Time For the Stars was first published in 1956. It was one of Heinlein’s Juveniles—a series of books he wrote in the fifties with young heroes in the near future. The book is slightly dated—less so than some of the others that have more noticeable computers in them—but not really all that much. The story is an exploration of the Twin Paradox—a thought experiment that explains how relativity works. If you had identical twins, and one of them accelerated away from Earth and the other stayed home, so much more time would pass on Earth than in the spaceship that the Earth twin would be a hundred years old when the space twin came home, only a few years later. Heinlein took this concept and made it a real story with characters—and he made the twin thing relevant by using twin telepathy (which works faster than light...) as a means of communicating between Earth and ship.
Heinlein was absolutely amazing at evoking world and character. Time For the Stars is one of his few first person books. It always amazes me how fast he can hook me. I’ve read this book probably more than thirty times, I know everything that happens in it, and yet when I pick it up I get sucked right in:
According to their biographies, Destiny’s favoured children usually had their lives planned out from scratch. Napoleon was figuring out how to rule France when he was a barefoot boy in Corsica, Alexander the Great much the same, and Einstein was muttering equations in his cradle.
Maybe so. Me, I just muddled along.
I think this kind of thing where there’s an authoritative voice telling you things directly either grabs you or it doesn’t—see also Scalzi’s Old Man’s War—and I’ve always been completely sucked in by it. I’ll admit this was a comfort re-read when I wasn’t feeling well, and you know what? It comforted me and made me feel better, and I can’t see why there’s a problem with that.
No plot spoilers!
It’s revealed, in minor asides about growing up, that Earth is ridiculously over-populated, with five billion people. There’s a heavy tax on having more than three children, and our hero, Tom (and his twin brother, Pat) are unlicensed and their parents have to pay fines every year for having excess children. This is a future that didn’t happen and isn’t going to, and it’s interesting to consider why not. Lots of science fiction writers were very worried about over-population—but Heinlein gives a figure here and it’s a billion less than today’s population. I think Heinlein was assuming here that the Earth’s resources would be fairly and equally divided to each of those five billion people by irritating bureaucrats—in which case we probably all would be tightening our belts and living in small apartments, instead of some of us living comfortably and others in the Third World. The overpopulation is what causes the nearly-as-fast-as-light starships to be sent out to discover Earthlike planets where the excess population can be shipped. (I’m sure I’ve seen figures suggesting that this wouldn’t work.) The attitude is very much the colonization of the US seen as space—any dangerous animals, diseases, and inferior aliens had better watch out for mankind, and as for mankind, the evolutionary pressure will be a good thing.
If Time For the Stars had been written now, it would have been a different book in almost every way. It wouldn’t have had that exploitative attitude to the galaxy. Earth would be dying because of global warming and pollution, not simple over-population. The book would be four or five times longer, with much more angst. The focus would be on relationships, not on adventure. The section on Earth before Tom leaves would be about the same length, but everything else would be much longer. The actual adventures on other planets would take up a lot more space—Inferno wouldn’t be left out. There would be more sex, and it would be treated in a very different way. The telepathy thing would also be treated entirely differently. The Long Range Foundation who send the ships out would be evil, or at least duplicitous. The odd incestuous relationship between Tom and his great-great-niece Vicky would be more explicitly sexualised at long distance and contain more angst. There would be far more description—there’s almost no description here except as is incidental to character. I’d read it, but I probably wouldn’t keep coming back to it.
Tom and Pat are identical twins, and communicate telepathically, though they don’t at first realise that they do. Tom is sent on the mission, Pat stays at home and marries the girl they both love. They both thought they wanted to go, but maybe subconsciously neither of them wanted to go. Tom has been bullied by Pat all his life—and psychologically and personally the book is a coming of age story about how Tom gets free of Pat. It is therefore a bit of a copout to have telepathy work with people who are not twins, and to have it work between Tom and Pat’s daughter Molly, and later her daughter Kathleen and her daughter Vicky, and especially having it stop working between Tom and Pat. Thinking about what would have to be different to make this a modern book, I could actually see an improvement if the telepathy had continued between Tom and Pat as they grew further apart and more and more different. Having Tom communicate with cute nieces instead is a kind of cop-out.
I like it being the length it is and having the balance it does. Tom’s a slightly surly everyboy, and that’s just fine with me. I like the casual sprinkling of details about the world. I’m delighted every time I get to the line—in the last chapter—that implies that all the women have been wearing hats all through the book because that’s just common politeness. I love that kind of reversal—you find out all the women were wearing hats all the time because Tom’s shocked at seeing women with their heads bare-naked like an animal, and suddenly the earlier mentions of hats form a very different pattern. Heinlein always did that kind of thing beautifully.
There are any number of reasons, some fashion, some politics, some attitudinal, some stylistic, why you wouldn’t get this book written today. But there it is in print, more than fifty years after publication, and it’s still deeply readable and I’m still very fond of it.
Jo Walton is a science fiction and fantasy writer. She’s published eight novels, most recently Half a Crown and Lifelode, and two poetry collections. She reads a lot, and blogs about it here regularly. She comes from Wales but lives in Montreal where the food and books are more varied.
VIEW ALL BY · Monday October 26, 2009 11:36am EDT
VIEW ALL BY · Monday October 26, 2009 11:59am EDT
Monday October 26, 2009 11:59am EDT
Monday October 26, 2009 01:04pm EDT
VIEW ALL BY · Monday October 26, 2009 01:32pm EDT
VIEW ALL BY · Monday October 26, 2009 02:05pm EDT
Monday October 26, 2009 02:28pm EDT
Monday October 26, 2009 02:54pm EDT
We don't have total conversion of matter to energy, which you'd think would help Heinlein Earth's more than it actually does. If I had inexpensive conversion reactors, I'd spend more time thinking about how to turn the energy they produce into chemical bonds human biochemistry can exploit than I would lobbing NAFAL ships at the near stars. Not that I wouldn't lob NAFAL ships at all but the Solving World Hunger Forever thing* would definitely provide immediate benefits, while the NAFAL ships won't produce results for years and years.
There's the same curious complete disinterest in applying similar converstion technology to mundane problems in Farmer in the Sky; there has to be a better way to apply conversion tech to the problems that Earth has than terraforming Ganymede.
* Well, except that in a Heinleinoverse, absent war famine and disease, humans have no brakes on their reproductive rates and will presumably turn the whole biosphere into a large mass of human flesh**. In the real world, humans are not limited to war, famine and disease to limit their population.
** I guess the fact that somewhere around 5000x our current energy use, we'd release enough heat energy to trigger the same sort of runaway greenhouse effect as seen on Venus just before its ocean boiled away implies another limit. Heinlein Earths never have that degree of energy use, though.
VIEW ALL BY · Monday October 26, 2009 03:08pm EDT
VIEW ALL BY · Monday October 26, 2009 03:41pm EDT
Actually, there's at least some evidence in Farmer in the Sky that this is the case -- the colonization bureau thinks Earth is doomed and Ganymede (and perhaps other colonies) will be a replacement sanctuary.
Monday October 26, 2009 03:53pm EDT
VIEW ALL BY · Monday October 26, 2009 04:01pm EDT
Monday October 26, 2009 04:47pm EDT
Monday October 26, 2009 05:40pm EDT
Monday October 26, 2009 10:06pm EDT
VIEW ALL BY · Tuesday October 27, 2009 12:11am EDT
Tuesday October 27, 2009 08:16am EDT
VIEW ALL BY · Tuesday October 27, 2009 09:20am EDT
That said, however, I also was a big fan of it, and for no good reason the line about "Colonel Plushbottom" has stuck in my mind for all these years.
The thing I always liked about Heinlein was that he made you think, and think just a little bit harder than the plot and characters seemed to demand. There was always some subtext or angle about how technology would affect people or be affected by people. I think this is why he survives re-reading so well; it seems simple, but there is a bit more to it.
I think I owned all of his stuff at one point or another over the years, he was the first author I really went out of my way to collect. In no particular order, my favorites:
Methuselah's Children
The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress
Double Star
The Door Into Summer
Stranger in a Strange Land
And lots of short stories, I don't think he gets enough credit for some of those:
The Green Hills of Earth
The Unpleasant Profession of Jonathan Hoag
By His Bootstraps
Jerry Was A Man
Tuesday October 27, 2009 11:32am EDT
Citizen of the Galaxy is my favourite too. It has been the template for at least one recent SF novel (which naturally had a lot more angst).
@18
What about the story "--All You Zombies--" ?
Tuesday October 27, 2009 11:52am EDT
VIEW ALL BY · Tuesday October 27, 2009 04:03pm EDT
Now I have to go home and look at my library to see what other favorites I forgot. Thanks for the poke!
Wednesday October 28, 2009 11:09am EDT
VIEW ALL BY · Friday November 06, 2009 02:51pm EST
A most cheering thing I heard lately was that in the latter cases, given security, medical support, and choice, most women will choose smaller families. It's harder to test with the former case; Romania, with and without Nicolae and Elena Ceau?escu perhaps?
RE: Nieces. could be way to keep boys of a certain age interested? Or early indication of slimy offputting later developments with young spunky women and crusty older and older men in his work.
VIEW ALL BY · Thursday February 11, 2010 06:56am EST
Thursday February 11, 2010 09:50am EST
I loved this book as a kid. Utterly loved it. Did my first book report on it!
It still holds up. Pat is, as you say, a slightly surly everyteen, and there's nothing wrong with that. He /should/ be slightly surly. He's been shanghaied by his brother, who is a selfish asshole, into spending a decade or more locked up. I'd be surly too.
Yes, it's the darkest of the juveniles. _Citizen of the Galaxy_ starts in a worse place, but has a happy ending. The ending of this... well, it works out for Tom. But a lot of people, including some we've come to know, die along the way.
There's just one thing in the book that sets my teeth on edge today. That's "Uncle", the Kindly Old Negro.
Yes, in the context of 1954 it was slightly radical of Heinlein to have any black character at all in a novel written for teenagers. But Uncle is... well, he's kindly, gentle, wise, and -- most of all -- /loyal/.
Too damn loyal. In the next-to-last chapter,
SPOILERS AHOY
FOR ANYONE WHO IS STILL READING THIS THREAD
ARR, HERE BE SPOILERS
the ship is damaged and half the crew is dead including the Captain. So the backup Captain has taken over... and his judgment is, frankly, suspect. But he's saying the mission must go on, even though the odds are excellent that they'll all die.
A bunch of the crew are preparing to mutiny, take over, and pilot the ship back to Earth. Then Uncle steps in... and makes a speech about how A Man Keeps His Promises, and Does His Duty. And the would-be-mutineers melt before his moral authority, and that's that.
Oh my GOD is this scene grating today.
One, this was a sudden intrusion Heinlein the frustrated ex-Naval officer. Let's keep in mind this is not a military ship; it's a scientific expedition launched by a non-profit. But all of a sudden the Captain's Word is Law, the chain of command trumps common sense and simple decency, and balking at a suicide mission is mutiny, nothing more.
(I have some vague memory of Heinlein inserting a sentence or two of bafflegab to cover this -- how they all swore an oath to the Federation at the beginning, and are now reserve officers, or some such. It's underwhelming, to say the least.)
Two... did it /have/ to be the black character who steps in to remind them that obedience to authority is the highest virtue? Could Heinlein not have had another character do it?
(Though upon consideration, I suspect Heinlein thought he was doing Uncle a favor, by making him the voice of honor and duty.)
Doug M.
VIEW ALL BY · Thursday February 11, 2010 12:54pm EST
Doug M. - I think you're overthinking this. I recognize the signs of overthinking because I do it myself. This is a novel written before the Civil Rights movement. with a black man as the head of an essential department of an elite exploration mission. That's pretty forward-thinking. As I recall, there is never any hint that Uncle is less respected than any other senior officer on the ship.
In that speech at the end, Uncle is apparently the mouthpiece for Heinlein's own philosophy. He valued the military chain of command highly. And the crew and officers, of all races, listen to him. They respect his authority.
OTOH, "Uncle" is a really, really unfortunate name for an older black male character. It did not age well.
Thursday February 11, 2010 01:07pm EST
Respecting his authority: if Uncle was a tough Marine sergeant who barked at them and told them to /shape the hell up/, that would be one thing. But he's mild, gentle and kindly, and basically shames them into doing the right thing. (Or what Heinlein thought was the right thing.)
I'd say that Heinlein _under_thought the scene, myself. The black guy is the one who has to tell them all to Obey, even if the orders are obviously nuts? I'd argue that was even more obnoxious in 1954 than today. Back then, there were still people walking around who'd been born into slavery, and you had United States Congressmen saying on the floor of the Senate that the Negro was naturally docile (unless whipped up by outside agitators, of course).
"Magic Negro" is slightly anachronistic here. But consider: make Uncle an old white guy. Does it change that scene, at all? Why or why not?
Doug M.
VIEW ALL BY · Thursday February 11, 2010 04:43pm EST
I think I've pretty much stated my case on the issue of whether Uncle is a racist character. It's been years since I read the novel, and I may be misremembering it. But I'm not hearing anything today that indicates I'm remembering it wrongly.
Thursday February 11, 2010 05:04pm EST
I think Heinlein was sincerely trying to be forward-thinking here. I just think he cross-wired one good idea (have the black guy be likable and important) with one somewhat shaky one (have someone give the "carry out our orders" speech) to produce a rather wince-inducing result.
Doug M.