In my opinion only, I think Heinlein's "juveniles" were his best work. Althought marketed to a juvenile audience, these books can still be read and enjoyed by adults. (Which I beleive is true of most good juvenile works, btw).

The comment made earlier that early and late Heinlein are almost like two different people is ceretainly true for me.


One thing is undeniable: Heinlein was a writer of great influence in the field. Out of his very long list of books, most Sf readers will certainly find some of interest.

If anyone reading this has never read Heinlein--try one book form his early works and one of his later books and see which appels to you.

I think one thing that gets left out when discussing Heinlein, is that in addition to being an artist (whether he would admit to it or not), he was also a businessman. He created products as well as literature, and aimed for sales as well as sermons. He saw times changing and attempted to adjust accordingly.

That said, I love Heinlein, and would read a laundry list of his. As a teenager his "new" stuff caught me, which I read as fast as I could, then went and read his older stuff. True, I could tell they were different, like eating ice cream vs eating steak. But I loved them both.

--
Chris O'Kennon
The Mos Eisley Bookstore
http://www.moseisleybooks.com

Years later I read that the book was written while he was suffering from the brain disorder which disrupted the flow of oxygen to the brain. An operation to repair the blockage was successful but due to contract requirements the book he had written before treatment had to be published, without revision, during his recuperation.


That would explain a lot about that book.

Roger: "And it's really just this one book of his that bugs me so much. Loved Friday and The Cat Who Walked Through Walls. Didn't blink an eye at the time-traveling incest at the end of Time Enough For Love. But 'Evil' just rubs me the wrong way. Normally, the big ideas of gender and personality Heinlein is playing with would definitely keep me hooked."

IWFNE was the first Heinlein I bought new at a bookstore, at the height of my affection for his stuff (I was 16) and aside from some of the nice touches in society/world building of the sort I expected from him, it was my first experience with reading an author I knew well and thinking, something 's wrong here.
It was just - excruciating. As you say, the issues and ideas were worthy, and Heinlein should have been a match for them but it reads like the book got away from him. Some of the dialogue is just painful ... inept.

Years later I read that the book was written while he was suffering from the brain disorder which disrupted the flow of oxygen to the brain. An operation to repair the blockage was successful but due to contract requirements the book he had written before treatment had to be published, without revision, during his recuperation.

So - brain damage accounts for it nicely, IMO. It doesn't explain The Number of the Beast. That's really the Heinlein nadir.

I do think he came back nicely at the end with Job, Friday and The Cat Who ...

He was that--a very entertaining writer.

I break it down this way: early Heinlein was adolescent wish-fulfillment fantasy and late Heinlein was dirty-old-man wish-fulfillment fantasy. It's really the same method of writing, just his wishes as an adolescent that he was capturing were wishes to explore the galaxy, have an intelligent alien as a pet, fly with strap-on wings, etc. As a dirty-old-man his wishes were mainly to have sex with dozens of beautiful women including his own youthful mom, daughters, etc., and to spout off his inane philosophies to an adoring and unquestioning audience.

The funny thing is, that even while you roll your eyes at the idiocy of some of his philosophies (others are actually wise), he still is tremendously entertaining. Even when he's spouting off nonsense he can write a very good story that keeps you turning those pages despite your exasperation. So Heinlein's good even when he's bad. That's his genius. At his best, though, in books like The Moon is a Harsh Mistress and Citizen of the Galaxy, he's magnificent.

Liked early Heinlein, though Starship Troopers and Puppetmasters are a bit jingoistic. At his best, Heinlein was a visionary

The later stuff really turned me off. It wasn't just sex; it was incest and genetically-engineered female sex toys/partners. At his worst, Heinlein was sick.

I read Heinlein in Dimension A Critical Analysis today & took some notes so I posted a pretty long review, if you're interested.

I thought the fall from grace was early, IMO. I put it in the 70's, but the seeds were there in the 60's. Panshin was dead on about sex & women characters, but I think he didn't understand Heinlein as well as he thought.

You do have to read the entire work to really get all of Panshin's comments on 'The Moon is a Harsh Mistress'. At one point he goes so far as to do some pretty funky math to put it down. Overall, I think he hated the book, almost as much as "Stranger in a Strange Land".

Much of what he criticized was accurate, but I found myself wondering why I should care. He seems to want more out of most of the stories than I thought they should provide, especially short stories. In other cases, he didn't like devices that I thought were very effective.

There were several books & stories he made me want to re-read & I found one that I don't have "My Object All Sublime" published in Future, February 1942. Even if it is a stinker, I'd like to read it. I think I'd like to re-read "The Star Beast" too.

Well worth reading. I'm glad you brought it up. Thanks! I can't think of a more pleasant way to spend a vacation day than reading about stories I've loved for over 40 years.

Jim wrote: "FYI, you can read Panshin's "Heinlein in Dimension" here..."

Wow, TMI really, but some quick browsing revealed...

If there is one thing that marks the six novels published so far in Heinlein's third period, it is a change in those things he has lectured about in his stories. Instead of concerning himself with facts, he has written about the morality of sex, religion, war and politics, but he has treated his opinions as though they were facts. More than this, he has so concentrated on presenting his opinions with every narrative device he knows that he has neglected story construction, characterization, and plot as though they were completely subsidiary to the main business of his opinions-as-facts. Why this change has come, I cannot say exactly, but I suspect a combination of financial independence and a desire to say the things that he most strongly believes has caused Heinlein to pour himself out on paper. The result from an artistic point of view is a mistake.

Which does really hit at Heinlein's fall from grace — success brought arrogance. He started tossing in his political opinions and erotic fantasies as if he could do no wrong, and promptly lost it. Or at least lost me — I'm astonished at how popular he remained. I'd prefer to have back the time I spent reading most of his later books, which includes all of those written during my lifetime, except for Moon.

But Panshin's comments on Moon make me want to go back and read it again:

The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress ... won him his fourth Hugo award for best novel. Line-by-line, it is fascinating reading. I suspect that Heinlein could even write laundry lists that would be entertaining to read. Moreover, The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress is less flawed by sermons and constructional weakness than the other books of his third period. I must admit, however, that fascinating as I find it, I don't think The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress is a good or effective novel. It is, moreover, almost as marked with symbols of resignation, doubt and defeat as Glory Road and Farnham's Freehold.

There's a lot more on Moon, and would be worth exploring concurrent with a re-reading.


Panshin's section on Heinlein and sex is somewhat devastating. This biography was written before Heinlein went off the deep end with his libido, and yet Panshin argues about sexual relationships: "I suspect that Heinlein isn't comfortable with the subject." He argues that Heinlein deals with sex like a boy scout: a mixture of naivete, idealized romanticism and dirty jokes. Who knows what Panshin would have made of I Will Fear No Evil and the later incestual hijinks of Lazarus Long. Since the latter had first made his appearance in Methuselah's Children (1941!) there was some foreshadowing, but that book dealt in a minor way with marriage, while the later novels went way beyond that into the sex itself (at least it's a relief that Heinlein wasn't given today's license to make it explicit).


Panshin, writing in the late 1960s, took the safe path when writing of Heinlein's future. Since he's still alive, I'd be mildly curious to see what he made of the later oeuvre, but Wikipedia mentions that Heinlein objected strongly to Heinlein in Dimension, so he was wise not to overly anger one of SF's grand old men.

But combining Panshin and Mark Rosenfelder (the author of the zompist.com article I mentioned), I can see why I never recommend Heinlein. Back in the late 70s and early 80s when I was reading him, the future hadn't hit yet. And extrapolating to the future was, in theory, his strong suit. It turns out, he got it way wrong: as Rosenfelder points out, he wasn't nearly wild enough in predicting what technology would develop and he was far too optimistic in terms of what we'd be doing with our technology.

But more importantly, technology has become so mainstream that good scifi now has to deal with sociology. Skip out on that and you can still have a decent but irrelevant romp (see here, for example), but to make it riveting an author had better think hard about how the world's cultures are evolving.

The intimacy with technology makes it really tough to write scifi that ages well, and I don't think Heinlein managed it any better than Jules Verne or Olaf Stapledon. But I doubt anyone gets a free ride on that — today, most early cyberpunk feels antiquated.

Thanks, Richard. I've read that before & agree that 'Mistress' is well worth the read for all its faults.

FYI, you can read Panshin's "Heinlein in Dimension" here:
http://www.enter.net/~torve/critics/Dime...
I should read it again myself since it's been years.

Thanks Richard, I enjoyed that.

This is ages after this discussion took place, and has nothing to do with it other than Heinlein, but I just read a delightful analysis of The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress and thought maybe someone might stumble on my link here. Go to http://zompist.com/heinlein.html and enjoy.

I do think he was struggling with how to include sex and sexuality in his stories in a way that made sense and wasn't silly or coy or peripheral or brought the story to a crashing halt. I don't think he was particularly successful. But I appreciate that he made the effort because it is odd. I mean isn't it a fairly weird convention that different planets eras cultures and yet they pretty much all happen to share and subscribe to our particular brand of sexual reticence. Just how likely is that? Seems like we just aren't very good at all at including sex - which is lets face it, a significant part of adult experience- in our storytelling. Heinlein didn't succede in changing that, but at least he noticed that its odd, and made some effort to explore some ideas about how it might be different.

No issue at all, honest. I just found Heinlein writing that sort of thing more with female characters than with male. After all, I don't recall him writing "When Deety and her erect nipples entered the room, I immediately sported a diamond cutter". Heinlein tended to be more symbolic, coy and "jokey" with male sexuality, more direct and objective with female sexuality-- not to mention, in my opinion, indulging in pure corn for prose styling.

Again, I'm not condemning it-- if you like that sort of thing, you'll like this sort of thing, you know? It just doesn't work for me when I want to read a particular kind of science fiction. Bob Heinlein wrote a lot of books I greatly enjoyed, including some with heavy sexual libertion undertones -- Stranger in a Strange Land, Glory Road stand out. I just found his latter work quite different, and certainly more sexual. Nothing wrong with that if it's truly part of the story, but I found it a tad corny and often out of context with the plot.

H.

What's the issue with Deety looking at her nipples in the mirror? Point being, she was sexually aroused/attracted but didn't want to let that override her judgment - thus the sticking out her tongue at them. Like, oh calm down already just because he's hot doesn't mean he's right. Seems a perfectly reasonable bit of characterization and motivation to me.

Hey, I'm glad you liked Heinlein growing up. I certainly did-- I read virtually everything the man wrote, including juveniles, in my teen years. My comments were more a reflection of changing tastes than a condemnation of the man entirely. Yes, I, personally, felt that Heinlein's viewpoints on sexual liberation and women in general ranged from eye-rolling to embarrassing, towards the end of his output. Making female characters all-knowing, omnipotent fighters, entirely competent in every little challenge they are facing sort of loses its impact when you read phrases like "Deety looked at her nipples in the mirror, which were erect.. she stuck her tongue out at them..." It's not John Norman material, but it's not Heinlein at his best, either. And I'll totally concede that I liked his earlier characters more than his later ones, including females ones. The fact that I can remember a couple of Jubal Harshaw's escorts' names from memory attests that they were written in a memorable fashion.

I don't bemoan an author changing styles as he or she matures. Either I like the new stuff or I don't. In Heinlein's case, I didn't.

Yep.

I find it somewhat intriguing that so far this discussion about Heinlein's ability to write women is comprised mostly of men. One of the many things that drew me to Heinlein was his ability to write women characters so well, I wondered if, perhaps, Robert was a pen name for a woman writer. While so many other writers of his era wrote highly misogynistic views of women, Heinlein gave me women characters I could identify with and look up to. Personally, I don't care if you think his women characters differed only by haircuts. As a young woman who was exceptionally good at math at a time when it was unfashionable to be so, he made me feel like it was cool. When I met him at a book signing and told him so, he just beamed.

My experience with Heinlein echoes yours. I had a good opinion of Stranger in a Strange Land, and many, but not all, of his earlier works (THE MOON IS A HARSH MISTRESS being my favorite).

Rather than a me-too kind of reply I wanted to add that at some point in this cycle, Heinlein suffered a pretty serious stroke-- I think NUMBER OF THE BEAST was the first book after this, and I see a huge difference in style after this point in time.

I think with Heinlein (and Asimov for that matter) that you had to well-respected, genre-changing writers who wrote some superb books and stories during their height. Then they each took a hiatus of sorts without much in the way of new material, only to return onto the scene in the late 70s and early 80s with books that, quite frankly, weren't as good. I also think both suffered from the desire to try and tie together various universes in their fictional novels and series, instead of just leaving it to the fans to draw their own conclusions. I think this applies more to Asimov, but there is some later Heinlein that is nearly inaccessible if you've not read a couple of earlier stories and novels.

It would be interesting to see others ratings of Heinlein's books in order & possibly by group; YA, shorts, regular novels & non fiction. I think I like his short stories the best, followed by the YA books generally. Some novels sure stand well above the rest, though. "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" & SISL both do, for me.

There's a good list of Heinlein's books at Fantastic Fiction
http://www.fantasticfiction.co.uk/h/robe...
Actually, it's a great place to get a quick update on a lot of authors, if you haven't tried it.

He really only has four characters: stock villains, himself, a father figure, and all the women he's ever loved or wanted to rolled together. They differ only by haircuts.

...That's probably the best summing-up of Heinlein I've ever heard. I need to remember that one.

I'm solidly in the 'he could be good' camp, and the general advice that his juveniles are the best bet for finding a good Heinlein novel.

To a large extent the real reason I find him such a frustrating author is because of two books that do not live up to their promise--Stranger in a Strange Land, and The Cat Who Walks Through Walls. Both of them start out as very different books than what they end as. Technically, the ending themes can work as books as well as the beginning ones. Technically, it is possible to do a theme shift such as those books feature and have a good single story. However, in neither case do I consider Heinlein to have even come close to succeeding.

"In my opinion, Heinlein writes witty female characters but they are easily forgettable and not necessarily strong overall."

If you are looking for diverse well-concieved and rendered characters, whether male or female, Heinlein probably isn't your best bet. He really only has four characters: stock villains, himself, a father figure, and all the women he's ever loved or wanted to rolled together. They differ only by haircuts.

Sometimes the same character can end up in multiple roles. In one scene, the character plays the befuddled clueless protagonist who needs to be lectured by the wise and stern father figure. In the next, the roles may be reversed. And just as all the men play father and son, all the women play the role of mother, lover, and crone as needed. Everyone in the Heinlein universe is either teacher or student all the time. Considered it an idealized dialogue between engineers with different specialties. No one talks - they lecture.

As far as forgetting to talk and just lecturing, I can empathize with the impluse. ;)

I think Heinlein was writing strong women as he understood the concept, and one of the things about said women is that they weren't afraid to be admired for their sexuality. If you find Heinlein a bit demeaning, I hope you find the women of 'Sex in the City' even more so, because surely Heinlein's female leads are stronger and more admirable figures than that.

I agree with just about everything you just said there Jim. I started reading science fiction back before there were many women in the field and Heinlein was one place I could depend on finding female characters who were more than set dressing or prizes. He may not have always gotten it right, it is hard to write the other gender and it was probably harder in his time when there was less honesty between the genders, but at least he tried.

Heinlein was definitely for equality among the sexes. If anything, he tended to idolize women. He says they have more range than men; the good ones are better, the bad ones are worse. Didn't he say something about them getting the short end of the stick when they settled for mere equality?

He wrote about strong women before it was PC & made them sexually equal to men - in other words, his women could sleep around just like men could without being denigrated for it. He was constantly giving his women jobs typically held by men & having them do 'manly' things. Many of them shot as well or better than men. He kept it in reasonable. His women weren't stronger than men unless enhanced, but they could kick butt through better technique.

Podkayne's mother was an engineer, obviously one of the best since she built the Phobos space station while her dad was a linguist & historian. Other authors of the time likely would have swapped their jobs. He even made up a 'birth system' that would equalize the sexes - babies on ice, thawed out as time & money permitted.

I think Hazel Meade was as strong a woman as I want to encounter & not very forgettable. I liked her character in "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" & loved her in "The Rolling Stones". There she out talked a used rocket salesman. He wrote this in an age when women weren't supposed to know anything about cars & spaceships were the 'car'.

I think I read something, maybe by Spider Robinson, about Heinlein wishing he could write better female characters. It's tough for a writer to get the opposite sex just right, even with help. He did well, as far as I'm concerned, but I'm gender biased & understand very little about the opposite sex, for all that my youngest girl is in college & I'm still happily married to the same woman.

@Matt: Touché!

Honestly, I would prefer not to get into that discussion again, but I would be happy to hear your opinion.

In my opinion, Heinlein writes witty female characters but they are easily forgettable and not necessarily strong overall. I still see the taint of "sex object" even when it is clear he is trying to equalize the genders. I'm glad that others read the female characters as strong and empowered and enjoyed reading their insights.

"If I am getting a stronger sense of female empowerment out of a Tanya Huff novel, that says something and not in Heinlein's favour."

Does it say something about Heinlein or does it say something about you?

Jim, as I have said before around here I am one of the ones who likes all of Heinlein's work, but there is no question that he underwent a major shift in the 70's, and early and late Heinlein could almost be considered two different authors. The two periods are sufficiently different that people can easily like one without liking the other at all. And often do.

Jeanne, I ended the first sentence with 'IMO' which stands for 'In My Opinion'. I know a few people who disagree with me - they like everything Heinlein wrote, some like none. Please re-read my post after reading the following & maybe you'll see it in a different light.

I started reading Heinlein in about 1969 (I was about 10) & read his YA books & short stories over the next decade. He made me think about things I hadn't thought of before & want to learn about science, math & lots of other things. Cliff rebuilding an old space suit or the twins working on a space ship like I was working on an old pickup truck was just too cool. It may have influenced me to join the paratroopers - probably did. He inspired me & I guess I idolized him.

Sometime around the early 80's, I started reading his books from 1970 on. I was slowly crushed. To me, he turned into a windy pervert.

I didn't find "I Will Fear No Evil" to be one of his better or worse works. Just the beginning of the end of my love for his writing. The signs of his decay were in it - again - my opinion.

One of the qualities I really appreciate in Heinlein's work - especially the earlier stuff- is his mastery of exposition. He is really really good at slipping in the science you need to know to follow whats going on, and explaining it clearly and quickly without bringing the story to a crashing halt while he talks for three pages about how a rebreather works.

I'm really enjoying SISL for the fact that it's not all bogged down with scientific stuff. That might make me a "bad" sci-fi reader (but lets be honest, science fiction is NOT my first love), but I found Dune to be a chore to read, whereas I can really get into this book.

Are that majority of his books like this - where the story is revolving around space topics, but doesn't require an advanced physicist degree to understand?

Having Just finished the uncut version of SISL I have to agree with Jim. Hienlien has great ideas and great stories. However, The shorter version of stranger was a better book in my view.

Heinliens views on society and the way he presents then as obvious fact to anyon who looks at them detract from the story.

I don't remember who said it but a favorite quote of mine is "If you want to send a message use western union, books, movies and plays are not the place for a soap box"

Heinliens writing suports this position. IMO his stories are better, and still present his diverse view of the way things should be, without the obvious soap box.

As you said, Jeanne, "everyone is entitled to their opinion."

Interesting though that I don't get the feeling that Jim was commanding me to do anything. His commentary appears to be coming from his point of view (i.e. using "I" statements instead of "you" statements).

I like seeing all different opinions here. It fosters good discussions that hopefully don't degenerate into playground mud slinging or bullying.

This is the first Heinlein novel I've read. I'm not far into it yet, so haven't formed an opinion about it to express at this point.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion Jim. I thought "I WILL Feel No Evil" was brilliant and take umbrage with you presuming to be such a de-facto superior being that you command people not to read those books or any others. I think everyone should be allowed to read whatever they want and make up their own mind.

Heinlein wrote some great books, but "Fear No Evil" was the beginning of his bad books, IMO. First published in 1970 & I didn't like it. A few years later he came out with his last readable book, "Time Enough For Love" & I had issues with it too. I liked parts, but over all it was a bit of a chore. He used it as a soap box, more than usual, & started in on his crusade to revolutionize our ideas on incest. (Yuck!) After that, it was definitely downhill & if you haven't read them, please stay away from them. Remember him for the great writer he was.

His books originally published prior to 1970 are great. Lots of fun & they gave me something to aspire to as a young man. His short stories are also excellent & worth reading. While a few are dated, most hold up very well over the years.

Good on ya for trying.

Okay, so I came back to I Will Fear No Evil, sucked it up and got to within a 100 pages of the end and just could not finish. By then I figured out the end and I figured life was too short and dug out a Michael Connelly Harry Bosch mystery I hadn't read yet.

Sorry, for me it's the one stinker in his bibliography.

I have always had a difficulty wiuth Heinlein some of his work was wonderful. I loved door into summer. So much of it had the exact same grouip of charracters. You have the super competent person in a world of utter incompetents and they win duh big suprise

Friday, number of the beast and so many others seemed is attempt to slap the world around him. Why cant you dumbies see the truth. It got old fast.

Then you have a stranger in a strangeland wonderful book. Even though Michael was still a "superbeing" pointing out the obvious flaws in our corrupt society. Michael was still flawed and had to learn the beauty that made humanity great.

I prefer early Heinlein--esp. his "juveniles" and short stories.

I find the later in his career we get, the more self-referencing the books become--a lot of work to tie all his novels togther. For me, it didn't quite work in the same way that Asimov's attempts to tie his universes together in the 80s didn't work for me.

hey thanks! i'll try to check these out.

Ah M.d. you've hit the proverbial nail on the head! IWFNE is truly a study in male-female societal structure. My best male friend from high school had gender reassignment surgery. We're still friends. I've seen first hand what Heinlein was getting at, he was truly a man ahead of his time. I think maybe this book, which I read the first time a good 10 years before my friend made the decision to live life as a woman, helped me accept their decision and stand by them. It doesn't preach, but it subtly prepares one's mind for the possibility of a man living in a woman's body. Just another reason I think Heinlein was a true genius. What he says with his writing has so many layers if you just allow yourself to drop beneath the surface and examine them.

You're Heinlein cred is good with me. In fact I feel that any reasonably prolific author who hasn't managed to write something I find difficult or unappealing really isn't challenging himself or his audience. There are parts of Friday I find very difficult. Farnham's Freehold I have some issues with. Job gave me a headache the first time around. But as I say, if nothing bugs me I start thinking the author is being a wimp.

@Jeanne: And it's really just this one book of his that bugs me so much. Loved Friday and The Cat Who Walked Through Walls. Didn't blink an eye at the time-traveling incest at the end of Time Enough For Love. But 'Evil' just rubs me the wrong way. Normally, the big ideas of gender and personality Heinlein is playing with would definitely keep me hooked.

It's just my quirk with this one book. Generally speaking I'm all for the weirder the better. My favorite Varley novels are his Gaean trilogy and that's chock full of gender-bending weird goodness, not to mention Steel Beach, another favorite.

One of these days I'll get read Evil. Until then don't judge me and my Heinlein cred too harshly. LOL.

"@Arian: In your example, why are women expected to please themselves but a man isn't if multiple men are involved? I see no logistical problem. (Not asking for graphic detail here, just brought it up as a thinking point.)"

Sorry for the delay in posting; I missed this somehow. :)

Like many things, there's a dichotomy in the modern age regarding homosexuality. In a fantasy, two women with one man would happily explore their bi tendencies and engage in activites together. It's a common male fantasy - or so I've heard. On the other hand, male homosexuality is so looked down upon that a woman in bed with more than one man leaves one potential partner with, ahem, nothing to do. Also, there's a larger stigma with even being naked and involved in sexual activities as a male when there's another male in the room. So it's okay for women in our society, but not for men.

I've seen this stigma at work in the larger world outside of fiction as well, and doubtless it affects an author.

To me, anyone who is able to write credibly from the opposite sex's point of view is somewhat of a master. But I agree with Donna, the question here is how does the external shell (in this case going from a male one to a female one) affect your personality?

There is no question that the societal structures around us influence how we view and comport ourselves. Certainly, the same action from a male or a female will be labelled and interpreted differently, and reacted to differently, very often in completely opposite ways. So, what if your entire being were a man, but you were stuck in a woman's body? Or the opposite?

To me, especially today that it's more talked about, it brings to mind all the transgendered people out there who come by it naturally; some have had the courage to go through a sex change because they were convinced they'd gotten the wrong body at birth.

Heinlein had the courage to address these issues; the problem is, if you read him strictly for the story appeal, he can provoke many "yuck" knee-jerk reactions.

Gee Roger, I never interpreted it that way at all. I Will Fear No Evil is my favorite Heinlein of all time and it's one of the few books I've read multiple times. I am completely amazed and fascinated with his accurate understanding of the female psyche and I enjoyed reading something in the Sci Fi genre that actually has a female in a major role long before it became fashionable. I'm sorry your interpretation of Heinlein's story ruins what could otherwise be an enjoyable experience.

Thanks Roger. I got hooked by the question. If your mind was in a different body would you be the same person? Heinlein pretty much always hooks me with his questions. Even if I don't always agree with his answers.

The dialogue between the two main characters drives me up a wall. Heinlein was getting matronly with it in his old age.

Not to mention the whole idea of downloading the personality of the old man into the beautiful body of his secretary is the ultimate Lolita fantasy and it just really creeps me out.

Heh heh. What is it that causes you to gag and throw? If its not going to stimulate the reflex too badly.

Absolutely love Heinlein. Having said that, I cannot get more than 50 pages into I Will Fear No Evil without gagging and throwing the book across the room. And I say that as someone who has a special place in his heart for The Number Of The Beast .