On a miserably wet Saturday morning in 1982, when I was young and desolate, I went into the library, as I always did, without very much hope. As I reached the New Books section there, entirely unexpectedly, was Friday, a new Heinlein book. It was not just as if the sun had come out, it was as if the sun had come out and it was an F-type star and I was suddenly on a much nicer planet.
Friday is one of Heinlein’s “late period” novels. The general rule if you haven’t read any Heinlein is to start with anything less than an inch thick. But of his later books, I’ve always been fond of Friday. It’s the first person story of Friday Jones, courier and secret agent. She’s a clone (in the terms of her world an “artificial person”) who was brought up in a creche and who is passing as human. It’s a book about passing, about what makes you human. I think it was the first female out-and-out action hero that I read. It’s also a book about being good at some things but with a large hole in your confidence underneath. No wonder I lapped it up when I was seventeen!
What’s good about it now? The whole “passing” bit. The cloning, the attitudes to cloning, the worry about jobs. The economy. It has an interesting future world, with lots of colonized planets, but most of the action taking place on Earth—that’s surprisingly unusual. There’s a Balkanized US and a very Balkanized world come to that, but with huge multinational corporations who have assassination “wars” and civil wars. There’s a proto-net, with search paths, that doesn’t have any junk in it—that’s always the failure mode of imagining the net. It was easy enough to figure out you could sit at home and connect to the Library of Congress, but harder to imagine Wikipedia editing wars and all the baroque weirdness that is the web. Friday’s point of view works for me as someone with severely shaken confidence, and as always with Heinlein it’s immersive. Reading this now I can feel myself sinking right in to Friday without any problem. There’s a complex multi-adult family, not unusual in late Heinlein, but this one disintegrates in a messy divorce, which is unusual and well done as well. And it’s a fun read, even if it’s ultimately unsatisfying.
What’s wrong with it is that it doesn’t have a plot.
Even at seventeen I couldn’t love it uncritically. I can’t think of any book for which I have expended more energy trying to fix the end in my head. It’s practically a hobby. For years I would tell myself I’d re-read it and just stop when the good bit stops and skip the end—though I have to say I’ve never managed it. Heinlein’s ability to write a sentence that makes you want to read the next sentence remains unparalleled. But the book as a whole is almost like Dhalgren. Every sentence and every paragraph and page and chapter lead on to the next, but it’s just one thing after another, there’s no real connection going on. It has no plot, it’s a set of incidents that look as if they’re going somewhere and don’t ever resolve, just stop. It doesn’t work as an emotional plot about Friday growing up, though it’s closer to working as that than as anything else. (Even as that—well, I really have problems with the way she forgives the rapist, if that’s supposed to be maturity.) It really doesn’t work on any of the other levels you can look at it on.
Heinlein wrote about how he wrote in several places—Expanded Universe and some letters in Grumbles From the Grave. From this it’s quite clear that he worked hard on the background and the characters but that he let his backbrain do the plotting. There are comments like “There were Martians in The Door Into Summer for a few pages until I realised they didn’t belong so I took them out.” (Paraphrased from memory.) As he got older, it’s clear that he lost some grip on that ability to tell what didn’t belong. Friday is an example where you can see this in action. It sets things up that it never invokes, most notably Olympia and the connections back to the novella “Gulf.” It starts hares both in the human plot and the wider plot, and loses track of them. You can see how he did it, and you can imagine how he would have pulled it together, and what he might have gone back and fixed.
Even as it is, I love it for its moments of clarity and beauty. I wouldn’t be without it. I taught myself almost all I know about how to plot by lying awake trying to fix the end of Friday in my head.
VIEW ALL BY · Sunday June 14, 2009 11:06am EDT
Sunday June 14, 2009 11:07am EDT
But the book definitely has those points of interest-the clone issues, the "proto-cyberpunk" economic-tech stuff, etc.. And I think that rather a lot more people than is generally appreciated do look back to it-and try to "fix" it or at least redo it in some way. Charles Stross's recent Saturn's Children (which I haven't got to yet) has been received by a lot of critics as a Friday homage.
On a more personal note, I've got an (alas, unpublished) novel of my own that partly grew out of working with the same plot elements.
VIEW ALL BY · Sunday June 14, 2009 11:46am EDT · amended on Sunday June 14, 2009 11:53am EDT
[notice that genetic duplicate doesn't mean duplicate - there have been major differences in the personality of domesticated animals as cloned currently and of course that issue is itself addressed in some very good - Hugo winning - SF much later than U.N. Man)
Friday is enhanced by gene selection - a topic Mr. Heinlein explored as early as Beyond This Horizon with the control natural bartender IIRC. The impact of susceptibility to a cold on the social acceptability of a genetic experiment as embodied in a woman is addressed at some length in that book.
Granted Friday the book doesn't have a story and not much plot and is largely a travel log - Inside USA from a single view point. That I suggest is in large part the intention. Just as Lazarus Long echoed earlier folks and Loonies in moving on to the new frontier as things got too crowded so too I think Mr. Heinlein believed that the freedoms he valued would exist in our time line's crowded future only in patchworks of limited time and space in a fractured society.
A fractured society because the global uniform society - the lost Utopian dream of U.N. Man say - would lead to a general, but not necessarily uniform, loss of freedom. Then too big energy is Mr. Heinlein's proxy for a whole industrial/military concentrated power complex.
That is the world of Friday is one in which General Semantics did not give us the well organized more or less Utopia of Coventry - and never will. The failure of Mr. Heinlein's own youthful optimism.
For once, and rarely, I think the words of a character can be properly seen as the author's. Kettle Belly Baldwin I think joins Mr. Heinlein in saying I tried - now the time has come for the best and brightest - the children of spirit if not of body - to get out of Dodge.
On another note I think Mr. Heinlein benefitted from the shorter lengths common in the genre in earlier years - perhaps the magazine serial length influence and so suffered rather than gained when freed to publish at any length. I find no improvement in the current uncut or author's cut editions. Combining the themes I think Friday would have been a better story (hat tip Teresa story/plot) with most any story at all but the length of the trip makes a better travel log.
VIEW ALL BY · Sunday June 14, 2009 12:45pm EDT
But then I have to point out that a good portion of that affection comes from reading it when I was seventeen and didn't care that had no plot and was written by a pervy old man who felt all strong women really wanted children and to be raped and saved by strapping young pilots.
Yech.
But I love the fact he refers to "Hubbardites", heh....but he was wrong...now we call 'em Scientologists.
VIEW ALL BY · Sunday June 14, 2009 04:39pm EDT
I found the novels I read as new seemed to just peter out without having any point to them- Friday, The Number of the Beast, The Cat who Walks Through Walls- or just meander the entire length (Time Enough for Love, etc.)
Friday began with a bang, and yes, brought up a lot of cool ideas and plotlines- and then everything was just dropped.
I need to find Gulf somewhere and read it.
VIEW ALL BY · Sunday June 14, 2009 05:17pm EDT
Sunday June 14, 2009 05:39pm EDT
VIEW ALL BY · Sunday June 14, 2009 06:18pm EDT
VIEW ALL BY · Sunday June 14, 2009 06:27pm EDT
There's also Randall Garrett's "Damned If You Don't" (which Vernor Vinge paid homage to in "Bookworm, Run!"), though that's more of a breakthrough in generation instead of storage.
Sunday June 14, 2009 06:32pm EDT
Sunday June 14, 2009 07:48pm EDT
VIEW ALL BY · Sunday June 14, 2009 08:44pm EDT
VIEW ALL BY · Sunday June 14, 2009 09:12pm EDT
VIEW ALL BY · Sunday June 14, 2009 09:30pm EDT
I've been thinking it was past time to re-read Citizen, since I can barely remember it. As for the other two, I'm not even certain whether I've ever read them--I may have, but if so it would have been very long ago. But that will wait a bit: if I read any Heinlein this week, it will be The Rolling Stones or The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress for their family structures, preparatory to one of the 4th Street panels. (My reading this week is very focused!)
Sunday June 14, 2009 10:19pm EDT
Sunday June 14, 2009 10:21pm EDT
I felt similarly about discovering Friday (1982) - and Number of the Beast (1980) - as a teenager I'd read all the Heinlein I could find and bought a bunch, despite my mother's disapproval of spending money on books that might be in a library, but I thought of it all as old stuff. Then suddenly there was a new one in the window of the university bookstore, and then another! I didn't get as far as you did at working out why the endings weren't as good as the made-up worlds and people, but I read them both enough times to break the spines while trying. I just told my classmates that except for Double Star and possibly Moon is a Harsh Mistress, Heinlein wrote good books but couldn't write endings.
VIEW ALL BY · Monday June 15, 2009 01:44am EDT
VIEW ALL BY · Monday June 15, 2009 04:18am EDT
I'm not sure I agree with Jo about Friday's lack of plot, though. Heinlein was of the opinion that there were only about three basic plots in fiction ("Boy Meets Girl", "The Brave Little Tailor", "The Man Who Learned Better"), and I tend to see Friday as an attempt to do "The Man Who Learned Better" (one that ran off the rails due to the author's declining ability to keep eight flaming cocktail glasses in the air simultaneously while juggling). And Farah Mendlesohn has opined that Friday is an attempt at portraying a child abuse survivor; plausible, but not obvious because that sort of thing just wasn't talked about in public back in the early 1980s.
If you put it all together: here's someone who's been badly damaged in early life, and this is the story of their attempt to rebuild and get back to normal. (Except that it doesn't quite work in the end; the attempt at delivering a sense of closure is botched.)
Monday June 15, 2009 07:19am EDT
VIEW ALL BY · Monday June 15, 2009 08:02am EDT
Charlie: I didn't know there was any controversy about her being an abuse survivor. The abuse is right there on the page, she just doesn't understand why it was a problem. That's one of the things that makes it good. On the plot generally, yes, Heinlein was very good at stories about people growing up. But if this was supposed to be that it went badly wrong, because she doesn't. She still has all her false confidence and rationalisations at the end.
Monday June 15, 2009 11:51am EDT
It wasn't? I thought it was all over the place by then. In fact I remember numerous books about it in the 1970s, and articles about Freud pointing out that he was told of sexual abuse by patients and ended up not believing them, dismissing their stories as incest fantasies, etc. But maybe my memories are misdated by a few years ... it's happened before.
Monday June 15, 2009 12:53pm EDT
As for Friday, I confess that when it came out I was mainly pleased that it wasn't one of the thicker-than-an-inch books, thought it meandered a bit, and hardly read it at all, since I didn't think the character was really going to be developed. The book lost me very early on with her dismissal of abuse, which struck me then as Heinlein taking his can-do attitude more than a little too far.
But it sounds much more interesting in light of the current discussion. If Heinlein is showing one of his can-do protagonists as wounded and somewhat dissociated, that's pretty intriguing stuff, however it emerged in the writing. And, looking at it that way, Friday's remark that an "ordinary" woman would have been completely traumatized by what she'd just been through (if I remember it correctly) now seems horribly sad.
Monday June 15, 2009 02:21pm EDT
Friday didn't want to be raped. However, she was, besides being an artificial person and not typical of all _anybody_ a covert agent, inured to the idea that someone might kill her without any personal animosity. Some people never get over their outrage over that concept. On the other hand, some people do adapt and accept. The ones who adapt and accept probably survive better.
The step from "these people are going to try to kill me but it has little or no emotional significance" to the same sentence with "rape" substituted for "kill" would seem large but not impossibly so.
VIEW ALL BY · Monday June 15, 2009 02:39pm EDT
(The Heretic/Stranger in a Strange Land is an obvious exception - not the only one - but as an exception that illustrates the rule that book was worked hard while being worked then put completely aside more or less)
was to write that day what interested him that day but by the end of the month to wrap it all up so the book had some unity being what interested him that month - followed of course by cutting and working the galleys and such but still a month from start to finish as in Glory Road which goes around then comes around.
#10 - I'll certainly pay the Oscar Wilde style compliment but I'll at least think the credit. I think there is indeed an ode to the endless variety of the United States as was in the travel log.
I think too - though in black and white it comes across as stronger than I think the reality is - there is an element of the author's voice to his spiritual children in Kettle Belly's hampered by being in jail (writing juveniles and staying solvent) apology to Friday - She doesn't grow up - which would embrace being at home anyplace she found herself but she does find a place for her in the world.
VIEW ALL BY · Monday June 15, 2009 02:41pm EDT
I took her reaction to her past as a symptom of her self-image as not human; like it was okay if "real" people treated her this way.
Yes, she seems to be okay after her epiphany (someone equates for her that reproductive compatibility w/ humans = human), so on that level it's okay, but that isn't the story Friday began as.
VIEW ALL BY · Monday June 15, 2009 03:48pm EDT
VIEW ALL BY · Monday June 15, 2009 04:36pm EDT
Monday June 15, 2009 04:59pm EDT
Monday June 15, 2009 05:15pm EDT
re: #23 - I had always taken Friday's attitude towards her rape as a measure of her own low self-esteem. Only a person with a terribly low self image could approach her rape in that fashion and I'm pretty sure that was Heinlein's way of showing just how low that self image was. Part of the book is Friday's attempt to find herself in a world that didn't want her. It was an idea that appealed to me as a young man and I can't help but think it would appeal to all young people trying to "find themselves."
Finally, I love the spoofing of California politics in Friday. I can't help thinking Heinlein had a crystal ball. Look at California now with a movie-star governor, a legislature completely controlled by special interests, legislation passed only by initiative, and trying to take lottery money from the schools to fund our deficit. Heinlein had an amazing ability to extrapolate future political/cultural climates based on the trends of his time.
VIEW ALL BY · Monday June 15, 2009 05:34pm EDT · amended on Monday June 15, 2009 05:52pm EDT
Said secret agent taught to deal with the rape - I'll buy that, in fiction. Would have been nice if there had been some nod towards after action counselling or therapy.
I remember being disappointed in the ending but wanting more books set in this fictional universe. One of the things I enjoyed most was the richness of the world-building compared to other Heinlein's.
Oh, and forgiving said rapist? REALLY not buying that.
VIEW ALL BY · Monday June 15, 2009 08:04pm EDT
I think the world of Friday is particularly internally fragile that is full of fracture lines fracturing (arguably simply in flux but by that view very ephemeral indeed in line with the events of the book) - defects obscured by an unreliable - by force not intent - narrator. From this it follows that extended reuse of the many settings that make up the worlds would take constant retconning - alternatively it would be pre and post this or that change and so not the same worlds..
And I obviously disagree to the extent that I take the message - and I do think Mr. Heinlein sold his story for a pot of message - to be we must put our garden and our own sheep beyond sight and scent of our neighbor's chimney smoke - can't simply can't stay on or return to the old man's farm.
Monday June 15, 2009 11:32pm EDT
VIEW ALL BY · Tuesday June 16, 2009 07:36am EDT
Clark: Thanks for saying exactly what I would have said about Candide. I actually read it the same year I read Friday and I liked Friday so much better.
Tuesday June 16, 2009 02:31pm EDT
By the way, its “We must cultivate our garden.” (singular)
Tuesday June 16, 2009 07:10pm EDT
Which modern reader? Of what? Which organic aesthetic that emerged in the early 19th century that I'm more used to? I'm serious.
Gothic fiction emerged and became very popular at the beginning of the century. Some of it is pretty grotesque; and it's still being written and not only by Anne Rice. Should Heinlein have written more "They"s and "Hoag"s?
Both realism and exploration of the individual self began to rear their heads in the beginning of the 19th century. Heinlein, before political correctness, had little good to say about some of it.
"A very large part of what is accepted as 'serious' literature today represents nothing more than a cultural lag on the part of many authors, editors and critics–a retreat to the womb in the face of a world too complicated and too frightening for their immature spirits. A sick literature. What do we find so often today? Autobiographical novels centered around neurotics, even around sex maniacs, concerning the degraded, the psychotic, or the 'po’ white trash' of back-country farms portrayed as morons or worse, novels about the advertising industry or some other equally narrow area of human experience such as the personal life of a television idol or the experiences of a Park Avenue call girl.
"Ah, but this is 'realism'! Some of it is, some of it decidedly is not. In any case, is it not odd that the ash-can school of realism, as exemplified by Henry Miller, Jean-Paul Sartre, James Joyce, Françoise Sagan and Alberto Moravia, should be held up to us as 'high art' at the very time when all other forms of art are striving to achieve more significant and more interesting forms of expression? Can James Joyce and Henry Miller and their literary sons and grandsons interpret the seething new world of atomic power and antibiotics and interplanetary travel? I say not. In my opinion a very large portion of what is now being offered the public as serious, contemporary-scene fiction is stuff that should not be printed, but told only privately – on a psychiatrist’s couch. The world, the human race, is now faced with very real and pressing problems. They will not be solved by introverted neurotics intent on telling, in a tedious hundred thousand words, they hate their fathers and love their mothers.
"In any case, I, for one, am heartily sick of stories about frustrates, jerks, homosexuals and commuters who are unhappy with their wives – for goodness sake! Let them find other wives, other jobs – and shut up!
"True, some of this sick literature does shine some light into dark corners of the human soul. Even a sordid, narrow novel such as James Jones’ From Here to Eternity can some-times manage that. But is this enough? Does it meet the challenge of our century? At best such a novel shows only one frame of a complex and rapidly moving picture."
-- Science Fiction: Its Nature, Faults and Virtues
By Robert A. Heinlein
Heinlein in his later works seemed to seek out forms other than the early or mid-19th century novel. Friday is picaresque; Time Enough for Love is an anatomy as Northrup Frye styled that type; The Cat Who Walked through Walls is a comedy of manners as the title itself tells us; both Job:ACOJ and Stranger are satires.
How long must a writer grind out bildungsroman, another form which became popular in the 19th century? Weren't the eleven or twelve juveniles, depending on which ones you count, enough?
Heinlein preferred to write works of character development, and that can be done with miniscule plots. How long does it take to develop a woman-who-learned-better? After she learns to cultivate her garden(s) what else is there to write?
No one's required to buy into the message common to both Voltaire and Heinlein's works under discussion, a rational acquiescence in the conditions of present life and an acceptance of its obligations. Take it or not.
When Friday's finished running the PTA and the Girl Scout troop on New Toowoomba, she'll be back to the fast track if she so wishes.
Tuesday June 16, 2009 09:51pm EDT
I have been a soldier in combat and observed soldiers in combat. Animosity toward your opponents is common enough but unproductive. People who achieve detachment live longer and fight more efficiently, in most cases. Battle rage and "They killed Kenny" are, in my opinion, hogwash, especially since throwing hands or fighting with swords is not involved.
I never felt any anger or hatred and don't think I would have felt anything but pain had I been shot.
I don't think regarding that rape as the hazard of the job and not taking it personally is a _huge_ step from there.
I can't help thinking of the first part of the first Jo Walton book I read as I think of this.
VIEW ALL BY · Tuesday June 16, 2009 10:10pm EDT
Your post reminds me of apologists and associated creative participants on IMDB who tell us how Brown Bunny isn't crap, it is just too nuanced for me to understand.
VIEW ALL BY · Wednesday June 17, 2009 12:09pm EDT
James Clavell (see e.g. King Rat not the China Miéville of the same name) expressed the same sentiments but for Clavell it took some years to make his decision; for others it takes forever.
On the subject of animosity toward your opponents my own experience and observation is that it varies with and over time (perhaps with age and relative maturity? see e.g. West Side Story) - but again see Corrie Ten Boom quoting her sister on pitying the abuser as much as the victim.
On the "[t]hey killed Kenny" issue I am reminded of "they killed Lattie Tipton" - "(referred to as "Brandon" in Murphy's book To Hell and Back)" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audie_Murphy - as of current date. Different strokes for different folks.
The fact of rage be it hot or be it cold is amply documented. For some a medal for some a quick death for some both.
VIEW ALL BY · Wednesday June 17, 2009 01:02pm EDT
#35 - I suggest there is a tremendously strong parallel in the quote from Mr. Heinlein to John Wayne and movie westerns.
As you know Bob, John Wayne had a very low opinion of "western" movies such as High Noon and High Plains Drifter (flat rebuffed Clint Eastwood ever after see e.g. Roger Ebert's current blog) - as westerns. John Wayne/Ford made some "a man and his friends" westerns in direct deliberate response to the solo acts.
It seems to me Wayne was precisely correct in taking High Noon as absurd considered as a "true" tale of the old west. That is The Great Northfield Minnesota Raid which was (more or less) historical (or the opening of The Wild Bunch if you prefer straight fiction) was the usual result when any group tried to tree a town.
That High Noon really is absurd taken as a true tale of the old west says nothing about High Noon (or any of its remakes be they in the mythical west or the mythical future in space) as a good movie on its own terms.
But as Mr. Wayne thought about the purity of his beloved westerns so too I think Mr. Heinlein thought about the purity of his beloved genre and its depiction of his beloved country.
I suggest Mr. Heinlein's views - as excerpted above - expressed a deep emotional committment to the United States and its future [also I think Mr. Heinlein's feelings not as excerpted above included a deep emotional committment to the United States and hope for tis future but that exceeds the scope of this post or this thread or this board].
Given that emotional attachment then a portrait warts and all is appropriate but adding extra warts to express some spiritual truth (see e.g. the Ward Churchill controversy) is intolerable.
"Does it meet the challenge of our century? At best such a novel shows only one frame of a complex and rapidly moving picture."
I suppose Mr. Heinlein sought to "meet the challenge of our century" to show many "frame[s] of a complex and rapidly moving picture" And furthermore did it brilliantly.
"How long must a writer grind out bildungsroman, another form which became popular in the 19th century? Weren't the eleven or twelve juveniles, depending on which ones you count, enough?"
Of course they weren't enough or folks would not have been offering for sale works from or based on the archives. Given sales I don't see anybody boycotting, banning or burning any of Mr. Heinlein's books of whatever date - or otherwise saying must to anybody.
Just the same " ....stories about frustrates, jerks, homosexuals...." such as parts of the Small Change series can add a great deal to both pleasure and thought.
Wednesday June 17, 2009 04:41pm EDT
David - If one is going to quote Jean Francois Marie Arouet de Voltaire, one should return to the original French. You were in safer hands with your UCLA humanities professor who probably spoke some French. In the famous line at the end of Candide "Il faut cultiver notre jardin," (Literally, "It is necessary to cultivate our garden."), the possessive adjective "notre" is used to modify the noun “jardin.” “Notre” is the first person plural possessive, however it is in the form used to modify a singular noun. ("Nos" being used for a plural noun.) Therefore, the line should most properly translated as "We must cultivate our garden." I think the singular form is particularly appropriate to Friday as I don't think she'll be leaving “the PTA and the Girl Scout troop on New Toowoomba" anytime soon. She has found her niche, her garden.
(Clark - If you can find an edition using "nos," I'd like to see it.)
As for the organic aesthetic I refer to . . . First of all, let me clarify that in using the pronoun "we," I was not referring to you or I, who might be more open to unusual narratives, but a generic contemporary reader. (Seriously, David. Would you consider yourself a typical "modern" reader?)
The concept of organic unity in literature dates back to Aristotle, but experienced a resurgence in Romantic literature of the 19th century. The idea is that the narrative grows from a principal theme that is constantly developed throughout the work. Thus, the work maintains a continuous flow from beginning to end. The theme is a seed out of which the rest of the works grows and yet still reflects the seed.
In general, conforming to a genre is inimical to organic unity as that may stifle or distort the creative flow of the work as it grows. The genre of the picaresque novel, as applied in the 17th and 18th centuries and used by Voltaire in Candide, presented a series of narratives which theoretically could be re-ordered without affecting the flow of the work. Or, as ClarkEMyers rather crudely put it: "Candide could almost be dropped in unbound proof and reassembled with no one the wiser save perhaps the very beginning and end and even then maybe."
Heinlein, in following this genre, made Friday less accessible to contemporary readers. I'm not criticizing him for that. I like the book. The depth of the works in his post-juvenile periods is profound. However, I understand that the modern reader is unwilling to accept such a format. They would rather have a narrative unified by a common thread that pulls them through their reading. That many people find Friday "plotless" is evidenced by the comments above.
Regarding your extensive Heinlein quote, I’m not sure how it addresses my comments. But, there is a certain circular logic to quoting Heinlein in order to mount a defense of his own style. I think RAH would have appreciated it.
Thursday June 18, 2009 04:50pm EDT
I live in Santa Cruz, a few miles away from where Heinlein was living when he wrote the book, and the whole section taking place in California is full of sly political references that had me laughing out loud, from the insane direct-democracy of the Bear Republic to the mention of Pajaro Dunes as a major oil-producing port.
Pity it's such a flawed book in so many other ways though.
Friday June 19, 2009 03:38pm EDT
I don't like Heinlein's portrayal of sex roles, but that really isn't the weakness of Friday--the story just doesn't come off as a story.
On the other hand, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress works as story (although I'm not sure it works well as an economics textbook).
Rob Preece
Friday June 19, 2009 11:06pm EDT
As to no plot, though - I've noticed lately that a couple of writers I like (James Lee Burke, Lawrence Block) work in a genre, crime/mystery, that is alleged to be dependent on strong plot but with both of them the books are carried along by the writing and characterization.
More and more I think plot is just a reason to move your characters around. No-one cares who killed the chauffeur
VIEW ALL BY · Friday June 19, 2009 11:31pm EDT
Even so, I've read the damn thing three times. The first time I was 29, the last 52. I think I liked it about the same every time. To paraphrase someone quoted above, if you're fond of Heinlein this is close enough that it'll do.
VIEW ALL BY · Saturday June 20, 2009 08:11am EDT
VIEW ALL BY · Saturday June 20, 2009 02:18pm EDT
Doesn't keep me from liking Job or Friday or almost anything by Mr. Heinlein. I enjoy Number of the Beast from time to time so I must be far enough along some axis away from Neurotypical to fall in some sort of targeted group.
I suppose on story and plot for purposes of this board I tend to use Teresa's famous phrasing as the default.
VIEW ALL BY · Saturday June 20, 2009 02:59pm EDT
VIEW ALL BY · Sunday June 21, 2009 08:42am EDT
Sunday June 21, 2009 01:24pm EDT
VIEW ALL BY · Sunday June 21, 2009 08:11pm EDT
Sunday June 21, 2009 09:39pm EDT
For the record, I completely disagree. I very rarely care about the characters one way or another, and just with the author would get on with telling the damn story. From my viewpoint, the main role of the characters is to be pushed around the plot-board to show the story.
I usually really hate it when the author spends 10 pages telling me about how so-and-so does something because of something that happened in his past. I just want him to do it and get on with the damn story.
Monday June 22, 2009 01:56pm EDT
Promiscuous Reader (#49) - You're right, it is perhaps not quite as prescient as it might seem. Still, I do believe its a very apt projection of California politics. We (Californians) do seem prone to electing "movie-star governors." As for the other, I was thinking more of what Chompsky would call "national interests." I guess I'm not very mainstream.
Monday June 29, 2009 09:14am EDT
One thing I didn't get about Friday - why did boss tell her to remember Mosby's name, unless he anticipated her getting the 'host mother' assignment? And if he did anticipate that, then he - presumably - anticipated her getting killed? So perhaps not quite the benign father/boss after all. When I neared the end of the book I misremembered the ending & had an idea that Friday was going to *be* the dauphinoise (echoes of 'Double Star'...?)
VIEW ALL BY · Monday August 31, 2009 04:20pm EDT