bringing sex into the equation. :\

Regardless, I'm still enjoying Cat and will probably read more of his work both early and later years.

AA,

Oogy-sense? Not sure what that means.

On another note, comparing Tanya Huff to Heinlein, even if it's only comparing the women in their writing, is like comparing Dan Brown to Umberto Eco. Heinlein tackled some often taboo subjects -- polygamy, for instance -- whereas Tanya Huff's books, if enjoyable, are pretty silly. And some of her women are pretty inept and bumbling anyway.

There are better examples of "sex-less" capable women, such as Elisabeth Moon's Kyla Vatta, but the difference between Heinlein and Moon is that most of Heinlein's books had a subtext. Whether that subtext is relevant or politically correct today, the stories served to prod the reader into thinking about controversial topics, be they religious, political, or gender-related. In Time Enough for Love, for instance, he looks at the act of incest and its societal and racial (meaning the human race) implications: the protagonist, Lazarus Long, basically conceives himself with his mother, an impossibility that permits Heinlein to look at this taboo in a detached way. I'm not saying incest is acceptable, just that he was brave enough to approach the concept.

That's why I think Heinlein is enduring: he delivers a damn good story while succeeding in making you evaluate your beliefs.

M.d. -

Oogy Sense = a mild sense of unease

Believe me, I'm aware the comparison is odd (hence the apples and oranges qualifier :), but that is my point. If I am getting a stronger sense of female empowerment out of a Tanya Huff novel, that says something and not in Heinlein's favour. I don't dislike Heinlein, he tried to write powerful female characters in roles alternate to womens' roles 20 years ago and even today, but I do not feel that he succeeded.

While he states that women are in power (I'm speaking of Cat in particular here), and certainly allows them wit, wisdom, and courage, I do not see women having "power" in Cat. In the end, it seems everyone is simply a pawn of Lazarus, which decreases their independence and empowerment. Yes, Gwen stands up to him, but for the "greater good" of HIS plan, not hers. She was merely an instrument to assist him regardless of all her own wonderful accomplishments.

To touch on the sex bit briefly, I think the scene with Gretchen would have translated much differently for me had it been narrated by HER instead of Richard. Being seen from Richards POV, it just seemed like a male fantasy tossed in for fun even while being reminded that Gretchen was making the choice.

In the end, I have a sad feeling that 5 years from now, I will remember the book as "hating some dude and liking some swashbuckling dude" and forget the rest. Sure, that's my own failing, but it still leads me to believe that the women in Heinlein's novels are not as empowered as he tried to make them. As previously stated, I'll have to read more to gain a well rounded view of his work - and I plan to :)

I always thought the women in power issue was very well presented in Glory Road.

It's not one of his better stories, but the final situation between the main character and the lady love interest causes a very realistic reaction.

I personally liked the side note about the future culture discussing that when the lady decides she no longer wants a guys presence she just puts his shoes outside her door. The next time he comes 'home' the shoes outside the door signal that the relationship is over.

That and the main character's terror in discovering that he's not really the more prominent member of the relationship is a really different take on the empowered women theme.


Jeff,

Yeah, I enjoyed the "first" novel as well. The economic model was very different. Though, the referenced economist in the last section was an incorrect name/citation or something. It took a while to track down a mention of the guy on the internet.


Has anyone else read Variable Star?

I thought Spider Robinson did a good job of writing the story and it has a lot of the Heinlein feel, but it's not quite the same as one of Heinlein's. Anyone else?

Although I don't really remember the specifics, I remember rather like Glory Road. Incidentally, I think the whole shoes outside her door thing is based on at least one Native American culture.

Donna: spoil away :) I'm done.

Donna: No, I don't feel the women read like men. (Unless Lazarus is actually a female ;)

Just to give you some background - I come from a very matriarchal home. I've always been surrounded by strong women who have taken the leadership role in relationships as well as their professional life, while retaining their feminine qualities. Add in 8 years of all female education and maybe my problem is that I've seen powerful women in action outside of Heinlein's novels :)

Heinlein's women just seem somehow compromised to me. I think the effort was really put forth to create strong women, but the matriarchal society just doesn't come across that way (again, to me).

This discussion has been really interesting, and I like hearing other peoples' take on the topic. I would love to hear more of Donna's questions!

Donna: I stand corrected on the 'owner' of the plan :)

I can easily see how people would read the women as men though. They have some traditionally masculine qualities, but (to me) that's one area where he succeeds .. breaking the traditional feminine vs masculine stereotypes personality-wise. (As you can tell - I'm a bit conflicted on the bits where he succeeds/doesn't succeed.)

Thanks for the matriarchy comment .. I think I was *wanting* Luna to be a matriarchy instead of what he made it. Do you think Heinlein was trying to avoid a patriarchy/matriarchy in order to diffuse power thus keeping it equal instead of tilting to one sex or another?

I'm with Sandikal in that I also read Stranger when in high school in the 70s, and it pissed me off. It's too far off for me to remember exactly why, but I seem to remember the polygamy involved multiple women for one guy. It offended my budding consciousness of feminism, which was a strong issue in those days.

But after reading thru all these posts, it's informative to find others are bothered by the "dirty old man" aspect in his later books. I'll be putting Moon is a Harsh Mistress on my list of books to-be-read.

Yeah Lori, the "dirty old man" phase in the later books gets tiring. Moon is a Harsh Mistress is still probably my favorite of his books. It's just an excellent story.

Rather than the line marriages. I liked the corporate marriage that is brought up in Friday. The different family units buy in and out of the corporate marriage like shareholders and the shares don't pass down to the children. Sometimes I find myself wondering if such a pooling of financial resources could actually work in modern society.

I'll admit I have only read the following:

"The Moon is a Harsh Mistress"
"Red Planet"
"Starship Troopers"
"Friday"

I enjoyed the first three, but couldn't finish the last... it just struck me as dull at the time.

The Sexual Revolution started back in the late Sixties and early Seventies. The sexuality reflected in Heinlein's later works is a reflection of that time. What I recall about "Stranger in a Strange Land" was that the sexuality in it seemed very dated even a mere 10 years after it was written. It was its era's idea of how sexuality should be expressed. The only thing unusual about it was that it was science fiction. There were a lot of novels and non-fiction books that covered the same subjects. The Joy of Sex came out around that time. So did The Naked Ape. Jacqueline Susanne (sorry,spelling is wrong) was one of the most popular fiction writers of the time and she covered sexual topics in much the same manner as Heinlein.

I just think that the Sexual Revolution didn't turn out the way it was expected to. People forgot about consequences.

I think the conventions have definitely changed, and not necessarily for the better. Back in the Sexual Revolution, there was a certain naughty giddiness to it. "Look how sophisticated we are to be breaking social mores." the writers of the day seemed to have been saying. Sexuality in novels was pretty in-your-face and was absolutely pronouncing that freedom from moral codes about sex was a good thing. Now,sexuality in novels have become the norm. It seems like every author feels the necessity to have a sex scene or ten in a book even if that author is really uncomfortable writing it and that discomfort shows. Sometimes, sex fits into a book, but most times it doesn't and it's jarring and disruptive. It's not necessarily offensive, it's just unecessary.


The big difference I see between the books of the Sexual Revolution and now is that you're less likely to see orgies and one night stands. The couples are more likely to be in committed relationships and there's rarely any group sex going on.

I think Heinlein must have definitely been more liberated in writing about sexual mores because of the times. Whether he always felt that way and was finally able to indulge, or was open enough to think in terms beyond what they had been, I can't answer. Still it irks me that his "fantasies" involved men with several women, but never a women with several men.

I could be wrong about that - this is just what I remember from Stranger.

Most "fantasies" are expressed that way. I'd put it out there that it's not because of the predilections of the author, per se, but because of the actual physicality involved. There's a conception that when there's more than one woman with a man, they will, er, please themselves. One woman with more than one man would be hard pressed to keep everything running smoothly. Also, there's a stigma of homosexuality attached to such a scenario. After all, one woman only has so many options - there's definitely an upper limit to what's realistic.

I will also take this opportunity to dredge up an older discussion point and say that Virginia, at least, did not consider her husband to be a misogynist, and I'll take the opinion of a man's wife over anyone else. (I got the opportunity to speak with her in the early 90's when newsgroups were all the rage.)

Guess I'll have to put Stranger on my next up to read in order to enter this discussion properly :) Other than sex within marriage, there wasn't enough sex in Cat for me to think it is applicable here.

@Arian: In your example, why are women expected to please themselves but a man isn't if multiple men are involved? I see no logistical problem. (Not asking for graphic detail here, just brought it up as a thinking point.)

Personally, I think the old stigmas are the biggest problem. A male with many women is a stud, reverse the sexes and the woman is amoral. Perhaps if authors were to treat that scenario differently, it would do more to detach that stigma from a woman who chooses to be more open with her sexuality.

I do think sexuality has changed within fiction. I treat it like other aspects of society that have changed and try to put myself in the mindset of whichever era I'm reading about. While I am glad in many ways it is OK to discuss, I do think the openness means that we have lost our heightened sense of awareness that makes sensuality titillating. If sex is included in a book as a part of the plot line advancement or as a means to define the characters, then that can be a good thing. But, I agree with Sandikal that sex for sex sake in fiction is distracting and harmful to the book itself.

Absolutely love Heinlein. Having said that, I cannot get more than 50 pages into I Will Fear No Evil without gagging and throwing the book across the room. And I say that as someone who has a special place in his heart for The Number Of The Beast .

The dialogue between the two main characters drives me up a wall. Heinlein was getting matronly with it in his old age.

Not to mention the whole idea of downloading the personality of the old man into the beautiful body of his secretary is the ultimate Lolita fantasy and it just really creeps me out.

Gee Roger, I never interpreted it that way at all. I Will Fear No Evil is my favorite Heinlein of all time and it's one of the few books I've read multiple times. I am completely amazed and fascinated with his accurate understanding of the female psyche and I enjoyed reading something in the Sci Fi genre that actually has a female in a major role long before it became fashionable. I'm sorry your interpretation of Heinlein's story ruins what could otherwise be an enjoyable experience.

To me, anyone who is able to write credibly from the opposite sex's point of view is somewhat of a master. But I agree with Donna, the question here is how does the external shell (in this case going from a male one to a female one) affect your personality?

There is no question that the societal structures around us influence how we view and comport ourselves. Certainly, the same action from a male or a female will be labelled and interpreted differently, and reacted to differently, very often in completely opposite ways. So, what if your entire being were a man, but you were stuck in a woman's body? Or the opposite?

To me, especially today that it's more talked about, it brings to mind all the transgendered people out there who come by it naturally; some have had the courage to go through a sex change because they were convinced they'd gotten the wrong body at birth.

Heinlein had the courage to address these issues; the problem is, if you read him strictly for the story appeal, he can provoke many "yuck" knee-jerk reactions.

"@Arian: In your example, why are women expected to please themselves but a man isn't if multiple men are involved? I see no logistical problem. (Not asking for graphic detail here, just brought it up as a thinking point.)"

Sorry for the delay in posting; I missed this somehow. :)

Like many things, there's a dichotomy in the modern age regarding homosexuality. In a fantasy, two women with one man would happily explore their bi tendencies and engage in activites together. It's a common male fantasy - or so I've heard. On the other hand, male homosexuality is so looked down upon that a woman in bed with more than one man leaves one potential partner with, ahem, nothing to do. Also, there's a larger stigma with even being naked and involved in sexual activities as a male when there's another male in the room. So it's okay for women in our society, but not for men.

I've seen this stigma at work in the larger world outside of fiction as well, and doubtless it affects an author.

@Jeanne: And it's really just this one book of his that bugs me so much. Loved Friday and The Cat Who Walked Through Walls. Didn't blink an eye at the time-traveling incest at the end of Time Enough For Love. But 'Evil' just rubs me the wrong way. Normally, the big ideas of gender and personality Heinlein is playing with would definitely keep me hooked.

It's just my quirk with this one book. Generally speaking I'm all for the weirder the better. My favorite Varley novels are his Gaean trilogy and that's chock full of gender-bending weird goodness, not to mention Steel Beach, another favorite.

One of these days I'll get read Evil. Until then don't judge me and my Heinlein cred too harshly. LOL.

Ah M.d. you've hit the proverbial nail on the head! IWFNE is truly a study in male-female societal structure. My best male friend from high school had gender reassignment surgery. We're still friends. I've seen first hand what Heinlein was getting at, he was truly a man ahead of his time. I think maybe this book, which I read the first time a good 10 years before my friend made the decision to live life as a woman, helped me accept their decision and stand by them. It doesn't preach, but it subtly prepares one's mind for the possibility of a man living in a woman's body. Just another reason I think Heinlein was a true genius. What he says with his writing has so many layers if you just allow yourself to drop beneath the surface and examine them.

hey thanks! i'll try to check these out.

I prefer early Heinlein--esp. his "juveniles" and short stories.

I find the later in his career we get, the more self-referencing the books become--a lot of work to tie all his novels togther. For me, it didn't quite work in the same way that Asimov's attempts to tie his universes together in the 80s didn't work for me.

I have always had a difficulty wiuth Heinlein some of his work was wonderful. I loved door into summer. So much of it had the exact same grouip of charracters. You have the super competent person in a world of utter incompetents and they win duh big suprise

Friday, number of the beast and so many others seemed is attempt to slap the world around him. Why cant you dumbies see the truth. It got old fast.

Then you have a stranger in a strangeland wonderful book. Even though Michael was still a "superbeing" pointing out the obvious flaws in our corrupt society. Michael was still flawed and had to learn the beauty that made humanity great.

Okay, so I came back to I Will Fear No Evil, sucked it up and got to within a 100 pages of the end and just could not finish. By then I figured out the end and I figured life was too short and dug out a Michael Connelly Harry Bosch mystery I hadn't read yet.

Sorry, for me it's the one stinker in his bibliography.

Heinlein wrote some great books, but "Fear No Evil" was the beginning of his bad books, IMO. First published in 1970 & I didn't like it. A few years later he came out with his last readable book, "Time Enough For Love" & I had issues with it too. I liked parts, but over all it was a bit of a chore. He used it as a soap box, more than usual, & started in on his crusade to revolutionize our ideas on incest. (Yuck!) After that, it was definitely downhill & if you haven't read them, please stay away from them. Remember him for the great writer he was.

His books originally published prior to 1970 are great. Lots of fun & they gave me something to aspire to as a young man. His short stories are also excellent & worth reading. While a few are dated, most hold up very well over the years.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion Jim. I thought "I WILL Feel No Evil" was brilliant and take umbrage with you presuming to be such a de-facto superior being that you command people not to read those books or any others. I think everyone should be allowed to read whatever they want and make up their own mind.

As you said, Jeanne, "everyone is entitled to their opinion."

Interesting though that I don't get the feeling that Jim was commanding me to do anything. His commentary appears to be coming from his point of view (i.e. using "I" statements instead of "you" statements).

I like seeing all different opinions here. It fosters good discussions that hopefully don't degenerate into playground mud slinging or bullying.

This is the first Heinlein novel I've read. I'm not far into it yet, so haven't formed an opinion about it to express at this point.

Having Just finished the uncut version of SISL I have to agree with Jim. Hienlien has great ideas and great stories. However, The shorter version of stranger was a better book in my view.

Heinliens views on society and the way he presents then as obvious fact to anyon who looks at them detract from the story.

I don't remember who said it but a favorite quote of mine is "If you want to send a message use western union, books, movies and plays are not the place for a soap box"

Heinliens writing suports this position. IMO his stories are better, and still present his diverse view of the way things should be, without the obvious soap box.

I'm really enjoying SISL for the fact that it's not all bogged down with scientific stuff. That might make me a "bad" sci-fi reader (but lets be honest, science fiction is NOT my first love), but I found Dune to be a chore to read, whereas I can really get into this book.

Are that majority of his books like this - where the story is revolving around space topics, but doesn't require an advanced physicist degree to understand?

Jeanne, I ended the first sentence with 'IMO' which stands for 'In My Opinion'. I know a few people who disagree with me - they like everything Heinlein wrote, some like none. Please re-read my post after reading the following & maybe you'll see it in a different light.

I started reading Heinlein in about 1969 (I was about 10) & read his YA books & short stories over the next decade. He made me think about things I hadn't thought of before & want to learn about science, math & lots of other things. Cliff rebuilding an old space suit or the twins working on a space ship like I was working on an old pickup truck was just too cool. It may have influenced me to join the paratroopers - probably did. He inspired me & I guess I idolized him.

Sometime around the early 80's, I started reading his books from 1970 on. I was slowly crushed. To me, he turned into a windy pervert.

I didn't find "I Will Fear No Evil" to be one of his better or worse works. Just the beginning of the end of my love for his writing. The signs of his decay were in it - again - my opinion.

"If I am getting a stronger sense of female empowerment out of a Tanya Huff novel, that says something and not in Heinlein's favour."

Does it say something about Heinlein or does it say something about you?

@Matt: Touché!

Honestly, I would prefer not to get into that discussion again, but I would be happy to hear your opinion.

In my opinion, Heinlein writes witty female characters but they are easily forgettable and not necessarily strong overall. I still see the taint of "sex object" even when it is clear he is trying to equalize the genders. I'm glad that others read the female characters as strong and empowered and enjoyed reading their insights.

Heinlein was definitely for equality among the sexes. If anything, he tended to idolize women. He says they have more range than men; the good ones are better, the bad ones are worse. Didn't he say something about them getting the short end of the stick when they settled for mere equality?

He wrote about strong women before it was PC & made them sexually equal to men - in other words, his women could sleep around just like men could without being denigrated for it. He was constantly giving his women jobs typically held by men & having them do 'manly' things. Many of them shot as well or better than men. He kept it in reasonable. His women weren't stronger than men unless enhanced, but they could kick butt through better technique.

Podkayne's mother was an engineer, obviously one of the best since she built the Phobos space station while her dad was a linguist & historian. Other authors of the time likely would have swapped their jobs. He even made up a 'birth system' that would equalize the sexes - babies on ice, thawed out as time & money permitted.

I think Hazel Meade was as strong a woman as I want to encounter & not very forgettable. I liked her character in "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" & loved her in "The Rolling Stones". There she out talked a used rocket salesman. He wrote this in an age when women weren't supposed to know anything about cars & spaceships were the 'car'.

I think I read something, maybe by Spider Robinson, about Heinlein wishing he could write better female characters. It's tough for a writer to get the opposite sex just right, even with help. He did well, as far as I'm concerned, but I'm gender biased & understand very little about the opposite sex, for all that my youngest girl is in college & I'm still happily married to the same woman.

"In my opinion, Heinlein writes witty female characters but they are easily forgettable and not necessarily strong overall."

If you are looking for diverse well-concieved and rendered characters, whether male or female, Heinlein probably isn't your best bet. He really only has four characters: stock villains, himself, a father figure, and all the women he's ever loved or wanted to rolled together. They differ only by haircuts.

Sometimes the same character can end up in multiple roles. In one scene, the character plays the befuddled clueless protagonist who needs to be lectured by the wise and stern father figure. In the next, the roles may be reversed. And just as all the men play father and son, all the women play the role of mother, lover, and crone as needed. Everyone in the Heinlein universe is either teacher or student all the time. Considered it an idealized dialogue between engineers with different specialties. No one talks - they lecture.

As far as forgetting to talk and just lecturing, I can empathize with the impluse. ;)

I think Heinlein was writing strong women as he understood the concept, and one of the things about said women is that they weren't afraid to be admired for their sexuality. If you find Heinlein a bit demeaning, I hope you find the women of 'Sex in the City' even more so, because surely Heinlein's female leads are stronger and more admirable figures than that.

He really only has four characters: stock villains, himself, a father figure, and all the women he's ever loved or wanted to rolled together. They differ only by haircuts.

...That's probably the best summing-up of Heinlein I've ever heard. I need to remember that one.

I'm solidly in the 'he could be good' camp, and the general advice that his juveniles are the best bet for finding a good Heinlein novel.

To a large extent the real reason I find him such a frustrating author is because of two books that do not live up to their promise--Stranger in a Strange Land, and The Cat Who Walks Through Walls. Both of them start out as very different books than what they end as. Technically, the ending themes can work as books as well as the beginning ones. Technically, it is possible to do a theme shift such as those books feature and have a good single story. However, in neither case do I consider Heinlein to have even come close to succeeding.

It would be interesting to see others ratings of Heinlein's books in order & possibly by group; YA, shorts, regular novels & non fiction. I think I like his short stories the best, followed by the YA books generally. Some novels sure stand well above the rest, though. "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" & SISL both do, for me.

There's a good list of Heinlein's books at Fantastic Fiction
http://www.fantasticfiction.co.uk/h/r...
Actually, it's a great place to get a quick update on a lot of authors, if you haven't tried it.