What is up with the HS? Are they doing anything or are they defunct? I had looked them up to see if it was worth joining but I can't see what I would be joining, nothing seems to be going on. The last News item was 2004, last newsletter 2 years ago, and Recent Updates and Additions last change is dated 2 years ago. Then I saw threads here that mentioned how they weren't involved with his Centennial. I haven't figured out what their purpose is or if they have anything going on. Anyone here know what the score is?

In very short, THS may technically still be in existence but has been in a deep coma for over two years.

There is little expectation that they will be revived any time soon, nor that there is much rhyme or reason to consider their revival. Despite their proud official status and launch with a good helping of the community's crown jewels and best wishes, they accomplished little in their years beyond squandering the received assets and goodwill. There are also questions about what all those years of dues paid by well-intentioned members were put toward.

(This is not in any way to belittle the individuals who accomplished much, usually in spite of all of the "help" THS could throw at them.)

Like all dogs, they're best left sleeping. Shhh.

Note: Substantial assets and community support await any serious new Heinlein-centric organization; inquiries invited.

Well, I was feeling guilty recenty about missing Heinlein's centennial and all, and thought they might be someplace to do something in penance. Guess not. I've been reading Heinlein since I was a kid but only in the last year became much interested in his personal life. I even lived in Colo Springs a long time before I realized that his old homestead still existed. Now I wish I could find more pictures of the old place and hope some time to visit the grounds. Not having an honest interest or ability to buy the estate today, I don't know how that opportunity may present itself.

> You're not under the impression that THS had anything to do with the Kansas City event, are you?

No, I gathered from reading the mail elsewhere that they weren't greatly involved.

Belonging to the Heinlein Society got me into their party room at the Centennial and I think I paid a reduced admission price. I don't know--it's one of those things I send money to because, because, because I do. They are trying to revive it. At least I talked to David Silver about helping them edit the newsletter--I don't know what happened after that. I think they sent me something to edit but I couldn't get the program working...But I am so out on the fringe of the whole fandom thing except for the part where I love the books, own all the books in various forms and enjoy talking to people who know Heinlein and enjoy talking about him too (very few in my neck of the world, which is why I come here and lurk for the most part). All of which is saying I am not qualified to hold an opinion.

James, some of us know nothing about THS and its history (save what can be gleaned from looking around its website, plus phrases such as "back when Bill was in charge" earlier in this thread). Could you please take a moment to explain what "staggering official support" consists of, the origin of this support, etc.?

JJ, I could go on at great length but I've already overstepped my self-imposed limits. I am hardly the only one who has knowledge or deep bitterness at the decade of misdirection, mismanagement and missed chances THS represents.

Others are welcome to step up and tell their portions of the tale - and frankly, guys, I wish you would; it's time and place to quit grumbling in semi-private and air what we know... and what the larger Heinlein community only dimly senses. Speak up.

The one thing I didn't think was unclear, though, was that THS was started more or less directly at Virginia Heinlein's behest, was given formal imprimatur to carry forward Heinlein's legacy, has received quite a bit of financial support directly from the Heinlein Trust and other entities, and trumpets its "official standing" on every paper and electronic page. With that 'staggering support' there is no limit to what they should have accomplished. The vast gap between what a well-run group with those assets and official support should/could have achieved, and what little THS has in actuality accomplished... well, waste of opportunity only begins to cover it. They should practically have a starship ready to lift off the rails; as it is, they can't even keep a web site updated.

I have done several instances of this "personal legacy" type of huckstering, never with official support and never with assets other than personal capabilities and the pile of change on my dresser. Doing it that way - and I've done a good job with scratch assets - and doing it with lavish official support is like the difference between trying to build a car in your garage and having Ford's special vehicles division whip you up a custom ride.

There's no excuse. None. And it's time for the sham and posturing to shrivel in the light of day.

My stars, you don't even know the things I haven't touched on... like the worthless puppet show they call a board of directors.

Speak up, gents, speak up.

I'm a charter member of the Heinlein Society. I hold out hopes that the 'official' status of the group will be put to better use someday. There are great people involved with some of its activities.

I was a committee chair in the early days and remember those board meetings. I was eventually frustrated by the inability to make a meaningful contribution for the amount of time I was spending in discussions. I do treasure the fact that I got to hang out, at least electronically, with Ginny for a short while. She even sent me an email condolence when my mother passed away. A classy lady.

There are some decent initiatives within THS, but the board has not been able to follow through on most of its vision to show much progress.

I had dreams in my earlier years (I guess I would call it my youth, now) that the Heinlein Forum would become much of what the Heinlein Society lays claim to.

I don't have the time or energy to step up and join the leadership of THS, so I refrain from kvetching more than the above.

I find I simply have to put my oar in here.

((But before I do -- crap! I haven't logged-in here before, and I find that there's TONS of stuff here I want to read/comment on, etc. I don't have the bloody time, dammit! <g> ))

But before I comment, I guess I have to outline some facts about myself.

Like Dr. Michael Griffin, NASA's now-former Administrator, who spoke at the Heinlein Centennial, I came to Heinlein from reading stuff about space. I was reading books by Willy Ley, and Fletcher Pratt, and Martin Caidin in the 1960-1962 time frame (1st and 2nd grade; hey, I was an early reader) and they'd mention folks like Asimov and Clarke and Heinlein. The very first non-space fiction book -- SF I guess you'd call it -- I ever read was Asimov's I, Robot, from the Wright-Patterson AFB base library in November, 1963 (we'd just moved to Wright-Patt).

SF, and reading of sf, was always just an amusement to me. My real mission in life was Space. The real stuff, not fiction.

I came to fandom from that direction, and was active in sf fandom during the late 1970s, but left once I had finished a task I'd promised I'd finish (chairing the 36th World Science Fiction Convention). I moved off to work in the jolly field of space advocacy, trying to get humans moving into space in a big way.

Well, I sure succeded *there,* didn't I? <grin>

That's background to what I will have to say a bit further on in this posting. In the meanwhile, to the main point.

To put it simply, the THS did *nothing* with respect to the Centennial. That's a technical English term meaning, they didn't do a DAMN THING to help. Nada. Zip. Zero. Zilch. Goose egg. Nothing. They did NOTHING. In fact, they did "below zero."

OK, I guess that isn't *quite* true, as they DID do something with respect to the Centennial. They did EVERYTHING they COULD to assure that the Centennial *DIDN'T* happen.

Am I overstating things here? Am I, perhaps, allowing a liiiiitle bit of emotion to possibly seep into this, my sober and considered assessment?

No. Not a bit.

At the Centennial, speaking with several folks who were there who were professionals in the Washington, D.C. area (as I was at the time), they were simply gobsmacked to learn, as they did speaking to others than myself, of the amount of involvement of the THS -- or lack of it. They were scandalized. As they should have been.

For that matter, the entire SF "establishment" did ZERO, too, mostly because, I guess, of the involvement of Charlie Brown. Anyone with any doubt at all about this should see the Locus issue for July, 2007 (or maybe it was the August issue) where Charlie spends PAGES reporting on a SINGLE PANEL DISCUSSION about Heinlein at some obscure east coast SF convention.

Further witness the incredible involvement of the sf pubishing industry in helping celebrate the Centennial, especially see the involvement of Tor Books, the largest of these publishers. They had a small button for THS on the website for the book by RAH and Spider Robinson. That's it, despite my asking personally the editorial head of their SF division to try to help out a little.

And there he is, little ole' Robert Heinlein, dead these 20 years, still earning those publishers bucks. The sf establishment is *still* treating him with contempt, even as he makes money for them.

The ONLY people who did anything about the fracking Centennial were Bill Patterson, me, Peter Scott, Tina Brown, Jim Gifford, Keith Kato, and a bunch of folks in Kansas City. I'm sure I've missed some people here; it's not intentional. I'm typing as fast as I can here.

Those 700 attendees? Those people were mostly those of we Heinlein fans who were fans of Heinlein because of our involvement in the space development side of things. More or less; this is, please notice, a general assertion, and I'm completely sure that there are exceptions to it that one could drive a Mack truck through. Nevertheless, it's true enough. NASA Administrator Griffin? He was there because he's a RAH fan, not an SF fan, or a con fan, or a fmz fan, or an sf publisher or writer -- OR a member of THS, which he hasn't heard of, still. Adminstrator for Commercial Spaceflight Patti Grace Smith? She was there because she was a RAH reader, not (again) because she was an sf fan, or reader, or con fan, or fmz fan, or sf publisher hanger-on, or writer, or etc. Ditto Dr. Peter Diamandis. Ditto Colonel Bill Bruner. Ditto CEO of XCOR Jeff Greason (who just got appointed to the brand-new Augustine Commission on Space).

I could go on, but you do get the picture I think?

The Old Man deserved his Centennial celebration. The fact that the THS wasn't going to do squat about it is the main reason I weighed in to work on the damn thing (I swore I'd never do another damn convention ever again, and look at what I ended up doing! But the Old Man *deserved* it.

And those on who he had somewhat looked down on during his life -- science fiction "fans" of fandom -- did exactly as he thought they would do, which is to say, not a damn thing.

I know Peter will get to this section of his history pretty soon, so I don't want to step on his narrative, but just to identify what people are talking about when they say the Society did everything they could to keep the Centennial from happening:

There was a bit of backing and filling at the start of 2005, when the group that became THC came together, and I won't go into detail on that -- perhaps when it comes up in Peter's narrative will be time to say more. The points necessary to identify what the Society did to destroy the Centennial are that I asked at a Board meeting (I was then still a member of the Board of the Society) whether the Society had any intention of doing anything with the Centennial and was told there were no projects currently on the schedule or in planning. That triggered the formation of THC (long story, short, etc.) That was in February 2005.

The leaves fall off the calendar. We are busy beavers. We decide early on to keep the actual moves quiet until the incorporation papers came through, simply to avoid any unnecessary waves, and laid out enough groundwork to make the announcement when the paperwork came through. The day before the announcement was scheduled, I tried unsuccessfully to call David Silver and give him a head's up about it. Failing that I sent him an e-mail instead, which he did not read until after he read the announcement in AFH. This was in early May 2005, IIRC.

He went ballistic. Now I'm going to skip over a lot of detailed back and forth that leads up to the three articles lambasting the centennial and me personally. I will just point out that David Silver is a retired lawyer, and he did what lawyers do, come up with as many possible avenues of attack as possible, whether or not they are sensible -- on the theory that the court will take the ones it likes and the others fall by the wayside.

Well, nothing falls by the wayside in the court of public opinion, and that is just a side-benefit of the incredible theories David spun. The most egregious of them was that we had stolen a business opportunity from the Society. There were, he said, plans for an event to be hosted by the Society which would now be damaged by the existence of THC. Well, I was a member of the Board at the time -- if there were these plans why didn't the Board members know about them? And why did he say there were no plans when I asked point blank in February? At one point he said that the event was being directed by one of our contacts in Seattle, Grieve, and when I contacted him, Grieve said he never heard of any of this.

David used the membership list of the Society and the contacts the Society had been developing among the professional sf authors to poison the well wrt THC.

Now, understand what this looks like to pro authors: it looks like just another fucking fan feud, and the defensive reaction is to get as far away from both parties as possible. That's a lesson learned the hard way over fifty years of fan feuds. It was something David created all by himself, as nobody was feuding with him. But it became impossible to answer, even to set the record straight, without appearing to be in the imaginary fan feud.

So, right at the very start, David cut out from under the Centennial a cadre of people with a public platform who would have been a self-executing publicity machine, generating several hundred memberships to the convention. This was not the only such avenue, but it was the easiest to reach and get started, and would have accounted for money coming in to the effort early in the process. The SF world is a highly networked community, and we did get some of those memberships back later, but the drive was blighted at the start.

And David continued to agitate this way for a very long time -- at least until Jerry Pournelle pointed out to him that the Centennial was in place and was going to happen, and he could either get on the bandwagon and reap whatever benefit from it he might, or he could be left behind. Thereafter the public and private agitation decreased somewhat

Bill Patterson said (in part):

"...And David continued to agitate this way for a very long time -- at least until Jerry Pournelle pointed out to him that the Centennial was in place and was going to happen, and he could either get on the bandwagon and reap whatever benefit from it he might, or he could be left behind. Thereafter the public and private agitation decreased somewhat."

In fact, he has NEVER *stopped* the public and private agitation WRT the THC. Witness the reportage by THS folks about the THC after the fact. Witness the reportage and angles taken by Locus, with whom I gather DS is "in with" Charlie Brown (who is on the THS Board last I looked -- three or so years ago).

I truly don't have a clue as to what his problem(s) is.

I'm not sure I want to know more <sigh>, but... You do have to go on if you want those of us fans who were out of the whole mess to know what you mean. For one, what on *earth* are the LA Freemasons? If that's in reference to something in Los Angeles, I lived there for a few years recently and don't know what you mean.

I know what the Freemasons are, have since high school. But I wasn't (and still am not) at all sure what this particular reference was about. It sounded like it was about some SMOFish crowd in LA that used the term "Mason" but wasn't actually part of Masonry.

Oh, well. I'll figure it out sooner or later.

It is my impression that the majority of Masons joined for the business benefits (i.e., "follow the money"). A eurocentric-tinged bias, perhaps, but I'd be shocked if the same reasoning didn't apply in the USA. Join the Masons and - so I was led to believe - you would be part of a club of successful people who would preferentially do business with you, sweeten deals, and generally smooth the way in return for you scratching their own backs.

These days there are a plethora more alternatives for that that don't require having your naked backside paddled amidst threats of being disemboweled for revealing the secret handshake - or so I was led to believe. The main benefit of joining the Masons these days seems to be to hang out with other people who want to rule the world. That would tend to select for an older demographic.

Oh, yes; what they said. It's what I thought *I* had said, too, but, hey, ya know...

To make it plain: The folks in Kansas City -- the fans there -- came through IN SPADES. Or whatever metaphor you'd like to cite.

But then, I KNEW they would, too. How? Um...hey, I just knew, is all. <grin>

I guess what I was refering to WRT to "fandom" was (and is) the majority core bunch, the BNFs these days, and so forth, who are interpenetrated with the "sf publishing establishment" to a huge degree. Venn diagrams come to mind...and lucikly then go away.

Anyway, I was then (and still am) appalled at the lack of *any* support on the part of the sf publishing world WRT to the HC100 event. As I said, here is this guy, 20 years safely dead, but with his books ALL STILL IN PRINT, distributed among almost all of the major publishers, and still making money for them. Fa ghu's sake, the then-recent Tor reprint of TMIAHM went to up with Charles Symoni to the International Space Station, as the ISS' first library book. Did Tor do *anything* with this for its marketing?

Mike Griffin was the first, and the only, NASA Administrator to speak at any sort of conference, or convention, or what-have-you, associated with anything that smelled even just a leeeeetle bit like it had an sf connection. Did that get reported much in the SF publishing press? Yes, just a bit; on Locus online. Because I emailed and emailed the guy there about it, and the online weekly space news magazine The Space Review was featuring Griffin's speech on the Net. If The Space Review's article hadn't been there, I'm sure Locus Online wouldn't even have mentioned it. At all.

I'm spraying opinions all over the place here and barely being coherent, for which I apologize. But let me make a final point, or perhaps beat a dead horse one more time. And that is this: That the underlying zeitgeizt of sf publishing now and for the past several decades completely precludes any appreciation of Robert Heinlein, his writing, or his opinions, or of the kind of SF that he wrote and represented. All the while, his books are on these same publisher's backlists, selling slowly but steadily, helping their bottom lines.

All the while being studiously ignored.

Just to follow on Tim's comments:

Although the core organizers were busy, well, organizing, all of us at one time or another took part in the efforts to contact other "parties of interest" to get them involved. Some of this contact was naked self-interest, that is, seeking direct support or funding for the event should it be available. But in almost every case, we made it clear that we were asking not just for that direct support of our effort, but the collateral involvement of whoever it was we were contacting - to their own benefit and ends.

While we would have LIKED to have Tor, Baen and the other publishers whose catalogs ran to a full page of Heinlein titles to have chipped in on the event, we would have been happy to see them promote their own Heinlein interests as well in that significant year. Publicity for one is publicity for all in such a case.

With only the scantiest exceptions, there was a resounding silence all through sf fandom, from the many well-established fan groups (some of which had famous involvement with Heinlein) to the many publishers whose bottom lines were, have been and are buoyed by continuing Heinlein sales. LASFS? Silence. NESFA? Silence. Analog, Asimov's, F&SF? Silence - although Analog did actually manage to put a listing for our event in the July 2007 issue, which hit stands DURING the event. Locus? Silence. (I'm sure Charles Brown's deadweight presence on the THS board had nothing to do with that.) Tor and Baen? Silence.

Understand again, I don't mean silence towards us or the event - which there was. I mean that not one of these institutions, every one of which owes a debt to Robert Heinlein of one size or another and for one reason and another, not one so much as acknowledged Heinlein's 100th birthday in any timely and meaningful manner.

We could be accused of a form of myopia, like any group focused on a single person or topic and thinking that subject was just SOOO important. But we're not talking about celebrating John Scalzi's fifth year as a published writer or even Spider's 25th... we're talking about the 100th birthday anniversary of one of the true titans of modern sf.

You'd think that someone besides us would have noticed and cared. But nope. LASFS, NESFA, Analog, Asmimov's (that's a joke), F&SF, Locus, Tor, Baen... oh, and THS... all had better things to do that year, that weekend, that day.

Dunno about you, but I'll remember that.

Now, if we'd attracted nobody as guests and speakers and celebrants, you could say that it was just obvious that our subject figure and we weren't big enough, interesting enough and generally worthy of these august institutions' attention.

Then I remember that the sitting head of NASA, as well as the movers and shakers behind the southwestern space industry - Peter freakin' Diamandis and one of the world's first two private astronauts, Brian Binnie, along with Jeff Greason and others... they had time to come celebrate. Busy people, all. They had time and inclination to honor Heinlein's Hundredth.

And they say sf fandom is stale, jaded and inbred. ...oh.

I've been actually reading some of the postings here in NitroForum, finally. I should be out patrolling (I'm a security guard these days; it's a job...) but I've got cameras all over the place outsied, and I'm looking even as I type.

I'm in Albuquerque, and the building is the Forest Service's.

A lot of folks thanked us for the Centennial over in the, a-hem, Centennial topic (and I'll go over there, and to the 2,007 topic and do this also) but I wanted to thank *them* for thanking *us.*

Yeah, I got snookered in to "doing" the HC100 by Bill Patterson. Well, I owed him. In the fall of 1975 he was in the hospital with pnemonoia (sp, sorry), mostly from his then-heavy cigarette habit (this was what made him quit). It was there that I talked *him* into bidding for a World Science Fiction Convention. We conned a lot of other people in Phoenix into thinking well of the idea, and it happened back in 1978 (no. 36). We won the bid, BTW, at MidAmeriCon in Kansas City. So Heinlein was in the backdrop of our working to win our WorldCon.

Anyway, Bill had an excuse -- nicotine withdrawal. Me? All I can say for myself was I was only 20, and a young idiot.

So Bill called in his chit from IguanaCon II, trying to use his chit for the HC100, but I still resisted. Hell, I wasn't even going to *attend* the HC100. I didn't have the money and I didn't see how I'd be able to spend the money and justify it to the family either. But I was sure glad that Bill was working to bring an HC100 off, as I thought Heinlen sure deserved it.

Bill then played *that* card. "The Old Man deserves it, Tim. Don't you think? Don't you think you have an OBLIGATION?!, hmmmm?"

Damn. He was right. At least from my point of view anyway.

After 30 years of being in politics (in one way or another) I also knew, from Bill's quick sketch, what the issues were WRT the Centennial and The Other Factors. When it's a situation like that, you just have to go and do it all yourself and damn The Other Factors.

So I was in, and we all worked, and the Centennial occured, and I am *happy* as hell that others enjoyed it and thought well (and think well) of it.

The Old Man deserved it. That's the bottom line.

Jack Kelly ---

Thank you for YOUR kind words about *my* words. I do appreciate it.

I see elsewhere you were once in Sunnyvale. I lived in Sunnyvale for several years, and worked there for...wait for it...Western Electric.

Anyone remember the Bell System? <grin>

This was in 1979-1981. I worked in Silly Valley throughout the 1980s, letting me drive by the Heinlein House once, over in Bonny Doon. And etc. -- since at one time I was on the L5 Society's Board of Directors, and RAH was also, at that time, I got to meet him several times and to talk to him -- and to get berated by him too! <grin>

Consider this: not one member of the Kansas City Science Fiction & Fantasy Society [KaCSFFS] has now or ever been a member of THS. Robert Heinlein paid dues and belonged to KaCSFFS, however. Ipse dixit & Q.E.D, as himself has been wont to say.

We voted to support the Centennial. I guess it landed on me because I had the skills and I didn't have to go to work at the time, so the Centennial became my work for awhile. I basically ended up drafting the entire committee, one by one -- people I knew could do the job right and without me looking over their shoulders.

I actually only volunteered to sort the e-mail that came in to the Centennial, and it 'just growed'. I told Jim that my main concern was making the sucker run.

Besides, I promised Jim Gunn it would happen, and I have no intention of failing when I say something will happen.

I've always felt the best picture of the Freemasons is in Laurel and Hardy's "Sons of the Desert."

And as for the Heinlein Society, it does indeed seem to be dead as a group, which is what usually happens when any organization is tied to one individual too tightly. They did some interesting things in their time, and they served as a conduit for many forces to come together -- for example, I doubt I would have met Art Dula at the critical stage that I did had David Silver not introduced him to me. I met Bill Patterson through Jim Gifford, when they were both highly involved in THS, iirc. I got convinced to go to the first SF cons I ever attended because David and Bill invited me. I met Geo and Deb Rule through the HS, and all of these are relationships I treasure to this day.

That said, the machinations and intricate power struggles are probably best left undiscussed, beyond what's already been said. They ranged from the cautious to the ridiculous, and I wish none of them had happened. It serves no purpose to whip a dead dog.

Robert

For those interested, the has just been published. There are extensive first-person accounts of the Centennial celebration. Those by the Silvers are quite dismissive and dissapointing - they focus on the wonderful food they enjoyed in Kansas City and how disappointed they were with the food choices at the Gala Dinner. Sigh...

Some of the other articles are interesting, though.

We're aware of it. An appallingly sad effort and an embarrassment to the whole community on almost every level. Even the articles you're commending have been extensively "edited to suit" - I saw most of them in the original years ago and what's been stripped out is just further embarrassment to all. I can't imagine what they were thinking.

But then, what else is new? It's not like it's a secret why we're here.

I can't say it's true for all the copies of that edition, of course, but mine came on oversized paper with registration marks that seemed to indicate where it should have been trimmed, but wasn't. I've never seen that before. Weird.

Jim, I should have been more explicit. My surprise was the photo on page 3. I don't remember Geo taking that shot.

At least I now have proof of my attendance.