I have been going through some older threads because as a newer member here I realized I have sometimes brought up topics that have been thoroughly discussed previously, for which I apologize. Due to the total size of the Forum by now, I doubt I'll ever read it all, however.

Went through "Problematica" today:



I had already realized that though I have read practically everything by RAH (much of it multiple times) and am quite widely read in history, biography and science, I have much, much more research to do if I really intend to write intelligent, detailed pieces on Heinlein (in particular the biography).

As I say, I have read a lot, but here is a list of what I feel a lack of at this point:

James Branch Cabell, all works (I have read Bill Patterson's essay, however)

The Martian Named Smith (Patterson and Thornton)

The Heinlein Journal (Agreeing on the $200 for this with the wife is doubtful)

Jack Williamson, all major works up to circa 1940

H. G. Wells, major works that would have influenced RAH (I have read exactly one work of Wells's, When the Sleeper Wakes)

P. D. Ouspensky, Tertium Organum and New Model of the Universe (I read his Fourth Way about 25 years ago, this was not the work that would have influenced RAH)

Universe by Scudder Klyce, intro. by John Dewey (I have the printout waiting in my drawer...)

Upton Sinclair

Anthony Boucher, Rocket to the Morgue

***

Stuff I already read and/or know a good deal about (thankfully): Mark Twain, some other RAH favorite boyhood reading, Freemasonry, L. Ron Hubbard life and works, Korzybski and his works and other General Semantics texts, Dr. Samuel Renshaw of THE Ohio State University and his work on tachistoscope training, Rhine's experiments and many other books on "psi" phenomena, E. E. Smith works, A. E. van Vogt works, the Technocrat movements (esp. in France), the Libertarian movement, and Ayn Rand and her works.

Of course, I really can't wait until I've read everything above to write new, detailed, informative pieces on aspects of RAH but I thought it would be helpful and fun to outline the extent of my ignorance.

I am happy to say I am even more ignorant than you!

... (wait a minute) ...

Might Ouspensky be more important for his influence on Leslyn than his direct influence on RAH?

If you don't feel qualified to write on this forum, then I may not be qualified to read it.

The ONLY reason this subforum was created was to let even the mildest of chatter continue in the main discussion forum while preserving a place for more serious discussion. It seems to have worked, in the main, and users have a sense that focused, serious, "advanced" discussion best goes here while fan, reader and other chatter best belongs in the other one.

But no one should take "advanced" as a rigid numeric hurdle counting eddication, publikation, pontiffication, etc. It's the intent that counts.

I still believe that Leslyn was a co-author, in one form or another, of many of the early stories. I also suspect that any overt evidence of that level of partnership was weeded in each of the burnings. But no one who goes through all the original papers at UCSC can but come away with the sense that Leslyn was a far bigger player in those early days than she's ever been credited with - call it fingerprints, call it a hunch, but it's there.