Stranger in a Strange Land coming to TV

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

An author's importance, especially in a field like SF, is not determined solely by their popularity with readers. (Something anybody familiar with classics is familiar with.) Their role in the history of the field at the time and their influence over other authors is at least as important as whether or not the masses liked his works at a particular time. Many a popular author fades in significance while "lesser" authors endure through the decades or even centuries.

Heinlein, Clark, and Asimov stand among the greatest of the field in the 20th because they each in one way or another molded it into what it is today. Asimov brought in cold rationalism, Clarke brought in discipline and scientific rigor (even when extrapolating), and Heinlein brought in narrative sophistication. Whatever you may think of the man and his politics none of his stories was ever simple, much less simplistic.

To appreciate his importance, try reading stories from before he exploded on the scene (ASIMOV'S BEFORE THE GOLDEN AGE is a good anthology for this) and then read THE ROADS MUST ROLL. In a field dominated by high concept and straight forward (sic) narratives he brought in an unreliable narrator. He met the requirements of the market and then hit the reader with a reveal that flipped the reader's perception of good guys and bad guys, dropping the reader into a world where simple black and white, good vs evil, didn't work. His worlds more often than not are, like the real world, complex messes of conflicting agendas. That was new. Also new was the fact that his stories filled out a common multigenerational timeline, his Future History. And how often do we see that today? All over.

Heinlein was, like ERB, a successful commercial writer who wrote to the norms of the market and submitted to the demands of the establishment. Judging him solely by today's mores misses the point that if he didn't fit the market he wouldn't have been published at all. But for all that he still pushed the envelope here and there. Early on, in small ways. Later, as he grew more powerful, in bigger ways. Eventually, he became too big to edit and lost his discipline but still...

It is not surprising that STARSHIP TROOPERS bounced. At the height of the McCarthy era he wrote of a filipino boy from a unified Earth with a government headquartered in Buenos Aires? Not Washington or Chicago? No way was the establishment of the day going to be comfortable with that.

Or how about the political undertones of THE MOON IS A HARSH MISTRESS where a group of disaffected "third world rabble" types replay the American "Revolution" on the moon against an oppressive first world regime, right around thectime when "liberation movements" sprinkled the planet.

Look closely at STRANGER IN A STRANGE LAND and look past the sex and you see a question of the role of religion in societies. Or how his focus on cannibalism might be taken as a metaphor that for societies and cultures to evolve they need to eat their past and move on, not embalm it and worship it. (Think of the "atheist" soviets and Lenin.)

There is subtlety and slyness in Heinlein as he fought the establishment which was lost once he won his war. He literally became just a bit too big.

(By the way, the Big Three aren't the only writers that molded the field. There's several unappreciated masters from the 30's to the 50's and 60's that rank just behind them that don't get their due. Whole other rant, though.)

+1

Honestly, I'm not a fan of Heinlein. I far prefer Asimov and Clarke. But I will say that Heinlein's stories and characters are more sophisticated than my two faves.

I'm not saying he is Henry James. But compare Heinlein to the authors that he was in competition with.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

+1

Honestly, I'm not a fan of Heinlein. I far prefer Asimov and Clarke. But I will say that Heinlein's stories and characters are more sophisticated than my two faves.

I'm not saying he is Henry James. But compare Heinlein to the authors that he was in competition with.

Or what came before.

It's not so much that the writers themselves were incapable of writing at his level as the fact that the genre conventions and establishment expectations were geared to more pulpish and high concept storytelling. Some of the same writers quickly adopted to the new paradigm. One that comes to mind as successfully adapting is Jack Williamson of both LEGION OF SPACE and HUMANOIDS fame. Read both and it's hard to believe it's tge sane guy.

In some ways he was like Babe Ruth and Wayne Gretzky whose careers transformed their fields by showing just what was possible.

Heinlein wasn't the last word, of course, but he did blow open the gates and pave the way for the New Wave and Dangerous visions cohorts that followed.

[Pajamaman]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

To answer your question: what libertarian angle?

Not saying there isn't one. Just saying it's never crossed my mind if there is. Is it libertarian to put a man's brain in a woman's body and riff on the consequences?

An article by David Brin on Heinlein and particularly his politics:

http://davidbrin.blogspot.ca/2015/01...yond-this.html

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by Pajamaman

An article by David Brin on Heinlein and particularly his politics:

http://davidbrin.blogspot.ca/2015/01...yond-this.html

You already posted this counter to my post two pages back (though it was a PK Dick treatise on Heinlein's politics that time). And I already told you I don't care about his politics. I care about his stories.

I asked what was Libertarian about a plot and you keep posting things that concern the libertarianism of the man who wrote the plot.

And call me crazy, but David Brin--while acknowledging Heinlein's personal, general Libertarian bent (and noting that it differed wildly from the Libertarian party of today)--seems to me to be criticizing those who would pigeon-hole his books and/or writing as merely polemic for any particular political/philisophical school of thought. In short Brin said exactly what I've been trying to say: the man wasn't his books, and was much less political in his writing than many would have us believe.

[drjenkins]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

To answer your question: what libertarian angle?

Not saying there isn't one. Just saying it's never crossed my mind if there is. Is it libertarian to put a man's brain in a woman's body and riff on the consequences?

I think that pointing out the consequences is more egalitarian than libertarian.