I think Heinlein enjoyed provoking people--provoking them into thinking about things they took for granted, their assumptions, and possible alternatives.

I don't think he necessarily expected his readers to agree with what he wrote. I seem to recall remarks in an essay (I'm not sure if it was by Heinlein or about him) about not mistaking a storyteller's product for his personal opinions, but I can't find the quote.

I think Heinlein wanted readers to think about why they agreed or disagreed.

In TMiaHM he did that with the purpose, form, and function of government on a small scale (the family) and on a large scale (the nation).

There are two quotes that have stuck with me since I first read TMiaHM as a teenager:

"Under what circumstances is it moral for a group to do that which is not moral for a member of that group to do alone?"

and

"Don't reject the idea merely because it seems preposterous--think about it!" [emphasis mine]

"Don't reject the idea merely because it seems preposterous--think about it!" [emphasis mine]

Yes. We'll all think about a great big orgy with our second cousins once removed, Bob.

The thing that makes me most want to bust Heinlen in the teeth is the smarmy way he covers up the fact that all he wants to do is fuck and not pay taxes by pretending to be a great philosopher.

WhatEV, Bob. If you want to hump your in-laws, that's cool. Just don't try to tell me it's an important part of a great libertarian utopia that is of course the right way to go. But no, you're not serious, you just want me to think, but I can't really think Bob, when of course all I want to do is marry into your family and carry your seed, as is my role.

Silly me. *gigglelolomigod*

Wow. I wonder if I've transferred a portion of my Dubya hate to Heinlen, because I found it so impossible to hate someone so much that I had to wring out the excess onto Heinlen.

Clearly, I need to read TMiaHM. It's just that in other books, there are other kinds of family units. I'd never taken it as RAH saying "This is the One True Way" because I think his real point was that mom+dad+2.5 kids isn't the One True Way, that it's an adaptation to outside forces. And that in a different environment, a different structure might result, and people might manage to be happy that way, too.

Allyson, have you read anything else by him? If one book infuriated you that much, I certainly wouldn't tell you to try another one (because I want to live!) but I'm surprised that it read as, I dunno, propaganda. I've definitely twitched at some of his stuff, but I never thought he was presenting his own utopian vision.

I'd never taken it as RAH saying "This is the One True Way" because I think his real point was that mom+dad+2.5 kids isn't the One True Way, that it's an adaptation to outside forces. And that in a different environment, a different structure might result, and people might manage to be happy that way, too.

That's the way I read it, too. What if...?

Yeah, I think it's kind of both - the patriarch/love god figure (Jubal Harshaw, etc.) is definitely a Heinlein Sue, but I do respect the fact that he was thinking outside the box in terms of what defines a family - which is liberating even if you're not a Mormon don't want to be one of his brilliant fuckbunnies.

There are two quotes that have stuck with me since I first read TMiaHM as a teenager:

I think the timing is key for liking Heinlein/finding him profound. I read The Green Hills of Earth as a young'un, but didn't get around to the novels until university. SF fandom had large groups of Heinlein advocates and Libertarianism was large with fandom as a result. It was too late for me. I couldn't see the RAH love, found the politics stifling and the inter-personal relationships creepy.

YRaHMV, especially if you first read him in the 60s or early 70s. I find reformed Heinlein fans defending his juveniles now, but not much else outside of Starship Troopers, Moon, and Stranger.

I think Glory Road is fun.

t glares around suspiciously

I think The Green Hills of Earth and The Long Watch may have affected my world view as a youngster, more than anything else I read at the time. It's changed, of course, since then, but those two short stories have stayed with me. I can't be rational about them, because when I try to read them now, I'm overcome with all the adolescent emotion they evoked on first reading.

Stranger, Friday, and Beast, however, are a completely different pair of galoshes.

I think the timing is key for liking Heinlein/finding him profound.

Yeah. It may have helped that I read more of his short stories than the novels; it's a little easier to take it as "here's a thought... and here's a different thought" if you aren't immersed in a particular world for hundreds of pages. And I was reading a lot of Asimov and Dick around then; compared to that RAH's women would have looked pretty good.