I agree that Heinlein’s style and conventions evolved along with society (especially what was going on with his readers during the 60’s and 70’s), and this must be disheartening to someone who grew up reading his earlier YA novels versus those who discovered him post-Stranger.

This is not ground-breaking by any means, but I think the characterization and quotes of Jubal Harshaw say a lot about Heinlein himself and surely indicate that his style was evolving to (a) keep up with the apparent mores and values of the younger generation (read: target audience) and therefore (b) make money.

Who can blame him? Starship Troopers has a lot more to say to the Vietnam era than tales of Nazis on the moon or The Rolling Stones.

I would defend the probable popularity of “Time Enough For Love” by saying that I believe this novel does more to bridge the gulf (pun intended) between generations of readers more so than “Stranger” does. Interspaced within the main story of Lazarus Long (and the ever-present ambisexual characters of the distant future) are several episodes that are told in the much more straight-forward and concise style than the overall novel, almost as if they were gathered from unpublished remains of his juvenile stories.

On that note, I was wondering if you ever wrote an opinion about that strange little time-traveler of a novel (about a time-traveler, no less), “For Us, The Living.” Where does this book properly fit in the Heinlein collection?

I never could finish that book, finding it a little too thin on plot and character and way too long on discourse.

Be sure and note that I said, “I find” the later books unreadable. Heinlein was my hero and surrogate father figure growing up. I loved his books. I really tried to read the later books. I’ve tried Friday twice in print and once in audio and for the life of me I cannot get through that book. It’s too painful to experience.

I did get all the way through Job: A Comedy of Justice and The Cat Who Walks Through Walls, but they were hard going. Charles Stross just wrote a piece at his blog about admiring Heinlein’s later works and I’m going to try again.

I really love Heinlein from the 1950s, so it’s so damn painful to see him change. And I think his later books could have been much better or even good if he had had a good editor. His ego blocked that though.

I do know that many fans prefer his later books and love them the most and some even look down on his earlier work. I guess there are many types of Heinlein fans.

I’ve gotten many people to try the Scribner juveniles and they find them fantastic, even as old readers coming to the books for the first time. I think they are in a class by themselves. Heinlein kept changing and not all of his readers changed with him. Sadly, I couldn’t follow.

I didn’t mean to be inflammatory, but instead meant to show how surprised I was that the books by Heinlein that I personally like the least are so popular. I really do feel Heinlein radically changed during the mid-sixties.

WHOA, James. I find that to be a flammatory remark, if not intentionally designed to spark debate.

You must be including “The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress” within 1965’s publications and not 1966. Or you might be saying that this Hugo winner is unreadable. Either way, you are amazingly mistaken.

Granted, RAH’s works become somewhat convoluted and sexually-ambiguous beginning with “I Will Fear No Evil” and certainly ending with “Cat Who Walks Through Walls”, but unreadable?

To say that Heinlein becomes unreadable after 1965 is like saying television became unwatchable after the introduction of technicolor. You are drawing a rather broad line and dismissing some of Heinlein’s most thought-provoking and enjoyable novels.

Okay, so ignore anything that mentions Lazarus Long and the “World as Myth”. That leaves what I consider two novels every Heinlein fan should treasure as his best last works: “Friday” and “Job: A Comedy of Justice”.

Go ahead and tear up your Heinlein Fan Club membership card if you consider those two novels “unreadable.”