Jump to content

Talk:Robert A. Heinlein bibliography

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Suggest Separating the Bibliography

[edit]
This note is copied from the Talk:Robert A. Heinlein page:

I suggest that we separate out the bibliography (including filmography) as a separate article, because it is so extensive and it is making the main article over-long. It is almost half of the real estate of the page (wide screen) and half of the Table of Contents. I'm not in favor of condensing the main article at this time. The important books are mentioned directly in the main article. It is common for prolific rock bands like Pink Floyd to have a separate discography (Pink Floyd discography). Hu 21:31, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since more than 100 hours have passed with no dissenting remarks, I have created the Robert A. Heinlein bibliography from the main article. The main article size has been reduced from 61 to 51 kilobytes, and the Table of Contents has be cut in half. Hu 00:56, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heinlein LP record

[edit]

Years ago, when RAH came to Tahiti on a cruise boat he gave me, and signed, an LP called, I think, The Green Hills of Earth. I've never listened to it, however. If you want to put it into your Spinoffs I think I still have it around and can give you more info on it. Hayford Peirce 18:29, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Please do! Hu 21:23, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a 1977 (copyright date on jacket) stereo LP, Caedmon TC 1526, called "Robert A. Heinlein, THE GREEN HILLS OF EARTH and GENTLEMEN, BE SEATED read by Leonard Nimoy". The GENTLEMEN, BE SEATED is in a much smaller font than THE GREEN HILLS OF EARTH. The cover is a painting by Kelly Freas. The flip side of the jacket has a long intro by Heinlein, plus something almost as lengthy written by someone named Ward Botsford. And there's a small picture and bio of Leonard Nimoy. If you can paste a couple of JPGs together, I could scan the front and back -- the jacket is too wide for my scanner to make a single pic.... Hayford Peirce 17:56, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Give a scan a try, and make sure there is some overlap between the scans and we'll see what we can do. Also scanning the text by Heinlein and the other stuff would be useful if it is readable because then it could be summarized. Hu 18:26, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've got 4 pretty clear JPGs, plus much bigger original files. Give me an email address and I'll send the JPGs as attachments to you. You can email me at iaorana27@hotmail.com

Proposal

[edit]

It seems to me that it's impossible to subdivide the novels into groups like early, mature, late or whatever in any neutral basis; it's all original research. I see only two objective ways to present this information:

  1. In order of original publication date
  2. In alphabetical order

So here's the proposal: Two tables, both of which present exactly the same information, one in alphabetical order, one in order of original publication date. Each table would show:

  • Title
  • Original publication date
  • Notes

"Notes" would be extremely short, succinct, relevant facts, like:

  • "Original byline Anson MacDonald"
  • "Future History"
  • Other title(s)

Thoughts? -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 02:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the demarcation is pretty easy and not original research, since it has been remarked on by a number of reviewers / academics (don't make me dig up references, please). Clearly the seven year break between 1973 and 1980 separates the mature phase from the late phase. Starship Troopers was written for the juvenile series and could be put in them, as it is now, but since it was rejected and since Heinlein considered that rejection to be a release, I would consider it the first of the mature phase novels. It is really the only one that could be quibbled over. I would move it to the mature phase if it were only up to me (it isn't). I would also separate out the juvenile series into a separate "Juveniles" list, since they are similar in style and purpose and distinct from the other novels in the same period. I would put Variable Star into a special category with For Us, The Living: A Comedy of Customs.
Strongly agree that Starship Troopers should start a next "phase" of Heinlein's works, separate from books like Double Star, Door Into Summer and the last of the juveniles published by Scribners. The RAH main article splits them that way; this list should match.
But the formatting of this article implies that Heinlein's writing career started with the "early period novels", and that his short stories are afterthoughts. That's confusing or misleading. Heinlein established his reputation as a writer with his stories & novellas. Fully 2/3 of Heinlein's stories were published before the war. The article makes it look like those are before the "early period", which doesn't really make sense. Gives the appearance that RAH's pre-war work either doesn't exist or doesn't matter.
What might make more sense is to have 4 periods: (1) Pre-war; (2) Post-war transition to novels and more lucrative markets; (3) Mature novels; (4) Late novels. The early pre-war work would include the stories up to 1941-2. The post-war "transition" would cover about 1947-58, including RAH's breakthru sales to the Saturday Evening Post (Green Hills of Earth, Great To Be Back, Space Jockey) and the early novels (up to Space Suit and the expanded Methuselah's Children). Then the mature novels would be Starship Troopers thru Time Enough For Love; the late novels start with Number of the Beast as on the current page.
We can find support for Heinlein's search for more lucrative & more prestigious markets post-war, in Patterson biography. Jim Hardy (talk) 22:54, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The division into Early, Middle and Late appears to be largely arbitrary and unnecessary. The positioning of novels before short fiction is standard practice in bibliographies and should not be taken as a judgment on the importance of Heinlein's short fiction. A simple chronological listing of novels should be sufficient. If any division is required then it should be to separate out the Future History novels as has already been done for short fiction.
The Virginia Collection needs to be in a section of its own, not as a subsection of short fiction. It brings together works from all categories listed in the article. Deagol2 (talk) 23:35, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As to the two table idea, if it is decided to go that way (which I recommend against), I would suggest making a main table by alphabetic order, and a secondary table by publication date, with all the data in the first table and only the name and year in the second table. It is extremely problematic to maintain two tables with much duplication of information, especially in a collaborative environment where they may be edited by editors unfamiliar with the structure or just lazy or sloppy or worse. Further, I think that "table" should be loosely applied since most real tables look ugly, and a well organized list can be just as functional.
In summary, make "Early", "Juveniles", "Mature", "Late", and "Posthumous" lists. Alternatively make a main alphabetic list with a secondary publication time ordered list. As always, I encourage discussion. Hu 03:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm strugging with the formatting; I need to learn about wiki table syntax. My current extremely rough draft straw man proposal is formatted using HTML, converted from Microsoft Word. But it's good enough for discussion purposes. This is kind of what I had in mind: User talk:Jim Douglas/Robert A. Heinlein bibliography. (And I just noticed I neglected to fill in the first publication date (1980) for all of the Expanded Universe items.) -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 06:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've written on your page User talk:Jim Douglas/Robert A. Heinlein bibliography with some responses and an alternative proposal. Hu 07:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've responded there in detail. We're in complete agreement. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 14:00, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revised proposal

[edit]

I've archived the first draft proposal (table-oriented), including Hu's reformatting, to User talk:Jim Douglas/Robert A. Heinlein bibliography table.

I've created a new straw man proposal as User talk:Jim Douglas/Robert A. Heinlein bibliography based on Hu's suggested format, but with two changes: I broke out each title to a separate line, and I moved the month of publication to after the title. I also incorporated all existing material from the beginning and end of the existing Robert A. Heinlein bibliography article to get a better sense of how this would look as a complete article. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 04:30, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

I have added to and edited Moon in art and literature (created huge Heinlein section), Venus in fiction, Ceres in fiction, Mars in fiction, Jupiter's moons in fiction, Saturn in fiction, and Solar System in fiction. Hu 13:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Nothing Ever Happens on the Moon"

[edit]

I have created the article for "Nothing Ever Happens on the Moon". Hu 09:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress (book).jpg

[edit]

Image:The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress (book).jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 15:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heinlein's works, all, should have gone into post-U.S.-Copyright-protection status 14 years after his death, current statute and the rhetoric of Jack Valenti not-withstanding. As the status of "fair use" and such is hotly contested and heavily, and expensively, litigated, it is best to only ever use ancient myth or one's own demonstrably original and derived from Fair Use Sources. YMMV || IANYL
75.142.56.188 (talk) 18:48, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Heinlein's copyrights certainly have not expired; typical term for US copyright is 75 years after creator's death. And in any event, the cover illustration is almost certainly not Heinlein's. -- Elphion (talk) 00:43, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are we missing one?

[edit]

I have read a book which I believe is by Robert A. Heinlein but it's not in the list. Maybe it is one of his and we missed it, or I'm mistaken and it's someone else's, but maybe someone can help me here. Some people develop a gateway to go back to the time of the dinosaurs. Some of them go through the gate, which causes it to break down, and they end up being stranded for a while. Later, one of the scientists from the future comes back to rescue them after they figure a way to be able to summon the return gate via a remote control. A girl from that time follows them back, but notices something in our world that scares her, so she runs back through the gate just before they close it. Anyway, I think that's a summary of (what I believe is) one of Heinlein's books, and if I am right that it is by him, I can't find it. Can someone help me, one way or the other? Paul Robinson (Rfc1394) (talk) 18:04, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only Heinlein I can think of that sounds close to that, is Tunnel In The Sky. But there are some key differences between Tunnel and the plot you've listed. I would say either you're talking about Tunnel and not quite remembering it 100%, or it's someone else's book. Jim Hardy (talk) 16:58, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Uncollected" stories have been collected - and a semantic quibble

[edit]

"At Heinlein's insistence, the three Lyle Monroe stories marked with the symbol '§' have never been reissued in a Heinlein anthology."... during his lifetime but, as noted elsewhere in the article, they appear in Off the Main Sequence. So that line should be removed or modified.

Incidentally, as is discussed elsewhere on this page, I have no problem at all with the structure of the page but I dislike the use of "Mature" to describe the period between the "Early" and "Late". A simpler and more objective description would be "Middle".

Complete Works

[edit]

The effort to publish the complete works of Heinlein as a set is continuing under the aegis of the Virginia Edition Publishing Company. I received an e-mail from Leah at the Virginia Edition Publishing Company on 05 February 2010 indicating that the work is planned to be completed in July 2010. If you are interested in learning more, I recommend you go to the Virginia Edition website at http://www.virginiaedition.com/cart/index.php?act=viewDoc&docId=5 or the Virginia Edition blogspot at http://virginiaedition.blogspot.com/ for more information, including contact information for Leah. Lonholder (talk) 15:53, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

216.77.225.193 (talk) 23:21, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who do we attribue the "early", "middle", & "late" categories to?

[edit]

I would like to see attribution of the current division of Heinlein's works to a reliable source. Otherwise, this appears arbitrary or potentially original. Is there an expert Heinlein source we can attribute this division to? --Ds13 (talk) 21:33, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know it's years later, but I'd like a source for this as well. I am especially concerned about the seemingly arbitrary inclusion of Starship Troopers in the early period.--Khajidha (talk) 15:54, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
After going through the revision history of this page and Robert A. Heinlein and looking doing some searches for use of the division elsewhere I've come to think that this was something created on Wikipedia, first in 2004 then changed to it's current version in 2005 and 2009. I think this is OR and I will see to undoing it. DervotNum4 (talk) 00:24, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Robert A. Heinlein bibliography. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:55, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Corbett

[edit]

I removed

from the Filmography section because Heinlein had no participation in it. Joseph Greene, who developed Tom Corbett, was influenced by Heinlein's Space Cadet, as many others have been, but Heinlein did not write, advise, etc. any of Tom Corbett. Zaslav (talk) 03:54, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"The Pursuit of the Pankera" no longer a pending novel

[edit]

Some of the text in this section is duplicated in The_Number_of_the_Beast_(novel)#The_Pursuit_of_the_Pankera, but not all. I plan to remove this section in a few days to a week, but would appreciate someone either moving the remaining text (mostly editing and publication history) or whatever of it is relevant there, or at least giving feedback on what should be preserved and moved. The Crab Who Played With The Sea (talk) 17:31, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like someone just did. The Crab Who Played With The Sea (talk) 00:18, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Robert_A._Heinlein_bibliography&oldid=1254008133"