Talk:Robert A. Heinlein/Archive 3

Robert A. Heinlein
Robert A. Heinlein
	Heinlein autographing at the 1976 Worldcon
Born	July 7, 1907; Butler, Missouri
Died	May 8, 1988; Carmel, California
Occupation	Author
Nationality	United States
Genre	Science fiction

This is an archive of past discussions about Robert A. Heinlein. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

→

Heinleiners?

This term (last sentence of paragraph 3) is a new one to me. I recall John Varley's subculture of Heinleiners in Steel Beach, but I've never come across the term in the wild in the sense presented here. A quick Google yielded 30-some hits, most of which either point to Varley or to somebody called KazVorpal--who inserted the term here. There is a Slangsite.com entry, but it points to Varley. (And is this really a lexicography site, or just another collection of unfiltered internet noise?) Unless someone can come up with a stronger source, I'd say cut this--it sounds like a neologism to me, and not in common use. RLetson 22:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I almost removed it a while ago, then decided to wait and see if anyone else agreed with me.... Hayford Peirce 23:52, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

You been reading Variety again, Hayford? RLetson 23:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I used to read it in the barber shop of the Beverly Hills Hilton a gazillion years ago, about the time I bought the first edition of Stranger in a Strange Land and very carefully threw away the dustjacket (and several thousand dollars of value) upon sitting down to read it.... Sigh, for misspent youth.... Hayford Peirce 23:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Kazvorpal added discussion of the term to the lead, but I've reverted the edit. Although Kazvorpal did provide documentation that some people in SF fandom do really use the term, there's no evidence that it's important enough, or sufficiently widely used, to be included in the article, and I certainly don't think it deserves to be mentioned prominently in the lead. This is just fan trivia, IMO, nothing like a term like "grok" or "waldo" that has actually entered the vocabulary of the language.--WPIsFlawed 14:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I followed a couple of the links from the "Heinleiners" Wiki article and noticed that 1) while the Yahoo! group is indeed called "Heinleiners," the IRC sites are not so named; and 2) KazVorpal is involved in both. To me the insertion of the term in this article looks a bit like self-promotion or promotion of an in-group identity. I repeat that I have never encountered the term in ordinary use in the SF world. I recommend cutting the reference here--and I wouldn't weep to see the "Heinleiners" article removed, either, but I'll let others fuss about that. Unless I can offer "Russellism" as a term meaning "a playful yet incisive insight into the workings of popular literature" and have an article dedicated to examples found in my collected review columns and Wiki discussion pages. RLetson 04:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Had you used the basic wikipedia technique of checking Google, you'd have seen that there are a few hundred references to "heinleiner", including a great many different people referring to themselves by that term. While heinleiners.com now points at the official Heinlein Society website, it was also its own website at one time. Several of you here have an ugly habit of deleting, rather than fixing, things to which you have objection. It is a typical symptom of bad editors, certainly not fitting for a Heinlein entry.--Kaz 00:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, since you're the one who has brought up Google, here's the result of the correct way of searching for "Heinleiner" using Google. Type in the following: "-Kazvorpal -Varley +Heinleiner -Wikipedia -amazon.com" The minus signs are to keep out mentions of you, Varley, and Amazon comments. The result: 135 mentions. You may disagree with me, of course, but I don't think that that is a notable enough number to merit a 50-word sentence or two about "Heinleiners" in the Heinlein article. It's akin to a mention that in 1969, during the Moon landing, Heinlein told Cronkite on national TV that July 29, 1969, would become recognized as Day 1 of the new way of doing the calendar. I think I've seen evidence that he actually had some letterhead printed using that day. But I looked up a letter that he wrote me in 1980 that had his formal letterhead on it and there was no sign of his revolutionary new calendar dating.... Hayford Peirce 01:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe it was July 20th, 1969. I remember it pretty vividly, 'though I was not quite two years old. And I'd say that, indeed, Heinlein's mention of that is of sufficient interest to be included in the article. See, this isn't a print encyclopedia. It is intended to be far more exhaustive, not required to weigh everything for maximum delivery of information.

But, as I noted before, it would have made more sense to move and shorten/edit the items you considered less important, rather than delete them completely. Effort should always be made to fix, rather than to censor. That's a pivotal trait of a good wikipedian.--Kaz 04:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

First thing I did on seeing "Heinleiner" three weeks ago was Google it, since I had never, repeat never in 30 years of fannish activity and 40-some of studying and writing about SF (with a special interest in Heinlein), seen or heard it outside of Varley's novel. Next thing I did was what Hayford has already suggested. Just did it again, and depending on whether it's "Kaz Vorpal" or "KazVorpal" that I minus out, I get 20 or 32 hits. This does not strike me as a significant level of usage outside of a small circle of on-line folk, and certainly not enough to rate a mention in a lead section. The word is an almost inevitable formation and may indeed someday come into common (or at least subcultural) usage. But it isn't there yet. I really hate to see this degenerate into a "Does not!" "Does too!" exchange, but I wonder what the threshhold is for a term to achieve recognition as more than in-group slang. RLetson 05:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heinleiner may be of interest to folk on either side of this discussion. --Calair 01:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The term is not notable, and in addition, it's ridiculous to keep adding it to the lead. The lead is only for the most important facts, and this topic isn't even notable enough to belong in the article, much less in the lead.--WPIsFlawed 16:16, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

(see further discussion under Varley, below)--24.52.254.62 23:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

conflicts with Scribner's over juveniles

The article mentioned Heinlein's conflicts with his editor over his juvenile novels in two different places. I've deleted one, since it seemed redundant and out of place. However, probably a couple more sentences should be added to the article about this. If nobody else wants to, I can write it, since I have the sources handy. There's quite a bit of discussion of this in various sources, IIRC, such as Grumbles from the Grave and the Baen edition of Podkayne of Mars. And of course there was the ugly way that Scribner's terminated their relationship with him over Starship Troopers. The remark that I deleted was trying to make a link between the editorial issues he had with the juveniles and his conscious decision to delay publication of Stranger. It seemed to me to be completely a matter of speculation whether there was any such link in his mind. One expects that certain types of content will not be allowed in a juvenile, and that doesn't necessarily imply anything about an adult novel. Although Stranger was cut drastically in the version that was originally published, I believe it was merely for length, not content. In fact, I don't think there's any evidence that there was any editorial censorship applied to any of his adult work, merely self-censorship in the form of delaying publication of Stranger. If anything, novels like I Will Fear No Evil would have benefited from some more aggressive editorial work, IMO.--WPIsFlawed 15:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

And how! Most of the extra material in the "complete" edition of Stranger was unnecessary. When Heinlein got too big for editors, his work lost focus.

For whatever it's worth, RAH believed that Stranger had indeed been cut too much...it was cut to such an extent purely because of space constraints, not because it was so large that it lost focus. Indeed, Virginia Heinlein has said that it had been a mistake to cut the book. --Kaz 00:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

But as one of the people who have been editing the article around the conflict around Heinlein's works for juveniles, I keep having to correct a misconception: Podkayne is not a juvenile. It was not published by Scribner's. Heinlein (read the full Baen edition) describes it as a "cadet" book, good for kids and true young adults. It was published in 1963, when Heinlein wasn't writing his juvenile series anymore. It is similar in tone to his juveniles, but it is not one.--Wehwalt 18:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

If this is to be emphasized in the article, then it would be necessary to break down the books generally into more categories. If the approach is generally to have a dichotomy of Adult and Juvies, then it's fairest to put Podkayne in the latter category, and simply mention the difference in a quick note. --Kaz 00:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Variable Star

Why is the article under Robert_A._Heinlein%27s_Variable_Star instead of Variable Star? Everything appears to indicate the actual title of the book is Variable Star. Any objections to the change? --Lukobe 17:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

BTW, why aren't the titles in the box at the bottom of the page italicized? --Lukobe 17:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't have the finished book, but on the title and copyright pages of my bound advance review copy it's just Variable Star. RLetson 18:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Linguistics section

User Norm mit added a section on linguistics, but I've deleted it. I think it's much too detailed to belong in this article, which is already very long. The article does already mention Korzybski and general semantics, and I think that's plenty on that topic.--WPIsFlawed 16:21, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

World as Myth -- are there any references?

I just put the following into the World as Myth Discussion page: Are there any references of outside sources that refer to this World as Myth stuff? I know that there are gazillions of references to Heinlein's Future History but I don't know of any to World as Myth. I'm sure they exist, but shouldn't there be at least one or two citations here and in the main Heinlein article? I've been reading Heinlein for, let's see, about 49 and a half years now, and own all his books, and have read a lot of critical stuff about him and have never encountered this term before. That's undoubtedly just me being stupid, but I'd still like to see a reference. Thanks. Hayford Peirce 00:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm in a similar situation, but noticed the term recently. Here's a link to the Nitrosyncretic FAQ that mentions it: [[1]]. Googling yields lots of hits that wind up being the same references and claims, notably that RAH himself coined the term, but a quick survey hasn't revealed where. The phrase seems to have taken root, but I argree that it would be nice to have some idea of its origin. RLetson 05:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I've been trying to track down the World as Myth business. A bunch of places refer to it as being Heinlein-inspired, or Heinlein-created, but NOBODY tells me WHERE he did this. Did he or didn't he? Did he invent the phrase or did someone else? If he did, then WHERE did he do it? Let's have a reference, people. If a University of Maryland professor first used the phrase in his doctoral thesis, then let's say so. If it was a reviewer in Galaxy, then ditto. If it was RAH himself, then it ought to be easy enough to cite. I gotta say, this whole thing sorta annoys me. It's as if I went to the Asimov article and suddenly discovered that seven of his novels had been catagorised as the Walkalamie Variables, because that's the way Asimov thought of them. Nobody *else* uses the phrase, and nobody tells us *where* Asimov used it, but since he did, then the whole thing ought to be self-evident. Okay, fine. If the World as Myth stuff really exists, please give us a reference and we can go on from there. Short of that, one of these days I'm just gonna delete it from the Heinlein article as being a hobbyhorse of someone or other along the lines of "Heinleiner" and of no more significance. Hayford Peirce 23:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Start at the top of page 364 of "The Cat Who Walks Through Walls." (Berkley Books edition, 1986) There's a good explanation of the idea that goes on for a page or so. -Zeno Izen 02:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

William H. Patterson, Jr., and Andrew Thornton, The Martian Named Smith: Critical Perspectives on Robert A. Heinlein's Stranger in a Strange Land, p. 128:

"His books written after about 1980 ... belong to a series called by one of the central characters 'World as Myth.'"

The term doesn't occur in the indexes of Panshin and Franklin's books, but that's not surprising since Panshin's book is from 1968, and even Franklin's was published in 1980. The term doesn't appear in the index of Gifford's Reader's Companion. Instead, Gifford consistently uses the term Multiverse. Two uses of the term "World as Myth" on the web, by people who appear to know what they're talking about:

http://www.wegrokit.com/caa.htm

http://www.nitrosyncretic.com/rah/rahfaq.html#0402

(The second one is from the web site of Nitrosyncretic Press, which was the publisher for both Gifford and Patterson.) The term "pantheistic solipsism" doesn't occur anywhere in the indexes of Panshin, Franklin, Patterson, or Gifford.

So the situation seems pretty clear to me. Critics have universally recognized this set of books as forming a well-defined set of books, distinct from the Future History set. The term "World as Myth" was first used by Heinlein in one of his own novels, and is now in widespread use, both in print and on the web. The alternative terms "Multiverse" and "pantheistic solipsism" have much less currency when referring to Heinlein. The WP article pantheistic solipsism seems to be saying that "pantheistic solipsism" is more general, as opposed to World as Myth, which refers only to Heinlein. I don't know how widespread the use of the term "pantheistic solipsism" is.--24.52.254.62 21:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, that's a very good explanation. And I see that there is now a footnote in the main article explaining the term. Very nice -- now I won't have to do it myself, hehe.... Hayford Peirce 22:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Individualism and self-determination

Having just read it, how does Double Star jive with the theme of "...the struggle for self-determination of individuals, rather than of nations?" Admittedly, I'm a Heinlein neophyte, but the line near the end where Smythe says "...in order to let Bonforte live again, that seedy actor had to be supressed--completely" seems pretty telling. Sure, it's his choice to become Bonforte and put on this 'ultimate work', but it's still almost a literal self-sacrifice (to crib from the Double Star entry) for the good of the extended nation. I'll also mention the emperor's mentioning of becoming a shop foreman were he not emperor, as being somewhat in the same vein. A contrasting study?

I think this is more of a general theme throughout Heinlein's work: the tension between one's own freedom as an individual, and one's duty (to friends, family, tribe, nation, ...). There are a million different angles on this. Beyond This Horizon has the protagonist feeling that his society per se is anemic and not necessarily worth saving, but he's prepared to lay down his life to save its gene plasm bank. The first couple of pages of The Puppet Masters are another interesting take on this, from a completely different angle (and similar to Double Star, because there is a strong element of personal loyalty and respect, stronger than abstract loyalty to the nation-state). Although there are many different nuances to this, and it's a tension that helps to drive a lot of the plots of his books, I think the basic answer is that the individual has to choose what it's worth putting himself on the line for, and if he make a choice that involves self-sacrifice, it *is* an expression of his freedom as an individual. I've made an edit to the Individualism and self-determination section to try to reflect this; what do people think? --WPIsFlawed 16:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

edits by 128.31.16.98

User 128.31.16.98 added the following:

Heinlein's time travel stories, especially 'By His Bootstraps' and '-All You Zombies-', have been influential in philosophical discussion of the possibility of time travel; they are cited by David Lewis in 'The Paradoxes of Time Travel'. Unlike many such stories they appear to be consistent (the past never gets 'changed'), and they provide graphic examples of time travel 'loops': finite series of events in which each member is caused by one of the others, so that they appear ungrounded (see, for instance, the case of the notebook in 'By His Bootstraps').

I'm skeptical of the claim made by this paragraph, so I've cut it. Just because one person mentions them as an example in a book, that doesn't mean they're influential.--WPIsFlawed 22:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Without taking either side in this matter, I wonder if the David Lewis book by itself is important enough to warrant a mention, though? Hayford Peirce 22:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

conditions for franchise in Starship Troopers

User Phrost made the following change:

The book's main political idea is that there should be no conscription, but that suffrage should belong only to those who have served in the military.

to:

The book's main political idea is that there should be no conscription, but that suffrage should belong only to those who have earned it through government or military service.

with this comment:

ST's "Citizenship" wasn't granted only to those who served in the Military, but those who sacrificed by serving the whole of society.

I think this is a controversial point, and we might want to talk it over thoroughly and make sure we're getting it right. The article on the book (which is an FA) has a couple of apropos quotes:

"the franchise is today limited to discharged veterans," ch. XII

"people had been led to believe that they could simply vote for whatever they wanted . . . and get it, without toil, without sweat, without tears"

I recall that in one place, they say that if someone is blind, deaf, and crippled, they'll still let him qualify for the franchise, but the assignment might be something like counting the fuzz on the back of a caterpillar. I think the version before Phrost's change is probably not literally factually correct, but I'm not sure Phrost's version is better. The new version would seem to imply that you could volunteer to drive an ambulance, or work in a hospital back on Earth; however, my recollection is that that is not correct -- they ask Rico his preferences, but they don't give him the choice he asked for, assigning him to the MI instead. I also don't think you are told what duty you'll be assigned to until you've already signed up. IIRC, Rico signs up, they tell him he'll be in the MI, and they tell him that after that point, he can still fail to show up for duty without any penalty whatsoever, except that he'll miss out on the franchise.--24.52.254.62 23:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Citizenship requires federal service, and anyone who signs up has to be accepted, though assignment to any given branch is not guaranteed. Joseph Major's Heinlein's Children has a long chapter on ST that addresses (among other things) the question of how much of federal service is militarized, how much is militarized but essentially support & logistics, and so on. Based on my recollection of the book and Major's detailed commentary, I believe the terms that best describe the kind of service required would be "federal" or "government"--that leaves the debate over how "military" the service actually is to commentators. RLetson 23:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

John Varley

(discussion moved from Heinleiners, above): User Plumbago added a mention of Heinleiners:

The science fiction author John Varley, whose works often include themes that overlap those of Heinlein, even introduces a liberatarian group dedicated to interstellar travel, the Heinleiners.

I've reverted the edit, since there's been a clear consensus expressed here that the term is non-notable.--24.52.254.62 20:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Plumbago reverted my revert, and Hayford Peirce did a further edit, with a comment indicating agreement with the inclusion. I don't want to get into a revert war, and would like to hear more opinions to see if we have a consensus on the use of the term in this context. I actually think the entire paragraph is not very notable, mostly unsourced and unverifiable, and should be deleted, since the article is already very long. In the past, this paragraph has been a battleground for people trying to put in mentions of their favorite authors, including spammish listings of non-notable authors. I don't think a laundry list of authors influenced by Heinlein helps the reader, and I don't see much information to support an assertion that these authors, in particular, had more of a Heinlein influence than others. I've de-wikilinked the term Heinleiners, since the article has already been deleted as being non-notable.--24.52.254.62 22:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi there. I didn't mean to step on any toes by adding John Varley to the section on influence, but he's a notable writer in his own right, and his work is fairly clearly influenced by Heinlein. I don't know for a fact, but it seems likely that his creation of the Heinleiners is an acknowledgement of this debt.

On the direct subject of notability, and without wanting to be rude about it, Varley seems at least as notable as John Ringo, Eric Flint or David Weber (who seem to operate in some kind of cabal anyway). They're hardly well-known. And it's clear at all that Clancy's work has been influenced by Heinlein (but that's likely ignorance on my part).

Anyway, apologies if I've stepped over some line, but a dismissive revert isn't enough in my book on such a clear case. Cheers, --Plumbago 21:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Naw, you did exactly the right thing. Mentioning Varley in terms of the "Heinleiners" is worthwhile; the other mentions of them wasn't. Hayford Peirce 22:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Plumbago -- Sorry you felt that my rv was dismissive. Maybe you weren't familiar with the fact that the inclusion of the term Heinleiners in the article has been extensively discussed recently on this talk page (see above; I've moved some recent text out of that section and into this one), and that the Heinleiners article was recently deleted. I agree with you that Ringo, Flint, and Weber are not very notable, and probably less notable than Varley. In fact, I think the whole paragraph is non-notable, and should be deleted, since the article is already extremely long. I've deleted the mentions of Ringo, Flint, and Weber as non-notable and unverifiable, and the mention of Clancy as nonverifiable. I would support the deletion of the whole paragraph, though.--24.52.254.62 23:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I have no strong opinion on whether Varley's fiction is notable here, but I think it's a separate question from "are real-world people calling themselves 'Heinleiners' notable/verifiable?", and I think the deletion decision on Heinleiner had more to do with the latter than the former; had the article been primarily about Varley's fiction, I probably wouldn't have nominated it for deletion as I did. --Calair 00:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah-ha. Sorry about the confusion I caused reintroducing the Heinleiners. I hadn't realised an article on them had existed, had been about a group of people I wasn't expecting, and was subsequently deleted. I assumed (from the John Varley page) that it just hadn't been created yet, so I wikilinked in hope. Ooops. My apologies.

24.52.254.62 - thanks very much for your comments. I labelled your reversion as "dismissive" partly because it was just so fast. :) I entirely understand your reasons for wanting to keep the article a reasonable length, and keeping the writing tight. I've seen enough pages go to bloat in my time already. Anyway, I'm happy with the trim that the article currently boasts, so thanks for your efforts. I won't be so quick on the revert next time. Cheers, --Plumbago 06:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

What's strange about this whole discussion here is that it doesn't really say anything about a single, overwhelming fact: that the writings of RAH influenced more SF writers than anyone else in history. From the moment his first story appeared, other writers instantly saw that *this* was the way an SF story should be told. An earlier paragraph in the article says that many writers tried to emulate him, with varying degrees of success, and I guess we'll have to leave it at that. Grumpy old Jack Vance once told me that he'd never read anything of Heinlein's and was never influenced at all by him, but Jack is sui generis. (A month or so later, RAH said to me: "Jack Vance? Isn't he that old guy who used to write back in the 1930s?") In any case, I think his influence is so overwhelming, and so pervasive, that no bothers to even think about it -- it's like the air that we all breath. There ought to be a quotation or two around somewhere that would say what I've just said, but I'm not gonna bother to look for it.... Hayford Peirce 16:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Freemasonry

I almost inhaled my own face when I realised that in the main themes Freemasonry wasn't mentioned, further more when I did a search of the article and didn't find any reference to FM what so ever. I'm honestly aghast that such a significant feature of ALL his writings has been left out. All of RH's works had heavy masonic undertones, even blatently outright references to significant portions of initiation ceremonies and other such things in many of his novels.

Would someone care to include such a significant portion of this mans works, writings and life? I would do so, however I am not an editor here and prefer to leave it to the locals. Jachin 02:22, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, if everyone else here is like me, and knows nothing whatsoever about FM, and even less about RAH's references to it, how can *we* do it? You're the one who knows about it, evidently -- why don't you write up some material? There'll be plenty of people to edit it if it needs it.... Hayford Peirce 02:30, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I can recall various references to fraternal organizations, although not to freemasonry. For instance, there's a shriner's convention involved in The Cat Who Walks Through Walls. I also seem to remember Lazarus Long exchanging a secret handshake with his grandfather in Time Enough for Love, but again, I don't think it was freemasonry. Jachin, how about providing us with a verifiable source for your claims? Ginny specifically stated that he was not a freemason: http://www.heinleinsociety.org/rah/FAQrah.html . There is a note in the article on “If This Goes On—” claiming that the Cabal is an organization led by freemasons; I strongly doubt that's correct, but I'll take a look. The Heinlein concordance at http://www.heinleinsociety.org/concordance/C_HC.htm#cabal says "It seems to have been similar to Freemasonry," but basing a fictional organization on the freemasons is very different from having it be run by masons. --24.52.254.62 02:43, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmm...I went through “If This Goes On—” pretty carefully just now, and can't find a single explicit reference to freemasonry. There are references to "master of this lodge" and "the grand lodge," which sound like they might be masonic. This article http://www.heinleinsociety.org/rah/works/novels/ifthisogoeson.html , however, by Bill Patterson, claims that it's a "consortium of groups led by freemasons." I just can't find anything like that in the story. I'm working from the longer version of the story, as published in The Past Through Tomorrow.--24.52.254.62 04:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I posted on rec.arts.sf.written about this, and got some helpful replies, including a couple from Bill Patterson. If anyone's interested in reading the thread, the title is "Heinlein and freemasonry?" Patterson thinks I misread his article, and that the article basically agrees with what I'm saying: there's a lot of masonic terminology, but that's it. I'm going to change the text of the [“If This Goes On—”]] to be more accurate. Patterson also says that Heinlein wanted to join the masons when he was at the Naval Academy, but didn't have enough money, and by the time he had enough money he was no longer interested enough to do it.--24.52.254.62 16:53, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Many of the rituals, such as in .. crap, what's the novel where the false prophet dystopian society has an underground movement? Where the main character falls in love with what was to be the prophets bedmate and they run off to be initiated into an underground organisation? Well, that one, involves word for word an EAF degree that is accurate and not derived from Duncan's rite or any other popular (or even obscure) publication or exposè of ritual. There are a few elements within this story that an FM advisor wouldn't pass on, nor that could be read, that substantiate him being a Freemason.

For the record, reference to 'this lodge', or a 'grand lodge' is exclusively Masonic. You won't find explicit reference to Freemasonry in any authors work, Heinline's flirts with it more than any other author I have come across however. To set the possibilities to rest, if anyone here has a reasonably concise list of the states / regions he lived in through the duration of his adult life (21+) and could post them to me on my talk page, I will have a brother in those regions go through the archives and see whether he turns up on the records. Jachin 16:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The story you're referring to is “If This Goes On—," the story I discussed above, and yes, it does use masonic terminology. Heinlein was not a mason, as I discussed above. If you think you might have access to primary source materials that would be relevant, then you should contact Bill Patterson, who is writing Heinlein's biography.--24.52.254.62 16:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

FWIW the terminology 'this lodge' and 'grand lodge' could reasonably apply to a number of different contexts. Orange Lodge is one that springs to mind, but when you look at the cultural context of pre WWII and post WWII there were a number of fraternal organisations quite active in the US. The Shriners thing is a fairly explicit Masonic reference, but that's the only one that I've seen that was specific, the rest are generic.ALR 20:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)