I am always of two minds about Heinlein. He writes clear, easy to follow prose. And he is better at drawing an engaging character than his peers in the classic age of SF, like Asimov and Clarke; One need only think of Mycroft Holmes and Mannie from The Moon is a Harsh Mistress to understand what I am saying. And his ideas are pretty good too. Unlike most world-builders, he doesn't get too carried away. And I love the way that he just mentions a technology, and doesn't harp on its origin or exactly how it looks. But Heinlein is also very much a man of his times. He can be sexist -- despite his futile attempts at Feminism in Time Enough for Love, where Feminism equates to liking sex and being able to shoot a gun. Or thinking that the way to win a woman's heart is to "mind meld" with her as she dances erotically, so she can understand why men like women so much. At least, that's how Valentine Michael Smith went about wooing women in Stranger in a Strange LandYou get the point. Even to the 1940's and 1950's, he was a bit backwards. But, at least, he was aware that he was. And tried...Another fault is that Heinlein can be a bit callous. His characters do not "walk a mile" in other people's shoes. Instead, they function like detached, completely rational Free Market decision machines. Which, of course, is ludicrous.Both his strengths and weaknesses are on full display in Orphans of the Sky. Heinlein presents us with a relatively likable protagonist in Hugh Hoyland, whose "tribe" selects him to be a "Scientist." We quickly piece together that the tribe is living on a spaceship. And that they are living on a spaceship, but have no concept that there is anything outside the tube. I especially like how Heinlein took the concept of isolation, and how that caused the humans to create a religion to explain life. And how that very religious system came to limit personal freedom. In fact, I think he conveys the ideas much better here than he does in his other anti-religious polemic, Revolt in 2100. And it also seems more natural, and less forced. Another great thing about Heinlein is his openness to the strange. His characters do not judge books by their covers. And he makes it clear that the human's treatment of the Muties, most of whom who are mutants and look different, is wrong. As was their treatment of people who thought differently. Like Hugh during his trial for blasphemy -- saying that the ship moved. But, alas, Heinlein's weaknesses are flaunted here as well. And Orphans of the Sky displays a few. Like the story's lack of female characters. in fact, the women here all have a subservient role. As if their only function were as baby carriers. Now, granted, this may have been an artifact of the culture. But even the open-minded Hugh never questioned that. All in all, a decent book that I read because I found it for pennies at a used book store, and it was the only volume I have never read of Heinlein's Future History. Now that I am done, I will leave Heinlein to rest. Appreciating him at his best: The Moon is a Harsh Mistress still ranks among my all-time science fiction favorites. To his worst -- the creepy, often cringe-worthy erotic solipsism of Time Enough For Love and Friday. Leo's Blog: leo-walsh.com.
This novella collects two of Heinlein's earliest stories, both from 1941, but unlike other such combinations, the two stories were originally meant to go together, and form a continuous narrative. As this is a very early attempt from Heinlein, it wouldn't be surprising to find his writing rough and flawed, but it's an unexpectedly solid yarn.His writing is direct and unobtrusive; something many authors aspire to, but few ever manage. Even at this early stage, his naturalistic prose sets him above van Vogt or other pulp authors.The story, itself is straightforward; an adventure with some light politics and quite a bit of violence. It is also one of the earliest depictions of a 'generation ship' on a mission to colonize far worlds.There is also a central philosophical theme, a staple in Heinlein, this time concerning the fact that the crew have grown exceedingly detached from reality, thanks to the long voyage. Numerous generations pass in space and the crew forget their mission, their history on Earth, and the most basic tenets of science. Instead they persist in a murky feudalism, fighting over territory in ship and considering 'Earth', 'The Trip', and the destination (Proxima) to be mystical, supernatural concepts.Heinlein is able to play a quite amusing satire on religion, tradition, and ignorance here, successfully providing the characters with very realistic and unusual responses to the world based on their own limited understanding. They are not merely modern characters transplanted in place and time, Heinlein works hard to give them a psychology fit to their situation.Unfortunately, in this brutal, superstitious, uneducated, warlike place, women are fully second-class citizens. Heinlein doesn't harp on this--in fact it rarely comes up--but when it does, it is not entirely pleasant to see. However, it's not an unrealistic portrayal, and it would hardly have made sense to depict a violent, ignorant society as having modern, egalitarian social mores.Heinlein could have tried to make some stronger female characters living under this repressive structure; or alternately, used this as another opportunity to indulge in satire, but instead, we get a bit of the old sci fi boys' club. However, these occurrences are few and late in the book and hardly detract from the story, as a whole.This is a well-crafted adventure story with satire, politics, and intriguing, active characters. Certainly not Heinlein's strongest work, but not without its charm.
What do You think about Orphans Of The Sky (2001)?
I read it, and it was a quick Heinlein read and rather fun. However, the two appearances of women in the plot were so irrelevant and so misogynist (from the author more than the characters) that an editor might as well cut them out and change the genders of various main characters. I assure you, it would make no difference to the book, except that I wouldn't want to go back and punch Heinlein in the nose.Seriously. This one dude gets picked out at the beginning of the story for being exceptionally intelligent, so they raise his rank rather than have him threaten the establishment. The idea that some women might do the same is apparently not a figment of Heinlein's imagination, and neither is putting any women in the outcast population, or making the women other than "useless". Having read "Have Space Suit, Will Travel" some years ago, I'd thought he was better than that.
—Elizabeth S. Q. Goodman
I had already read Universe, and at first I didnt know that this was Universe and its sequel - Common Sense in one volume.The basis idea in Universe - that a multi-generational interstellar had a mutiny mid trip and never reached its destination - is interesting in itself. The idea that they think their whole universe is the ship itself is so easily recognizable. It reminded me of Ramsis II - who lived over 90 years in a time when the typical lifespan was 30. It made for a case where almost literally everyone alive at some point, never knew a time when he wasnt Pharoah. In a world without external media to sway the hearts and minds of the common folk, why wouldnt you believe he was indeed GOD on Earth? I love the fleshing out of it with the specific examples of direct technical terms, being misrepresented as allegory rings so true, I found myself picking out examples of it in everyday life.Common Sense felt a little forced to me, like he just wanted to cram a "Happy" ending onto the excellent kernel of thought that was the original Universe. All in all though this has to be among the top 5 sci-fi stories of all time. Throw in Niven's Integral Trees, Farmers Dark is the Sun, and you have a great start on your way to a well rounded portfolio of the all-time greats
—Darth
I downloaded this book because I have a huge interest in "Generational Ships" in my own work and was curious to see how one of the masters handled it. Overall I love the premise. No need to summarize it in detail as this is a well known enough novel, but the idea of creating a world that has become lost in time and space is almost like a writers playground. Anything is possible, and Heinlein fills his ship with a myriad of intriguing ideas.Heinlein has this way of putting forth interesting bits of technology, but then letting it fade into the background. There is no wasted time describing how everything works and to me that's his greatest strength. You just accept the worlds he places you in, even if they might not be technologically possible. It helps his work stand up even today, his inability to avoid blatant sexism excluded. While "Orphans of the Sky" is not without its fault, such as an all to abrupt ending, I found myself unable to put this down. I suspect people in the 40's must have been even more spellbound by the story.
—Rhett Bruno
