Looking through Steam today, I found Colony Ship with this description,

Colony Ship is an isometric, party-based RPG inspired by Heinlein’s Orphans of the Sky. Your character's world is a “generation ship,” a massive spacecraft on a centuries long voyage to colonize a distant planet. The Ship's original government has been disbanded following a violent mutiny and you must negotiate a treacherous path among your fellow passengers and the contentious factions striving to dominate the Ship. Your choices will determine who your friends and enemies are.

It made me wonder, how many videos games are directly influenced by Heinlein's works? Heinlein's influence is so wide that just about every science fiction video game has been indirectly influenced by him. I'm more interested in knowing which ones have been substantially influenced by his works, whether they outright state it or it's so obvious an inspiration. For sure, any Starship Troopers game and adjacent video game franchise (such as Helldivers) has a direct connection to Heinlein.

It's a really good Australian movie based solidly on All You Zombies. Worth a watch if you haven't seen it yet.

Is the idea that because he/she is so aware of the constant time meddling that everyone else is just going through meaningless predestined motions like zombies?

Unfortunately it's like looking for a needle in an abandoned needle factory - they are everywhere! The quote I'm misremembering should have been Lazarus Long in Methuselah's Children, when the Howard Families have been "outed" publicly and Lazarus says they should run by preference, hide if they can and fight if necessary... only it's not there, it least it's not in the Kindle edition I have on-hand... maybe I need to find a print copy? Or it's from another Lazarus book entirely... or it's the Mandela Effect. Help me, internet insomniacs!

I found this flow chart showing the order for the future history and anything connected to it, but it's not clear what the best order is at the end (lower right):

Source: https://www.sffchronicles.com/threads/579486/

I've read the following novels in this order:

1. SISL
2. The Moon is a Harsh Mistress
3. Revolt in 2100 (the chart shows the components, "If This Goes On--", "Coventry", and "Misfit")
4. Methuselah's Children
5. Orphans of the Sky (the chart breaks it into the two novellas it consists of, "Universe" and "Common Sense")
6. Time Enough for Love

(I've read a few others, but they're not mentioned on the chart so I presume they're not connected in any way)

I wasn't even aware that they were interconnected and should be read in any particular order until just before I read TEFL, though it looks like I've pretty much followed the order by blind luck (without any of the short stories, which apparently are all prequels to what I've read). But, the chart is ambiguous as to where to go from here. It looks like The Number of the Beast would be next, but it branches from there to either To Sail Beyond the Sunset or The Cat Who Walks Through Walls, and those are connected by a line with arrowheads on both ends. Does that mean order doesn't matter between those two, or would you recommend one before the other? Also, would you recommend reading The Rolling Stones and/or Friday before Cat, and if so, does it matter if it's before or after either of the other two?

Even if you think the order in some cases is of very minor significance, I'd like to read them in the right order wherever there is one.

Does anyone know of a really good tract or treatise where Mr. Heinlein discusses Starship Troopers... what it says and what it tries to convey, what he meant to convey?

I’m bothered by the ending in Time For The Stars (Juvenile, 1956) (Spoilers follow.)

As is typical, RAH finished the book with two of his pet principles: Devotion to Duty and Individual Determination, I expect that. I’m not bothered by the Deus Ex Machina where he invents irrelevant ships to get the Elsie out of the problem. But the marriage to Vicky has me stumped.

Throughout the book, the various nieces, Molly, Kathleen and Vicky hardly are mentioned, except to state that Tom is able to communicate with them. Then, very suddenly, at the homecoming in the final page, Vicky announces that she and Tom are in love, and are getting married. 

I’ve got to assume that this was a ‘happy ever after’ ending demanded by Scribners and Alice Dalgleish for a juvenile; I find it out of character for Heinlein’s works. But why?  It doesn’t seem to me that it adds much to the book, and an alternate ending, such as Tom heading off to college searching for his place in the new world, might have been just as appealing.

Further, comparing this to Tunnel In The Sky, published the year before by the same publisher and editor, doesn’t use the same convention: Rod could have married Carol and teamed with her as an Outlands Captain, yet Rod is happily facing his future without a wife. Why is the romantic resolution not present here, when it was (apparently) inserted in the later work?

Just for context, I’ve consulted A Reader’s Companion, Grumbles From The Grave, and Patton’s Authorized Biography. None of them mention this particular conundrum.

Your thoughts?

https://preview.redd.it/c4p8fw6paezd1.png?width=2596&format=png&auto=webp&s=a51da2b317f338ac22db8446bbdcf4267f7cb905

Respectfully, I think the decision to lock the post was misguided as Heinlein was very articulate regarding Scudder's leadership and misdeeds. To draw parallels between the incoming president and Scudder is fundamentally pertinent and not inherently divisive.

Will people get their feelings hurt? Probably, but only if their emotional ties to their political ideologies are based in ignoring what Heinlein wrote/predicted ~80 years ago. A fan of Heinlein should have the mental fortitude to prioritize the exceptional ideas and text brought to the political consciousness of his fans over a need to ignore self-reflection.

This appeal has nothing to do with claiming a political ideology and is in no way a criticism of the mods doing what they felt is best, though I disagree for the reasons above. In sum, please re-open the conversation.

From the Wikipedia entry for "If This Goes On--"

"The story is set in a future theocratic American society, ruled by the latest in a series of fundamentalist Christian "Prophets." The First Prophet was Nehemiah Scudder, a backwoods preacher turned President (elected in 2012), then dictator (no elections were held in 2016 or later)."

It is easy to read that RAH had a soft spot for the beggar and may have considered it a noble profession. RAH never seems to support this position in any off the writings I have seen. He seems to just accept as a given and only write it as a character flaw if someone turns their nose at the down trodden.

Pretty sure they aren't in any other book, but I might have missed some detail in an interview or something.

I can see Brian having them committed (especially Priscilla), the two running off and getting married without Howard support, or possibly Donald pulling his head out and straightening up. I think she's a lost cause, sadly. There are other possibilities, of course.

I'll take discussion or even fanfiction that touches on it in lieu of official details.

Hopefully this is the right place to ask this question. I have never read anything by Heinlein even though I’m an avid reader. I’ve always shied away from his works since they were written so long ago. A lot of early science fiction books don’t really stand as relevant or believable anymore because current tech is more advanced or different from what was proposed as future technology when they were written. With that in mind are Heinlein’s books still enjoyable?

Went through all the used book stores in the city today. Turned up all my favorites.

I enjoy punny writing, Pratchett and Piers Anthony are 2 of my favorite comedy writers who i believe have no equals. I just booted up Time for the Stars again and one of the twins is talking about the far reaching foundation that is looking to develop tech for space exploration.

"Where does your lap go when you stand up"

It is such a fun little poke at semantics that i had a bit of a chuckle as i thought about it. I have so much appreciation for Heinlein's work and the way he goes about using the soft sci-fi as a setting to explore philosophy and sociology while using it as a tool to get you to look inward. Sure, some of his topics are globally spanning, but my takeaway is usually introspective. Not so much looking at how i can effect the world so much as how/if i am effected by the world around me.

I have listened to several of Heinlein's books. My first introduction was the 90's film adaptation Starship Troopers, though i didn't know it at the time. Over the last few years i have been diving into a bunch of old/classic sci-fi and have enjoyed pretty much all of Heinlein's stuff. I would like to eventually get physical copies of all his stuff and was wondering if anyone knows if there are any book bundles of his works?

Any tips and and tidbits of information on what books go where or are attached in any ways, random trivia, and fun facts people have found over the years, feel free to sling my way. Reading through other posts around here and i saw that ST, SIASL, and the moon is a harsh mistress are all connected in themes and are grouped together was news to me. Stranger is by far my favorite, ST was fun to get the source material compared against my memories of the movie, and i haven't made it to Moon yet.

I am currently working on Methuselah's Children and am having a blast! I love how so many classics all have hypnotics as part of daily life and ESP/telepathy are almost always present instead of just technological translator hand wave science. I've found that the old stuff i tend to enjoy is science-fantasy using the sci-fi aspect as a decoration/vehicle to explore the human condition while having fun with wonderful hypotheticals.

Hi all,

As a fan of both King and Heinlein, and a big fan of both Number of the Beast (et al) and the Dark Tower series, it's bugged me for quite some time just how similar the overarching ideas are between these two series of books. Even down to men in black who are really monsters wearing human custumes. I believe King's novels that take us down this journey began shortly after Heinlein's. Now that I'm reading Pankera it's nagging at me that much more.

Has this ever been discussed?

Audible has a new Starship Troopers audiobook read by RC Bray. Strongly recommend.

just finished the novel for an english class, absolutely love it. Unfortunately, it’s not popular enough for there to be widely available fanart. Someone should really make some fanart, specifically homoerotic fan art between Mike and Mannie. I always felt that there was sexual tension between them, and when Mike stopped talking at the end of the book I was heartbroken.

Hello everyone, I am writing some fan fiction relating to how the Howard family might exist in our current society.

I am basing it on the Smith-Johnson family from what we know in the books. My recollection is that Maureen and Brian Smith had 17 children, but now I don’t think that’s correct and I can’t find our copy.

Can anyone confirm or recommend a good fan website?

Thank you in advance!

https://preview.redd.it/f17gb1h6s6nd1.jpg?width=1344&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=f279766583ca7269d65853f7b9748d54a693942a

Did Heinlein know what unalienable means? Did Col. Dubois? If they did ... why doesn't Johnny Rico?This is the story of three Heinlein books, three Federations, three takes on the Declaration of Independence, and three sets of Troopers, two of them written simultaneously.It's also the story of how Heinlein pulled the wool over your eyes. And it's the secret story of Col. Dubois' name

Preamble:

Before we get to the meat of this mess, I want to remind you of three important things to keep in mind:

1. Heinlein wrote Stranger and Troopers simultaneously. He interrupted work on Stranger to write Troopers when his Who Are The Heirs Of Patrick Henry ad campaign failed to stop the US signing an anti-nuke treaty with the Soviets. He wrote it impassioned to oppose what his ad campaign called "the dead certainty of communist enslavement"
2. Heinlein famously chose character names with specific meanings in Stranger. Jubal, Dorcas, etc., are unusual names intentionally picked to add a layer of meaning to the book. Given Troopers was written at the same time, it's reasonable to think the same is true of it.
3. Heinlein wrote of these books, "If a person names as his three favorites of my books Stranger, Harsh Mistress, and Starship Troopers … then I believe that he has grokked what I meant. But if he likes one—but not the other two—I am certain that he has misunderstood me, he has picked out points—and misunderstood what he picked. If he picks 2 of 3, then there is hope, 1 of 3—no hope. All three books are on one subject: Freedom and Self-Responsibility."

All uncontroversial so far, right? Well buckle your seatbelt Dorothy because that dead certainty is going bye bye.

Merriam Webster on unalienable rights:

impossible to take away or give up

Simple, unambiguous, easy to grok.

Col. Dubois on unalienable rights:

Liberty is never unalienable; it must be redeemed regularly with the blood of patriots [...]

Of all the so-called `natural human rights' that have ever been invented, liberty is least likely to be cheap and is never free of cost.

The third right [...] is indeed unalienable but it is not a right; it is simply a universal condition which tyrants cannot take away nor patriots restore. -- Dubois in Starship Troopers, Chapter 8

Dubois here defines unalienable rights as free of cost rather than free of tyranny, telling the class they do NOT have the dictionary meaning of impossible to take away or give up.I'm going to suggest that this represents an example of what Orwell called "doublethink" - the ability to hold two contradictory beliefs simultaneously and accept both as true. It's a form of propaganda employed by totalitarian regimes to enslave uncritical minds like young Juan Rico.But I don't want you to take my word for that. I want you to take Heinlein's word for that ...

Jubal Harshaw on unalienable rights:

[Jubal] wouldn’t waste tears on Cossacks. [He] conceded that cops qua cops were all right [but] to be in the S.S. a man had to have larceny in his heart and sadism in his soul. Gestapo. Storm troopers for whatever politico was in power.

Jubal longed for the days when a lawyer could cite the Bill of Rights and not have some over-riding Federation trickery defeat him.

If the apes showed up—no, when they showed up—if their leader chose to break into a locked house, well, he might have to turn Mike loose on them. -- Harshaw in Stranger In A Strange Land 1961 Chapter XVI

The bolding above is mine but otherwise that's verbatim. Given Stranger and Troopers were written simultaneously, these are intentional references. Bear in mind too that Dubois tells us Troopers' federation started "like Russia in 1917". And that the Cossacks were self-governed armies who fought frontier wars for Russia against its alien invaders - Crimeans and Ottomans.

Jubal stood up. [...] “Mr.Smith is here in a dual role. Like some visiting prince [...] But he is also a human being, a citizen of the Federation of the United States of America. As such, he has rights [...] Pesky ones."

[and then later in explaining this] ‘Audacity, always audacity.' [...] I used [the Federation's] greed and worry to force that ultimate logical absurdity of their fantastic legal theory, acknowledgment in unmistakable protocol that Mike was a sovereign—and must be treated accordingly! -- Harshaw in Stranger, Chapter XXI

Smith is an alien invader. But, by audacity, Jubal made his sovereign rights unalienable.

Prof. De La Paz on unalienable rights:

[Troopers] had been indoctrinated and drugged. Indoctrination had told them (correctly) that their only hope of going Earthside again was to capture warrens and pacify them. [...] was win or die [...] their transports could not take off if they did not win.

[T]hey were loaded with energizers, don't-worries, and fear inhibitors that would make mouse spit at cat, and turned loose. They fought professionally and quite fearlessly--died. -- The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress, Chapter 24

The resemblance to Starship Troopers' first paragraph is unmistakeable - here comes our hero Johnny Rico, hypnotized and drugged before each drop until he was "not supposed to feel fear".Moon was written years after Troopers, of course. Per the quote in point 3 of my preamble, however, Heinlein intends us to grok them together. Therefore his use of the word Troopers in Moon can only be by this intent.

In Tycho Under and in Churchill they used gas and casualties were more one-sided; only those Loonies who managed to reach p-suits were effective. Outcome was same, simply took longer. Was knockout gas as Authority had no intention of killing us all; simply wanted to teach us a lesson, get us under control, put us to work. -- The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress, Chapter 24

Loonies without p-suits overcome by gas and put to work: to a hypnotized trooper, those are your skinnies. Loonies in p-suits lurking in the warrens of "Klendathu": to a hypnotized trooper, those are your bugs.

Over two thousand troopers dead, more than three times that number of Loonies died in stopping them [...] A major reason why Loonies, mostly unarmed,, were able to kill armed and trained soldiers lay in fact that a freshly landed earthworm can't handle himself well. Our gravity, one-sixth what he is used to, makes all his lifelong reflexes his enemy. He shoots high without knowing it, is unsteady on feet, can't run properly---feet slide out from under him. -- The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress, Chapter 24

On the bounce! And we'd expect a bunch of gung ho razzle dazzle about powered armor and atomic grenades, as per Starship Troopers' first chapter, would make a natural part of Moon's Troopers' drugged, indoctrinated delusions.

[...] If ever was a day when Luna felt unified it was probably second of July 2076. [...] -- The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress, Chapter 15

Yep, 300 years after the original Declaration.

"Honorable Chairman, in second paragraph, that word 'unalienable,' is no such word; should be 'inalienable'--and anyhow wouldn't it be more dignified to say 'sacred rights' rather than 'inalienable rights'? I'd like to hear discussion on this." That choom was almost sensible, merely a literary critic which is harmless, like dead yeast left in beer. -- The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress, Chapter 15

Referring to Dubois critique.

[...] Well, take that woman who hated everything. She was there with list; read it aloud and moved to have it incorporated into Declaration "so that the peoples of Terra will know that we are civilized and fit to take our places in the councils of mankind!" Prof not only let her get away with it; he encouraged her, letting her talk when other people wanted to--then blandly put her proposal to a vote when hadn't even been seconded. (Congress operated by rules they had wrangled over for days. Prof was familiar with rules but followed them only as suited him.) She was voted down in a shout, and left. -- The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress, Chapter 15

Referring to Ayn Rand, who notoriously hated everything and whose first novel "We The Living", about Russian socialism as dystopia, Heinlein had refuted with his own first novel "For Us, The Living" about Scottish socialism as utopia. Stirring the pot ...

"Freedom, equality, peace, and security"--right, Comrade? They wrangled over whether "freedom" included "free air," or was that part of "security"? Why not be on safe side and list "free air" by name? Move to amend to make it "free air and water"--because you didn't have "freedom" or "security" unless you had both air and water. Air, water, and food. [...] Cobber, have you lost your mind? -- The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress, Chapter 15

Read that again - the loonies almost put free lunch in their declaration of unalienable rights. But then ...

Prof never lost dimples. [...] Was later than midnight when someone asked why this Declaration was dated fourth when today was second? Prof said mildly that it was July third now--and it seemed unlikely that our Declaration could be announced earlier than fourth and that July fourth carried historical symbolism that might help. Several people walked out at announcement that probably nothing would be settled until fourth of July. But [...] Began to see that Prof had stacked deck. That Congress never had a fixed membership; [Prof then rings in] dinkum comrades [who] had as much right to show up as those who had been talking a month. Now they sat--and voted down amendments. -- The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress, Chapter 15

Which means Luna's declaration of Independence was identical with the original. Doesn't matter if you live and breathe TANSTAAFL, you're still going to form a democratic republic, cobber.

[...] Japanese chop, three little pictures one above other. [We] committed "[our] lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor." -- The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress, Chapter 15

This immortal phrase is in Stranger too where it refers to Jill Boardman, who "groks in beauty always":

There comes a time in the life of every human when he or she must decide to risk “his life, his fortune, and his sacred honor” on an outcome dubious. Jill Boardman encountered her challenge and accepted it -- Stranger In A Strange Land 1961 Chapter VIII

Heinlein Vs. Dubois

This brings us back to our old choom the Colonel whose name, in French, means "Of Wood" or "Of The Woods".

Well now recall that grok means to drink or think deeply. And that Heinlein hid meaning in character names.

In French, Deux Boit - meaning Two Drink - is a homophone of Du Bois. Therefore, as Heinlein intends us to grok these books together, and as grok means both drink and think, we have Dubois = Two Drink = Two Think. Or ... Doublethink.

Colonel Doublethink!

Is that a stretch? Maybe, but I can't think of any other etymology for the name. And his doublethink usage of unalienable is an inescapable fact.

Unless you seriously want to tell me that Robert Heinlein, the master wordsmith whose literary marvels we all adore here, didn't understand the simple dictionary definition of this word unalienable.

And also that he could himself think it meant one thing in one book, and another thing in another book he was writing simultaneously. In which case you would seem to be doing a pretty good job of doublethink, yourself.

The Unreliable Narrator

Dubois' use of unalienable is the last nail in the coffin for a naive "Heinlein as militarist" interpretation of Troopers. I don't say fascist because that's not a word we'll agree on easily. But those who suggest the book is recommending a government of disenfranchised citizens by military veterans who elect each other, same as the Soviet Komsomol and Party/Committee hierarchy Ginny was studying in preparation for the Heinleins' 1960 trip to the USSR ... if you seriously think Robert Heinlein was against the US system and recommending the US adopt a Soviet model ... be my guest and explain how it can be possible that Dubois and therefore Heinlein himself don't understand the dictionary definition of the word unalienable.

Or, if you can't ... if Dubois is by intent a propagandist, that makes hypnotized Juan Rico an unreliable narrator. When his aunt writes to blame him for his mother's death, that's because of his participation in the military regime that got Buenos Aires pasted. When his father signs up after hypnotherapy convinces him to stop being a capitalist, and when the hypnotic speakers in their pillows and their walls program Rico's colleagues to commit suicide on command and follow orders without question by playing patriotic post-hypnotic triggers ... maybe you will think twice too.

Troopers Vs. Loonies VS. Water Brothers, The Movie

Having grokked it this way, I feel a burning desire to write a screenplay about it. Or maybe start a cinematic universe. No, not a Verhoeven-style parody, but an independent, gritty Stone / Coppola kind of thing, properly faithful to all three Heinlein books. Titled "Unalienable". Or maybe "The Stone Pillow". Nah, the first one.

Unless Franck and Abraham beat me to it ;-) -- Peter Merel

I just finished listening to Citizen of the Galaxy. I found it a rather fun introduction to Heinlein, especially highlighting his ability to create new cultures with impressive detail.

I'm wondering what you guys think about the end?

My opinion (including spoilers)

Personally I understand the choice of ending the book how it does. It makes sense to leave it as a progressive solution, and not a quick fix. (Especially noting that this book was written in the 50s, and most certainly has political influence.)

However it still feels unsatisfactory. It feels as though the whole book builds upto Thorby's fighting to end the slave trade, yet we never get to see the fruition of that end. What are your thoughts?

Surprise: if you actually run the thought experiment from Troopers, Napoleon wins hands down.

Anyone who clings to the historically untrue -- and thoroughly immoral -- doctrine that 'violence never settles anything' I would advise to conjure up the ghosts of Napoleon Bonaparte and of the Duke of Wellington and let them debate it. The ghost of Hitler could referee, and the jury might well be the Dodo, the Great Auk, and the Passenger Pigeon.

https://preview.redd.it/fhb484lidjld1.png?width=455&format=png&auto=webp&s=f96b75dd63a14a337bb5e58c552e968494d635e8

Heinlein was a peerless student of history and well knew the story of Wellington and Bonaparte's battle at Waterloo. In that battle Wellington's army had its guns trained directly on Bonaparte and Wellington was asked whether Bonaparte should simply be shelled. He famously responded:

“No! No! I’ll not allow it. It is not the business of commanders to be firing upon one another.”

Instead the British captured Napoleon and exiled him to St Helena, where he lived peacefully for several years at no small expense to the British taxpayer. There is no question that Waterloo was a bloody battle at which many died, but "violence, naked force" could not and did not settle this matter for the obvious reason that Napoleon remained immensely popular across France.

Indeed, when Napoleon escaped from his earlier exile at Elba and marched to Paris at the head of a force of just 100 men, not a shot was fired against him despite all the frantic orders of the Bourbon king. If the British had executed him after Waterloo, Napoleon might have been seen by France as a martyr and sparked yet another revolution and yet another Anglo-French war.

Fearing this, the British installed Napoleon in comfortable exile among old friends on a beautiful sub-tropical island, so extinguishing the immense force that supported him without firing another shot.

As Wellington stated, and for which he was handsomely paid, this was a a cool, calm business decision. If the British had treated Bonaparte as Troopers' Dubois suggests, the Napoleonic wars would have raged on for decades more at immense expense and no small risk of republicanism spreading across Europe and Britain too.

As it was, the Bourbon King was still forced to adopt a Napoleonic constitution in the next decade The second French republic under Napoleon's nephew Louis Bonaparte dominated France for the next generation. And no amount of force could overcome the Napoleonic reforms which continue to shape French culture to this day while Wellington remains a colorless historical footnote.

Heinlein was well aware of all this, so discovering it seems the whole purpose of Dubois' thought experiment. Similarly to Dubois' deconstruction of the Declaration of Independence and Troopers' overall mass hypnosis theme with hypnotic speakers in the walls and pillows, this is to lead the reader to question what they're told by the narrator and his teachers and commanders - and their own media and government. To think for themselves rather than submit to what Heinlein himself called "the dead certainty of communist enslavement".

Current politics have brought this to mind I must admit. I am a strange one in that I try to read news from all four sides of the aisle. Simply the language used in a headline tells you right off what slant a story is taking, without saying anything totally untrue.

So do people take this into account? I think not.

Heinlein had several stories which talked about the power of language. Revolt in 2020 springs first to mind, but I think it was alluded to in Time Enough For Love and Moon is a Harsh Mistress. How stories are slanted not through truth, but simply through use of language. He used the term "Emotive Index" a couple times to describe terms used.

We know Heinlein attended a couple of Korzybski's seminars. Now if anyone is thinking to read Science and Sanity I suggest not. It's a great book, measured by the pound, but it is horrific to slog through. And I skipped the whole chapters on "colloidal chemistry" as they are totally obsoleted by current knowledge. But General Semantics is interesting. For more of an intro I suggest Hayakawa's Language through Thought and Action. (another author/politician Heinlein mentions)

Anyway I have a good friend who does Semantics and I thought it might be a good discussion in light of current political coverage.

Does anyone know what sting riggers refers to in the long list of unreputable types in low Vicksburg?