Stranger in a Strange Land coming to TV

[fjtorres]

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?

The juveniles are so labeled because they were nominally targeted at what is now called YOUNG ADULT.

He openly admitted that the only thing juvenile about them was that the protagonists were nominally 17-19 though he wrote them like any other adult. The one exception being PeeWee who is pre-teen but preternaturally smart *and* mature.

Heinlein is a tough author to pigeonhole because while his personal politics were nominally 50's conservative it rarely intruded into his writing and his characterizations were often more liberal than the times. For example, in his Juveniles he featured a deep array of strong females:

http://www.heinleinsociety.org/rah/w...swomendeb.html

He also enjoyed playing role reversals and going against expectations and social conventions from his earliest stories. If anything, he was more subtle in the early works and juveniles. (His first novel, BEYOND THIS HORIZON, had the action hero archetype protagonist comparing nail polish with his BFF. He also made a living designing casino games. And he designed a wholly different economic and political system, almost in passing.)

[Pajamaman]

I found it, and all Heinlein's longer works over-rated. I don't get what people see in them. Is it just the libertarian angle that appeals? He seems to have a mainly American fan-base.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by Pajamaman

Is it just the libertarian angle that appeals?

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?

[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?

I don't know because I gave up on his door-stoppers after, as a young person, wading though page after page of genetic analysis of whether a brother and sister could mate, and coming to the conclusion that Heinlein was boring.

But I thought his libertarian / right-wing angle was well-known.

Google

Philip K Dick did say he was a nice man, and he bought Dick a type-writer. Apparently Heinlein changed his political views with his wives. Also apparently Clarke and he didn't get on after he slammed Clarke's views given in a speech to the UN. In any case, I don't see the big fuss over Heinlein. Starship Troopers was good, but that's about it from what I can see. IMO he doesn't deserve his place in the big three. There are far better authors out there, but I appreciate people like different things.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by Pajamaman

But I thought his libertarian / right-wing angle was well-known.

Google

Philip K Dick did say he was a nice man, and he bought Dick a type-writer. Apparently Heinlein changed his political views with his wives. Also apparently Clarke and he didn't get on after he slammed Clarke's views given in a speech to the UN. In any case, I don't see the big fuss over Heinlein. Starship Troopers was good, but that's about it from what I can see. IMO he doesn't deserve his place in the big three. There are far better authors out there, but I appreciate people like different things.

It very well could be well known. But I don't read about the man. I read his books. His politics don't interest me.

You thinking Starship Troopers was "good" is probably why we'll never see eye to eye on this. It's one of the few books of his I've been unable to get all the way through.

[Pajamaman]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

The juveniles are so labeled because they were nominally targeted at what is now called YOUNG ADULT.

He openly admitted that the only thing juvenile about them was that the protagonists were nominally 17-19 though he wrote them like any other adult. The one exception being PeeWee who is pre-teen but preternaturally smart *and* mature.

Heinlein is a tough author to pigeonhole because while his personal politics were nominally 50's conservative it rarely intruded into his writing and his characterizations were often more liberal than the times. For example, in his Juveniles he featured a deep array of strong females:

http://www.heinleinsociety.org/rah/w...swomendeb.html

He also enjoyed playing role reversals and going against expectations and social conventions from his earliest stories. If anything, he was more subtle in the early works and juveniles. (His first novel, BEYOND THIS HORIZON, had the action hero archetype protagonist comparing nail polish with his BFF. He also made a living designing casino games. And he designed a wholly different economic and political system, almost in passing.)

Have Spacesuit, Will Travel was firmly YA. I enjoyed that as a kid.

Re: his women, I recall the woman introduced early (I say early because that's as far as I got) in The Moon is a Harsh Mistress was pretty pulp un-PC and so were the MC's attitudes toward her.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by HarryT

That's because British TV is arranged in "quarterly" schedules, so a series will typically run for either 6 or 12 episodes. Might be a bit shorter - eg 10 episodes - if they're running other stuff in between the main schedules (eg at Christmas).

I see absolutely nothing wrong in a 6-episode series. There are many stories that can be told well in 6h (and a 1h programme on the BBC really is 1h, or about 57m anyway - no commercial breaks!).

That's BBC, but other channels such as STV have commercials. The problem as I see it is you get into the series and it's over.

If a series is good then 6 episodes a year is not enough.

[HarryT]

Just a case of different cultural expectations, Jon. British TV has never had the enormously long series that American TV has (other than things like soap operas, which run forever ) so nobody considers it unusual that a series should last 6, 10 or 12 episodes.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Just a case of different cultural expectations, Jon. British TV has never had the enormously long series that American TV has (other than things like soap operas, which run forever ) so nobody considers it unusual that a series should last 6, 10 or 12 episodes.

The problem is the rubbish goes on and on (soap operas) and the good series end too soon. Another issue is that some series end on a cliffhanger for season 1 when they've not been picked up yet for season 2 and sometimes don't get renewed those that liked the series are screwed.

[Ken Maltby]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

The problem is the rubbish goes on and on (soap operas) and the good series end too soon. Another issue is that some series end on a cliffhanger for season 1 when they've not been picked up yet for season 2 and sometimes don't get renewed those that liked the series are screwed.

Ah...so the SciFi channel is British? Firefly, Dresden, ect...

Luck;
Ken

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

The problem is the rubbish goes on and on (soap operas) and the good series end too soon. Another issue is that some series end on a cliffhanger for season 1 when they've not been picked up yet for season 2 and sometimes don't get renewed those that liked the series are screwed.

I really don't think that the world does need (as of today) 9035 episodes of "Coronation Street", but there are millions of people who would strongly disagree with me. Soap operas are hugely popular.

[DiapDealer]

I'm a firm believer that the US could (and should) learn something from the UK's more pragmatic approach to TV shows. I'm not talking about content (though there's that, too); I'm talking about focusing on the story rather than on the show's run. If US television creator's would strive to create focused, stories (ones that have shorter, more realistic--and fully planned--arcs), then perhaps network execs might be more willing to let them run to completion. More good, short-run shows rather than a handful of long-running shows that garner enough ratings (by the properly-aged demographic) to be permitted to ramble aimlessly for years, and a slew of shows cancelled just when fans start committing to them.

I'm hoping the Netflix/Amazon/Hulu original shows enjoy enough success to force US networks into re-evaluating their "successful" criteria (not to mention cancelled shows that find new leases on life with those subscription streaming channels).

[GlenBarrington]

Originally Posted by BenG

The book already has a lot of sex though its not graphic.

I wonder if we aren't headed to the sort of sexuality in our culture Heinlein envisioned? Though I don't think he envisioned the level of tawdriness that we, as a culture, seem to revel in along with it.

If 'they sex it up' in an exceptionally cheesy way, I suspect Heinlein wouldn't have liked it, but he would support their right to find their own level of self degradation.

[Barty]

Soaps are dying in the US, with many long running shows like As The World Turns and All My Children having been cancelled. I think there are only a handful or fewer left and the ratings are low. They've been replaced with talk and lifestyle shows.

Among Asian Americans, the Korean imported soaps are pretty popular.

[Greg Anos]

It's been nearly 30 years after his death and his writing is still being talked about.

Not bad for any author. . . .