Talk:Robert A. Heinlein/Archive 6

Infobox troubles
Why are some of the lines (i.e. "pseudonyms") not being displayed in the infobox, despite being typed into the wikitext there? &mdash;ScouterSig 17:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Good question. Turned out that pseudonym has to be singular. Now fixed. Sbowers3 (talk) 19:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Book overviews?
Would it be possible to add a page with a one to two sentence overview of each of his published works? Heinleinreader (talk) 23:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think it would be useful. Good luck describing SiaSL in two sentences.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree with Wehwalt. David in DC (talk) 02:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Human adopted by Martians returns to Earth. He shares the knowledge and powers he has gained, while learning about human sexuality; hilarity ensues.
 * —WWoods (talk) 00:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Perfect! Got any more? Mike P (talk) 01:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Poddy, her uncle and brother undertake a diplomatic mission on behalf of Martian sovreignty and independence. Lots of shenanigans and hijinks.  Then more serious stuff.  Poddy doesn't die. Or she does. David in DC (talk) 01:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Howabout I Will Fear No Evil: Johann is old and rich.  His brain is transplanted into his secretary's body after she is killed, but she is still there, or is she?  Maybe a third one joins them.  They all die anyway.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:36, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't stop there, I was going to start collecting them on my talk space. Mike P (talk) 00:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Uh, how about "People are mean to all these people with long lives, so they steal a starship and leave. They meet two (maybe three) sets of aliens and realize they want to go home.  They go home and make up with the Earth people."
 * "Max Jones wants to be a spaceman. He cheats his way aboard and he is really good (and people die which helps him out) and by the end of the trip he is the captain.  Even though he cheated he is allowed to stay."
 * "Juan goes off to fight the bugs who are attacking Earth. He has a lot of battles and thinks a lot about this class he had in high school.  His dad joins too."
 * "Thorby is a slave, then he is adopted by this mysterious guy. He winds up on a spaceship, but has to go into the space navy.  Turns out he is the richest guy in the galaxy but he still can't do what he wants.  So he is still a slave."--Wehwalt (talk) 19:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "From the cover blurbs, Friday doesn't look too intricately involved in the Rubik's cube Heinlien's Future History has become. From her picture, she looks smokin' hot. I buy book and am not disappointed" David in DC (talk) 20:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "Alex is a fundamentalist minister, but is transported to an alternate world and falls for a Danish stewardess. Someone keeps putting them in alternate universes, turns out this jerk God got Loki to do it while the Devil is a real nice guy, Heaven is Hell and vice versa.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Heinlein's plots go all over the place. I don't think his books should have short summaries.Mike Presson (talk) 04:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Indeed, it would be about as useful as defining the Earth as "Mostly Harmless." Evening Scribe (talk) 06:25, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Dean of Science Fiction Writers
There. I gave you four citations. I have a bunch of his books that say Dean of Science Fiction Writers or Dean of American Science Fiction Writers on the cover, and it says that in half the bios on Heinlein. If 4 is too much, cut it down to whatever you want that satisfies you. I hope this is not just a case of messing with an editor for no real reason; the article already has a link to a website called "Robert A. Heinlein, Dean of Science Fiction Writers, tribute site" in the external links section! No real fan of RAH would question this.Coffeehog (talk) 18:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * This is not a case of messing with an editor at all. This is a case of an editor adding in POV language that was unsourced.  A different editor removed it so someone must have been seen it as contentious.  I added the fact tag so that it wouldn't be removed for a period of time until a citation was provided.  Looking at the sources that were provided to source the statement, the first is not a secondary source. The second is good since it a respected science fiction organization calling him that.  The third times out for me, so I can not even look at it.  The fourth almost appears to be a blog site.  I think one source is probably sufficient for the info. I think the second one is probably the best one.  As a fan of RAH, I wasn't questioning the statement I was trying to stop an edit war from starting and trying to retain that information in the article.  Jons63 (talk) 19:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I've followed this discussion and agree whole-heartedly with Jons63 actions and assessments of the profferred sources. I've edited the article to implement the best source, delete the other 3, and leave in the content.David in DC (talk) 20:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm glad to hear it. I never said it was such a case, merely that I hoped it wasn't. If you want additional sources, I'm sure they can be found, but I have no problem with a single source. The title is very well known. Thanks for the cooperative editing.Coffeehog (talk) 17:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Factual problem
In describing Starship Troopers the article says:


 * Starship Troopers were meant to represent the Chinese or Japanese, Heinlein wrote the book in response to the unilateral ending of nuclear testing by the U.S., so it is more likely that they were intended to represent communism."

This can't be true as at the time the book was written the US had not stopped testing nuclear weapons. And when, in October of 1958, testing did pause, it was not unilateral. Rather it was a mutual decision taken by President Eisenhower and Premier Khrushchev of the Soviet Union. The "Eisenhower-Khrushchev moratorium" ended on JFK's watch when the Soviets resumed testing. The US was not far behind.

Indeed, during the Moratorium the US continued with low-yield nuclear experiments that were arguably violations of the agreement.

Peter.zimmerman (talk) 18:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I think that's entirely unlikely. If it's not sourced, I'd delete it. Heinlein pictured a future where nuclear weapons & power were first reserved to off-planet use, then simply became obsolete. He also wrote a rather chilling essay on the dangers of a single briefcase full of radioactive waste spread by a "dirty" convential explosive.


 * Certainly Fifth Column was about an Asian version of a "Red Threat". I've always thought Starship Troopers was Heinlein's response to War of the Worlds - let's get those bugs!


 * Isn't it ironic that the film booted the most unique part of the book, the battle suits that gave each soldier the power of a one-man army... and now the Iron Man movie will probably be a big hit?Coffeehog (talk) 19:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Literary criticism
An author featured article with no section devoted to literary criticism of the subject? Heinlein is one of the most significant SF writers of the 20th century, surely we can stretch to a paragraph or two? Skomorokh 16:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * If you have reliable/sourced literary criticism available then you are free to add a section along with references. Marc Kupper (talk) (contribs) 17:32, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes yes yes, so fix it and all that. I was rather hoping on provoking someone else into doing it ;) Skomorokh  18:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Missing book
It's a very good article; very illuminating. You seem to have covered almost all of his novels at least somewhere, in some manner, but there is no mention of my favorite: The Unpleasant Profession of Jonathan Hoag. There's got to be room somewhere for mention of this quirky, almost surreal, wonderful little story (man hires a detective to find out what he does for a living as he can't remember; those who do know won't tell him but obviously have utter distaste for whatever it is). There's far more to the novella than is on the surface. --70.107.9.159 (talk) 03:05, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not a novel. It's a novella and was never published by itself as a book. As I recall it was the lead story in one anthology by the same name, but that doesn't earn it a place in the Novels section. And the story itself does have its own article. --Rpresser 20:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, it was indeed published by itself as a book; I own two copies. I am also well aware it has its own article as I linked to it in my post.--70.107.9.159 (talk) 01:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It is not the only story in that anthology. I remember there were several stories, such as (I think) "Our Fair City" and "The Man who Travelled in Elephants".--Wehwalt (talk) 03:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Wehwalt, I'm sure you mean well, but your memory is not jibing with my reality. I am holding the book in my hand. Yes, it is relatively short. It is nevertheless a single publication of just the one tale bound and printed with no companion stories.--70.107.9.159 (talk) 04:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Sexual views / incest
I haven't read Heinlein's work, but from the article's description of his writing about this subject, it sounds like his aim in writing about it wasn't to say "we shouldn't have incest taboos" or that incest isn't wrong, but was instead a more general, typical aim of the sexual revolution. It sounds to me like he was trying to communicate that if a person has random, sexual or apparently sexual feelings or thoughts about other people they are not "supposed" to according to conventional sexual mores, they shouldn't tear themselves up about it or feel like they are a horrible person, because the actual reasons we developed these taboos are mostly biological ones in the first place. Obviously, Heinlein omitted the more moralistic reasons about power and inequality. But he could have been doing this intentionally to persuade us that these relationships wouldn't be so wrong if the participants were something like emotional equals (therefore highlighting his point about the influence of genetics, and not simply morality, in our ancestors' founding of the incest taboo).

Therefore, I think it would be better to add a sentence to this section of the article to change the tone of it, so it sounds less like Heinlein was advocating incest as a natural progression in human sexuality, and more like Heinlein was just trying to free people from guilt their religion may have imposed on them (for having feelings that are natural and that everyone probably fleetingly and inexplicably feels on some random occasion) although their actual sexual actions are totally in conformity with law and morality.

I am not going to make the edit myself, since I don't know his work and can't really know if there is something else in his correspondence or work that tends to refute what I am saying, but from the way the article is written, I really doubt that Heinlein was trying to do more than free people from unnecessary guilt (i.e., he wasn't trying to promote new sexual practices and mores). With his arguments about genetics, etc., he may have done it in too heavy-handed a way that may have left it sounding to some like he was tyring to change society, but looking at the total man, I don't think it's fair to credit him with that kind of activism on this issue. Swan Mc (talk) 02:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC)Swan Mc


 * Thanks and welcome to Wikipedia! I gather you are a new editor, as were we all.  You make serious points about Heinlein.  It is, however, not for us to interpret him.  We are a tertiary source, we report what others have written.  If you go and find a source reflecting what you have said here, it may well be that it would be a good idea to insert language into the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Response: Hi, I'm familiar with Wikipedia's policy of encouraging/requiring sources for information. I don't think it's a matter of finding a source in this case as much as it is a matter of the article tacitly misattributing a belief to Heinlein as it now stands.

Elsewhere (previously) in the article, it states that Heinlein's writing advocated sexual liberation and alternative family structures. After reading that statement, it's all too natural to interpret the information provided about incest that appears later in the article as implying that Heinlein advocated society's doing away with the incest taboo. But nothing in the section on incest, standing alone, indicates this to be the case (so, it's the Wikipedia article as it's written now that is actually "interpreting" him). It could just as likely be that Heinlein advocated for sexual liberation (as cultural norms / actual practices) among consenting adults in non-incestuous relationships, but that his point as to incest was (as I guessed) limited to combatting harmful and excessive guilt promoted by society when individuals experience fleeting and trivial incestuous thoughts or mental imagery. So if I am correct, what is misattributing / mischaracterizing Heinlein contrary to Wikipedia's mission is leaving the article as it now stands, instead of adding a more polite and objective qualifying statement to the article, such as "Perhaps in a speculation on religion and society's taboo against incest, and criticizing the shame individuals in our society are made to feel associated with incestuous thoughts, Heinlein in his stories pointed out scientific basises for the incest taboo," along with a later sentence stating "There is no evidence that Heinlein actually approved of incest or meant to promote it." It's actually a little scandalous and ridiculous to seem to be associating a person with promoting this kind of thing without a clear source, rather than giving someone the benefit of the doubt. Without a clearer source showing that he was trying to de-stigmatize incest, I think it's juvenile to not make the article clearer. 67.85.225.175 (talk) 06:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)Swan

There, I added these two sentences to the article: "Perhaps meaning to criticize the shame individuals in our society are made to feel associated with incestuous thoughts, Heinlein pointed out scientific basises for the incest taboo in his stories." and "There is no evidence that Heinlein actually approved of incest or meant to promote it." These sentences will better serve Wikipedia's standards and mission than your suggestions. When you have some source for the idea that this man was a promoter of incest, you can add that and remove the sentences. 67.85.225.175 (talk) 06:23, 6 July 2008 (UTC)Swan Mc


 * I deleted it for the reasons stated above. We don't work on "just as likely".--Wehwalt (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2008 (UTC)