Customer Reviews

Heinlein in dimension,: A critical analysis

5 star:		(1)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(3)
1 star:		(3)

 

 

I waited a long time before deciding to to buy and read this book. Heinlein was the author of the first SF I ever read; I didn't read anything by Panshin until twenty years later. However, I like them both, in different ways and for different reasons. While I cannot say I agree with all of the observations, criticisms, and conclusions Panshin has made about Heinlein -- I don't -- "Heinlein in Dimension" *did* make me think a bit more about the Heinlein I've read. Seeing how Panshin viewed him and his work has made me consider my own opinions on the matter. If you're looking for an RAH cheerleading book, this isn't it. If you're looking for a completely objective and unbiased book about Heinlein and his work, I don't think this is it either. If, however, you're familiar with Heinlein (even a fan), are looking for someone *trying* to be objective about the subject, and can read it with the continual remembrance that you're reading someone's *opinion*, then you might find "Heinlein in Dimension" worthwhile -- in viewpoint-stretching ways if not as pure analysis.

For anyone looking for background or critical information on Heinlein and his works, this book is a good place to start. It is well written, informative, interesting, and also attempts to explain what is meant by "Science Fiction." Panshin also reveals his views on what a story should consist of. However, as a work of criticism, the book is very flawed. Panshin often makes assertions that cannot be backed up by fact, and his anyalysis is many times far to narrow to be taken seriously. If nothing else, Panshin's book is a good place to find key issues of contention that are often brought up by Heinlein critics. It is not, however, a place to find praise of Heinlein as an author or final answers to any questions regarding his works. Heinlein himself claimed that he never read the book nor met Alexei Panshin.

Frankly, I don't understand why this book does not have a higher rating here at Amazon, since it is a worthy effort that merits close study and thoughtful reflection. Panshin's work was the first close reading of any modern science fiction writer and stands as a serious--and largely successful, in my view--attempt to consider Heinlein's work to that date (1968, through "The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress"). As he writes in his introduction, Panshin's goals included tracing Heinlein's development as a writer, analyzing the characteristics of his writing, and teasing out both what makes his works successful _as literary works_ and fail _as literary works_. I suspect it is non-recognition of this latter point that accounts for some of the less-than-favorable reviews here; if you are looking for a book that says, "Gee, what neat ideas Heinlein had!" you're better off looking elsewhere. This is a work of literary criticism; its goals are to (1) consider Heinlein's work as a whole and tease out those characteristics that make it "Heinlein's work" and not someone else's and (2) probe and reflect on the works that comprise the whole and what makes them work well or not as science fiction and and as works of fiction more generally.

Panshin lays out his biases at the start--not about Heinlein, but rather about what he feels constitutes good science fiction, good storytelling, and good writing. He then runs through Heinlein's works up to the time of writing and assesses them in light of the standards he has laid out. Heinlein's writing, he argues, may be broken down into three periods: the period of his apprenticeship as a writer, lasting to 1942; the period of his greatest success--both monetarily and, in Panshin's view, artistically--lasting to 1958; and a period of "confusion" still ongoing at the time of writing, in which Heinlein seemed to forget, as Panshin would have it, that the goal of his writing was to tell a story rather than lecture. Following this chronologically themed overview/review, Panshin then takes up Heinlein's craft and concludes with a section addressing a number of problematic thematic issues that recur in his work (sexual relations, libertarian politics, mysticism) and why Panshin believes they are problematic. The thrust of his comments here is generally guided NOT by whether Panshin agrees with Heinlein's apparent views on the matters at hand, but again more on how Heinlein's handling of these themes enhances or more often detracts from his fiction _as fiction_.

Personally, I find most of Panshin's assessments to be quite on the mark and even those places where I disagree with him, it is largely only a matter of degree. It does not lessen my enjoyment of Heinlein's work--if anything I think it will enhance it. At the same time, I believe he puts an unerring finger on many aspects of the late writer's output that I have variously found interesting, troubling, pleasing, perplexing, or simply dumbfounding (in both the positive and negative senses) over the years. The book is quite fair-minded, meaning that Panshin adheres rather rigorously to the program he has laid out for himself. He gives this particular emperor credit where credit is due, and tells him he is naked on those occasions when his R.A.H. forgot to put on his robe (or silk bathrobe, which apparently in Heinlein's case would have been more appropriate according to those who knew him). If your interest in Heinlein goes beyond the "gee, what neat ideas!" or "gee, riproaring adventures!" level and you are interested in considering Heinlein's output in terms of craft and as a body of work, then this book is recommended.

Panshin is a problematic character in the history of Heinlein fandom and scholarship because although this work was the first book-length Heinlein study, as many have observed here, much of the book is simply a personal attack on Heinlein rather than objective literary criticism. That having been said, the book did contain some insights into Heinlein's work that I found valuable, and I basically ignored the other biased criticisms. I give the work three stars for a pioneering effort and for providing at least some useful insights on Heinlein and his works. But it could have been so much better if Panshin had been able to control his obvious personal dislike of Heinlein.

Panshin and I corresponded briefly some years ago on several topics related to Heinlein's work (mostly on his ideas relating to the Renshawing concepts in Citizen of the Galaxy). I was very critical of his ideas there, but I have to give credit to Panshin who accepted them without ire and the correspondence remained civil throughout.

Around that time, we got into another debate on the Heinlein SIG on the subject of Heinlein's first story, Lifeline, and I thought I would post that here in case people find it interesting, since Panshin has expended a great deal of effort criticizing Heinlein for his supposed faults. So I offer a perspective on that here for Heinlein, and artists in general.

During the discussion, several people commented that Panshin's criticism of Lifeline was nothing more than nitpicking and pettiness. It might be, but I can't disagree with his statement that a later, more mature Heinlein might have written the story better. But it's impossible to disagree with that statement for most artists--it could probably be said of any and all artists--no matter how great.

That having been said, I wanted to make a few more comments about this. I'm no literary critic, and since I am much more knowledgeable about music and art history than literary criticism, I'll use my background there to make my point, since I come at it from a somewhat different perspective.

At least in music and art, it is not the case that even the greatest masters of an art form or genre demonstrate their superiority at every turn. Take Beethoven, for example, arguably the greatest composer who ever lived. He often had technical problems with his musical transitions, those parts of a symphony that tie the other sections together and act as bridge elements.

On the other hand, Schubert and Mendelsohn composed transitions that were smooth as silk, and although they were great composers themselves, I wouldn't put either of them in the same league with Beethoven.

On the other hand, Schubert (arguably the second greatest composer, after his mentor, Beethoven), harmonically wanders around the circle of fifths as if he doesn't understand intermediate harmony at times. However, he is probably the greatest example of the "artesian well" stereotype of a composer. His melodies seem to "well up" from nowhere and he had no problem coming up with thousands of them.

In contrast, Beethoven often struggled with his melodic material. And yet he could create an entire movement in the 5th symphony from a musical phrase that doesn't even qualify as a melody (actually, it's only four notes), being more of small snippet or "idee fixe," as one historian has written. In other words, Beethoven could create a work of genius starting with source material that was quite modest and almost hum-drum, perhaps even minimalist, in a way no other composer could.

This is important, because although there are composers who could more easily come up with melodic material than Beethoven, they still didn't know how to develop it like he could. They might start out with better material, but the "finished product" wasn't as good because they lacked Beethoven's genius at thematic development and exposition.

There are other problems with Beethoven, but I'll leave it at that. If he was a times a little rough around the edges, as in his transitions, he can be forgiven for this relatively minor problem because his contributions in the most important areas were so amazing. To mention just two of these, he greatly increased the complexity and sophistication of harmonic and symphonic structure more than any other composer before or since.

Another way of thinking about it is that Beethoven, like Heinlein, was a pioneer and trail-blazer who revolutionized our thinking about music (or science fiction). If they're both a little rough around the edges at times, I don't mind that--as the refinement of a field can be left to the lesser artists and those who follow after (which is essentially what happened). And the same goes for the subsequent development of science fiction.

I'm sure this idea applies to great literary figures as well, and so I suspect the same thing could be said about Heinlein as about Beethoven. As I said, like Beethoven, Heinlein wasn't just another competent artist who just "upped the ante" a bit; he was a revolutionary who blazed new trails in SF writing, going where no man had gone before.

No artist or writer is perfect. Even if Heinlein had a few minor faults, as Panshin has maintained in this book, they pale into insignificance in contrast to the greatness of his overall contributions, just as Beethoven's do.

1968 analysis of the author Heinlein, intriguing as one of the first major studies as well as being written when Heinlein was still alive, and before he'd gone into the more generally recognizable decline. Panshin has a lot of interesting things to say, particularly in the ways the narrative of Starship Troopers and Stranger fail, the increasingly didactic and solipsist manner of his writing, the extraordinary egoism that Heinlein wrote substantial fantasies about. In this regard Panshin sees the true break point not being Heinlein's increasingly militant politicization, but his short story "All Ye Zombies" where he came to more and more openly reject the notion of outsiders.

Some interesting analysis, although still far too generous to Heinlein for my taste, and oddly Panshin doesn't seem to perceive the similar flaws in earlier works, particularly The Puppet Masters. As well, valuable though it is to have a close connection to the material surveyed, it also means Panshin echoes a fair bit of Heinlein's racism and sexism rather than calling him out on it.

Quote of note:

"If there is one wish that all men have had at one time or another, it is that they might be able to go back and avoid the mistakes they once made and so save themselves a lot of pain. Heinlein has the perfect way to do that: his Individual, no matter the number of different guises he appears in, is one single character who quite conveniently serves as teacher to himself. In this way the man who has learned better can alert his naive self and save him the cost of his mistakes. The world may have to be tied into knots to allow teh Heinlein Individual to prevail, but that is quite all right since he is the single, solitary real thing in an essentially unreal world. The world exists for him, not he for the world." [Panshin, 172]

I have wanted to read this book for a long time. I have heard about it from the various Heinlein reviews and web sites. It is usually panned by people who are Heinlein fans, and I thought that I should read it. I think Heinlein is a great author, but not without his flaws. It would be interesting to see what a structured review that was generally thought to be critical of Heinlein would have to say.

Panshin is a writer of some talent, I don't think that he's as good as Heinlein, but he has some talent, he writes as if he had a degree in English while Heinlein is not so polished. Panshin would probably have something meaningful to say.

My first impression was that Panshin was one of those adults blind to social skills, inadvertently saying insulting things when he means to be positive. He would actually say that he really enjoyed this story or that one, but that it was really very badly flawed. After reading this comment over and over you begin to believe that he saying he enjoyed the story so that he isn't constantly negative, that his positive comments are just to keep you from putting the book down in disgust with the constant negative drone.

Panshin will praise Heinlein for some facet he says Heinlein does well, such as his technical knowledge, since, after all, Heinlein was an engineer. Panshin however, will then slowly denigrate such skill as being unimportant in writing, not really something a good story needs. By the time you are near the end, it is obvious that none of Heinlein's writing is good enough for Panshin, everything that was good, such as his ability to construct a good story plot, really is one of his weaknesses!

The last 10% of the book is really wearying, a trial to read. I skimmed much it, but there really wasn't much there except more shoveling of dirt onto the supposed grave.

You really have to wonder what Heinlein ever did to Panshin. Since Panshin is really disparaging of Heinlein's libertarian heroes and philosophy, it could be that Panshin is just a statist and is angered by Heinlein's success with libertarian themes, or maybe he just is angered that he will never be remembered as an important writer as Heinlein will be. Whatever the reason, it is clear that Panshin doesn't like Heinlein.

This book is best viewed as a source of questions which should be answered rather than a critical analysis of Heinlein. Panshin will, in one chapter, praise Heinlein for the economy of his descriptive prose, while in another chapter criticise him for the dearth of descriptive prose. Panshin introduces very worthwhile topics for analysis of Heinlein (such as Heinlein's extended character dialogues); unfortunately Panshin does not seem capable of addressing the topics he raises. The best review of this book of which I am aware is "Rah, Rah, R.A.H." by Spider Robinson, reprinted in "Requiem: New Colleccted Works by Robert A. Heinlein and Tributes to the Grand Master." I urge all Heinlein fans to read this book, but I don't expect that anyone will derive significant enlightenment from it

Panshin seems to have many philosophical disagreements with Heinlein, and thus has a few axes to grind. This seriously distracts from his criticism of Heinlein's writing. The criticism mostly serves as a vehicle for making cracks about Heinlein's philosophy instead.

Much criticism of Heinlein seems to fall into one of two camps - the bash him at all costs camp, and the adoring fans camp. (This one is obviously from the bashing camp.) Neither really does the man justice. He's a great writer, but not without flaws.

This book is for Alexei Panshin fans, not Robert Heinlein fans or critics.

Panshin may have lived for a time on the same planet as Robert Heinlein, and may even have a few inside biographical facts to share, but he is culturally, philosophically and intellectually unprepared to approach, much less master, his subject. I was first exposed to this book in high school, and felt at the time that it was deeply flawed as criticism, but was unable to fully articulate my concerns and misgivings. After completing my degree in literature, I rediscovered the book and found it far less sound as literary criticism than the average Sunday section book review. This book is Panshin's personal response to Heinlein rather than a formal literary criticism or other form of scholarship. He speaks directly to approximately half of Heinlein's opus to that point, at length about half a dozen books, shows no understanding of the author's philosophies, merits, or demerits, provides no character studies, explores no recurring motifs, no application of style and diction, and contributes nothing of value to the study of Heinlein, science fiction, or literature.

On the other hand, fans of Panshin's somewhat interesting novels are provided an opportunity to examine another voice of the author and perhaps gain some additional insights into his own philosophy and psychology.

This book pretends to be objective about Heinlein, but I suspect that this is mostly a technique to try to draw Heinlein's fans away from him. RAH's most important works, such as _Stranger in a Strange Land_, _Starship Troopers_, or "Gulf," are invariably trashed by Panshin. To give one really glaring example of Panshin's bias, when the hero of _Glory Road_ states that he dislikes Vietnamese women because they are small, Panshin takes this as bigotry. Panshin himself notes that the hero here is markedly different from the hero of _The Door Into Summer_, who goes back in time to tell a young girl to meet him in the future and marry him. Somehow, he fails to make the connection--Heinlein, contrary to what Panshin and other critics say, IS capable of creating DIFFERENT characters whose life views do NOT necessarily represent his own. And of course, Panshin's review of "Gulf" is one of the worst examples of literary criticism I have ever seen.