Talk:The Door into Summer

The plot summary here seems more concerned with literary criticism of Heinlein's "bungles" than with actually summarizing the novel's plot. Perhaps the critical analysis of the book could be given its own section (and scrutinized for NPOV) and an actual plot summary could be written? 66.17.118.195 16:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Literary significance & criticism

 * Moreover, "the hero's love for his cat is little more than a funny hat that he wears; were Dan Davis to speak with a stutter, or collect postcards, the effect upon the structure of the novel would be the same. (I don't deny that it would deprive the novel of its title gimmick, but this would not be a major loss.)"

I'm sure this is an accurate quote from Blish's commentary, but I have to say, he's dead wrong on this point. Pete is a major character in the book, especially in the confrontation with Miles and Belle. While Blish is entitled to his opinion, I think this particular comment misrepresents the book. If there are no objections, I'm taking it out. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs)  18:24, 23 November 2006 (UTC) Well, I did say "if there are no objections". But I have to note that, while I do like the book, my motive here was anything but fannish worship, Hayford. The point is, I strongly believe that Blish is dead wrong on this point. He's entitled to his opinion, but it doesn't belong in the article if it misrepresents the book. If he'd written about, say, the improbability of the Twitchell sub-plot, I would have no objections about including it. And calling "The Door Into Summer" a "title gimmick" strikes me as a cheap shot; it's a nice metaphor for the search for happiness. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs)  19:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC) FWIW, here's the Wikipedia policy basis for my problem with those two sentences (and note that I left virtually all of Blish's comments intact): WP:NPOV:
 * I object very stenuously. James Blish's opinion is both interesting and informative.  And, of course, he is a preeminent critic, still well-known, I would say, so his opinion is worth seeing.  Wiki is an encycl., not a fannish collection of articles.  Your work on this article has been impressive -- but please don't let it degenerate into just a fannish bunch of praise for it.  If you didn't think highly of the book, you obviously wouldn't have written so much about it in great detail.  But Wikipedia demands that all sides be represented, particularly those that are sourced and credentialled.  Blish's view should be restored, and I will do so now. Hayford Peirce 18:39, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * A correction to the above: I thought it was Djdaedalus who had made the Blish edit; it's Jim Douglas. And it's Djdaedalus who has been doing so much of the recent editorial additions.  But my comments stand. Hayford Peirce 18:44, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagree. I'm sure that there are many Dorothy L. Sayers fan who think that Edmund Wilson's criticism of both her writing and of Lord Peter should not be in the Sayers article. But Wilson was an even more eminent critic than Blish and his publicly expressed opinions should be there.  The article about "Door Into Summer" is NOT just a plot summary of it: it is an article ABOUT the book.  If it had been the first paperback ever published, that should be in the article.  If the first edition hardback weighed 25 pounds and sold for $300, that should be in the article.  Blish's opinion, whether you think it misrepresents the book or not, should be in the article.  I myself think he's wrong about this, and I think he's wrong about the entire book.  I think it's a terrific book -- but to give a Wiki reader a full picture of the book, then Blish's comments have to be there.  If you can find, and there must be some, reviews that are more favorable, then by all means pull some quotes out of them and stick them in.  I know that somewhere around I have some very favorable remarks about the book, and especially about the cat -- but I can't, off-hand, remember where they are.  If I can find them, I'll stick them in. Hayford Peirce 19:24, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * One slight possible caveat; might it be possible to put in some phrasing that Mr. Blish seems to be in the minority? Pete is 1 of the 3 best developed characters in the book; I just re-read it in the last 24 to firm up my opinion.Paganize (talk) 16:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * FWIW I'm fine with Blish's remarks. If he wants to twit himself that's his lookout.   As somebody said, the proper response to bad speech is more speech, and if you can catch the speaker out, so much the better.  Let all his words appear, and the discerning reader can make his or her own mind up.  I wrote at length about Pete partly because I wanted to throw Blish's remarks into stark contrast.  The fact that this is the first Heinlein I read in my youth, and remains a favorite 40 years later, explains the rest. Djdaedalus 19:28, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not."

I understand that it's hard to find multiple citation-worthy critical commentaries of Heinlein's work. But Blish's opinion on this is dead wrong; he must be in a vanishingly small minority on this particular point. If we can find other opinions to balance it out, then fine, leave it in. If we can't, then I think it violates the "undue weight" policy. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs)  19:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC) I'll try to come at it from a slightly different direction, Hayford. We include critical commentary to illuminate the book for readers of the article. Our choice of quotes colors the reader's impression of it. By including those two sentences, we are saying that they offer the reader some useful insight into the book. My personal opinion about this (which, I believe, both you and David share -- and please correct me if I'm misrepresenting your opinion) is that Blish's comments about the cat are nonsense. I appreciate your offer to dig up contrasting opinions; that would help a lot here. And, in order to put those comments into perspective in my own head, I've ordered both of those books from Amazon. As I've already said, it's hard to find good quality citation-worthy references. But that doesn't mean we should include references that we all believe are not representative of the book. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs)  20:58, 23 November 2006 (UTC) Taking yet another twist on this, I haven't checked the page history, but who added those two sentences in the first place? Do you (or anyone reading this) have those books? Let's agree that we should include something from Blish's review in the article. Do those few sentences represent a useful summary of his review? Is it possible that he made other, more cogent observations? Do you understand where I'm coming from, Hayford? By choosing to include those particular quotes in a very short "literary criticism" section, we are implying that they offer valid insight into the book. I'm not opposed to including useful criticism. If Blish's comments include a reference to the Twitchell sub-plot verging on Deus ex machina, or the borderline silliness of the "Leo Vincent" stuff, I'd be all for including it. I'm not arguing for including my own editorial opinion in the article; I believe strongly in WP:NPOV. But I am saying that, if all of us are in agreement that those two sentences are nonsense, then perhaps we could choose something else from Blish's criticism that might offer more useful insight into the book. (As far as offering a counter-argument to his comparison of the cat to a "funny hat", I'd just note that the cat is an active player in the plot, particularly in the confrontation with Belle & Miles, but also throughout the book. I'm at a loss as to how Blish could have made such a nonsensical comment.) -- Jim Douglas (talk)  (contribs)  22:21, 23 November 2006 (UTC) I don't know anybody who has read the book who agrees with Blish about the importance/lack of importance of Pete. Knowing Mr. Heinlein's feelings about cats would also reinforce ones belief that he didn't just stick Pete in there as a gimick. None of that means that Blish's comment shouldn't be in the article. It just means that he's wrong. His dislike of the book in general is a different matter. Many people who love Heinlein's work are not that happy with DOOR. And, of course, some people don't like Heinlein's work. The cat, however, is an important part of the book. 65.79.173.135 (talk) 16:21, 22 January 2009 (UTC)Will in New Haven65.79.173.135 (talk) 16:21, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You think he's dead wrong. But what evidence, aside from your own opinion, can you put forth to support your assertion?  In any case, I've just put in a bunch of Panshin stuff that's pretty favorable, even if apparently Heinlein got his nose out of joint because of some it.  If I can find something more specific to the cat issue, I'll insert it.  I know that at the time of publication, or relatively soon afterwards, I read nice things about the cat -- if memory serves, one critic went so far as to say that basically the only good thing about the book WAS the cat.... Hayford Peirce 20:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The problem is that you're not being sufficiently Wiki about it. Just because the three of *us* disagree with Blish doesn't mean Blish shouldn't be here. You, David, and I are POV -- Blish is NPOV, as least by Wiki standards.  If he's the only prominent critic we can find who has an opinion, then he should be here.  But now, at least, Panshin, has a voice in the article.  Others will probably surface.  Look, what you're saying is that *everyone* knows this is a great book and that the cat stuff is delightful, and that therefore Blish is unrepresentative.  That may be true, but you've gotta document it.  While I was doing research for a lot of the old-time pro tennis stars for Wiki articles I ran across Jack Kramer's autobiography.  In it, to my vast surprise, and probably  to the surprise of anyone who has recently read any Wiki articles about the great tennis players, Kramer states over and over that he thinks Bobby Riggs was one of the 6 greatest players of all time and that he was *better* than Pancho Gonzales, another one of the top 6.  I can't believe that in 2006 there are more than half a dozen people who, off the top of their heads, would have made such a comparison if they had been asked.  But Kramer is a guy who played both of them at least 100 times, who watched them for years and years, and who is certainly one of the most knowledgeable tennis guys who ever lived.  You've gotta respect his opinion even if you disagree with it.  So Kramer's view is now in the Riggs article, the Gonzales article, and, as a footnote, in another 20 tennis articles.  I feel the same way about Blish -- he may be wrong, but he's an important enough critic to have his views known.  If it was *me* writing the same thing, in a review in Locus, let's say, I'd agree with you: I don't carry enough weight to have such an idiosyncratic view presented here.  But Blish *does* carry a lot of weight.... Hayford Peirce 21:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * As I recall, I'm the guy who put in all the Blish material several months ago at least. I own both books, the Blish and the Panshin, and I was quoting directly from them.  The Blish comments are 100% typical of his attitude towards this particular Heinlein book.  Chapter IV of Blish's book is called "First Person Singular: Heinlein, Son of Heinlein", in which he is generally admiring of Heinlein.  He is, however, very down on "Door" for several pages and for many reasons.  I could have pulled out any number of other quotes to show his disdain for the book.  He has a long paragraph on page 55, for example, which begins: "What about the novel's heavy emphasis upon cat protocol?  This, surely, is characterization?  No, not in any major sense.  Etc. etc." In any case, all critics have either made major bloopers and/or have had very eccentric opinions in some cases. Didn't Kingsley Amis (or another Brit very heavy hitter) once write that "I Will Fear No Evil" was Heinlein's best book?  And this was some years after it had been trashed by everyone else who had ever bothered to wade through it. If you want to see 800 pages of *extremely* eccentric opinions, see the enormous "Catalog of Crime" by Wendell Hertig Taylor AND Jacques Barzun, a *really* heavy hitter, lit'ry type. Their appraisals of certain books are just laughable from my point of view.  But they deserve a place in a Wiki article on any of these books in question, I would say.  I just don't think Barzun, or Edmund Wilson, or Amis, or Blish can simply be brushed off because we disagree with them....Hayford Peirce 22:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I find Blish's comments about Pete to be a very strong example of mind-blindness. The central character of the novel _is_ very weakly characterized and it is a major flaw in the novel. However, Pete is the big exception to this flaw. While Blish is a respected critic, he is also a proponent of the "Heinlein's central characters are Heinlein" cliche. Since I can tell the characters apart very easily, I can only imagine he thought Heinlein had multiple personality disorder. Or he was mind-blind. 76.28.103.69 (talk) 00:05, 14 December 2009 (UTC)Will in New Haven76.28.103.69 (talk) 00:05, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Continued from above
This is an old debate, but an important one.

Hayford Peirce's objection that "Blish's opinion is both interesting and informative" is not a sufficient reason to include the quote, and his accusation that Jim Douglas wants to let the article "degenerate into just a fannish bunch of praise" is inappropriate.

Everyone here agrees that Wikipedia should describe all significant views &mdash; but Blish's very assertion is that Petronius is not significant. Absent a contrarian view, Blish's statement is not significant.

As Peirce concedes, three editors (now six) agree that Blish is simply wrong about this. Pete is at least the second, if not the most developed character in the entire book. The threshold for inclusion is "verifiability, not truth", but this must be balanced with "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". In other words, we have a degree of editorial freedom. We cannot and should not include every quote from a critic: the issue is the significance of this quote, and I, frankly, do not see it.  Feezo   (send a signal  |  watch the sky )   21:02, 20 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I'd say that the character's devotion to his cat is a reaction to the fact that his human friends have all deserted him. You could not say the same about a funny hat.  On that basis, I would say that Blish is wrong. 50.180.19.238 (talk) 13:44, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Cultural Impact
I'm not sure it's possible to say that a novel that has been consistently rated in the top 50 novels of all time has no Cultural, or in this case, technological, impact. He's already credited with the water bed, it looks like he possibly should get credit for the Rhoomba and the mechanical drafting plotter as well?68.153.102.141 (talk) 15:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Some notes for future editors
- James Blish’s reference here to his own bizarre theory about how every character in Heinlein’s work is a thinly-disguised version of Heinlein himself should be called out as such rather than left standing as a stipulated fact.

- From letters in the Heinlein archives at UCSC: Heinlein thought both Panshin and Blish were talking out of their asses, but refused to engage in debate with them in public. In Panshin’s case, he objected to unethical behavior where Panshin lied to the wife of a friend of Heinlein to get access to Heinlein’s correspondence. He also thought Panshin was simply wrong. He thought Blish was simply wrong.