Stranger in a Strange Land coming to TV

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by shalym

I thought the one that the 'real' fans were supposed to hate was "I Will Fear No Evil"

You're probably right. Especially considering that I love that one, too (as well as Time Enough for Love)

Originally Posted by shalym

Personally, there's nothing that the man ever wrote that I hate, or even mildly dislike.

I don't dislike them per se, but his so-called "juveniles" do very little for me. Probably my fault. I came at Heinlein backwards. By the time I got around to his earlier works, I was beyond their charm and appeal.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Same here.
Wasn't that one that "real" Heinlein fans were supposed to hate, though?

NUMBER OF THE BEAST.
Self-indulgent and empty.
I WILL FEAR NO EVIL was nowhere near that bad.

[Phogg]

Originally Posted by Difflugia

Isn't that what the book was? I thought that Free Love vs. the demonized versions of politics, law enforcement, the military and mass media were just minor subplots.



I'm for Job: A Comedy of Justice.

I would rather see The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress.
For the sex stuff (not something I read that much since puberty ended) I would think I Will Fear No Evil would pander to the salacious market better.

[Difflugia]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

NUMBER OF THE BEAST.
Self-indulgent and empty.

I'd forgotten about that one. Its only redeeming feature was introducing me to A Princess of Mars.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I don't dislike them per se, but his so-called "juveniles" do very little for me. Probably my fault. I came at Heinlein backwards. By the time I got around to his earlier works, I was beyond their charm and appeal.

For me it's precisely the opposite. I love his earlier work; I don't enjoy his later books at all. The last Heinlein book I can honestly say that I enjoyed is probably "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" (which is a masterpiece - and one of the few books I can honestly say I've been in tears over when reading the ending).

[drofgnal]

I liked the original David Bowie adaptation of Stranger in a Strange Land. He fit the role quite well.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by drofgnal

I liked the original David Bowie adaptation of Stranger in a Strange Land. He fit the role quite well.

Are you sure you're not thinking of "The Man Who Fell to Earth"? I'm not aware that there's been any previous TV or film adaptation of "Stranger".

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Are you sure you're not thinking of "The Man Who Fell to Earth"? I'm not aware that there's been any previous TV or film adaptation of "Stranger".

Correct.
Harlan Ellison has a story about the Hollywood producer who bought the movie rights (apparently without reading the book) and hired him to adapt it only to be scandalized by the themes.
Adapting STRANGER for the masses requires gutting it or facing major criticism from all over the political spectrum.

Edit: It pushes buttons on both sides of the culture wars. Sexism, religion, politics... I expect deep bowdlerization.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by HarryT

For me it's precisely the opposite. I love his earlier work; I don't enjoy his later books at all. The last Heinlein book I can honestly say that I enjoyed is probably "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" (which is a masterpiece - and one of the few books I can honestly say I've been in tears over when reading the ending).

STRANGER marks a clear distinction in Heinlein's body of work.
Before, he wrote tightly focused idea stories populated with interesting and distinct characters.
After, he grew less and less disciplined as a story-teller and tended to meander and bloat a bit. Also, he tended to fall back on his "competent older man" archetype way too often. After the mess that was NUMBER OF THE BEAST he did better with FRIDAY and JOB but his peak really was the 50's.

BEYOND THIS HORIZON; HAVE SPACESUIT, WILL TRAVEL; STARSHIP TROOPERS; THE MOON IS A HARSH MISTRESS, all show increasing levels of sophistication and narrative excellence leading up to STRANGER. But afterwards... FARNHAM'S FREEHOLD is good but a bit overweight, GLORY ROAD is merely good but the bloat gets in the way of what should've been great. Oddly enough, it is the bloat and lack of focus that makes TIME ENOUGH FOR LOVE work (it fits the character and story) but it really hurt I WILL FEAR NO EVIL and destroyed NUMBER OF THE BEAST.

So yes, early Heinlein was very good, mid-Heinlein brilliant, but later-day Heinlein pretty much lost what made him great. Still mostly readable but not always fun. Occasionally even...boring...

It's something that afflicts other successful writers.
It seems they become "too big to edit".

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

STRANGER marks a clear distinction in Heinlein's body of work.
Before, he wrote tightly focused idea stories populated with interesting and distinct characters.
After, he grew less and less disciplined as a story-teller and tended to meander and bloat a bit. Also, he tended to fall back on his "competent older man" archetype way too often. After the mess that was NUMBER OF THE BEAST he did better with FRIDAY and JOB but his peak really was the 50's.

BEYOND THIS HORIZON; HAVE SPACESUIT, WILL TRAVEL; STARSHIP TROOPERS; THE MOON IS A HARSH MISTRESS, all show increasing levels of sophistication and narrative excellence leading up to STRANGER. But afterwards... FARNHAM'S FREEHOLD is good but a bit overweight, GLORY ROAD is merely good but the bloat gets in the way of what should've been great. Oddly enough, it is the bloat and lack of focus that makes TIME ENOUGH FOR LOVE work (it fits the character and story) but it really hurt I WILL FEAR NO EVIL and destroyed NUMBER OF THE BEAST.

So yes, early Heinlein was very good, mid-Heinlein brilliant, but later-day Heinlein pretty much lost what made him great. Still mostly readable but not always fun. Occasionally even...boring...

It's something that afflicts other successful writers.
It seems they become "too big to edit".

I agree with your analysis, although just to note that "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" (1966) was published five years after "Stranger" (1961). A last flash of the "old" Heinlein, to my mind.

[DiapDealer]

Sorry, but I disagree entirely. In my opinion, Heinlein's work did not start getting better until Stanger in a Strange Land. Everything that came before was fairly rudimentary in my opinion. Competent, but not nearly as thought-provoking as his later stuff. I'm assuming there's some reason they label his earlier works "juveniles" ? Not having been a juvenile when I first went about trying to read them, perhaps my opinion differs from those who first experienced them at the proper time in their development?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Sorry, but I disagree entirely. In my opinion, Heinlein's work did not start getting better until Stanger in a Strange Land. Everything that came before was fairly rudimentary in my opinion. Competent, but not nearly as thought-provoking as his later stuff. I'm assuming there's some reason they label his earlier works "juveniles" ? Not having been a juvenile when I first went about trying to read them, perhaps my opinion differs from those who first experienced them at the proper time in their development?

No need to apologise - we all have different likes and dislikes. It would be a very dull world if we all liked the same things . I think the reason I enjoy the juveniles (many of which are far from "juvenile" in their plots, to my mind) so much is that they do take me back to a simpler world.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I think the reason I enjoy the juveniles (many of which are far from "juvenile" in their plots, to my mind) so much is that they do take me back to a simpler world.

That's perfectly fair, Harry. I'm a firm believer in the "right place/right time" nostalgic factor of first-reads. Half (or more) of the magic depends on what point in your life you first read something. That nostalgia tends to stick around--even for much later re-reads, I think.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

That's perfectly fair, Harry. I'm a firm believer in the "right place/right time" nostalgic factor of first-reads. Half (or more) of the magic depends on what point in your life you first read something. That nostalgia tends to stick around--even for much later re-reads, I think.

You could very well be right there. I first read these books when I was a teenager, and they made a huge impression on me at the time.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by HarryT

You could very well be right there. I first read these books when I was a teenager, and they made a huge impression on me at the time.

That huge first impression is the intangible, I think. We can never go back and objectively (not completely anyway) reread something without that first impression looming. It's just the way we're wired, I imagine. For instance: my first Heinlein book was Stranger in a Strange Land (as a late-ish teenager). It hit me like a ton of bricks. After that (and after some of his other later works that I thorougly enjoyed), his earlier stuff was pretty lack-luster for me.

I have no problem with people liking other Heinlein books better, but I admit it gets my hackles up a bit when someone suggests (not you specifically Harry) that my appreciation of Heinlein is not the correct and/or accepted one. That the earlier books are somehow objectively better than the later ones. Nothing could be further from the truth, in my opinion. My experience proves it.