Garrison didoes

[Mark A Mandel]

On Mon, 14 Oct 2002, James A. Landau wrote:

#I don't think it's a matter of reusing NAMES.  Heinlein was in the habit of
#reusing universes (that is, the science, politics, geography, etc. that form
#the background of a story).  "Moon Is A Harsh Mistress" is set in the same
#universe as a book he wrote years earlier, "The Rolling Stones".  (The
#connection is that both books share a character, named Hazel iirc, who is a
#grandmother in the earlier book and then is a child in the later one.)

Hazel Stone.

#Similarly "Stranger In A Strange Land" is in the same universe as "Red
#Planet"---again, apparently only a matter of economizing by reusing
#universes.

And with _The Number of the Beast_ &seqq. he combined all his universes,
all of everybody else's universe, our actual universe, and all possible
and imaginable other universes into a gigantic meta-universe containing
every fucking character he ever invented. The adjective is literal, not
expletive.

#I do not recall the name "Forward" and I only recall "Shipstone" from
#"Friday."  Could you please tell me which books they appeared in?  It would
#be interesting to see if these books are another case of a repeated universe.

I think I remember Forward but I don't remember where. But it was likely
a tuckerization of an astronomer/sf author whose first name I don't
recall offhand (Robert?).

#>  in the book "Starship Troopers." I can't find my copy of it,
#
#No great loss.  Actually, I won't say it's a bad book, although it is
#didactic to the point of tedium.  The problem is that, although the book
#makes some valid points (I'm sure I could find a few if I bothered to reread
#the book) it espouses a, shall we say, unappetizing philosophy.  I do not
#recommend the book except to people who like to read books with the intent of
#analyzing the author's philosophy.  In other words, Heinlein has written a
#book that is readable by literary critics and no one else!

On sf lists you can find many fen who will disagree with you on that.
Vociferously. I also disagree, but mildly: I don't think it's great, and
I don't like the political philosophy and the vast tracts of
philosophizing, but it's got good story.

-- Mark M.