Waterlog

[truepenny]

TIME: 32 min.
DISTANCE 3.5 mi.
TOTAL DISTANCE: 84.9
DISTRACTION: Prof. Rabkin on Heinlein.
SHIRE-RECKONING: Still trudging through the forest.

---

This lecture was an awful lot of book report and precious little analysis. Libertarian politics, father figures, yadda yadda. I shrieked with indignation only twice, once when Rabkin, comparing Heinlein to Hemingway, suggested that the only reason Heinlein didn't win a Nobel was that he wrote SF, and the second and even more indignant time when he claimed The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress is as great a novel as Huckleberry Finn. Which, no disrespect to TMIAHM, is just not true.

We also note that Professor Rabkin was extremely careful to discuss only early Heinlein. Nothing later than Friday was even acknowledged to exist.

Comments

[coffeeem.livejournal.com]

Heavens, I'm a little surprised he acknowledged anything later than Stranger in a Strange Land. Because, really, the Heinlein Problem Plays.

[mrissa.livejournal.com]

To Sail Beyond the LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU LA LA LA I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT LA LA LA!

Um. Which is to say, I understand the temptation here.

[txanne.livejournal.com]

Wow, really, he talked about Friday?

[txanne.livejournal.com]

I am so stealing that.

[g-minus-2.livejournal.com]

Rabkin...suggested that the only reason Heinlein didn't win a Nobel was that he wrote SF

WHAT.

I. What. Do you listen to Rabkin during your workouts expressly to get the aggression going?

[truepenny.livejournal.com]

Um, no. He acknowledged that it existed. And talked about the opening paragraph because he was all over the "the door dilated" phenomenon. But he did not discuss the book in any way, shape, or form beyond that.

[txanne.livejournal.com]

Ah, that solves my surprise, then.

[truepenny.livejournal.com]

Well, what he actually talked about was:

"Lifeline" (first published story, 1939)
Beyond This Horizon (first published novel, serialized in 1942), mostly just to rave about how Heinlein inclues instead of infodumping
The Puppet Masters (1951)
Starship Troopers (1959), with obligatory tangent on how Haldeman and Card are Heinlein's heirs
Stranger in a Strange Land (1961)
The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress (1966)

So, in other words, the three Hugo winners (much was made of Heinlein winning more Hugos than any other author, although Rabkin neither specified HOW MANY Hugos nor WHICH BOOKS won), plus his first two published works and The Puppet Masters to talk about libertarianism and oedipal tensions. And a quick mention of the first paragraph of Friday as part of the incluing swoon.

Professor Rabkin presents as a bit of a slavering fanboy, honestly.

[truepenny.livejournal.com]

OH TOTALLY.

[truepenny.livejournal.com]

Hee. No, I listen to them because my dad wants my opinion. And, well, it does make the time go faster.

[papersky.livejournal.com]

Double Star also won a Hugo, and if I were talking about Heinlein and how brilliant he was I'd certainly mention it. It's a better novel as a novel than any of those mentioned.

[roisindubh211.livejournal.com]

if only to demonstrate my total ignorance, what happened with Heinlein's later books? Did they just get progressively 'less good' or did he do that thing where authors get a little batshit-obsessed with one issue and just keep on about it?

[janetl.livejournal.com]

I think I'd go with "batshit-obsessed with one issue and just keep on about it", though it was probably more than just one issue. It's been many, many years since I read through most of his books as a teenager, but I recall polyamory with an emphasis on incest and what might be summarized as "rugged individualism" (the well-prepared have the hidden gold coins, guns, and canned goods ready).

[truepenny.livejournal.com]

Oh, more than a little batshit-obsessed.

There's the incestuous polyamory, like janetl says, including the bit where Mary Sue Lazarus Long goes back in time to save his mother so that he can have sex with her--okay, I'm oversimplifying, but it is essentially what happens. And the libertarianism gets WAAAAY out of hand. Plus there are a whole host of other issues, into which I think we probably don't need to go.

[barbarakitten-t.livejournal.com]

Actually, if you read 'For Us, the Living' you see a lot of themes for his later works included.

I didn't get Prof. Rabkin's lectures after all...and I think I'm glad. For one thing, it sounds like he doesn't really get deeply enough into any one author, or authors in general, to do them justice.

I hope to all the gods and goddesses that he never gets it in his head to explore 'The Doctrine of Labyrinths' or 'Companion to Wolves.'

[auriaephiala.livejournal.com]

Exactly my reaction, too.

[auriaephiala.livejournal.com]

At the last Worldcon, they played a film of Heinlein giving his Guest of Honour speech at MidAmericon in Kansas City. It was ... embarrassing.

I think the poor quality of the later books came down to brain damage from his stroke & lack of editing.

[heresluck]

...the only reason Heinlein didn't win a Nobel was that he wrote SF...

I... I'm not sure there's enough WTF in the world for that statement. I'm not even sure I can work up an indignant shriek; I'm just sitting here tilting my head and squinting.

[girlpunksamurai.livejournal.com]

Lol, I can't stand lectures like that

The last time I was forced to listen to the kind of lecture that went know-it-all like that i ended up blocking him out and sketching him as a tall, thin skeletal man in a tuxedo, complete with tails, a snooty frown on his face and his nose up in the air. I sketched the audience as pointing and snickering. There may be no real justice in the real world, but it's my sketch so why not :P

I actually read another author who is obsessed with one idea, or in this case, reality, but he's such a damn good writer I honestly don't care. It surprised the crap out of me when, reading the transcript of an interview, he explained he wrote the series solely as a dark horse series to get his message across. He explained he wasn't really a writer, he had no muse in his head shouting to get a story told. Considering the fact that I've read all his books and got sucked into the black hole of that world each time (the true mark of a great book, which Monette's work also does) I thought that was rather incredible. So I don't know if you can completely blame the obsession for that guy's lessening impact. As that writer proves, sometimes such obsessions make an even better book than you'd believe possible.

[truepenny.livejournal.com]

You know, it's really not necessary to refer to me in the third person when you're commenting in my blog.

[girlpunksamurai.livejournal.com]

O.o sorry. Wasn't sure addressing you directly was polite or not *shrugs* I tend to be overly cautious about such things.

I do the same thing when commenting on someones Myspace blog >.>