Conference noted::sf

I think part of the cause may be John W. Campbell Jr.  Heinlein (Anderson,
Garrett, etc.) made much of their careers writing in the era "godfathered"
by Campbell.  Further many of them sold a *lot* of stories to Campbell.
Campbell had very strict ideas about sex and science fiction - I suspect
that many of these authors have overcompensated now that things have loosened
up.

							dan

The difference is really noticeable in STRANGER IN A STRANGE LAND.  The second
half is much different in style and topic than the first half.  I gather that
the two parts were written years apart.

I started worrying about Heinlein's writing after I WILL FEAR NO EVIL.  It
was only with the (somewhat overbloated) TIME ENOUGH FOR LOVE that his
writing started entertaining me again.  It was nice in FRIDAYS to get some
"future history" again  (i.e. what happened to the "supermen" group formed
by Baldwin in an earlier short story).  The background society was set out
in a lot of detail, which is one of the things I really enjoy about SF.

In re 15.2

I too really appreciate the "future history" in Heinlein's writing. Even when
the story is questionable, it's good to fill the picture out just a bit more.
Unfortunately, I don't know of any other author who does it as well as he
does.

In re 15.1:

Could you expand more on what this "Campbell" person was all about? If he
had such a great impact on the nature of SF, it would be good to know
as much as possible.

		bob wyman

Most probably, Heinlein got corrupted when he attended a science fiction
convention.

Dave C.

John Campbell (re: 15.1 and 15.3) was the editor/publisher (and founder? I may
be wrong on the founder) of "ASTOUNDING Science Fiction" which later through
a re-naming, became "ANALOG Science Fiction Science Fact" Magazine. He had
a TREMENDOUS influence on early science ficxtion, since his was the only venue
the early authors could find. By early I mean 1920's-1930's.
Campbell continued to publish ANALOG until, I believe, the late 60's or early 
70's when he died. 
	Anyway, Heinlein was a naval officer who took medical retirement 
about 1939 and needed something to do. So he combined his writing talent and
his engineering degree (from the Naval Academy) into his future series. He is 
still living in the San Diego area after spending most of his life in Colorado
Springs. His early stuff in ASTOUNDING was written under the pseudonym, 
"Anson McDonald" where the "Anson" is his middle name and MacDonald was
a tribute to Campbell.
	I agree with 15.2 about the "curve ball" being thrown with the publication of "stranger": but if you look you can see vague beginnings as early as
"have Space Suit, Will Travel" and "Starman Jones" (not sexual but more
unconventional SF, which I believe he is carrying on in the later stuff.)

 John W. Campbell was the editor of ASTOUNDING Science Fiction.
He took over the job in 1938. Before becoming a full-time 
editor, he made quite a name for himself as an author. 
 Under his own name, he wrote galaxy-spanning space operas, in 
the vein of E.E. "Doc" Smith. Under pseudonym of Don A. Stuart,
he wrote some of the first SF stories that were more than blood
and thunder. The first, and finest of his Stuart stories was
"Twilight".
 As editor for ASTOUNDING, he changed the direction and flavor of 
SF. He was the first to insist that the stories be well-written.
Remember, this was in the heyday of "the pulps", when quantity 
was much more important than quality.
 Some of the writers he helped nurture were:
Heinlein, Asimov, Harry Harrison, Poul Anderson, A.E. VanVogt,
Hal Clement, (and many more... I'm doing this strictly from 
memory.)
 Under his tutelage and guidance, especially in the early years,
some of the classic SF pieces were written, including
Asimov's Foundation Trilogy, and Positronic Robot series, 
and Heinlein's Future History stories.
 During his tenure as editor, Campbell wrote some VERY 
controversial editorials, and espoused some very strange beliefs.
Some of these included the Dean Inertialess Drive and
Scientology (yep, THAT Scientology! L. Ron Hubbard began life as 
a SF writer, then found Bog [sic].)
 John W. Campbell died in his sleep on July 11, 1971.
 Asimov especially acknowledges his debt to Campbell, and often 
writes of him in the introductory notes of his stories. If you 
are interested in more about JWC, I suugest you read:
Isaac Asimov's "The Early Years", Vol I & II (Fawcett)
Harrison (ed)  "Astounding" (A homage to JWC)

					Peace,
					andrew

  Even more than Asimov's Early Years, read "In Memory Yet Green" and "In 
Joy Still Felt", his gargantuan autobiography of about 1600 pages.  In
addition to being a delightful read with anecdotal chapters that kept me up 
all night for the 4 or 5 days it took to read it (Just one more chapter 
before I turn out the light...), it also is a goldmine of information on 
Early Sci Fi, JWC, pulps, Heinlein, McCaffrey, Ellison, and many others 
that Asimov has known throughout his SF career.  
   Bob, Have you REALLY never heard of JWC?  You probably have read one of 
his stories if you've done any reading of earlier award winning and classic
stri
oops! stories.  He wrote "Who goes there?" the excellent story upon which the
not quite as excellent movies "The Thing" were based.
   As for Heinlein's "infantile fixation" as he calls it, it seems to me that
it was always present even in his earliest works, it's just gotten more 
explicit.  Although he has gotten a mite excessive as of late, I've always
enjoyed his open, unembaressed enjoyment of sex.  It seems to be a much
healthier attitude than the prominent ones that society has about sex.

tlh

In re 15.8:

Gosh... I'm sorry. Must be a twit. Yes, I admit that I am not aware of 
having heard of JWC before. I read alot of science fiction but I've never
been very "acedemic" about it. I just read it and enjoy it but usually
forget the titles, authors, etc. Except of course for the folks like
Heinlein, Asimov etc who I've read so much of I couldn't possibly forget.

I agree that Heinlein's new approach to sex certainly seems much more
open, unembarrased etc. The problem is that when he rights about it 
it somehow seems "strained"... Like he wants us to believe that he views it
as open etc. It's the only time I've ever felt Heinlein was trying to
sell me something. 

		bob wyman

    Sorry, Bob, didn't mean to imply anything of the sort.  I've come to know 
your wide range of interests and knowledge through the Trivia file.  I was 
genuinely surprised to find out you hadn't heard of him, since you are fairly 
knowledgable in the field.
    I agree that lately Heinlein's portrayal seems strained.  Maybe he is tryin
to sell us something.  (By the way, I've heard that his second and I believe 
present wife is very much like his heroines.  Tall, beautiful Amazonian...  
Maybe he's just describing his lifestyle.  Tee hee)
   
tlh

What drives me crazy about late Heinlein (post 'Time Enough for Love')
is not the sex, but his awful dialogue.  Imagine two people, Fred
and Shirley, alone in a room.  They begin every other sentence with
each other's name, viz:

	Fred:	Well, Shirley, what should we do now?
	Shirley: I don't know, Fred.
	Fred:	Only a few more minutes to go.
	Shirley: Fred, I'm scared.
	Fred:	No reason to be scared.  Say, Shirl, what say
		we drop down to Tony's?

People just don't talk like that!  Maybe it is supposed to show
intensity of feeling.  It gets in the way for me.

I'm not sure what has happened to Heinlein. As people have pointed out his
obsession seemed to have started with Stranger in a Strange Land. It has
continued throughout his more modern works, especially I will Fear No
Evil and Number of the Beast. I am a devout fan of Heinlein's and have
read just about everything he has written including many o{ his political
essays. These last two novels have been a severe letdown though, The number
of the Beast was far too preachy, (exceeded in its preaching only by
Starship Troopers). As to Friday, I fear the poor man has gotten senile,
it seemed to have no direction to it at all, it just seemed to go on and o{
(full of sound and fury but signifying NOTHING).                         ^on
It seems a shame, tne thing Robert Heinlein could always do to me before
was root me in place, waiting to find out wh{t our hero/heroine would do next.
With Friday I kept putting it down not really caring what happened.


					If you see one of these {
					please ignore it, my
					phone line at home is BAAAAAAAD
							Keith

I thought 'number of the beast' was quite good ....... for the first few chapter
then it seemed to tail off into complete and utter rubbish. No wonder Omni only

featured a small excerpt.

I liked the older stuff...'Glory Road' is very funny to me, 'Starship Trooper' 

merely made me laugh.

andy

Glory Road, for one, had some pretty interesting attitudes about sex (if I
remember correctly). And even earlier...The Door into Summer had the 
protagonist/Heinlein persona falling in love with a pre-adolescent girl
and catching up with her later in time to marry her when she was at the
age of consent. And The Year of the Jackpot starts with a woman suddenly
taken with the urge to strip while waiting for a bus...

Not sure if I have my Heinlein chronology correct. In any case, the guy
has always been writing about his own libido in one form or another. Hell,
even in the juveniles--Podkayne (sp?) was pretty oversexed. As a teenager,
it tickled me no end. I stopped looking after Time Enough for Love--I liked
the book, but yes, he had gotten a bit too insistent about the matter for
my tastes.

	Well, I read through all 14 replies and am amazed to find that I
	am the only one who heard that Heinlein had a stroke. Yes, and a
	pretty bad one. "Number of the Beast" was typed one-handed, I'm
	told, and finished with two hands. It was therapy.

	On Heinlein and Sex: Yes, but he's from California, which explains
	a lot. There will never be a book to equal "The Moon is a Harsh
	Mistress" - totally engaging and would make an excellent movie.
	Back to sex: Heinlein is a challenger - the mores of the '50s, when
	most of his books were written, were EXTREMELY conservative. His
	open (and somewhat twisted) approach to sexual topics was designed
	to shock and challenge a generation - which it did. "Grok" was a
	word in the vocabulary of every early-sixties rebel, and the "Free
	Love" movement of 64-65 is directly attributable to Heinlein.

	Dismiss him if you will, crippled and old; but at his height, he was
	an author that moved the minds of a generation.

					Mark Maxson

In re 15.15:

	I wouldn't "dismiss" Heinlein, rather I would regret the passing of
a master...

		bob wyman

Re .15

Nor would I dismiss him. And I agree about "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress"...
I reread it many times in my youth, and always surprised myself by crying (!)
at the very end.

Speaking of movies...I thought someone *was* making "Moon" into a movie awhile
back, but never heard what became of that. Does anybody know?

/A softie at heart

	I thought the Heinlein's strange sexual attitudes followed from his
fasination [I know its spelled wrong but I am not going to dig out the 
dictionary at this hour] with the imortality theme. 

While I'd have to admit that RAH's writing has seemed uneven over the past
15 years (or whatever), that may partly just be because I'm so accustomed
over long acquaintance with his earlier work to enjoy that which I like and
ignore that which I don't.  That is to say, when encountering the earlier
work in a lump in the '60s, I quickly latched onto what appealed to me,
whereas in later years some eagerly-awaited new work turned out to be
disappointing (some also did not, I should add).

A lot of my joy in Heinlein is that he takes important things seriously:
I don't mind much his manner of preaching (even though it's certainly a
literary weakness in a way) because he believes so hard.  He even does a
fair job of working the beliefs into his stories:  while the message always
come through VERY loud and clear, one doesn't have to be unreasonably
forgiving to accept it as an integral part of the rest of what's going on.

Heinlein's beliefs are simple, but not shallow.  He delights in taking them
to extremes, and in providing sufficient justification to make disagreement
a non-trivial challenge.  That many people may find such beliefs (and
especially such extremes) off-putting is not surprising:  he seems clearly
trying to confront the reader with situations that are difficult to squirm
out of by appeal to conventional morality, and those who aren't willing to
dig in and tackle the discomfort until they can resolve it are unlikely to
be happy with him.  In other words, it's possible to disagree, but he
doesn't make it easy.

While sex has certainly been strongly present in his later work, his most
consistent preaching over time has been libertarianism (if that is really
the correct term - I have a feeling he would object to having it pinned down
to anything like a label).  Even when I find myself at odds with his
situations, I can't help respecting them - and I'm sure that they have
influenced me over the years.  His recent attitude toward women seems very
consistent with his early work:  a newer strong overlay of libertarian
liberation placed on his early chivalry.  While this can get objectionably
paternalistic, it should not be surprising - and if the writing seems harder
to take, it may in part be due to subjective differences in reaction when
sex rather than politics is the subject.  In sum, I suspect that anyone who
is upset with his portrayal of women should have been upset all along:  I am,
somewhat, and yet once again he brings to them sufficient honesty and love
that I forgive it.

By the way, for old Heinlein fans, David Gerrold has recently written A MATTER
FOR MEN, dedicated to the Heinleins and written in a style almost indistin-
guishable from early RAH himself (including the political philosophy).  I'm
not at all ready to write off the original yet, but there definitely seems
to be a competent understudy in the wings.
						- Bill

It also seems that the conversation level in Heinlein's books have been 
increasing starting with STRANGER IN A STRANGE LAND and getting worse 
until THE NUMBER OF THE BEAST (Gay Deciever??).  What ever happened to
the days of THE GLORY ROAD and STARSHIP TROOPERS??????

						JOHN M.

It's not so much that Heinlein has gotten worse, it's that so many
new writers have come on the scene in the past 15 years who have
fresh ideas and styles (Niven, Varley, Brunner).  After all, as bad
as RAH sometimes seem now, he was without peer in his day.
"Stranger" was his downfall, as it turned him into a mass cult figure
of sorts, and put him on a soap-box.  His dialogue has always been
poor, even annoying, but I never noticed that when I was a kid reading
and re-reading "Rocketship Galileo" and "Red Planet", long before
Sputnik and Explorer; as an adult, it's uncomfortable to read these
same books.  We're all a bit jaded now, I think.

Harry Crowhter

Just having stumbled into this file the other day, I had missed this note till
now.  Having read all the replies, I wish that I had an optical text reader
that really works, because I can't see myself typing in the complete text of 
Spider Robinson's "Rah, Rah, R.A.H.!", as it appeared in his short story 
collection _Time Traveller's Strictly Cash_.  I would heartily recommend this 
defense of Heinlein, his works and his lifestyle.  (Besides which, Robinson's 
Callahan Saloon series is absolutely delightful and well worth the price of 
admission.)

- Chris

re: 15.21

Although TNOTB isn't the best book I've read, I fell off my chair laughing 
at the name of the autopilot.  "Gay Deceivers" is an archaic phrase 
referring to an item of women's apparrel sometimes known as "falsies".

Ray

    my objection to heinlein's recent works is the interchangeability
    of his characters. They are all physically perfect, geniuses, strongly
    independant, and egomaniacal. 
    somewhere in this notes file I saw a comment from a woman saying
    she didn't think heinlein was chauvenistic. Sure he makes the women
    strong and independant and intelligent, but they all ,deep down,
    want to be kept barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen cooking for
    their man while he goes out to hunt and fight off the savages.
    as for sex, there really isn't very much as I recall, alot of nudity
    and talk but not much else. Friday was especially a teaser, every
    time she was about to go to bed with someone, some new crisis came
    up, forcing her to vamoose.
    
    I think that most of his older (and to me , the best) stories were
    written for a series aimed at the younger teen-age market.
    
    sm

       I'm the woman who earlier stated that she didn't think that Heinlein
    was chauvanistic.
    
       Just because a lot of his women have a desire to have children
    does not make him chauvanistic.  One thing I noticed about his
    characters is that they ALL want children.  It's just that the men
    don't have the means to carry them.  As you've pointed out, Heinlein
    has many genius characters.  Many of them are women.  I like that
    fact that he does not assume that the posession of a uterus negates
    the possibilty of posession of a brain.  I don't think Heinlein
    is the greatest character author in the world but at least he
    as stumbles on the men as well as the women.  He may not be liberated as
    all hell but especially considering the time in which he grew up
    and started writing he was remarkably forward thinking.  Just because
    he hasn't made advances into Alan Alda style liberation does not
    make him chauvanistic or lessen the significance of his characters'
    abilities at the time he wrote them.  (And how much have *your*
    deeply ingrained ideas changed in your adult life??)
                                                                       
       BTW if I'm being unfairly treated by his assumption that I want
    kids, so is my husband.   (Both of us prefer cats, thank you.)
    
    tlh
    

    	Having read through this entire file (wheh!), I noticed one
    book of Heilein's that wasn't mentioned:  ORPHANS OF THE SKY.
    	It was one of the first books by Heinlein that I read, and I
    was intrigued by it not only for its plot of a huge multigenerational
    starship carrying people who had been inside it for so long they
    thought it was the Universe, but also by the fact that its technology
    reads so well into the present despite being written in 1939, when
    only a small number of people were developing relatively crude liquid
    rockets for suborbital flight, let alone a starship!  I think the
    idea of control panel instruments being light activiated so as not
    to wear out over the centuries quite ingenious and should be built
    into real manned starships someday.
    	The only "negative" point about ORPHANS is that the women in
    it were portrayed as just good enough to have babies and thereby
    help carry on the family name.  One could look upon it as Heinlein's
    attempt to show how poorly women were treated in the Middle Ages
    (the ship's society had reverted to that era of existence), but
    in light of everything else, I think it's a pretty thin excuse.
    
    	Larry
    

    Has anyone read "THE CAT WHO WALKS THROUGH WALLS" yet ?
    
    R.A.H. 's work is getting rather tangled, but I haven't yet
    
    found one I could put down before finished. The problem is
    
    that his work did not grow and mature in an "expected" pattern,
    
    to which I say GREAT !!! Keep me guessing, Oh Great Father
    
    of the Dreamer Fithp !

    Note 273, ambiguously titled "New Heinlein", concerns
    _The_Cat_Who_Walks_Through_Walls_.
    
    I must say (In fact I have in 273) that I agree with you.
    His work is soooooo close to being real good that I have to read
    the entire book, only to be disappointed in the end.
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
     

    re .22
    
    John Brunner has been on the scene as long as I've been reading
    SF (nearly 30 years).

    Like 35.
    
    				Don ICEMAN::Rudman

Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf-lovers
Path: decwrl!decvax!ucbvax!ucbcad!ames!amdahl!drivax!macleod
Subject: Heinlein news.
Posted: 30 Apr 87 04:35:27 GMT
Organization: Digital Research, Monterey
Keywords:
 
    While the subject of Robert Heinlein is current here, I'd like to
make a few more general comments. 
 
    I am a devoted fan of Robert Heinlein and his literature and I
think that history will rank him with some of the better American
writers.  Many of you probably agree.  In particular, I'm very
grateful to him for writing about the kinds of moral issues and ideas
that he did, because they formed my youthful ideas about how a man
should act, and treat others, and value things and events in his life.
My parents had no values to pass on to me, to speak of, and I wasn't
raised in a church.  In California there are no real neighborhoods
that pass on cultural values like the ones in the Midwest and on the
East Coast.  To some extent, I was raised by Heinlein's books, and I'm
very thankful for his attention to values. 
 
    If you are interested in looking them over, the University of
California at Santa Cruz has, in its Special Collections, Robert
Heinlein's manuscripts and many of his personal papers,
correspondence, letters, and trivia.  You can go there, and as I did,
read an early draft of STRANGER IN A STRANGE LAND - almost a religious
experience for me, a child of the '60s. 
  
    Mr. Heinlein lives in this area and a friend of mine has had some
communication with his wife, Virginia, recently.  As you probably
know, he was suffering from a degenerative bloodflow problem that was
cutting off blood to his brain.  This was repaired, but apparently
there has been irreparable damage.  Furthermore, he only has a
fraction of normal lung function.  Virginia has been handling his
business affairs for many years, and has done a heroic job in
supporting his writing.  Judge not his new books too harshly; they are
written under harrowing constraints.  His latest novel should come out
in June or July.  I suspect that it will be his last. 
  

    This gives one the impression his publishers are cashing in on
    his reputation instead on ensuring the quality of writing for
    which he was justifiably called the Dean of Science Fiction.
    
    A sad state of affairs.
    
    							Don

    
    	Another book that is notable by its exclusion is JOB. Though
    I believe that this book was about 150 pages too long, the idea
    and the fun with which it was meant was very evident (sp?). Yes
    I realize that the premis (sp?) was biblical, but still the idea
    that the devil is just another being, whos turn it is to be the
    bad guy, in the never ending game was interesting, and about time.
    
    tac

    I agree that it's neither the quantity nor the explicit nature of
    the sexual aspects of his recent books, but rather, that it seems,
    to me at least, rather strained.  I started JOB about two years
    ago & found this so distracting that I never finished the book.
    Somehow, the lengthy anatomical descriptions seemed like they were
    only there because the author got off on writing them, and the
    publishers couldn't convince him to edit them out.
    						jpb

    I enjoyed "Job" (literally read it in one sitting), and have finished
    everything of RAH's that I picked up.  The problem I find with his most
    recent stuff is that he belabors his point far too much.  My husband
    and I both grew up on "Papa Heinlein's" philosophy, and agree with most
    of what he says.  Most [Not all. Most] women do want children; if we
    didn't, the race would be in pretty sorry shape.  I think most men do
    too, though they don't necessarily want to take part in raising them.
    Heinlein's been saying the same things all along, but he never used to 
    *drone* *on* the way the most recent stuff does.

    One of my favorite RAH quotes is from "Beyond This Horizon," in which
    the female protagonist, on being asked if she'll forgive our hero (who
    had done something obnoxious and chauvinistic), replies "Women will 
    forgive almost anything.  Otherwise the race would've died out long
    ago."

    I think "The Cat Who Walked Through Walls" (aka "The Number of the
    Beast is a Harsh Mistress" -- think about it) is the worst as far as
    bludgeoning a point goes.  The more recent "To Sail Beyond the Sunset,"
    which is Maureen's memoir, isn't as bad, mostly because it doesn't
    spend too much time jumping around the multiverse.  She describes her
    view of the events in "Time Enough for Love," which is interesting.  I
    reread TEfL after tSBtS, and found few glaring inconsistencies.

    I'll continue to read anything he publishes, and I'll be sad when he
    finally stops writing, even though it would probably be better if he
    did so now.  To me, Heinlein will always be *the* master.  I know there
    are better writers, but they don't evoke the same response.

    Beverly

    As far as RAH's philosophizing goes, I've always felt he should
    have quit after "Beyond This Horizon".  He said it all there and
    subsequent expositions have mostly been tedious.
    
    -dave
    
    p.s.  I think I may be the only person who LIKED "Starship Troopers",
    	  but, then, I was in basic training when I read it.

    
    re .-1;
    
    You're not the only one. I've read and re-read "Starship Troopers"
    and still find it enjoyable. Avalon Hill produced a boardgame based
    on the book and that's a fun one too!
    
    -Ray
    

    re:.37
    
    You're definitely not the only one who liked STARSHIP TROOPERS.
    Until recently, I was the only one I knew who'd read it and
    *didn't* like it.
    
    --- jerry

    I've always liked "Starship Troopers", but then I liked Haldeman's
    "The Forever War" equally well, and everyone else always seems to
    like one and hate the other....
    
    Willie

    I've heard that Heinlein likes "The Forever War".  He supposedly told
    Haldeman that himself at the 76 Worldcon in Kansas City.  Heinlein
    is real tough to put into a box.

    Mike

    I too enjoyed "Starship Troopers".  In fact, it's one of my favorites.
    Interestingly, when I recommended to my school brothers (martial
    arts - combat, not sport) after all (*all*) had read "Dune", I was
    universally berated for recommending such a "...right wing vehicle
    of propaganda..." after they had read it.  No comments on the story, 
    just the apparent political bent.  I thought it was pretty tame,
    and fairly mainstream.
    
    Dwight

    After reading all these replies which span over 3 years, nobody
    mentioned the fact that we read for entertainment! I have to admit,
    that I am a real avid fan of RAH, and like others have been formed
    in my early years, but now that I am a little older{?!}, I long
    for each new release just for the enjoyment of reading and learning
    all the new adventures of " old friends ".
    His style has changed of course, but so have our times and the
    restraints he has had to publish by. I for one just enjoy the books,
    and hope he can continue filling in the details of a world he has
    made very real for millions. 

    Just a quick note to agree with .23 regarding Spider Robinson's
    defence of RAH titled RAH RAH R.A.H. in the Callahan's Saloon Series.
    Read .23 for the exact reference.  This short essay is one of the
    best defences I have ever read.  Spider Robinson managed to say
    everything I feel about RAH.  Nuth said read it for yourself.

    
    
    Robert A. Heinlein passed away yesterday.
    
    
    
    	" Under the wide and starry sky
    	  dig my grave and let me lie.
    	  This be the verse you grave for me
    	  'Home is the hunter from the hunt...'"
    
    
    			"REQUIEM"

    
    
    	Can someone verify that RAH has passed away? If this is true
    it is a sad day for his fans/friends.
    
    thanks
    
    tac

    	If you type the command DIR/TITLE=Heinlein, you will find that
    SF Topic 616 is devoted to Robert A. Heinlein's passing away, with
    23 replies confirming it.
    
    	Larry
    

    
    RE Stranger ...
    
    I beleive he admitted having written "Stranger ..." in four parts,
    not two.  He might have said it in "Expanded Uneverse", but I'm
    not sure.  My first Heinlein was "Stranger ...", my favorite was
    " ... Mistress".  I agree that his writing had been suffering (as
    I hope that he wasn't), but I also agree that his work was, is and
    ever shall be among the best I've ever read.
    
    Speedo the Mournful

    
    I before E etc, etc 
    I'm soooooo embarrassed !
    
    Speedo the Misspeller
    

    Maybe his next book will be better.
    
    					Don (who may have to break down
                                            and read his latest.)

    RE .50

    > Maybe his next book will be better.
    
      What do you mean?? I thought he's dead... :-(

      Tom    

    RE: .51
    
    Perhaps .50 was referring to the posthumous (nonfiction) Heinlein
    book that will be released in 1990, reportedly entitled "Grumbles
    From the Grave."
    
    Fred

        At one point in _Time Enough For Love_, Lazarus says to (then)
        wife Dora, in reference to sex, "E.F. or F.F.?"  Her answer is
        "Both!".  I think I've seen that phrase in at least one
        other Heinlein work, as well.
        
        Any idea what it means?
        
        By the way, I bought a recent paperback copy of _Time Enough
        For Love_, since my last copy disappeared a while ago.
        It says on the cover "The _New York Times_ bestselling
        author of _The Cat Who Walks Through Walls_".  A little
        out of sequence, eh?
        
Jim Stratton
        

    "extended" or "fast" ?

    E. F. = Eat First
    
    F. F. = F*** First

Re:< Note 15.56 by TOPDOC::SLOANE "Bats need friends" >

Maybe I am sexually inexperienced, but I'd like to know how one can do 
"both" E.F. AND F.F. as the noter in .53 asked?

>    E. F. = Eat First
>    
>    F. F. = F*** First

Since clearly each one is "first".

Interested
Tony

    You've got me -- only RAH knows for sure -- finger foods? 
    
    I think he was making a joke. 
                         
    Bruce        

    Sorry, folks, but it can be done... fairly easily.  
    
    If E.F. = Eat First   and
       F.F. = F___First, then...
    
    Engaging in intercourse (F___ing), then eating, then engaging
    in intercourse would satisfy the requirements for "both"
    mentioned in .53. (F.F., then E.F.)      Easy, no?
    
    Hmmmm..... this assumes that one would find two "F"s as 
    something "easy" to do, doesn't it?
    
                                     - Ed - 

    There's another, simpler answer. Find an unabridged AMERICAN
    HERITAGE DICTIONARY (the Digital Standard Paperback will *not*
    suffice). Look up "eat". Read definition #4 (labeled "Vulgar
    Slang").
    
    --- jerry

re:  E. F.
 vs  F. F.

  Reminds me of an old, old, old joke about a sailor on an aircraft carrier
that had been on an extended patrol -- when the ship returned to home port,
a sailor was standing at the rail, waving at his wife;  when they got within
earshot, the exchange was something like:
  Wife:     E. F.
  Sailor:   F. F.
and on and on -- perhaps, since RAH had a Naval background, this is a
Standard Navy Joke (MILSPEC-SNJ0001) -- any ex-sailors out there know??

  Read mostly, and still a lot of catching up to do--
--Stan