Glory Road (39 page)

Heinlein’s novels have inspired a small bibliography of novel-length responses, from Dickson’s
Soldier, Ask Not
and Anderson’s
Trader to the Stars,
through Panshin’s
Rite of Passage
and my own
The Fall of the Towers,
to Haldeman’s
The Forever War.
And if Joanna Russ did not read James Blish’s critique of Heinlein’s metaphysical system in
Stranger in a Strange Land
shortly before beginning
And Chaos Died,
I’ll bite my gerbil. (That critique is contained in an October 1961 essay by James Blish, collected in
The Issue At Hand,
as by William Atheling, Jr., Chicago: Advent, 1964.) In all these works, the writers have taken on the social arguments Heinlein has posed in books like
Starship Troopers
and tried to wrestle with the contradictions as they have seen them. That these novels date from 1960 to 1974 (and include two Nebula/Hugo winners) gives some indication of how relevant Heinlein’s arguments continue to appear—especially to those who disagree with them!

In 1961, Heinlein published what bids fair to be the most popular SF novel ever written:
Stranger in a Strange Land.
Blish’s discussion (under the William Atheling, Jr., pseudonym and referred to above) remains to my mind the most balanced evaluation of the book.

The novel that followed it, in 1963,
Glory Road,
has probably received less attention than any other Heinlein work of comparable size and ambition. This is even stranger when one considers that it is one of Heinlein’s most formally satisfactory novels. The long didactic passages that for some readers mar the later novels (e.g.,
I Will Fear No Evil
or
Time Enough for Love)
had put in only a comparatively brief appearance in the second half of
Starship Troopers;
they are almost wholly absent here. The ending involves as grandiose a peripeteia as seen in any Heinlein novel since
Citizen of the Galaxy
(1957) and is far more naturally and believably brought off. And there is a psychological veracity in Oscar’s response to his change of fortune that gives the book a character interest well beyond the earlier book, for all of
Citizen’s
considerable excellence.

To say, however, that
Glory Road
was simply overshadowed by the success of
Stranger in a Strange Land
is to indulge a certain disingenuousness. A 21-year-old reader while the novel was being serialized in
The Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction
under a lush Ed Emsh cover in forest greens gilded with sunlight, I remember the hostility with which the young SF readers among my acquaintances responded to the novel—the same readers who had had little except praise for
Stranger.
For a sense of that ire, the reader can check the scant page in which Panshin dismisses the novel in his
Heinlein in Dimension
(Chicago: Advent, 1968—though written at least five years earlier). Considered work on Heinlein is still rather scarce, which makes Panshin’s book—about as one-dimensional a critique as one can imagine—useful if only by default.
¹
But Panshin’s truly energetic critique of Heinlein is his own Nebula award-winning novel
Rite of Passage,
in which real critical passion is sublated in a truly creative mimesis.

It is interesting to note what this ire was
not
caused by. It did
not
generate over the opening sociological fantasia on security and pacifism. We read this today simply aware that it misses the feel of the early 1960s about as widely as is possible. But Heinlein’s basic assumption—that those who didn’t want to fight in Vietnam were the same young men who were after suburban security and two cars in the garage—was offered, I think, more as a logical speculation. Like 9 out of 10 such speculations, it was simply wrong. (Those who questioned the war were, by and large, the same people who were questioning the suburban ideal. Those who accepted that ideal were largely the ones who accepted the war. If there were a few people who fitted Heinlein’s description, they simply were not the significant portion “Oscar” seems to think they were.) But in 1963 Heinlein’s explanation was easier to accept—if only as science fiction.

Nor was the ire caused by the locker-room style descriptions of “liberated” sex—with its downright British fixation on spanking. This tends to strike the contemporary reader as about as close to smuttiness as the “traveling-salesman banter” (James Blish’s all too accurate cut in the previously mentioned article
[The Issue At Hand,
p. 71]) that Heinlein frequently uses for dialogue can get. To understand the context fully, however, one must remember the absolute printing restrictions of the time, which forbade both four-letter words and any but the coyest references to the actuality of sex. In 1963 the word
shit
’s one occurrence on the soundtrack of a film (Shirley Clarke’s
The Connection)
rendered it a
cause célèbre
that could be seen only at private showings; and the realistic street dialogue of a commercial film like
The Brinks Job
(1978), at which no one even raises an eyebrow today, would have been unthinkable. Both the pulp tradition and the printing restrictions gave a certain valorization to such attempts at ribaldry; and the audience of 1963 was probably more prepared to take Heinlein’s message of cultural and sexual pluralism on the terms in which it was offered.

No, the ire, as I remember it, was specifically at the novel’s fantasy superstructure. And it is precisely this fantasy superstructure that allows the novel the flexibility to achieve the formal excellence of which I have spoken.

Young Galahad (aka Evelyn Cyril Gordon) is pricking o’er the plaine of life when, on the Isle of Levant, he runs into She Who Must Be Obeyed and her grandson, Alberich-cum-Sancho Panza, all three of whom then journey down the Yellow Brick Road until, after a bit of hedonistic horseplay and a variety of dragon slaying, they are to the Dark Tower come. After a climactic swordfight with Cyrano de Bergerac himself (“…I was sorry I hadn’t asked him his name. He seemed to think I knew it…”
Glory Road,
p. 211), the Egg of the Phoenix is rescued (Who
was
that Russian sorcerer in
The Firebird
who kept his deathless soul in an egg…?) and returned to its rightful place at Center. Irony subverts archetype; and the message of the book, spelled out in the final 80 pages with surprising didactic restraint, is: A hero is as much a function of his environment as of his own personality.

Science
fiction? Every bit of it.

There’s an only somewhat post-Einsteinian explanation for the whole thing, involving 20 parallel universes and a theory of government that sounds suspiciously like Jeffersonian democracy with a liberal dose of “go with the flow” thrown in: provide a father figure (male or female, it doesn’t matter) who reserves the right to kill—in case one ever forgets He
is
the Law—and who hears all but generally remains silent about it; then let patriarchal transference take care of the rest. (Was Blish the first to note, in the essay already quoted from, what
a
“thoroughgoing Freudian” Heinlein was?)

The ease and energy about
Glory Road
suggest an author in a pleasant state vis-à-vis his own creative power. Heinlein mentioned to me, in the single conversation we have ever had (long distance, about a proposed motion for an SFWA business meeting at a forthcoming world SF convention in Phoenix, in 1978), that the Lady Vivamus is lovingly modeled after his own fencing sword. Bravery, the novel tells us, is facing what
you’re
afraid of—not what X, Y, or Z happens to fear. And a hero who functions in one kind of situation may be very out of place in any number of others—if not a real pain in the neck.

For the younger reader, the encounter with Heinlein’s vision of cultural pluralism (which, judging from the Shavian epigraph, is clearly one of the book’s major points) may still provide a certain kind of revelation. If it falls a little flat with the more sophisticated reader, it is only because so many other Heinlein novels (and Heinlein-inspired novels) have brought the message home with such richness.

There is a sort of underlying voice I hear all through
Glory Road.
What this voice has to say maintains my interest in the novel. It is not the voice of the hero—through which all the other voices of the novel as well as the narrative are presented. It is a voice that carries a high degree of joyous abandon, and must seduce anyone who wonders how such enterprises as SF novels get done. “Look!” it seems to say, if not sing.
“This
is no more serious than a feather, nor will it ever be! Now
that
is where all your real energy must go! All right, stand back! Now see the beautiful pattern the two together make! Note how delightful the play between them!” The writer in us (whom I equate, here, with the maker of formal patterns)—rather than the politician, the psychologist, the sociologist, or any other of those referential folk who must be there
in
the writer to make sure the formal patterns the writer comes up with do not resonate simply and solely with the less pleasing aspects of life and literature (these folks’ role is that of critical guide, not creator)—must be delighted before such joy.

Without the body of Heinlein’s work,
Glory Road
might have been more appreciated for this quality of joyous invention. We might have been able to see it as a “slight” work that was nevertheless endlessly fascinating for reasons that endlessly defied definition—rather the way we tend to regard the works of, say, Cordwainer Smith. Because, however, there is such a body of Heinlein work about which, whatever else one may say about it, “slight” is the
last
word that comes to mind, many readers would rather put the problem out of mind, I suspect, and ignore the book as an anomaly or dismiss it as simply “uncharacteristic.”

…

But the fascination remains, and through the years I have met a number of readers and writers who have found themselves its victim. I suspect, finally, it is precisely because the book so emphatically pitches its fascination at this level that it generated that ire in the first place.
Orlando
is acceptable from Virginia Woolf: the rest of her work is pretty rarefied, too. But would it be acceptable from George Eliot, Balzac, Charlotte Brontë…?

The novel after
Glory Road
was
Farnham’s Freehold,
in which Heinlein again took on the full load of topicality and referentiality—and it proved to be for many readers his most distressing novel.
Glory Road
produced ire and was finally ignored;
Farnham’s Freehold
has sustained an almost continual attack. This is not the place to examine that attack in detail. Suffice it to say that what distresses one about the Heinlein argument in general, when it is presented in narrative form, is that it so frequently takes the form of a gentlemanly assertion: “Just suppose the situation around X (war, race; what-have-you) were P, Q, and R; now under those conditions, wouldn’t behavior Y be logical and justified?”—where behavior Y just
happens
to be an extreme version of the most conservative, if not fascistic, program. Our argument is never with the truth value of Heinlein’s syllogism: Yes,
if
P, Q, and R were the case, then behavior Y
would
be pragmatically justifiable. Our argument is rather with the premises: Since P, Q, and R are
not
the situation of the present world, why continually pick fictional situations, bolstered by science-fictional distortions, to justify behavior that is patently
in
appropriate for the real world? And Heinlein’s unerring ability to see precisely how the real world would have to be changed to make such conservative behavior appropriate begins to suggest that his repeated use of science fiction to this end represents what existentialist critics used to call “bad faith.” One assumes Heinlein’s answer to this argument is simply that the science-fictional parts of the distortion, at any rate,
are
possible in the future, if not probable; we must be prepared.

Well, Marx’s favorite novelist was Balzac—an avowed Royalist. And Heinlein is one of mine. A basic tenet of Heinlein’s philosophy has been quoted by Damon Knight in his fine introduction to the “Future History” stories (“Future History” is Campbell’s term, not Heinlein’s) The Past Through Tomorrow; this is a good place to set it out because it contours a good deal of the quibbling one is likely to get into over Heinlein’s “politics”:

When any government, or any church for that matter, undertakes to say to its subjects, “This you may not read, this you must not see, this you are forbidden to know,” the end result is tyranny and oppression, no matter how holy the motives. Mighty little force is needed to control a man whose mind has been hoodwinked; contrariwise, no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, nor fission bombs, not anything—you can’t conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him.

Heinlein and I might well quibble over what constitutes “hoodwinking,” or what one’s social responsibility to the “hoodwinked” is; still, if you put Heinlein’s statement up and asked me to sign, I would. Clearly, then, there is an agreement—a tribute to the man who, as much as any writer while I was growing up, taught me to argue with the accepted version.

The novel after
Farnham’s Freehold
was
The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress,
which once again won for Heinlein the approbation of the general readership: it also won him his fourth Science Fiction Achievement Award, more informally known as the “Hugo,” at the 1967 World Science Fiction Convention. In the dozen years since
Moon
appeared it has come to be regarded by many as the novel expressing best Heinlein’s most characteristic strengths. Passionate and iconoclastic, it balances social portraiture with didacticism and headlong narrative in about equal measures. If one had not read any Heinlein at all—and I suppose that’s still possible—
Moon
makes a very good introduction if one wishes to catch him in his major mode. My own feeling, however, is that to encounter Heinlein significantly, one must be prepared to take on the seven novels running from
Double Star
(1956) through
The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress
(1966), as well as all the shorter works contained in
The Past Through Tomorrow
(copyright 1967; it contains stories and novels written between 1939 and 1962). Only then will we have a proper acquaintance with the writerly concerns and patterns that will allow us to appreciate fully what is deeply serious in the dozen “juvenile” novels, what is profoundly inventive in some of his more ephemeral earlier works, or what is patently authentic in the more recent didactic ones. This seems to me the only way to cut up the sky (or the ocean) Heinlein’s work makes over (or around) the whole of contemporary science fiction.