|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
Thursday 05-09-02 09:00 P.M. EDT
Glory Road
Return to Index
Here Begin The A.F.H. postings
[Editor's Note] There was no formal lead-off for this discussion. Elizabeth (TreeTopAngel) started]
I am still a novice in finding discussion points in stories and as I am reading I am taking notes, but none of them seem to be quite what is usually discussed. Help me out, please!
Still trying to figure out why "Scar" Gordon is considered an incompetent...
Thanks,
Elizabeth ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Man who look to stale cookie for advice probably make good busboy. Ask waitress for application. ~~Fortune Cookie
>I am still a novice in finding discussion points in stories and as I am >reading I am taking notes, but none of them seem to be quite what is usually >discussed. Help me out, please! > >Still trying to figure out why "Scar" Gordon is considered an incompetent...<standard disclaimer:ALL my RAH books are packed away, and will be for some months. unavoidably>
? by whom, and in what way? The Army kept promoting him. His getting busted back down had far more to do with his reaction to silly-ass orders than to his overall competence, iirc. Obviously Her Wisdom doesn't so consider him.
Though as he's a bit of a square peg in a round planet, there would be those who consider him incompetent for not being like themselves. (hmm. Is that Randy's problem?)
-- -denny- nocturnal curmudgeon, editor Never try to outstubborn a cat. - Lazarus Long
>Still trying to figure out why "Scar" Gordon is considered an incompetent...
Most "incompetents" in RAH are only so by comparison to his usual characters. Heinlein was certainly messing around with less than usually competent characters in 1962-66 or so, and you could consider Oscar one of them. However, he's not as much incompetent as clueless and shoved around by circumstances and events well known to and well understood by the other main characters. Since we see the story from his POV, he can come off as incompetent - but then, how well would any of us respond to being tossed into the same situations? :)
-- | James Gifford - Nitrosyncretic Press | | http://www.nitrosyncretic.com for the Heinlein FAQ & more | | Tired of auto-spam... change "not" to "net" for replies |
>I am still a novice in finding discussion points in stories and as I am >reading I am taking notes, but none of them seem to be quite what is usually >discussed. Help me out, please! > >Still trying to figure out why "Scar" Gordon is considered an incompetent...
*******************
I perked up my ears at the word "incompetent."
Evelyn Cyril Gordon is NOT on the first string of any team -- with the possible exception of the fencing squad.
His grades are NOT the best. Perhaps this is an application of his dictum that he "never runs faster than he needs to run" hence his nickname of "Easy."
In the Army, he consistently loses his promotion "stripes" and then earns them back because "the patrols he leads come back safely."
He is chosen by Her Wisdom CCIV, aka "Star," to be her personal Hero in the Quest of the Egg of the Phoenix. In which quest he and his "patrol" come back safely.
He "wins" the Irish Sweepstakes without the overt intervention of any "higher power" beyond his own "skill" at poker.
He is a "gentleman" because he has "true courtesy." Proof: When he has returned to Southern California, he receives a letter from an (unnamed) Congressman in which he is informed that certain errors have been corrected. In the eyes of the US government he is/was a "war orphan" and should have been entitled to a higher financial benefit from said government. Further, there has been an extension granted to allow him to benefit from this change. Oscar writes a thank-you letter to that Congressman, "the best I knew how."
Ma'am, easier to confound Igli with a paradox than to find "proofs" that the Hero Oscar is incompetent.
<snip>
>Man who look to stale cookie for advice >probably make good busboy. >Ask waitress for application. >~~Fortune CookieLOL and ROTFLMAO !!!!! (I think I've got that right.) Dr. Rufo (who would gladly accompany the Hero Gordon up the Glory Road, rocks and all)
>TreetopAngel wrote: > >>Still trying to figure out why "Scar" Gordon is considered an incompetent... > > >Most "incompetents" in RAH are only so by comparison to his usual >characters. Heinlein was certainly messing around with less than usually >competent characters in 1962-66 or so, and you could consider Oscar one >of them. However, he's not as much incompetent as clueless and shoved >around by circumstances and events well known to and well understood by >the other main characters. Since we see the story from his POV, he can >come off as incompetent - but then, how well would any of us respond to >being tossed into the same situations? :) >
I did notice Oscar telling Star to tell him all and when she began, asked only for the 'outline.' Then he asked that he be told about one crisis at a time as they come up. It gives him time to think out strategies for each and not having to worry about the rest at the same time. Personally I think he is doing his best with what he has. I agree that any one of us would be in the same boat if we had been tossed into the circumstances.
Well, off to do laundry and battle some of the Cold Water Gang.
Elizabeth
... >Most "incompetents" in RAH are only so by comparison to his usual >characters. Heinlein was certainly messing around with less than usually >competent characters in 1962-66 or so, and you could consider Oscar one >of them.
I thought that you were the one who named this theory? Are you now backing away by putting "incompetents" in quotes? Elihu Nivens gets careless and is captured by the slugs; when we meet Daniel B. Davis he is drinking his troubles away; Juan Rico screws up and gets administrative punishment, etc. What does any of this have to so with 1962-66?
None of Mr. Heinlein's main characters are "incompetents" in any well worked out sense of the word "incompetent". In the Multiverse, shit happens, even to heros.
>However, he's not as much incompetent as clueless and shoved >around by circumstances and events well known to and well understood by >the other main characters.
No doubt, but this is not "incompetence", as you say yourself. Next thing you know, you'll be telling us that Mannie and Hugh Farnham were incompetent. ;-)
-- Gordon Sollars gsollars@pobox.com
>I thought that you were the one who named this theory? Are you now >backing away by putting "incompetents" in quotes?
No, I believe I've always made it clear that my claims of incompetence for many early 1960s characters were relative - none would be judged "incompetent" by us mere mortals, but up against the usual Heinleinian heros who stumble into strange situations and save the girl, the day and the universe with the odds and ends in their pockets, they come up as bumbling boobies.
-- | James Gifford - Nitrosyncretic Press | | http://www.nitrosyncretic.com for the Heinlein FAQ & more | | Tired of auto-spam... change "not" to "net" for replies |
>On 22 Apr 2002 00:40:51 GMT, rahfan147@aol.com43161189 (dont be >fuelish) wrote: > >>David Silver wrote: >> >>>if you'd like to participate in our next AIM chat, you >>>might start on Glory Road, a fantasy that isn't exactly >>>a fantasy, which is another decent read. >> >>An excellent recommendation! The other choice that >>came naturally to mind for me was The Cat Who Walked >>Through Walls. > >Don't do it, Aragorn! The Cat Who Walked Through Walls is a horrid >affair! It will ruin you for Heinlein, ruin you for Science Fiction, >and quite possibly give you some sort of disease....
He's right, you know. I don't know what happened to me over the last couple of years but recently I picked up this book, about the only Heinlein I've only read once and that years ago, and I couldn't make it past the thirteenth page (Berkley ed., 1986). It's the sickening pseudo-sexual banter between Colin and Gwen that's so off-putting.
I'm sure it's just me and the book's no worse than it ever was but it did make me gag. Forced, stilted dialogue coupled with ham-handed innuendo and thoroughly laced with Bob's patented take-back-the-governing of your libido-and-society-while-you're-at-it polyscibabble.
I remember '85 well. Nobody talked, acted or thought like that and hadn't since, well, since ever. It's his recollection of what the black-and-white classics of the '40's could have been without a censor but comes off phlegm noir instead. I can understand how the hardcore male fan would read and swallow it but somebody explain, please, how this guy ever attracted any female readers.
Take the guy's advice and work your way backwards from TMIAHM. Glory Road's not a bad choice. It's cute and even though it fails in the end, he couldn't find a satisfactory way to bring it to a close, it entertains and tends to preach less.
LNC
> >I am still a novice in finding discussion points in stories and as I am >reading I am taking notes, but none of them seem to be quite what is usually >discussed. Help me out, please! > >Still trying to figure out why "Scar" Gordon is considered an incompetent... > >Thanks, >Elizabeth >
While "Evelyn Cyril Gordon" (a boy named "Sue"?) continually deprecates himself, Mr. Heinlein does not, and nobody else in the book (or here, IIRC) does, either.
Dwelling on one's shortcomings is one way of paying enough attention to them to overcome them, provided it doesn't make one oblivious to whatever solution happens along, or what to do with it when it does. But "'Easy' Gordon" was't oblivious to much of anything, either. It's why the mission was placed in his way, and why he went on it despite not being handsome of face and figure /or/ a red-headed hermaphrodite.
[Dennis M. Hammes]
-- ------(m+ ~/:o)_| You can call your priest anything you want, except /my/ priest. http://t-independent.com/scrawlmark-press/
>TreetopAngel wrote: >> >>I am still a novice in finding discussion points in stories and as I am >>reading I am taking notes, but none of them seem to be quite what is usually >>discussed. Help me out, please! >> >>Still trying to figure out why "Scar" Gordon is considered an incompetent... >> >>Thanks, >>Elizabeth >> >While "Evelyn Cyril Gordon" (a boy named "Sue"?) continually >deprecates himself, Mr. Heinlein does not, and nobody else in the >book (or here, IIRC) does, either.
Speaking of "The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress," Mr. Gifford states:
"This novel is unusual for Heinlein in that the protagonist, Mannie is not particularly competent at the tasks with which he is saddled...he is similar to the protagonist of Heinlein's immediately preceding novel _Farnham's Freehold_. Hugh Farnham, too, is thrown by chance into into (sic) circumstances beyond his control and is singularly ineffective and incompetent within them. Along with Oscar of _Glory Road_ (who is competent, but overwhelmed by circumstances throughout the story) and all of the characters in _Podkayne Of Mars_, except Clark, Heinlein's characters of the immediate post-_Starnger_ period (1962-1965) seem to be exploring the nature of incompetence." (pg 130) Gifford, James, Robert A. Heinlein, A Reader's Companion (2000) Nitrosyncretic Press, Citrus Heights, CA.
Mr. Gifford does explain that they are only incompetent in their current circumstances, I question why this makes any of these characters incompetent. Ignorant maybe, but not incompetent. Why are these characters singled out as incompetent? Most anybody thrown into "circumstances beyond his control" would have a hard time of it. They do marvelously well with the knowledge they have and the society they live in. It's only when they are 'fish out of water' that they show any signs of not knowing what to do. Then they do the job anyway! Seems to me Heinlein is really exploring how people react when they are confronted with situations beyond their ken (ignorance.)
Elizabeth
(muy ignorant)
Example: While in nursing school I was ignorant (state of not knowing) of what took place during open heart surgery. Once I watched a double bypass, I realized my incompetence (insufficient ability) and knew I would never have the competence of the cardiac surgeon.
I have some minor quibbles.
>TreetopAngel wrote: > >>I am still a novice in finding discussion points in stories and as I am >>reading I am taking notes, but none of them seem to be quite what is usually >>discussed. Help me out, please! >> >>Still trying to figure out why "Scar" Gordon is considered an incompetent... >******************* > >I perked up my ears at the word "incompetent." > >Evelyn Cyril Gordon is NOT on the first string of any team -- >with the possible exception of the fencing squad.
Umm, IIRC he was the #1 running back before the school de-emphasized football.
>His grades are NOT the best. Perhaps this is an application of >his dictum that he "never runs faster than he needs to run" hence >his nickname of "Easy." > >In the Army, he consistently loses his promotion "stripes" and >then earns them back because "the patrols he leads come back safely."
Doesn't he lose his stripes for stuff akin to insubordination?
>He "wins" the Irish Sweepstakes without the overt intervention of >any "higher power" beyond his own "skill" at poker.
Are we certain Star had nothing to do with that?
>Ma'am, easier to confound Igli with a paradox than to find >"proofs" that the Hero Oscar is incompetent.
Yup. 100% agreement from this corner.
-- -denny- nocturnal curmudgeon, editor Never try to outstubborn a cat. - Lazarus Long
<Snip quote from _Reader's Companion_> >Mr. Gifford does explain that they are only incompetent in their current >circumstances, I question why this makes any of these characters >incompetent. Ignorant maybe, but not incompetent. Why are these characters >singled out as incompetent? Most anybody thrown into "circumstances beyond >his control" would have a hard time of it. They do marvelously well with >the knowledge they have and the society they live in. It's only when they >are 'fish out of water' that they show any signs of not knowing what to do. >Then they do the job anyway! Seems to me Heinlein is really exploring how >people react when they are confronted with situations beyond their ken >(ignorance.) Elizabeth--
Thanks for the quote. I haven't gotten Jim's book yet, so my response will have to be based on your quoted passage and general memory of past discussions.
I think the point here has to do with RAH's general theme of the [super]competent hero. By comparison, there are certain protagonists who are much more "ordinary" in their gifts and abilities, not geniuses, not immortals, etc. (Compare Kip to Peewee, for example.) I would choose Manny as an outstanding example. One could only describe them as incompetent by comparison. It is the glory of these "incompetents" that they do what must be done.
--Dee
ke4lfg:
I'm still trying to grapple with the notion of Heinlein's {super}competent hero. Except for a few occasions when he's dealing specifically with supermen, it seems to me that the ordinary run of the Heinlein hero is merely ordinarily competent, falling within the definition Heinlein gave us in TEFL of what it means to be a human being.
I dont know where and when the idea that the "ordinary" human being is a bungler and idiot took over and the ordinarily competent got relegated to the realm of the romantic superhero.
Bill
>Hugh Farnham, too, is thrown by chance into into (sic) circumstances...
Oops. One mark against *my* competence... :)
>Mr. Gifford does explain that they are only incompetent in their current >circumstances, I question why this makes any of these characters >incompetent. Ignorant maybe, but not incompetent. Why are these characters >singled out as incompetent?
Again, I think I've made it clear that I'm referring to a special case of "competence" in this analysis. From 1939 to 1985, the vast majority of Heinlein's major characters are so adaptable, capable and generally super-competent - even when thrown violently into very unusual circumstances - that the characters of this era stand out as something quite different.
All of them would be regarded as more competent than average and even admirably adaptable out here in the real world. However, within Heinlein's universe, their comparative inabilities and their being dragged along bodily by events is unusual - so much so that it is clear to me that Heinlein was deliberately experimenting with "incompetent" characters in this era - choose your own phrase and definition.
He quickly shook it off and went back to his trademark style, even compensating by going to the super-hyper-competents populating everything from TEfL onwards... :)
-- | James Gifford - Nitrosyncretic Press | | http://www.nitrosyncretic.com for the Heinlein FAQ & more | | Tired of auto-spam... change "not" to "net" for replies |
... >Mr. Gifford does explain that they are only incompetent in their current >circumstances, I question why this makes any of these characters >incompetent.
Two things. First, James picked an unfortunate label for his idea, if for no other reason than because it has connotations for others that he apparently did not intend. Second, labels aside, the idea itself is not nearly as compelling to me as it is to James. He picks out several characters in the 1962-66 range and claims that they are "relatively incompetent", but he does not draw a sharp boundary, as my pre-1962 examples show. Is Mannie significantly less able to deal with his circumstances (what James seems to mean by "incompetence") than Dan Davis? Perhaps, but I would like to see more argument.
-- Gordon Sollars gsollars@pobox.com
>Second, labels aside, the idea itself is not >nearly as compelling to me as it is to James. He picks out several >characters in the 1962-66 range and claims that they are "relatively >incompetent", but he does not draw a sharp boundary, as my pre-1962 >examples show. Is Mannie significantly less able to deal with his >circumstances (what James seems to mean by "incompetence") than Dan >Davis? Perhaps, but I would like to see more argument.
Yes. DB Davis is subjected to at least three life-shattering transitions (loss of Belle and his company, sleep-travel to 2000, time-travel back to 1970) and, in Doc Smith/George O. Smith/prewar RAH broad-shouldered engineer style, shrugs them off and soldiers on in grand style. He ends up with the girl, the gold belt and everything - even the cat.
Mannie Davis is pushed around by events he never does quite understand and never does quite get a grip on (in part because his closest friends and confidants are shining him on and using him shamelessly), contributes almost nothing to the revolution except the delivery of Mike's friendship, and does an extremely poor job as revolutionary planner, ambassador, War Minister and congressman. At the end, he is simply a leftover unhappy with the long-term results and planning to leave for hopefully greener pastures.
Next question?
-- | James Gifford - Nitrosyncretic Press | | http://www.nitrosyncretic.com for the Heinlein FAQ & more | | Tired of auto-spam... change "not" to "net" for replies |
[snip] > >He quickly shook it off and went back to his trademark style, even >compensating by going to the super-hyper-competents populating >everything from TEfL onwards... :) >
Um, Marjorie Baldwin? Physically, certainly, mentally, with that trick of intuiting a correct answer, maybe; but . . . defend her as super-hyper-competent emotionally, please, James. I'd put her right down among the lower-mimetic both emotionally and maturely. IOW, just plain folks.
-- David M. Silver http://www.heinleinsociety.org http://www.readinggroupsonline.com/groups/heinlein.htm "The Lieutenant expects your names to shine!" Robert Anson Heinlein, USNA '29 Lt (jg)., USN R'td (1907-1988)
>Gordon G. Sollars wrote: > >>I thought that you were the one who named this theory? Are you now >>backing away by putting "incompetents" in quotes? > > >No, I believe I've always made it clear that my claims of incompetence >for many early 1960s characters were relative - none would be judged >"incompetent" by us mere mortals, but up against the usual Heinleinian >heros who stumble into strange situations and save the girl, the day and >the universe with the odds and ends in their pockets, they come up as >bumbling boobies.
You're kidding around, right? Oscar is far from incompetent.
"usual Heinleinian heros who stumble into strange situations and save the girl, the day and the universe." Perfectly accurate description of Easy Gordon.
IMO Oscar, as the narrator, is self deprecating to a fault as he outlines success after success, attributing each success always to luck, or being in the right place at the right time, but never to his competence.
BTW, one sign of competence Oscar, as narrator, accidently lets slip through the deprecation is his ability to recite Congo under pressure after what must have been years since he read it. (I can't do that, in spite of several readings - can you?) Another is his superior intelligence. It's not played up as Kip's (or Peewee's) was - instead it's in the background. Obvious indications are Oscar's adaptability; his lack of intellectual concern about attending Heidelburg - he always assumes academic success in his school musings - getting in was the problem; and his re-design of an engineering component after having "glimpsed" one of similar function at Star's house. Not trivial at all.
Easy Gordon is the typical Heinlein super-competent with an atypical self deprecative manner; he is not to be confused with an incompetent with a agonizingly honest self appraisal. [lal_truckee]
>James Gifford wrote: > >[snip] > > >> >>He quickly shook it off and went back to his trademark style, even >>compensating by going to the super-hyper-competents populating >>everything from TEfL onwards... :) >> > >Um, Marjorie Baldwin? Physically, certainly, mentally, with that trick >of intuiting a correct answer, maybe; but . . . defend her as >super-hyper-competent emotionally, please, James. I'd put her right down >among the lower-mimetic both emotionally and maturely. IOW, just plain >folks. >
And when you finish with her, try Alex Hergensheimer, toy of the betting gods.
-- David M. Silver http://www.heinleinsociety.org http://www.readinggroupsonline.com/groups/heinlein.htm "The Lieutenant expects your names to shine!" Robert Anson Heinlein, USNA '29 Lt (jg)., USN R'td (1907-1988)
>>>He quickly shook it off and went back to his trademark style, even >>>compensating by going to the super-hyper-competents populating >>>everything from TEfL onwards... :) >>Um, Marjorie Baldwin? Physically, certainly, mentally, with that trick >>of intuiting a correct answer, maybe; but . . . defend her as >>super-hyper-competent emotionally, please, James. I'd put her right >>down among the lower-mimetic both emotionally and maturely. IOW, just >>plain folks.
All of Heinlein's characters have holes, usually in their emotional or social makeup. I never said they were godlike in their perfection. Friday has the self-esteem of a field mouse, despite many, many reasons to be as arrogantly self-confident as Woody Smith.
And Woody - well, let's stand him up as the single greatest example of Heinleinian super-competence, and then note that he is the next thing to sociopathic towards everyone outside his exclusive in-group.
>And when you finish with her, try Alex Hergensheimer, toy of the betting >gods.
I knew someone would point him out - happy to have it be you. :)
Alec is a poor, 'umble, ignorant, only partially-lettered bumbler who... goes through a multitude of literally life-shattering experiences, throws off a lifetime of cultural and social conditioning in the space of a few weeks, and evolves in relatively short order to the point where he's sassing deities to their faces. And he wins! He wins the girl, the gold watch (that stops time) and everything (define indefinite afterlife of one's own designing as not "everything").
I think you're all hung up on my definition of the dichotomy as competence vs. incompetence, which is a partial and fuzzy definition. Next time I'll reach deeply into Frye or Hayakawa and pull out a suitably mysterious and vague term that I can define to my own liking. :)
-- | James Gifford - Nitrosyncretic Press | | http://www.nitrosyncretic.com for the Heinlein FAQ & more | | Tired of auto-spam... change "not" to "net" for replies |
> >Yes. DB Davis is subjected to at least three life-shattering transitions >(loss of Belle and his company, sleep-travel to 2000, time-travel back >to 1970) and, in Doc Smith/George O. Smith/prewar RAH broad-shouldered >engineer style, shrugs them off and soldiers on in grand style. He ends >up with the girl, the gold belt and everything - even the cat.
Of course Davis had already lived through WWIII in the 1960s. I imagine the survivors who didn't get PTSD were fairly unflappable.
I used to have a neighbor who got drafted at 15 or 16 for the Eastern Front in the '40s, after which he ended up a guest of the Russians, the Poles (Not sure which order) and finally the Americans (And knowing a good deal when he saw one, he stopped escaping). Very calm fellow, never seemed to get excited about anything. Well, except any hint that someone near to him said something even faintly pro-Nazi, which would provoke prompt reactions from him.
James Nicoll -- "I think you mean 'Could libertarian slave-owning Confederates, led by SHWIers, have pulled off a transatlantic invasion of Britain, in revenge for the War of 1812, if they had nukes acquired from the Sea of Time?'" Alison Brooks (1959-2002)
... >I think the point here has to do with RAH's general theme of the >[super]competent hero. By comparison, there are certain protagonists who >are much more "ordinary" in their gifts and abilities, not geniuses, not >immortals, etc.
And what is the proportion of such "super competence" prior to 1962 (or after 1966)? Are Dan Davis or Elihu "Sam" Nivens "super competent"? What about Colin Campbell or Alex Hergensheimer? And who are the "super competents" among the juveniles? Of course there are some "super competents"; to be interesting, James's theory has to say that there is something special about the 1962-66 period. So far as I can see, it doesn't work.
>(Compare Kip to Peewee, for example.)
Yes, Kip, the guy who goes from a mediocre high school education to rebuilding a space suit (along with the electronics, although, admittedly, his efforts at home-workshop microwave radio were less than industry standard) and, e.g., learning Latin and Spanish, all in two years. Remember what Peewee's father says to Kip about his abilities.
Of course, Kip is outside the 1962-66 period, and so might be a "super competent" for James. Since you disagree, that is just more evidence that we don't have a very tight idea to work with here.
>I would choose Manny >as an outstanding example.
Yes, Mannie, only a "general specialist" who can fix any machinery, who can relieve a cook or field repair a space suit, farmer and an ice miner who loses an arm and then goes on to become the best "computer man" in Luna, but not "really" a full-fledged electronics engineer nor physicist - by his own admission, of course. He steals power and water from the Authority - only air is a more critical resource - without a trace. He is selected for marriage into one of the most respected families, and has the respect of one of the most highly educated men, in Luna. Help him wipe the drool off his bib.
>One could only describe them as incompetent by >comparison.With whom? Lazarus? He is clearly a special case.
>It is the glory of these "incompetents" that they do what must >be done.That, I think, is the glory of almost all the major characters in Mr. Heinlein's work.
-- Gordon Sollars gsollars@pobox.com
>Yes, Kip, the guy who goes from a mediocre high school education to >rebuilding a space suit (along with the electronics, although, >admittedly, his efforts at home-workshop microwave radio were less than >industry standard) and, e.g., learning Latin and Spanish, all in two >years. Remember what Peewee's father says to Kip about his abilities. > >Of course, Kip is outside the 1962-66 period, and so might be a "super >competent" for James. Since you disagree, that is just more evidence >that we don't have a very tight idea to work with here.
Yes, Kip, the son of two of the brightest people on the planet. Kip, who shrugs off his useless education in his sophomore year and self-educates himself in some of the toughest subjects around. Kip, who stumbles a little on finding himself on a flying saucer headed for the Moon, but recovers nicely and saves the girl and the angel with the oddments at hand, then later saves the entire world with his education and superior human nobility.
While my term may be confusing, I think the idea is much tighter than you're willing to grant.
>Yes, Mannie, only a "general specialist" who can fix any machinery, who >can relieve a cook or field repair a space suit, farmer and an ice miner >who loses an arm and then goes on to become the best "computer man" in >Luna, but not "really" a full-fledged electronics engineer nor physicist >- by his own admission, of course. He steals power and water from the >Authority - only air is a more critical resource - without a trace. He >is selected for marriage into one of the most respected families, and has >the respect of one of the most highly educated men, in Luna. Help him >wipe the drool off his bib.
All of which you cite is in the past and in the background, and is beyond dispute. In his element, Mannie is above real-world "normal" competence. *BUT* in the events of the book, he is a ham-handed fumbler who knows little, contributes little, and in fact is something of a screwup at critical points.
>>It is the glory of these "incompetents" that they do what must >>be done.
Dee, you've hit on a crucial element here. The majority of Heinlein's works dwell on how the best of human qualities can solve "insoluble" problems. I don't have any problems with with Heinlein's treatment of competence or super-competence or super-hyper-giga-competence... I'm detecting some resentment in this recent string of posts as if I am objecting to this literary quality.
On the contrary - like many, I recognize that Heinlein's characters aren't necessarily meant to be taken as literal examples, but as worthy models whose dogged attempts at coping with extraordinary (and ordinary) situations is worth studying and emulating. Heinlein found it interesting to write about competence and characters who found competence - sometimes loads of it - under unexpected circumstances. (He also liked to point out that "luck" is a matter of careful preparation - and since you don't know what's around the next corner, it's best to be very, very prepared.)
Yes, I think there is something odd going on with his characters in the books from _Glory Road_ to _MiaHM_. Most of the viewpoint and other major characters in those books are very different from his characters in the majority of his other works. Bill has suggested that I have the right idea but may be wrong in my conclusion; I'm open to input and evaluation on the topic. But simply denying that it exists and misrepresenting the characters and situations, as in Gordon's two examples above, doesn't advance us any.
-- | James Gifford - Nitrosyncretic Press | | http://www.nitrosyncretic.com for the Heinlein FAQ & more | | Tired of auto-spam... change "not" to "net" for replies |
>I dont know where and when the idea that the "ordinary" human being is a >bungler and idiot took over and the ordinarily competent got relegated to the >realm of the romantic superhero.
Doesn't the hero, in myth, acquire his superiority in the course of the quest, in that each challenge brings out another aspect of inner resourcefulness? They don't start out as 'proven' heroes. It occurs to me that whereas RAH's protagonists might be much more developed individuals by the end of the narrative, they wouldn't necessarily see themselves as heroic whilst they're coping with what they encounter.
Jani
(re-reading TPM. Might come up with something on-topic at some point)
> >"Dennis M. Hammes" notes; > >>TreetopAngel wrote: >>> >>>I am still a novice in finding discussion points in stories and as I am >>>reading I am taking notes, but none of them seem to be quite what is >usually >>>discussed. Help me out, please! >>> >>>Still trying to figure out why "Scar" Gordon is considered an >incompetent... >>> >>>Thanks, >>>Elizabeth >>> >>While "Evelyn Cyril Gordon" (a boy named "Sue"?) continually >>deprecates himself, Mr. Heinlein does not, and nobody else in the >>book (or here, IIRC) does, either. > >Speaking of "The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress," Mr. Gifford states: "This novel >is unusual for Heinlein in that the protagonist, Mannie is not particularly >competent at the tasks with which he is saddled...he is similar to the >protagonist of Heinlein's immediately preceding novel _Farnham's Freehold_. >Hugh Farnham, too, is thrown by chance into into (sic) circumstances beyond >his control and is singularly ineffective and incompetent within them. Along >with Oscar of _Glory Road_ (who is competent, but overwhelmed by >circumstances throughout the story) and all of the characters in _Podkayne >Of Mars_, except Clark, Heinlein's characters of the immediate >post-_Starnger_ period (1962-1965) seem to be exploring the nature of >incompetence." (pg 130) > >Gifford, James, Robert A. Heinlein, A Reader's Companion (2000) >Nitrosyncretic Press, Citrus Heights, CA. > >Mr. Gifford does explain that they are only incompetent in their current >circumstances, I question why this makes any of these characters >incompetent. Ignorant maybe, but not incompetent. Why are these characters >singled out as incompetent? Most anybody thrown into "circumstances beyond >his control" would have a hard time of it. They do marvelously well with >the knowledge they have and the society they live in. It's only when they >are 'fish out of water' that they show any signs of not knowing what to do. >Then they do the job anyway! Seems to me Heinlein is really exploring how >people react when they are confronted with situations beyond their ken >(ignorance.) > >Elizabeth >(muy ignorant) > >Example: While in nursing school I was ignorant (state of not knowing) of >what took place during open heart surgery. Once I watched a double bypass, >I realized my incompetence (insufficient ability) and knew I would never >have the competence of the cardiac surgeon.
Hm. I have not read Mr. Gifford's book, and I suppose I do not put most UseNet posts "in my perms."
I will certainly agree with him, that Mr. Heinlein's characters in the stated period were in over their heads, but I'd have to say the same of just about all of them, and indeed of most characters in literature. Since /we/ are generally in over our heads wherever we're standing at the moment, the condition is precisely what makes them worth reading (whether for the instruction or the company); e.g., "Quasimodo" and "Robinson Crusoe" have far more to offer than "Superman" or "Flash Gordon" (the "original," not Mr. Heinlein's nick-namesake).
I do not, and I don't see that Mr. Heinlein did, mistake ignorance for incompetence. The first is an accident of personal history; the latter is a chosen error in method. If I can have any argument with Mr. Gifford, it is a matter of that definition only.
Mr. Heinlein's characters are certainly /temporarily/ (not "singularly") "ineffective"; it is precisely that ineffect that yields most of the Seven Standard Plots ("Man Against _____"), not to mention the infamous Lit'ry Epiphany itself.
Were they "incompetent," they /could not resolve/ their ineffect.
And that would not be Lithrachur; that would be the Congressional Record.
[Dennis M. Hammes]
-- ------(m+ ~/:o)_| You can call your priest anything you want, except /my/ priest. http://t-independent.com/scrawlmark-press/
... >Yes. DB Davis is subjected to at least three life-shattering transitions >(loss of Belle and his company, sleep-travel to 2000, time-travel back >to 1970) and, in Doc Smith/George O. Smith/prewar RAH broad-shouldered >engineer style, shrugs them off and soldiers on in grand style. He ends >up with the girl, the gold belt and everything - even the cat.
When we meet him, he is drowning his sorrows in a bottle. When he gets his courage, he botches the attempt to fix things in the here and now, and gets hijacked into a future he could never have returned from on his own.
Note that Hugh Farnham also gets the girl and in the end his civilizing efforts help change the whole future of mankind.
>Mannie Davis is pushed around by events he never does quite understand >and never does quite get a grip on (in part because his closest friends >and confidants are shining him on and using him shamelessly),
You are referring to his being "used" on the trip to Earth? That hardly justifies "never does quite understand and never does quite get a grip on". Is it possible that your antipathy towards the book's libertarian viewpoint has colored your judgment here?
>contributes almost nothing to the revolution except the delivery of >Mike's friendship,
The most important element. "Chance favors the prepared mind."
>and does an extremely poor job as revolutionary >planner, ambassador, War Minister and congressman.
He /says/ that he does (just as lal_truckee noted that Oscar does), but he off the cuff sketches an improvement to revolutionary-cell structure. It is hardly his fault that Mike is a super computer and Mannie is not.
>At the end, he is >simply a leftover unhappy with the long-term results and planning to >leave for hopefully greener pastures.
He is unhappy over the "death" of Mike, which has already happened. DB Davis is not sanguine about Pete's future, either, and hides his unhappiness with the thought of an after life. But these issues, for both of them, do not affect their basic stance on life. Mannie's, "My word, I'm not even a hundred yet" is not the slogan of a "leftover unhappy".
I think that Mannie's situation at the end of Moon is a side effect of the fact that he is made to illustrate Mr. Heinlein's view that the ideal of liberty is only found on a frontier. Dan Davis does not have to play that role.
>Next question?
Sure. Why do you make Clark an exception? He gets suckered and then screws up big time, failing to save Podkayne's life. What I think is going on is that you are reacting to his many abilities, which clearly show he is not "incompetent". But Mannie (and Hugh, too) has many abilities. This does not translate into "coping well with his circumstances", which is what you seem to have meant to suggest by the "incompetent" label.
I think that all of the Heinlein heros are strongly competent people, though some, of course, have more abilities than others. Further, I think that there are Heinlein heros coping more or less well with their circumstances throughout the corpus - there is nothing special about 1962-66. Finally, I think that conjoining "incompetent" and "failing to cope well with circumstances" is a mistake. Competency, as I understand it, refers to traits, abilities, etc., that - while extremely valuable for "coping" - by no means ensure success.
-- Gordon Sollars gsollars@pobox.com
>I am still a novice in finding discussion points in stories and as I am >reading I am taking notes, but none of them seem to be quite what is usually >discussed. Help me out, please!
TTA--
For a novice, you sure got something going in a hurry! :-)
--Dee
>I think you're all hung up on my definition of the dichotomy as >competence vs. incompetence, which is a partial and fuzzy definition.
I agree to both points. Let me introduce another paradigm to investigate -- I think you've got hold of *something* Heinlein is doing in the books immediately following Starnger, but the relative "competence" of the characters is just a secondary effect of whatever else it is he might be doing.
I think the first step in identifying what it is that Heinlein is doing primarily is to take his own statement about what was different about the books immediately following Starship Troopers -- which would include Starnger, of course -- and that is that he is deliberately and consciously writing his own stuff, his own way. Or perhaps what he thought was his own stuff at the time and his idea of his own stuff changed over the next thirty years or so. There is also the very interesting and possibly significant set of facts that (1) Starship Troopers was written to be a Scribner's juvenile; he added the last 1/4 of the book when it went to Putnam's and (2) he said that ST and Starnger are complementary and deal with some of the same important themes -- and I believe I have run across a later reference that includes Glory Road with ST and Starnger; (3) until JOB, Glory Road was Heinlein's most clearly Cabellian book, as it uses the form of the Cabellian comedy, which characteristically turns on finding out that what one wanted and worked toward was not what one wants, after all -- or, alternatively, not achieving what one wanted and finding it doesn't matter at all. That's why he was so incensed that an editor wanted to cut the last 100 pages of the book -- the part that makes it a Cabellian comedy instead of a sword-and-sworcery romance. And (4) I've been able to detect more Cabellian material in the books before TMIAHM and after ST. This subject is dealt with at greater (though not much greater) length in the Cabell Prize essay. I just checked my link, and it seems to have been taken down recently. If we wind up going out on this topic, I'll try to excerpt what I said at greater length.
I don't have a solid idea where this would go, so I'm laying out the notions to play around with.
Bill
... >Yes, Kip, the son of two of the brightest people on the planet. Kip, who >shrugs off his useless education in his sophomore year and self-educates >himself in some of the toughest subjects around.
Right, James. I was singing Kip's praises myself.
... >While my term may be confusing, I think the idea is much tighter than >you're willing to grant.
So far it isn't, and, as I noted, I take Dee's use of Kip (where you and I happen to agree) as evidence.
... >In his element, Mannie is above real-world "normal" >competence. *BUT* in the events of the book, he is a ham-handed fumbler >who knows little, contributes little, and in fact is something of a >screwup at critical points.
I have tied to address this in another post nearby.
... >I'm >detecting some resentment in this recent string of posts as if I am >objecting to this literary quality.
Not from me, James. I am merely unconvinced. You'll know when I get to resentment; I'll start appending ", shithead." to my replies. ;-)
... >Yes, I think there is something odd going on with his characters in the >books from _Glory Road_ to _MiaHM_. Most of the viewpoint and other >major characters in those books are very different from his characters >in the majority of his other works. Bill has suggested that I have the >right idea but may be wrong in my conclusion; I'm open to input and >evaluation on the topic. But simply denying that it exists and >misrepresenting the characters and situations, as in Gordon's two >examples above, doesn't advance us any.
Which two examples were those? I agree with you about Kip. As I noted above, I have another recent post in which I try to show that nothing especially odd is going on during 1962-66. But in the message you already replied to, you jumped past this:
"And what is the proportion of such "super competence" prior to 1962 (or after 1966)? Are Dan Davis or Elihu "Sam" Nivens "super competent"? What about Colin Campbell or Alex Hergensheimer? And who are the "super competents" among the juveniles? Of course there are some "super competents"; to be interesting, James's theory has to say that there is something special about the 1962-66 period. So far as I can see, it doesn't work."
Let me add now, having seen your reply to David, that it has always been clear to me that Alex has the "right stuff" in spades. This is crucial to the story. But what, exactly, are his competencies? Can he separate photo dyes from film? Do triple integrals in his head? Repair a space suit? As I say in my other post, I don't think that you have latched on to a good term here.
But, as I also said, let's get away from "competence/incompetence" and focus on "coping well with his circumstances". I still don't see that these is especially less of this during the 1962-66 period.
-- Gordon Sollars gsollars@pobox.com
>
>ke4lfg:
>
>I'm still trying to grapple with the notion of Heinlein's {super}competent
>hero. Except for a few occasions when he's dealing specifically with supermen,
>it seems to me that the ordinary run of the Heinlein hero is merely ordinarily
>competent, falling within the definition Heinlein gave us in TEFL of what it
>means to be a human being.
>
>I dont know where and when the idea that the "ordinary" human being is a
>bungler and idiot took over and the ordinarily competent got relegated to the
>realm of the romantic superhero.
>Bill
Ayn Rand says in /Atlas Shrugged/ that it happened before 1957; in /The Fountainhead/ that it happened before 1943.
[Dennis M. Hammes]
-- ------(m+ ~/:o)_| You can call your priest anything you want, except /my/ priest. http://t-independent.com/scrawlmark-press/
>Doesn't the hero, in myth, acquire his superiority in the course of the >quest,
But the point of the hero is surely that he is exemplary -- an example of us. If he were not us in some important respect, he would not be important to us.
We also know that ordinary people placed in extraordinary circumstances can behave in extraordary ways, though their ordinary circumstances might never bring anything extraordinary out of them.
Bill
> >"BPRAL22169" <bpral22169@aol.com>wrote in message >news:20020425115711.02408.00004097@mb-fc.aol.com... > >>I dont know where and when the idea that the "ordinary" human being is a >>bungler and idiot took over and the ordinarily competent got relegated to >the >>realm of the romantic superhero. > >Doesn't the hero, in myth, acquire his superiority in the course of the >quest, in that each challenge brings out another aspect of inner >resourcefulness? They don't start out as 'proven' heroes. It occurs to me >that whereas RAH's protagonists might be much more developed individuals by >the end of the narrative, they wouldn't necessarily see themselves as heroic >whilst they're coping with what they encounter. > >Jani >(re-reading TPM. Might come up with something on-topic at some point)
No. He's born under a red sun or a yellow sun. Or he's bitten by a spider.
-- ------(m+ ~/:o)_| You can call your priest anything you want, except /my/ priest. http://t-independent.com/scrawlmark-press/
>there are certain protagonists who are much more >"ordinary" in their gifts and abilities, not geniuses, not >immortals, etc. (Compare Kip to Peewee, for example.) >I would choose Manny as an outstanding example.
Having a socket set for the left arm is ordinary?
Tian Harter http://tian.greens.org -- Yesterday, working the crowd at the San Jose State Earth Day event, a woman told me "Michigan thinks public transportation means cars for everybody." Friends told me my picuter was on A-13 of Tuesday's SF Chroicle.
> ... >Yes, Kip, the son of two of the brightest people on the planet. Kip, who >shrugs off his useless education in his sophomore year and self-educates >himself in some of the toughest subjects around. Kip, who stumbles a >little on finding himself on a flying saucer headed for the Moon, but >recovers nicely and saves the girl and the angel with the oddments at >hand, then later saves the entire world with his education and superior >human nobility.
... [sticking paddle in on one side only, thus circling] I don't remember any "Kip," so I prolly didn't read it. But I hope you're not weighting your analysis with this character all that much.
Mr. Heinlein is aware of something that /this/ argument seems not to be; call it a "trickle-down theory."
Is a teenager /today/ a supergenius/hero because he can, at his age, program a VCR or PC when his grandfather couldn't at the same age -- or even at present?
When a young character is stuck into a milieu full of tech superpowers, they /will/ rub off on him. Hall (/The Silent Language/) calls this "Informal Learning" and demonstrates that it produces a far higher average competence in the sample than does either "Formal" or "Technical Learning." What's the difference between Kip's doping out a flying saucer and my own young buddies' turning a junkyard heap into a cherry '57 Chevy street rod using only a hairpin and spit?
I shrugged off my useless eddicashun in fourth grade, and built both chemistry and electronics labs in my "bedroom" using a paper-route, bottle deposits, and the City Dump. I taught (not "assisted") general science in 7th and 8th grades, chemistry and physics in high school, and electronics and fencing in college. And my biggest peeve at the Protestant Kulchur then and now is that these superpowers are /grunt-ordinary/.
-- ------(m+ ~/:o)_| You can call your priest anything you want, except /my/ priest. http://t-independent.com/scrawlmark-press/
>>Doesn't the hero, in myth, acquire his superiority in the course of the >>quest, > >But the point of the hero is surely that he is exemplary -- an example of us. >If he were not us in some important respect, he would not be important to us.
Midway between ordinary humanity and the gods, with a foot in both camps? But .. the mythic heroes come back as rulers, because of their experiences and acquired wisdom: they join the elite, in effect.
>We also know that ordinary people placed in extraordinary circumstances can >behave in extraordary ways, though their ordinary circumstances might never >bring anything extraordinary out of them.
True. But the heroism of the caryatid under her stone *still isn't going to make her into Gilgamesh or Ulysses. Heroes tend to start off privileged, one way or another - they just haven't done their fieldwork yet. People like Scar and Sam are already way above the common herd, they just haven't been tested.
Jani
... >Yesterday, working the crowd at the San Jose State Earth >Day event, a woman told me "Michigan thinks public >transportation means cars for everybody."
As one might expect at such an event, pure socialism. Each person should buy his own car. ;-)
-- Gordon Sollars gsollars@pobox.com
> >TreetopAngel wrote: > >>Hugh Farnham, too, is thrown by chance into into (sic) circumstances... > >Oops. One mark against *my* competence... :) > >>Mr. Gifford does explain that they are only incompetent in their current >>circumstances, I question why this makes any of these characters >>incompetent. Ignorant maybe, but not incompetent. Why are these characters >>singled out as incompetent? > >Again, I think I've made it clear that I'm referring to a special case >of "competence" in this analysis. From 1939 to 1985, the vast majority >of Heinlein's major characters are so adaptable, capable and generally >super-competent - even when thrown violently into very unusual >circumstances - that the characters of this era stand out as something >quite different.
Whereas the Gray Lensman, Tarzan, and the Phantom do not. Holey bagels, Ba...
Lit'rarily, it might be nothing more than a reaction by a reactionary against the incredible super-incompetence of the likes of Leopold Bloom or the Green Hornet, recently reproduced in the antics of /Piece of Cake/'s "Hornet Squadron," who evidently won the Battle of Britain primarily by screwing the pooch, can one believe the book.
> >All of them would be regarded as more competent than average and even >admirably adaptable out here in the real world. However, within >Heinlein's universe, their comparative inabilities and their being >dragged along bodily by events is unusual - so much so that it is clear >to me that Heinlein was deliberately experimenting with "incompetent" >characters in this era - choose your own phrase and definition.
Hm. I wonder if the difference is between young(er) characters and really-old "Howard" characters. There's something of a production watershed there, too.
When we really "meet" Lazarus, he's 2000 years old; his fellows are 3-600 years old. Whereas V.M.Smith is "only an egg," E.C.Gordon is rather fresh out of high school, and most of the rest are, well, kids.
> >He quickly shook it off and went back to his trademark style, even >compensating by going to the super-hyper-competents populating >everything from TEfL onwards... :) >
Hm. You mean when two super-hypercomputers came back as girls ("Slipstick" and "Minerva").
Two cries and a chin-quiver for /that/ generality...
And one chin-quiver for /me/, since I'm prolly gonna get my arse shot off in the Dark Ages for helping a, well, less-than-super-hyper-competent through the barbed wire of his own linguistic singularity.
[Dennis M. Hammes]
-- ------(m+ ~/:o)_| You can call your priest anything you want, except /my/ priest. http://t-independent.com/scrawlmark-press/
[snip lots of stuff I'll be back to, again.] > >I think the first step in identifying what it is that Heinlein is doing >primarily is to take his own statement about what was different about the books >immediately following Starship Troopers -- which would include Starnger, of >course -- and that is that he is deliberately and consciously writing his own >stuff, his own way. . . . [snip more interesting stuff] . . . There >is also the very interesting and possibly significant set of facts that (1) >Starship Troopers was written to be a Scribner's juvenile; he added the last >1/4 of the book when it went to Putnam's and . . . [snip yet more] . . .
Say what? That's new! I always throught Putnam took the Scribner-refused juvenile virtually unchanged. Added from where? Into where? Page 237 in the 308-page hardbound begins the last quarter, at Chapter XIII, with Third Lieutenant Rico boarding the Tours under Captain Blackstone for his test cruise. That last third, or what, Bill?
>I don't have a solid idea where this would go, so I'm laying out the notions to >play around with. >
Let's play; but I wanna include Troopers in the game!
I think I see part of where this might go.
-- David M. Silver http://www.heinleinsociety.org http://www.readinggroupsonline.com/groups/heinlein.htm "The Lieutenant expects your names to shine!" Robert Anson Heinlein, USNA '29 Lt (jg)., USN R'td (1907-1988)
>And what is the proportion of such "super competence" prior to 1962 (or >after 1966)? Are Dan Davis or Elihu "Sam" Nivens "super competent"? >What about Colin Campbell or Alex Hergensheimer? And who are the "super >competents" among the juveniles? Of course there are some "super >competents"; to be interesting, James's theory has to say that there is >something special about the 1962-66 period. So far as I can see, it >doesn't work.
Gordon, I don't know anything about the time frames. I'm afraid I haven't paid that much attention to publication dates. What I meant to say was that RAH has (at least) two sorts of protagonists--The people like LL, Friday, Deety, Libby, Star, Peewee, and lots more, I'm sure, whose innate abilities are truly extraordinary, the ones I referred to as the supercompetent, for lack of a better word in this discussion, and the "ordinary" Heinlein heroes, who are "only" very intelligent, physically capable, and witty, but their character is such that they have applied themselves studiously to making the most of themselves.
>>(Compare Kip to Peewee, for example.) > >Yes, Kip, the guy who goes from a mediocre high school education to >rebuilding a space suit (along with the electronics, although, >admittedly, his efforts at home-workshop microwave radio were less than >industry standard) and, e.g., learning Latin and Spanish, all in two >years. Remember what Peewee's father says to Kip about his abilities.
No, I don't remember, specifically, I'll have to go back and look. But really, I was talking about the comparison. Kip is an extremely intellligent young man, but to his intelligence is also amplified by lots of hard work and study. I have known young men that Kip reminded me of, I have not know little girls that reminded me of Peewee.
>>I would choose Manny >>as an outstanding example. > >Yes, Mannie, only a "general specialist" who can fix any machinery, who >can relieve a cook or field repair a space suit, farmer and an ice miner >who loses an arm and then goes on to become the best "computer man" in >Luna, but not "really" a full-fledged electronics engineer nor physicist >- by his own admission, of course. He steals power and water from the >Authority - only air is a more critical resource - without a trace. He >is selected for marriage into one of the most respected families, and has >the respect of one of the most highly educated men, in Luna. Help him >wipe the drool off his bib.
Again, "wipe the drool off his bib" was not implied. But he is much more of an "ordinary man" to me than some of the "supercompetent" types are. I have known numerous people who had not a lot of formal education, nor a lot of paper credentials, but were very intelligent, and through their own hard work made themselves excellent at their field(s). Manny strikes me as part of the "cream" of the "ordinary folks."
>>One could only describe them as incompetent by >>comparison. >With whom? Lazarus? He is clearly a special case.
Well, like I said, compare Kip to Peewee, as one example. What I was trying to say was that some of Heinlein's protagonists are very intelligent, very educated, very physically fit, and of exceptionally good character, but they can still remind me of real people I have known. Some other protagonists are just completely off the scale, larger than life.
>>It is the glory of these "incompetents" that they do what must >>be done. >That, I think, is the glory of almost all the major characters in Mr. >Heinlein's work.
Oh, agreed, to be sure. But even greater for those who are more "ordinary."
--Dee
>I always throught Putnam took the Scribner-refused >juvenile virtually unchanged.
As I understand it, they bought the book on the basis of the Scribner's ms, but there are two mss in the file at UCSC; the marked up one -- i.e., the one sent by copyeditor to printer -- is something like 98 pp (without looking up my notes) longer than the other one. Everything after Rico goes to OCS, except the last 9 or 10 pages, which was the ending in both versions, was added between the first ms. and the second -- about the last quarter of the book. I assume that the rest of the book was written specifically to be a Scribner's juvenile, but that the added material was the rest of what he thought needed to be said or clarifying material -- since he didn't go back and rewrite.
I guess there is a lot of factual material in the public part of the archives that isn't widely known. But it's publicly available.
Bill
>Midway between ordinary humanity and the gods, with a foot in both camps?
Frye said of heroes that they were like us in kind but different in degree, whereas the gods were superior to us both in kind and in degree.
I still think Heinlein relied a lot on new circumstances bringing out abilities that were there all along but would not be expressed in "ordinary" circumstances -- Libby of "Misfit" is the classic example. it's a Darwinian/Evolutionary thing. And when he said a human being able to do a whole host of things, it's implicit that his vision of the quotidian human being includes the ability to learn all the technical material involved in all of those things. The particular context in which that quote came up was of pioneering, and it's manifest that the ordinary people who did actually create farms and civilization out of the prairie did have to demonstrate that kind of versatility.
What we are dealing with is a literary convention; we have come to accept the ironic convention of the degraded protagonist (similar to us in kind but inferior in degree) as the default condition.
Bill
>Gordon G. Sollars wrote: > >>I thought that you were the one who named this theory? Are you now >>backing away by putting "incompetents" in quotes? > >No, I believe I've always made it clear that my claims of incompetence >for many early 1960s characters were relative - none would be judged >"incompetent" by us mere mortals, but up against the usual Heinleinian >heros who stumble into strange situations and save the girl, the day and >the universe with the odds and ends in their pockets, they come up as >bumbling boobies. > >-- > >| James Gifford - Nitrosyncretic Press | >| http://www.nitrosyncretic.com for the Heinlein FAQ & more | >| Tired of auto-spam... change "not" to "net" for replies |
I'm afraid your referring to EE "Doc" Smith, there- perhaps Space Hounds of IPC?
Which "competent" Heinlein heroes saved the day with items in their pockets?
As I recall, they used brain power! Including EC Gordon! (Although he does have LUCK!)
Roger
... >Gordon, I don't know anything about the time frames.
OK, but that is a key part of James's claim. Your main point is different from his, so I should have explicit that I was taking your reply not on its own, but as a stick to beat James with. ;-)
Before going on, I want to stress again that I think that James was getting at "coping well with circumstances" and that I think that this is something different (though, not of course, completely unrelated) to "competencies". In what follows, I will address competencies, which seems to be your issue, different from what James really meant (as at least I use the term).
>What I meant to say >was that RAH has (at least) two sorts of protagonists--The people like LL, >Friday, Deety, Libby, Star, Peewee, and lots more, I'm sure, whose innate >abilities are truly extraordinary, the ones I referred to as the
Well, Friday is genetically enhanced. Libby might or might not have been a great mathematician without his/her special talent. Star's judgment is enhanced by memory imprints. And are LL's abilities "truly extraordinary"? It is true that he has the time to master many disciplines. But, prior to 1962, all we know about his abilities, beyond being smart and quick with his hands, its that he had the ability to "borrow" Libby's patent for spaceship controls for his own ship. Would that really have been beyond Mannie's abilities?
I think that we find a mix of competencies - from "merely" impressive to "super competent" throughout the Heinlein corpus. If that is all you are saying, then OK by me. But I do not think that there is a quantum gap between two sets of characters, and I don't think, if there were such a gap, that it has anything to do with a particular period such as 1962-66.
>>Remember what Peewee's father says to Kip about his abilities. > >No, I don't remember, specifically, I'll have to go back and look.
Reisfeld to Kip: "The greatest mathematical psychologist of our generation... this man married his star pupil. I doubt if their offspring is less bright than my own child."
... >Well, like I said, compare Kip to Peewee, as one example.
I think that you might be drawing the wrong conclusion from Kip's modesty. Remember, he is telling the story. lal-truckee makes the same point about Oscar.
>What I was trying >to say was that some of Heinlein's protagonists are very intelligent, very >educated, very physically fit, and of exceptionally good character, but they >can still remind me of real people I have known. Some other protagonists >are just completely off the scale, larger than life.
I think that a person's stand on this may be a function of the people he or she has met. I am just smart enough to know that I have been, on a few occasions, in the presence of someone who was "off the scale".
-- Gordon Sollars gsollars@pobox.com
>Dee wrote: > >>there are certain protagonists who are much more >>"ordinary" in their gifts and abilities, not geniuses, not >>immortals, etc. (Compare Kip to Peewee, for example.) >>I would choose Manny as an outstanding example. > >Having a socket set for the left arm is ordinary?
For a man with one arm and a stump, in a high-tech society, it might be. But the socket set and other arms are *tools*; the knowledge and skills required to use those tools aren't particularly ordinary.
Note how Mannie acquired a chunk of his computech skills; he subjected himself to Earth's gravity et al.
-- -denny- nocturnal curmudgeon, editor Never try to outstubborn a cat. - Lazarus Long
>>I always throught Putnam took the Scribner-refused >>juvenile virtually unchanged. >> > >As I understand it, they bought the book on the basis of the Scribner's ms, but >there are two mss in the file at UCSC; the marked up one -- i.e., the one sent >by copyeditor to printer -- is something like 98 pp (without looking up my >notes) longer than the other one. Everything after Rico goes to OCS, except >the last 9 or 10 pages, which was the ending in both versions, was added >between the first ms. and the second -- about the last quarter of the book. I >assume that the rest of the book was written specifically to be a Scribner's >juvenile, but that the added material was the rest of what he thought needed to >be said or clarifying material -- since he didn't go back and rewrite. >
That's very interesting and exactly why I asked: I read you as saying he added the entire OCS sequence, including all of OCS and the test cruise and battle, up to and including the rescue of Rico by Nardi's and Brumby's sacrifice and capture of the queen/brain bug by Zim. That is what makes the hackneyed plot unique: it's a good plot, though trite, because we've seen it done so nicely before: John Wayne's Sands of Iwo Jima, Richard Widmark's and Karl Malden's Take the High Ground, and Jack Webb's D.I. -- even deconstructed by Kubrick in Full Metal Jacket.
One is a juvenile plot, perfectly satisfactory for the aims of a juvenile; but not much new, except setting and the political system of qualifying voters and return to use of corporeal punishment. The later takes the "once more unto the breach" aspect and adds its problems and efforts to more fulfill of the soldier's life, just as Oscar Gordon realizes in Glory Road that the initial hero's journey doesn't conclude a hero's life. The one is a romance, as well a novel of maturization, and the other's a satire.
>I guess there is a lot of factual material in the public part of the archives >that isn't widely known. But it's publicly available.
Are you sure we can't arrange to have the archives at UCSC opened, at least briefly in late August, before ConJosé?
-- David M. Silver http://www.heinleinsociety.org http://www.readinggroupsonline.com/groups/heinlein.htm "The Lieutenant expects your names to shine!" Robert Anson Heinlein, USNA '29 Lt (jg)., USN R'td (1907-1988)
<snip> >When we really "meet" Lazarus, he's 2000 years old;
Please, sir, the "first time" we meet LL he is 213 years old. [p.10 -- Methuselah's Children]
<more snip> >E.C.Gordon >is rather fresh out of high school,
It appears to me that the factual statement in the book that Easy is "just out of high school" has to be tempered by the realization that Glory Road is reminiscence. It is NOT the high school senior who is writing this story. This is the product of a man who has already been up the Glory Road and has succeeded in a number of tryiing situations. Perhaps, he recalls "generously" his reactions at the time?
Your mileage, etc.
Dr. Rufo
> >David Silver wrote: > >>>>He quickly shook it off and went back to his trademark style, even >>>>compensating by going to the super-hyper-competents populating >>>>everything from TEfL onwards... :) > >>>Um, Marjorie Baldwin? Physically, certainly, mentally, with that trick >>>of intuiting a correct answer, maybe; but . . . defend her as >>>super-hyper-competent emotionally, please, James. I'd put her right >>>down among the lower-mimetic both emotionally and maturely. IOW, just >>>plain folks. > >All of Heinlein's characters have holes, usually in their emotional or >social makeup. I never said they were godlike in their perfection. >Friday has the self-esteem of a field mouse, despite many, many reasons >to be as arrogantly self-confident as Woody Smith.
?? Which edition of "Woody" were you reading? Cliff's?
> >And Woody - well, let's stand him up as the single greatest example of >Heinleinian super-competence, and then note that he is the next thing to >sociopathic towards everyone outside his exclusive in-group.
This bit of "analysis" /really/ wants the meaning of the very-professional term, "sociopathic," since "Woodrow Wilson Smith" (outside his own description of himself at the age of five), is about as archetypally opposite to the defined sociopath as literature has to offer.
And you can look that up.
The one outstanding deus-ex-supermachina I can recall in Mr. Heinlein's stable is the mystically-inexplicable "Andrew Jackson 'Slipstick' Libby," who can sit in for a busted Cray and solve three-body problems in real time on a little algebra, a little trig, and less caffiene than half a jolt of Mountain Dew. Everybody else worked for his muttons.
> >>And when you finish with her, try Alex Hergensheimer, toy of the betting >>gods. > >I knew someone would point him out - happy to have it be you. :) > >Alec is a poor, 'umble, ignorant, only partially-lettered bumbler who... >goes through a multitude of literally life-shattering experiences, >throws off a lifetime of cultural and social conditioning in the space >of a few weeks, and evolves in relatively short order to the point where >he's sassing deities to their faces.
Pf. Took me about two hours in eighth grade. Only I didn't sass; I threw an equation. Three whole letters. F=ma.
>And he wins! He wins the girl, the >gold watch (that stops time) and everything (define indefinite afterlife >of one's own designing as not "everything").
The designing of an indefinite afterlife (the actual Greek says "world to come," and means, situationally, "next minute, next hour, next week, next century, next lifetime") of one's own choosing is fairly common and completely mundane (equations, again), even if the, well, less-than-super-hyper-competent copy bits of the gestures and noises as "religion," John.
Or would the SuperMcGee be too much of a reach? Even statistically, he should have been alligator bait about three times more often in his two decades than Woody Smith in his two millenia.
Which detracts not a whit from /his/ company, since I have more of that from "him" than I have from most of my "friends," as the dictionary puts them, provided they're not here at the moment, either.
> >I think you're all hung up on my definition of the dichotomy as >competence vs. incompetence, which is a partial and fuzzy definition. >Next time I'll reach deeply into Frye or Hayakawa and pull out a >suitably mysterious and vague term that I can define to my own liking. :)
There's really nothing wrong with "ignorance" /or/ "incompetence" as subject terms correctly used, and I don't need to referee Whorf and Korzybski for the observation.
Though I have (K.'s only real problem is speaking with the marbles still in his mouth, but as his native tongue was one I cannot speak at all, I merely remove my hat without throwing it into /that/ ring).
Either /pure/ term could be used in your analysis, but you don't keep the latter pure. You take it in the public sense of its having an added "somehow"-mitigating permanent component when it is essentially instant, and you add a few nudges of your own to that component.
In the root case, "incompetence" is strictly circumstantial, and refers solely to the accidental relation between the actor and the milieu of the moment, and as such would necessarily apply to any character, stuck by his author into a situation he couldn't possibly have made, solely so that the author could show us how he learned to handle /it/ -- not all 666 numbers of the Beast. But that analysis is /static/, being only of the instant relation. It is that dynamic, Romantic, plunge-for-the-purpose-of-recovery, which implies a learning curve, which gives that the at-least-more-correct word would be "ignorance," which also implies a learning curve. But in your analyses, these characters acquire the permanent psychological attributes, many of which Mr. Heinlein did /not/ author, of /other real people/, including an assertion of "permanent" incompetence in the fact that, in the best tradition of the Adventure Yarn, the /author/ keeps throwing them over their heads into the rose bushes fairly the moment they crawl from the previous dimension out of the living room window as the whole house collapses.
And even /in situ/, you continue to insist on missing the point that /they/ didn't cause the house to collapse -- and that even Hugo Pinero could not duck the Author's Big Black Eraser.
Hayakawa had something to say about that, yes. It was in Chapter One of all three principal texts, and it concerned "taking the word for the object."
Well, the chancel couldn't exist, and fiction wouldn't be salable, without it, so.
But the /fact/ is that "Lazarus Long" (and all the rest) did nothing, felt nothing, and couldn't consider himself egomaniacally superior to anybody at all, being no more than a few blots of ink at the top of page 36 and having thus no more observable reality than Winnie the Pooh. In that sense, /any/ character who survives his author (that being definitively more sociopathic than a priest), is super-hyper-competent.
But the only actual competence /anybody/ can observe in /any/ of these stories is Mr. Heinlein's own. And, considering the number of characters and universes he juggled without dropping any of them, I think What We Have Heah (besides a failuah tew c'MUnicate), is a /real/ example of a "super-hyper-competent."
Though at this point, I can only hope that the residuals agree, because, you see, Virginia, there is no Santa Claus.
[Dennis M. Hammes]
-- ------(m+ ~/:o)_| You can call your priest anything you want, except /my/ priest. http://t-independent.com/scrawlmark-press/
> >I think that a person's stand on this may be a function of the people he >or she has met. I am just smart enough to know that I have been, on a >few occasions, in the presence of someone who was "off the scale". >
It's a very rare thing. I started grammar school with a boy who, one day, quite suddenly, was no longer a classmate. We asked. "He's gone to another school, where he'll be challenged," said Mrs. Gray, our first-grade teacher. A year later, my own far more modest attainments and potential got me invited to attend the same school, as a second grader. He was there -- a sixth grader and only loosely doing what the other sixth graders did. What do you do with a seven-year-old who belongs, at least intellectually, in college? A year later we moved to the West Coast. I wonder what become of him. His name was Richard Kish.
-- David M. Silver http://www.heinleinsociety.org http://www.readinggroupsonline.com/groups/heinlein.htm "The Lieutenant expects your names to shine!" Robert Anson Heinlein, USNA '29 Lt (jg)., USN R'td (1907-1988)
>>It is NOT the high >>school senior who is writing this story. > >Wasn't it rather that he went to SE Asia just out of high school? IIRC he was >finished with at least one tour of duty when we found him in France. >Bill
He graduated= 18
He got drafted after 6-8 mo
He completed his "enlistment" (2 yrs) = 20
So Discharged to South France at 21
All of "Glory" road is about 1 year, including marriage to Her Wisdom?
So he returns to Southern CA at 22
Really ancient!
Yeah, he's seen a little of the world, and a little of the multiverse that Star rules, but in essence, he's still pretty much an uneducated bumpkin!
Roger
>BPRAL22169 wrote: > >>>It is NOT the high >>>school senior who is writing this story. >> >>Wasn't it rather that he went to SE Asia just out of high school? IIRC he was >>finished with at least one tour of duty when we found him in France. >>Bill > >He graduated= 18 >He got drafted after 6-8 mo >He completed his "enlistment" (2 yrs) = 20 >So Discharged to South France at 21 >All of "Glory" road is about 1 year, including marriage to Her Wisdom? >So he returns to Southern CA at 22 >Really ancient! > >Yeah, he's seen a little of the world, and a little of the multiverse that Star >rules, but in essence, he's still pretty much an uneducated bumpkin! >Roger
And I forgot the 2 years in college - that makes him all of 24!
Roger
> >Gordon G. Sollars wrote: > >>Second, labels aside, the idea itself is not >>nearly as compelling to me as it is to James. He picks out several >>characters in the 1962-66 range and claims that they are "relatively >>incompetent", but he does not draw a sharp boundary, as my pre-1962 >>examples show. Is Mannie significantly less able to deal with his >>circumstances (what James seems to mean by "incompetence") than Dan >>Davis? Perhaps, but I would like to see more argument. > >Yes. DB Davis is subjected to at least three life-shattering transitions >(loss of Belle and his company, sleep-travel to 2000, time-travel back >to 1970) and, in Doc Smith/George O. Smith/prewar RAH broad-shouldered >engineer style, shrugs them off and soldiers on in grand style. He ends >up with the girl, the gold belt and everything - even the cat. > >Mannie Davis is pushed around by events he never does quite understand >and never does quite get a grip on (in part because his closest friends >and confidants are shining him on and using him shamelessly), >contributes almost nothing to the revolution except the delivery of >Mike's friendship, and does an extremely poor job as revolutionary >planner, ambassador, War Minister and congressman. At the end, he is >simply a leftover unhappy with the long-term results and planning to >leave for hopefully greener pastures. > >Next question? >| James Gifford
Were "Manuel O'Kelly Davis" the protagonist of /The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress/, I could be very inclined to agree with the classification, even the analysis.
But "Manny" is /not/ the protagonist of /Moon/; he's the old "First-Person Narrator" Trick, 99, and as such is about as instrumental to the plot as a key-diving cockroach, complete with similar physical and linguistic intrusions on the read narrative. Of all the characters in /Moon/, only "Manny" has the personal mobility the /author/ requires to "report" rather than speculate.
And not much more. Plot /"Manny's"/ plot: boy gets friend; boy has adventures on raft (okay, BIG raft); boy loses friend (who said, somewhere here, "file the serial numbers off a guilty Twain, get Bob"?). Yet by dwelling behind /his/ eyes and between /his/ ears, we get a feel for the place -- and for the people that so shamelessly use his happiness to /be/ used -- that we would not, /could/ not, get from the protagonist.
Primarily because the super-hyper-competent protagonist-Hero of /Moon/ is "Mycroft Holmes IV," aka "Adam Selene," Leader Of And Martyr For The Cause.
Something, perhaps, to remember on this roughly-anniversary of the Post-Office Riot, esp since it was /called/ a "riot" by the /winners/.
(Pearce, we hardly knew ye...)
-- ------(m+ ~/:o)_| You can call your priest anything you want, except /my/ priest. http://t-independent.com/scrawlmark-press/
>Thanks for the quote. I haven't gotten Jim's book yet, so my response >will have to be based on your quoted passage and general memory of past >discussions. >I think the point here has to do with RAH's general theme of the >[super]competent hero. By comparison, there are certain protagonists who >are much more "ordinary" in their gifts and abilities, not geniuses, not >immortals, etc. (Compare Kip to Peewee, for example.) I would choose Manny >as an outstanding example. One could only describe them as incompetent by >comparison. It is the glory of these "incompetents" that they do what must >be done. >--Dee > >
Super competent hero's? See E. E. Smith. By that comparison, even Lazarus is a bumbling 2 digit IQ twit. Why The Senior never took a weekend and invented a whole new branch of physics AND the technology to go with it that I remember ;)).
GMC
>TreetopAngel wrote: > > > >Again, I think I've made it clear that I'm referring to a special case >of "competence" in this analysis. From 1939 to 1985, the vast majority >of Heinlein's major characters are so adaptable, capable and generally >super-competent - even when thrown violently into very unusual >circumstances - that the characters of this era stand out as something >quite different. > >All of them would be regarded as more competent than average and even >admirably adaptable out here in the real world. However, within >Heinlein's universe, their comparative inabilities and their being >dragged along bodily by events is unusual - so much so that it is clear >to me that Heinlein was deliberately experimenting with "incompetent" >characters in this era - choose your own phrase and definition. > >He quickly shook it off and went back to his trademark style, even >compensating by going to the super-hyper-competents populating >everything from TEfL onwards... :) > >--
I'm amazed nobody has yet put their finger on Heinleins' hero's one common denominator and strongest point. They ALWAYS (unless being set up for a 'lesson') recognize reality and respond to it appropriately. The vast majority of people in the world 'Never let the facts alter their view of the way things SHOULD be' (c 1974, me ..or have i stolen one of the masters?) Heinleins heroes are never guilty of this punishable by death offense. THAT is what makes them 'super competent'. They're not busy ignoring the events that are trying to do them in.
Oh god..my first serious comment....(cringe!)
GMC
>Are you sure we can't arrange to have the archives at UCSC opened, at >least briefly in late August, before ConJosé?
I'll check to find out when the archives are completely closed down; I was told that they will have extended hours this summer (i.e., more than 2 hours per day) but I don't know whether that will also be true just before school recommences.
San Jose is about 29 miles from Santa Cruz -- a very scenic drive. So a half-day trip would be very easy to arrange.
Bill
>It is NOT the high >school senior who is writing this story.
Wasn't it rather that he went to SE Asia just out of high school? IIRC he was finished with at least one tour of duty when we found him in France.
Bill
>No, I believe I've always made it clear that my claims of incompetence >for many early 1960s characters were relative - none would be judged >"incompetent" by us mere mortals, but up against the usual Heinleinian >heros who stumble into strange situations and save the girl, the day and >the universe with the odds and ends in their pockets, they come up as >bumbling boobies. >
I consider those early 60s characters "the usual Heinleinian heros." They're usually only nails that stand out.
-- RDKirk "It's always socially unacceptable to be right too soon." -- RAH
>>It is NOT the high >>school senior who is writing this story. >> > >Wasn't it rather that he went to SE Asia just out of high school? IIRC he was >finished with at least one tour of duty when we found him in France. >Bill > >
My most sincere apologies, in an excess of zeal I neglected to check the facts. On p. 14 of the text we find "Flash" Gordon saying that "at the end of my sophomore year they de-emphasized football." The last line of the same page has "I turned twenty-one that summer . . . ."
Further, as you say, he had at least one tour of duty in SE Asia. I checked the portion describing his hospitalization and the thought segue into Heidelberg for his degree then maybe a doctorate. Just so, he WAS NOT a high school student but rather a "man, full grown, with battle experience."
Sheepishly,
Dr. Rufo
(Who sincerely wishes he were qualified to be a RAH "competent" character rather than a member of the "control group" against which they are measured.)
> >>It doesn't "fail in the end." Heinlein successfully reproduces in the >>reader the same ennui (in the midst of luxury) that Oscar was feeling. >> > >Agreed. He bores the unholy shit of all of us at the end. Interesting you >felt it but told yourself it was writing skill and are ready to argue it. >You should be allowed the luxury of your delusion. >
Reilloc and Randy at the same time..gee, and it was so peaceful 'round here...
Reilloc, just who does, 'all of us' comprise? Not me....and don't willfully misunderstand just to give yourself an excuse to be caustic; it's OK, we haven't forgotten you, no need to come on so strong just to remind us :-).
The boring bit was the 'reward' of untold wealth, leisure and safety. Oscar rejecting this (and Star to a certain extent) was Heinlein taking 'happily ever after' a few pages further. A little like the end of 'The Princess Bride' in a way.
The 'final' ending of continued danger, adventures and romance was the real reward for a hero; not the only way it could have ended but it worked for me.
One avenue we could look at is alternative endings; could Heinlein have turned it tragic? Have a disillusioned Oscar go back to Earth, and turn into a slob, blearily remembering his past triumphs through a haze of alcohol or drugs? When a hero retires, does he go downhill faster than most? Or a tragic but heroic end, Oscar dying in some rescue attempt, re enlisting and this time not surviving? Or, scariest of all, marrying a mundane and settling for that pool and garage...but Heinlein didn't go for sad endings often..or did he?
(I'm going to relabel this for the chat; shame to waste GR discussion. Elizabeth, do you want to relabel your thread too as it's off to such a good start? Chat can be next Thursday but one and Saturday which gives us 2 weeks to continue posts and read the book? I can help out some of those dates if you want to be the main host.)
Jane
-- http://www.heinleinsociety.org
>>>It doesn't "fail in the end." Heinlein successfully reproduces in the >>>reader the same ennui (in the midst of luxury) that Oscar was feeling. >>Agreed. He bores the unholy shit of all of us at the end. Interesting you >>felt it but told yourself it was writing skill and are ready to argue it. >>You should be allowed the luxury of your delusion. >The boring bit was the 'reward' of untold wealth, leisure and >safety. Oscar rejecting this (and Star to a certain extent) was >Heinlein taking 'happily ever after' a few pages further. A little
Very well put, Jane. I alwasy saw GR as RAH's take on Sword and Sorcery, but he just couldn't leave it at "... and they all lived happily ever after 'till the end of their days, la di la di da." And given what Scar had gone through, as I put myself in his shoes (as I would expect to do while reading the story from his viewpoint), I don't think I could settle for that ending myself.
>One avenue we could look at is alternative endings; could Heinlein >have turned it tragic? Have a disillusioned Oscar go back to Earth, >and turn into a slob, blearily remembering his past triumphs through >a haze of alcohol or drugs? When a hero retires, does he go downhill
Hmmm... is it just me, or does anyone else get kind of a "Stephen R Donaldson" feel from the scenario Jane describes above? (I never did finish that series; just too darned depressing)
Cheers!
-- Brian Maranta ~ Kingston, Ontario, Canada ~ brian@magsi.com URL: http://home.cogeco.ca/~bmaranta ~ ICQ#16149211 Canadian Army Signals - Royal Military College of Canada, Class of '89 "You live and learn - or you don't live long." - R.A. Heinlein Mac Evangelist - Dispelling the Mac Myths!
>cmaj7dmin7 wrote: > > >> >>>It doesn't "fail in the end." Heinlein successfully reproduces in the >>>reader the same ennui (in the midst of luxury) that Oscar was feeling. >>> >> >>Agreed. He bores the unholy shit of all of us at the end. Interesting you >>felt it but told yourself it was writing skill and are ready to argue it. >>You should be allowed the luxury of your delusion. >> > > >Reilloc and Randy at the same time..gee, and it was so peaceful >'round here...
Sorry, I don't know Randy but he or she's apparently not an unthinking hero-worshipper, huh? Probably a damn, un-Libertarian Panshin spouter, too, eh? Know her/his Heinlein, does he/she? Annoying, isn't it?
> >Reilloc,just who does, 'all of us' comprise? Not me....and don't >willfully misunderstand just to give yourself an excuse to be >caustic; it's OK, we haven't forgotten you, no need to come on so >strong just to remind us :-).
Jane, you igno...no, that would be trite and perceived as too over the top. Besides, you're a mother now and may be mellower than you used to be. I know I got that way when somebody called me that.
>The boring bit was the 'reward' of untold wealth, leisure and >safety. Oscar rejecting this (and Star to a certain extent) was >Heinlein taking 'happily ever after' a few pages further. A little >like the end of 'The Princess Bride' in a way.
Starined, Jane. A passing mention that Mandy would make a great dread pirate Roberts isn't anything more than a suggestion but, as you wish.
>The 'final' ending of continued danger, adventures and romance was >the real reward for a hero; not the only way it could have ended but >it worked for me.
Compare, GR's ending and NOTB's. Zeb and Cyril, Star and Deety, swords and sorcerers (Jake and Rufo) and tell me where the imagination went. All these elements and ground covered twice and what's the ending? None. For a guy with all the answers where's the resolution? Ain't none. Why's that?
GR set up the sequel but Bob couldn't pull it off. Oh, sure, he wrote a book and it's got everyone talking and it's not a bad book for as self-indulgent a forced sale as it is but where's the ending? My guesses are GR was old-style Heinlein when the business of writing was on his mind and he was really leaving the door open to a sequel or series and NOTB is corrupt-Heinlein where his fans would buy anything (even absolute garbage like IWFNE). Consequently, you don't really deserve an ending, do you? You take what you can get and hang on every crumb, ready to dissect them and attribute god-like qualities to their creator. Silly, really. Who wouldn't be flattered, though?
> >One avenue we could look at is alternative endings; could Heinlein >have turned it tragic? Have a disillusioned Oscar go back to Earth, >and turn into a slob, blearily remembering his past triumphs through >a haze of alcohol or drugs? When a hero retires, does he go downhill >faster than most? Or a tragic but heroic end, Oscar dying in some >rescue attempt, re enlisting and this time not surviving? Or, >scariest of all, marrying a mundane and settling for that pool and >garage...but Heinlein didn't go for sad endings often..or did he?
See, above.
>(I'm going to relabel this for the chat; shame to waste GR >discussion. Elizabeth, do you want to relabel your thread too as >it's off to such a good start? Chat can be next Thursday but one and >Saturday which gives us 2 weeks to continue posts and read the book? >I can help out some of those dates if you want to be the main host.) > >Jane > >-- >http://www.heinleinsociety.org >
LNC
> >"Jane Davitt" <jdavitt01@rogers.com>wrote in message >news:3CC8B786.90806@rogers.com... >>cmaj7dmin7 wrote: >> >> >>> >>>>It doesn't "fail in the end." Heinlein successfully reproduces in the >>>>reader the same ennui (in the midst of luxury) that Oscar was feeling. >>>> >>> >>>Agreed. He bores the unholy shit of all of us at the end. Interesting you >>>felt it but told yourself it was writing skill and are ready to argue it. >>>You should be allowed the luxury of your delusion. >>> >> >> >>Reilloc and Randy at the same time..gee, and it was so peaceful >>'round here... > >Sorry, I don't know Randy but he or she's apparently not an unthinking >hero-worshipper, huh? Probably a damn, un-Libertarian Panshin spouter, too, >eh? Know her/his Heinlein, does he/she? Annoying, isn't it? >> >>Reilloc,just who does, 'all of us' comprise? Not me....and don't >>willfully misunderstand just to give yourself an excuse to be >>caustic; it's OK, we haven't forgotten you, no need to come on so >>strong just to remind us :-). > >Jane, you igno...no, that would be trite and perceived as too over the top. >Besides, you're a mother now and may be mellower than you used to be. I know >I got that way when somebody called me that. > >>The boring bit was the 'reward' of untold wealth, leisure and >>safety. Oscar rejecting this (and Star to a certain extent) was >>Heinlein taking 'happily ever after' a few pages further. A little >>like the end of 'The Princess Bride' in a way. > >Starined, Jane. A passing mention that Mandy would make a great dread pirate >Roberts isn't anything more than a suggestion but, as you wish. > >>The 'final' ending of continued danger, adventures and romance was >>the real reward for a hero; not the only way it could have ended but >>it worked for me. > >Compare, GR's ending and NOTB's. Zeb and Cyril, Star and Deety, swords and >sorcerers (Jake and Rufo) and tell me where the imagination went. All these >elements and ground covered twice and what's the ending? None. For a guy >with all the answers where's the resolution? Ain't none. Why's that? > >GR set up the sequel but Bob couldn't pull it off. Oh, sure, he wrote a book >and it's got everyone talking and it's not a bad book for as self-indulgent >a forced sale as it is but where's the ending? My guesses are GR was >old-style Heinlein when the business of writing was on his mind and he was >really leaving the door open to a sequel or series and NOTB is >corrupt-Heinlein where his fans would buy anything (even absolute garbage >like IWFNE). Consequently, you don't really deserve an ending, do you? You >take what you can get and hang on every crumb, ready to dissect them and >attribute god-like qualities to their creator. Silly, really. Who wouldn't >be flattered, though? >> >>One avenue we could look at is alternative endings; could Heinlein >>have turned it tragic? Have a disillusioned Oscar go back to Earth, >>and turn into a slob, blearily remembering his past triumphs through >>a haze of alcohol or drugs? When a hero retires, does he go downhill >>faster than most? Or a tragic but heroic end, Oscar dying in some >>rescue attempt, re enlisting and this time not surviving? Or, >>scariest of all, marrying a mundane and settling for that pool and >>garage...but Heinlein didn't go for sad endings often..or did he? > >See, above. > >>(I'm going to relabel this for the chat; shame to waste GR >>discussion. Elizabeth, do you want to relabel your thread too as >>it's off to such a good start? Chat can be next Thursday but one and >>Saturday which gives us 2 weeks to continue posts and read the book? >>I can help out some of those dates if you want to be the main host.) >> >>Jane >> >>-- >>http://www.heinleinsociety.org >> >LNC > >
First we get Randy and his frozen head filled with delusions of grandiose anarchy and now we have LNC who's posts appear to be the ramblings of a failed and ill-mannered AI experiment.
"Thank you dear Lord for providing us with such splendid cannonfodder."
Steve eegle1@exis.net http://afhpics.mnsdesigns.com/ http://www.mnsdesigns.com/
> >. . . [snip] I >think you've got hold of *something* Heinlein is doing in the books immediately >following Starnger, but the relative "competence" of the characters is just a >secondary effect of whatever else it is he might be doing. >. . . [snip] until JOB, Glory Road was Heinlein's most clearly Cabellian >book, as it uses the form of the Cabellian comedy, which characteristically >turns on finding out that what one wanted and worked toward was not what one >wants, after all -- or, alternatively, not achieving what one wanted and >finding it doesn't matter at all. That's why he was so incensed that an editor >wanted to cut the last 100 pages of the book -- the part that makes it a >Cabellian comedy instead of a sword-and-sworcery romance. And (4) I've been >able to detect more Cabellian material in the books before TMIAHM and after ST. >This subject is dealt with at greater (though not much greater) length in the >Cabell Prize essay. I just checked my link, and it seems to have been taken >down recently. If we wind up going out on this topic, I'll try to excerpt what >I said at greater length. >
Try: http://www.library.vcu.edu/jbc/speccoll/exhibit/cabell/Prize3.html
-- David M. Silver http://www.heinleinsociety.org http://www.readinggroupsonline.com/groups/heinlein.htm "The Lieutenant expects your names to shine!" Robert Anson Heinlein, USNA '29 Lt (jg)., USN R'td (1907-1988)
>On Wed, 24 Apr 2002 13:59:46 -0700, "Dr. Rufo" <baybus@mindspring.com> >held forth, saying: ... >>He "wins" the Irish Sweepstakes without the overt intervention of >>any "higher power" beyond his own "skill" at poker. > >Are we certain Star had nothing to do with that? > ...
Dr. Rufo did say "overt". Oscar did make a reasonable amount even without the Irish Sweepstakes win.
Simon -- Never try to outstubborn Lazarus Long - a cat.
> >Dennis M. Hammes wrote: > ><snip> > >>When we really "meet" Lazarus, he's 2000 years old; > >Please, sir, the "first time" we meet LL he is 213 years old. >[p.10 -- Methuselah's Children]
As adventure yarn yes; as discussion of self, I wait for /Time Enough.../
But 213 years old in a Kulchur whose average age is not much more than 21 (even leave out the kids and peg the "average adult" at 39) changes, well, what part of the argument?
> ><more snip> > >>E.C.Gordon >>is rather fresh out of high school, > >It appears to me that the factual statement in the book that Easy >is "just out of high school" has to be tempered by the >realization that Glory Road is reminiscence. It is NOT the high >school senior who is writing this story. This is the product of >a man who has already been up the Glory Road and has succeeded in >a number of tryiing situations. Perhaps, he recalls "generously" >his reactions at the time? > >Your mileage, etc. >Dr. Rufo
Your point taken, but his own tone toward himself (I'd say /because/ it is reminiscence) is fairly disparaging-flip throughout the book, i.e., "how'd that dumb kid survive /that/?," mixed with some tones indicating that some opponents weren't as tough as they seemed, mixed with some reports of fights severe enough that his own memory of them (or his report of it) drops clean out of the equation.
The reporter is reminiscing; the actor was fairly fresh out of school. He reports the "toughing exercises" (any of which could have killed him, the narrow escapes, too, discussed) that permitted him to get /to/ the Egg Fight.
So, two points; he isn't a "super-hyper-hero," and he doesn't tout himself as one.
-- ------(m+ ~/:o)_| You can call your priest anything you want, except /my/ priest. http://t-independent.com/scrawlmark-press/
... >I don't remember any "Kip," so I prolly didn't read it. ...
The protagonist of "Have Space Suit - Will Travel"
... >In his element, Mannie is above real-world "normal" >competence. *BUT* in the events of the book, he is a ham-handed fumbler >who knows little, contributes little, and in fact is something of a >screwup at critical points. ...
Without Mannie, the revolutionaries would never have got Mike on their side, and the revolution would almost certainly have failed. Mannie also explains the "throwing rocks" strategy to Prof and Wyoh (the professional revolutionaries), devises a number of the disruptive tactics used in the pre-revolutionary period, designs a more efficient revolutionary cell structure and even out-thinks Mike in the matter of using telescopes to spot incoming warships.
The only lack of competency I can think of is a lack of diplomacy, wrt going earthside and the question of Howard Wright. In the former case, Prof and Mike anticipate potential problems, and keep Mannie in the dark for his own good. In the latter - another RAH character once said something like "some people's toes were born to be stepped on"; Gospodin Wright is one of those.
Where did you think Mannie was a screwup?
Simon
... >Super competent hero's? See E. E. Smith. By that comparison, even Lazarus >is a bumbling 2 digit IQ twit. Why The Senior never took a weekend and >invented a whole new branch of physics AND the technology to go with it that >I remember ;)).
I remember "Spacehounds of IPC"; the hero "Steve" (Percy) Stevens is maroon