Comments on: Robert A. Heinlein, Algis Budrys and me

By: Ross Presser

Ross Presser — Fri, 21 May 2010 20:12:54 +0000

The letter raises Mrs. Douglas specifically:
“STRANGER IN A STRANGE LAND makes no use of the idea of reincarnation and does make use of the idea of angelic intervention — three of the characters are specifically stated to be angels (Mike, Digby, and Foster); in three others the implication is so strong that the reader is thereby invited to accept them as angels if he wishes (Pat, George, and Mrs. Douglas) although apparently of lower rank than archangel in the fictional hierarchy.”

The letter doesn’t mention Don Juan. In the book, I found only one passage about Don Juan, and yes, I guess that could be read as reincarnating him.

Alice Douglas, in the book, is referred to (when Foster the angel is thinking to himself) as “an utterly reliable field operative”. It’s certainly consistent that operatives would be a different population than humans, and hence angels.

But I can see where one could argue this is Heinlein retconning himself.

By: JJ Brannon

JJ Brannon — Thu, 20 May 2010 04:30:29 +0000

Heinlein was being technically precise, IIRC, if evasive, with that response to Budrys regarding reincarnation.

It’s not a major theme; no one **within** the storyline is reincarnated; nor do any characters discuss reincarnation at any length as the main topic of conversation.

However, RAH dodges the validity of the Budrys’ criticism in his letter because characters are alluded to being reincarnated **outside** the storyline: Don Juan, for one, and much more crucially Alice/Agnes Douglas, the asexual, long-suffering wife of the Honorable Joe Douglas. The allusions are in passing by the angels who have other pots to stir.

I come to think in recent years of Alice Douglas as Heinlein’s lampoon of Alice Dagliesh.

JJB

By: Ross Presser

Ross Presser — Tue, 18 May 2010 02:41:38 +0000

I’ve now bought a copy and read the letter. Heinlein’s first beef with Budrys seems to have been that Budrys’s review described reincarnation as a major theme of the book — which Heinlein says absolutely was not intended; nobody is reincarnated in the book, and it’s never even talked about — and ignored what Heinlein actually meant as the major themes.

I don’t feel good about having read the letter, by the way. Gentlemen and other people’s mail and all that.

By: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey

Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey — Thu, 13 May 2010 14:18:40 +0000

Heinlein’s letter still exists, in his file of correspondence with Galaxy from 1961 to 1977, according to this description:

http://www.heinleinarchives.net/upload/index.php?_a=viewProd&productId=794

You can buy a copy from the Heinlein Archives for two bucks. I haven’t read it myself.

By: tad

tad — Thu, 13 May 2010 10:28:45 +0000

Wow. I have a copy of Budrys’ BENCHMARKS: GALAXY BOOKSHELF, which as you know collected his review columns for GALAXY, & there’s some great stuff in there, including a very insightful review of Heinlein’s marvelous THE MOON IS A HARSH MISTRESS … but I’d never heard THIS story before. AJ’s book reviews were one of the main reasons I read GALAXY, & later F&SF. Thanks for sharing! — TAD.

By: Earl Wells

Earl Wells — Thu, 13 May 2010 03:06:37 +0000

Algis Budrys talked about this in an interview with Mark Berry that was published in Richard E. Geis’ Science Fiction Review in 1984. The part of the interview dealing with the Stranger review was reprinted in 2007 in Earl Kemp’s eFanzine:

http://efanzines.com/EK/eI34/index.htm#budrys