At least three of Heinlein's novels were published in an edited form and then in a "restored" version: Stranger in a Strange Land, Red Planet, and The Puppet Masters. If you have read both editions, no doubt you have opinions.

Which did you prefer, and why?

I'll hold my own preferences for later.

Of this group, I've read only SIASL in both versions. I prefer the uncut/original version of SIASL, although objectively the edited version probably is more readable at first. For me, though, what Heinlein was doing in that book comes across much more fully in the unedited version.

Just before Mike's final public appearance, at the very end of the preceding chapter, he says (in the cut 1961 version) "Waiting is ended." In the uncut version, he says "The waiting is ended." This was jarring to me when I first read the longer version, and remains so. A small point? Perhaps, but Heinlein's trimming led in this case to what seemed a very appropriate variant of the repeated Mike-ism "Waiting is."

I do not know whether Heinlein felt, or would have felt, the same need that Virginia evidently did to publish the uncut texts of these three novels, given the chance. Perhaps (in the case of Stranger) he was satisfied with the results of his difficult job of trimming, and in retrospect was glad to have been asked to do so. If someone here has information to the contrary, please supply it.

I vastly prefer the restored editions of PM and RP, because they are the books he intended to publish and was forced not to. I'm not convinced that the uncut SIASL is the book RAH would have published, because it needs some pruning (imho); I think the "real" version lies somewhere between the two we have...but given the tremendous impact of the cut version, I think that is the one that should have primary place in any discussion of his influence.

I think it's important to note that the changes in Red Planet were not made for length, but because of editorial concern over content. He was forced to espouse views that he did not agree with on gun control, and to cut a humorous subplot in which the protagonist realizes that he had misidentified the gender of his pet because the editor had some sort of Freudian bugaboo about it.

I remember when I first read Red Planet in the originally-published version being surprised that Heinlein brings to the reader's attention a dance record the kids listen to by name, but that it never comes up again. In the un-expurgated version, "Quien es la Senorita" is the set-up for a joke about Willis's mistaken gender.

The revised version of Red Planet can't really be described as tighter, merely bowdlerized. So I think that there is little question that the true Red Planet is preferable.

We've left out a book that was printed as both an edited and restored version: Podkayne of Mars. Although--like Red Planet--Podkayne was changed at editorial direction over Heinlein's objection, in this case there is still quite a bit of debate over which version is the better--one edition was printed with both endings and essays debating the point. Personally, I don't care--I don't like either ending. Whether she's gravely injured or dead, Poddy's fate is merely a lesson learned for her little brother and her parents, not a tragedy in her own right. Probably my least favorite Heinlein, regardless of ending.

Whereas with the two that were cut for length rather than content, it is much more a matter of personal taste. As Puppet Masters is pure action, I think that it profits from tightening. Mr. Garsch's comparison of the two versions' openings is demonstrative of this. And while I've heard that the uncut version closes plot holes, I never noticed any such in my reading of the originally-published version.

Stranger in a Strange Land, on the other hand, is a rambling, chatty satire--whether at 220,000 words or 160,000. While I'll admit that there are occasional segments that are strengthened by cutting, for me the work as a whole feels enriched by the extra material. While Mr. James is certainly correct that the originally-published text is a very important and influential one, that isn't really relevant to personal enjoyment and preference.

Both!
You have to have both versions of the books on your shelf. One to read, and the shorter one to loan out to people unfamiliar with Heinlein. If a friend asks to borrow Stranger, I never start him off with the uncut version. Heinlein fans sometimes forget that the uncut version of Stranger really is harder to digest-- i remember a bit more sexual talk and significant tangents that wouldn't befit a neophyte. btw, I can't imagine the effort on RAH's part to sit at a typewriter and go through Stranger line-for-line rewriting and cutting his own wonderful words.

I've never read Puppet Masters in its cut form. But still a necessity to own a few copies, since the cover art is better than the 1990 version with the guy from the movie version dangling from pink ganglia with the phrase NOW A MAJOR MOTION PICTURE STARRING DONALD SUTHERLAND.

Oh, I have my preferences, but I agree with having both versions. Which version I'd rather re-read is a function of mood as well. I would say that Red Planet is the exception. I can't imagine again choosing to read the expurgated version, but your mention of cover art made me reconsider--even if I wouldn't read this version, I can easily imagine wanting it on my bookshelf purely for the visual appeal:



All of the Scribner dust jackets are beautiful, but Red Planet just might be the best.

The Red Planet jacket is my second favorite. My favorite is Space Cadet.

OK -- now I'll say my things.

The cut edition of Stranger wins hands down -- possibly because I'm so familiar with it that when I read the uncut version, I literally tripped over every restored adjective and adverb -- and there were a lot of them. He cut 66,000 words. Some Ben and Jill banter at the front. 3.5 more pages in the art gallery at Jubal's. But mostly he removed them one at a time.

And most of those words were extraneous to character or plot.

Likewise in Puppet Masters. The cut first paragraph has been "cut" to a knife point. It beats the restored, blathering intro all hollow. The other noticeable restored pieces are from when Sam is in the hospital -- a lot more nurse and Mary rivalry. One can live without it.

Red Planet? Interestingly enough, most of the excised material here was character building of the sister, and her ability to shoot. I rather liked the restoration. But then, I have this gender bias that makes me sensitive to certain issues.

Bill and I are also academics (as are others here), which leads to a very odd class of reading: what can we write papers about...as historical artifacts, the different versions provide unique perspectives on public perception, editorial conflicts, and authorial revisions. Among other things...