James,

I finally joined this forum after being a huge fan of ARC and of Bill Patterson's TMNS for several years. I don't know what the latest, latest, latest status of the bio is (hopefully Bill will respond here), but I wanted to suggest that you make a permanent discussion thread for discussing Heinlein's personal history and biographical data (a thread separated from discussions about his works). Sometimes it's hard for people who are not Heinlein scholars to separate fact from fiction, especially with conflicting anecdotes about the man, and vastly divergent belief systems held by his characters. It might also be a good place for discussions of interest that will no doubt arise once Bill's new biography is published.

Hi, and welcome, even though I know you're REALLY Alex Graham.

You're welcome to start such a thread, but you'll find a lot of biographical data scattered through the various topics. I know that's not very satisfying, but these forums aren't meant to be a complete databank; they're more to permit ongoing discussion and help center the online Heinlein community.

There are biographical resources out there and it might be more productive for some bright young sprog to summarize them in an initial post, and then we (led by Bill) can pick them apart and fill in the gaps.

I should note that it was always my intention to have a first-rate short bio on the Heinlein site and it's one aspect I never quite got right. There are some rumblings in the underground these days and I may actually take time to do a full revamp of the site - including that damned bio.

Well, I guess what I wish existed (maybe it does someplace) is this:

A list of the man's beliefs as we know them to be, properly cited. As a dedicated (but not fervent) fan, I must say that I don't just want Heinlein The Fiction Writer, I want Heinlein the role model. This may be a youthful and stupid thing to want, especially since Heinlein's works always suggest thinking for oneself rather than following blindly. And Heinlein always excoriated people for reading his personal views from his fiction. But regardless, I want to know:

What did the man believe and how did his beliefs change over time? A proper list, citing only legitimate sources like letters or speeches or interviews, and not inferring anything from his fiction, unless obviously written in his own voice.

How did he really feel about politics, and how did his ideas change over time? Did he make contradictory statements within the same time period?
Was he an atheist? I don't believe someone can write Job and be merely agnostic or deistic.
How did he feel about women and various forms of sexuality? Did these views ever really change, or was he just edited less as he became more successful? Some of his later books are a little out there with the explicit sexuality, but his non fiction is usually limited to tame asides, mentioning goggling pretty girls as they walk by, etc.
Did Virginia censor any "embarrassing" writings at any point? Did Heinlein destroy any personal papers?
Much is made of his illnesses during I Will Fear No Evil and other periods, but did his illnesses affect any of his non-fiction, either personal or published? Should things he wrote or said in these periods be taken with a grain of salt? When is a person not considered himself?

Etc. (No, I'm not asking anybody here to answer any of this stuff now!!!!) My point is, shouldn't there be a detailed and permanent "official" location for this stuff, contradictions and vagueness and all.

I've got Grumbles, Tramp, Expanded, the Schulman interview, and some other non-fiction writing, but as always the man seems to never let his guard down-- always confident and a little cynical, but always measured and in control. Like he's afraid to commit to a viewpoint publicly after like the 1950s (the Schulman interview is particularly revealing on this point). His speeches from sci-fi conventions seem to be the most detailed and frank, but obviously those were carefully written ahead of time, always measured, always in control. No wonder there is so much debate about his personal views in online forums. So many contradictions, and I'm not really sure Heinlein always told the truth completely when mentioning anecdotes. I love all the Heinlein FAQs, but most of them have different versions of: "Heinlein's religious views were his own personal views." Grrrrrr.

And finally: **WHY** did Heinlein seem to avoid revealing much about his personal views? What was he afraid of?
--

I bet you Heinlein experts were just rolling your eyes this whole post, "my god, Alex H. obviously hasn't read blah blah blah...."

P.S. I am thrilled the Heinlein Archive exists. I wish it was free. I haven't even tried to read any of it, since I don't know where to start.

Excellent questions. I look forward to reading some of the answers.

Personally, I've always felt RAH came closest to the mark in public with "This I Believe," but that's sheer wishful thinking...

I started a thread about a year ago called , and it accrued a healthy number of postings, but it may not be quite what Alex is looking for.

To avoid being overwhelmed in confronting the Archive, I decided to look at the boxes of Heinlein's correspondence with John W. Campbell. Some of these letters are quoted in Grumbles but I had always wanted to read more. This proved to be a good strategy... there's lots of interesting discussion in there, sometimes several letters a week. (Though Campbell does ramble on about his hobbies, especially photography.)

There's a hole in this correspondence in early 1942, when the Heinleins moved in with the Campbells in New Jersey. RAH was trying to get back into the Navy to fight WWII, and the conversation was presumably conducted over the kitchen table.

If you're wondering what to read, you could do worse than cruising the Archive descriptions of the documents looking for something that catches your attention. Two or three bucks gets you hundreds of pages of letters.

thanks for all the great responses!

one final question:

anyone know when or where Heinlein said this phrase?

[Heinlein once told a visitor, “I’m so much a libertarian that I have no use for the whole libertarian movement.”]

It's quoted twice by Reason Magazine. It's lame writing to not cite the quote. I'm skeptical Heinlein would have said it in those words, though.
http://www.reason.com/news/show/120766.html
http://www.reason.com/news/show/129996.html

thanks.

Another milestone today: I got an e-mail from the legal counsel Tor uses, asking for a phone conference. Hartwell didn't bother to communicate with me that he was finished with the review process, but this means he has turned it over for the next stage. Copyediting comes next. So the first volume is on track for issue in Spring 2010

I suppose something about this could be mentioned in the Nexus, but there may be further developments in the next three weeks.

Why on earth would Tor's legal department be involved with a routine publication process? I don't think I have ever dealt with a publisher's attorney (nor the other direction) in the course of business.

.....Did Virginia censor any "embarrassing" writings at any point?

Yes, she did. Though not for the reason(s) that might at first come to mind.
Jim Cunningham

I didn't mean for it to be. It didn't have anything to do with his writings re politics or sex. I won't be saying what it was for, since that was her choice.
All the best,
Jim

First, if you believe you have this syndrome you can ask for an evaluation by an expert. The resources for this disorder are fragmented and most a poorly researched (if at all).

However I am a bit familiar with autistic spectrum disorders including Asperger's syndrome. (By the way I have never seen excessive formality as a symptom - more of a coping mechanism if anything, and many of the symptoms you cite are also seen in the profoundly gifted.) Who defines what is excessive formality anyway? My 16 year old daughter and I have a profoundly different opinion of what constitutes formality, for example.

The ability to interpret the perspectives of other people is one of the core deficits for people with Asperger's. This is captured best in the Theory of Mind literature, and in fact the current therapies seem to revolve mostly around teaching the person to observe their own actions and predict the effect those actions have on the people around them. (The research base for this is not as strong as I would like). Heinlein has shown he is not only able to interpret but to present perspectives from various people. He may dwell a lot longer on the very gifted, motivated, Heinlein Hero type than the less admirable Philip K Dick protaganists, but then so do I. Heinlein died before Asperger's was even clearly defined - in fact it is still being revised. I know he also had a penchant for dictatorial stances when he was disagreed with, but again this does not in and of itself indicate a pathological condition.

I think it more likely that he did not tell people more about his personal opinions because he did not think it was anyone's business, or possibly that he thought people should think for themselves rather than follow his opinions slavishly.

In fact, if you assume Heinlein agreed with the assumptions of his novels he would seem to have a view that tolerated (and possibly advocated) euthanasia for the handicapped. Seems an unlikely stance for someone with a potentially handicapping condition.

Audrey

Well, to start with, you're taking my "many" and treating it as "all." I don't fall for the trap that all Heinlein heroes are the same character, nor do I believe they are all cut from the same - real or fictional - cloth.

"There is something in what you say" but I think you are hammering a wide variety of characters with varying motivations, mindsets and circumstances into too narrow a slot.

One of the reasons I quickly tire of most forum debates is a lack of rigor - instead of putting down a comprehensive argument and gathering all the pro and con examples available, the arguments are selective and slither around from viewpoint to viewpoint in each successive post. Example: You named a series of indubitably "Homo Superioris" characters. When I commented on that subset (as "many"), you switched to his "Joe Everyman" characters in only somewhat similar circumstances. No good - there is a difference between a person/character who CHOOSES to be a fugitive or isolate themselves, and one who is irresistibly forced into flight. Maureen Johnson and Lazarus Long chose fugitive isolation; Max Jones and Larry Smith were forced into it.

I don't think you can make a case for a single thread of the fugitive notion in Heinlein's work. At best, you can say there is a theme of flight under duress (real, imagined or synthetic)... which is common to some very large percentage of adventure-type authors.

I'll also note that all of us here admire Heinlein and undoubtedly see some modeling of ourselves in his work - but that no two of us quite see the same model.

Well, I didn't want to get into a discussion of Asperger's, but I see there are viewpoints here that differ from mine more than I would have expected. I'll try to be reasonably brief.

(1) Some may wonder if I can reliably claim to have the condition, as I am admittedly self-diagnosed. All I can say is that if you live with the condition for fifty-some years, always wondering why you are "different" and then see it described, the shock of recognition is unmistakable.

(2) Asperger's is not unambiguously a handicap. Audrey counterposes it to being "gifted". Au contraire, being extremely academically talented is a not uncommon "symptom". Whether the syndrome as a whole is a "handicap" or a "gift" is as much a matter of perspective as anything. Indeed, this very issue is a persistent subject of debate within the autistic/Asperger's community.

(3) Asperger's involver a process of development - just like any other life circumstance. I was in my twenties before I actually realized in my guts that other people were actualy conscious. "Let's get together sometime and have a go at solipsism."?

As life went on, I worked on the problem of understanding and empathizing with others, much as one with a physical handicap might seek to develop compensations. I've actually progressed to the point where I have begun to write a story with a 14 year old female first person viewpoint character (and surprised myself!). But I didn't come by such understanding as I have by the "normal" path. It involved a lot of workarounds.

(4) Asperger's is replete with paradox, as is life. For instance, a typical symptom is compulsive literal-minded honesty. And I have always had that. However, when I'm convinced of the necessity to lie, (very rarely) i'm *very* good - as I suspect only a compulsively honest person can be.

Have fun,
-Steve

Name, say, five well-known books with an adventurous or thrilling theme that do not involve flight or subterfuge on the part of the main character.

It's possible you can, but you'll undoubtedly have to work at it and discard many, many others that do involve flight, hiding, deception and subterfuge on the part of the protagonist... because it is a very basic literary theme and makes a fascinating hook on which to hang a story. In some ways Heinlein was a very ordinary, workmanlike writer, and his frequent use of a character in trouble and running/hiding is nothing significant.

I've seen a naive argument that too many books "just happen to begin just as something extraordinary happens to the character." Well, of course they do... if the point is to tell an interesting story and not spend half a book describing a character's daily life before the mugger or asteroid or alien shows up. I think it's a similarly misplaced argument to claim that a story following a character who evades danger or jeopardy is somehow unusual. We want to read about interesting happenings, not ordinary events. Heinlein (and many others) answered that desire by taking an unusual character and throwing them to the wolves... see next chapter.

I don't think there's anything particularly pro-forma about my posts. I can discard all the supporting comments and boil it down to two statements:

1) What you point out as a running theme in Heinlein's work is valid, interesting and worthy of more rigorous investigation. It is, however, not unique to Heinlein - not even unusual - and I think you are greatly overstating the case by fitting a number of very different characters into a narrowly defined category. But I haven't rigorously evaluated all the instances, so I could be overlooking something. (See below.)

2) Right or wrong, it is specious to try and use this narrow bit of selective interpretation to claim Heinlein had Asperger's, when the evidence of his great social ability, personal ease, and empathic perception (all completely contrary to a diagnosis of even mild Asperger's) is plentiful. This claim reminds me of the many JFK assassination theories that discard great quantities of observed fact to try and hang a conspiracy on one perceived flaw.

3) Arguing that Asperger's is common in the SF community is nothing I would debate, from personal experience. But extending that general claim (and at least tentative fact) into the specific claim that Heinlein, van Vogt and others "must be Aspie" because they have paranoid, fugitive characters and stories is going to need a lot more development and proof - and in Heinlein's case, at least, I can put forth mountains of evidence to the contrary. Remember that classic sf is also the literature of the disaffected adolescent, who is also subject to paranoia, out of place feelings and social awkwardness without a trace of clinical Asperger's in sight. I've known few sf fans who didn't think they were Slans or some other "special" but oppressed group... because most bright, perceptive teens I've known were special and oppressed. You'll need to differentiate the two situations before you can make sweeping claims about Asperger's being a factor.

I suggest that the place to proceed from here is to list and characterize all of the examples of "fugitive" characters in Heinlein's work - but do so in a complete, organized and formal manner rather than in the slippery inconsistency of anecdotal discussion. Creating an organized table of such things often shows patterns that are not readily observable in casual review. Write it up, in other words... and then we'll have a common frame of reference for further discussion.

N.B. the forum is not the place to post such a thing. We will have a "public library" function on the website sometime soon, for 'publication' of member-written essays and critiques. Just ping me when you have something ready. (And do carry on with the idea; my casual counterarguments should be no barrier to your making a more organized presentation of your idea.)

Yes Steve, do please develop your ideas - I may not agree with them, but they do get the mental juices flowing, and what more can one ask?

As grist for your mill, note that Heinlein had a stuttering habit that he expended great effort in overcoming.

Wasn't he more a stammerer? Stuttering tends to be the inability to get past a single syllable; stammering is getting hung up on a word or phrase. (I have no ingrained speech problems but frequently stammer when my brain runs faster than my mouth can handle.)

Heinlein's trick to break a stammer was to stop and whistle softly. You can see him do it a couple of times in the 1976 Worldcon speech tape.

not to be a killjoy, but my whole purpose for suggesting this thread was to focus on the cold, hard FACTS of what we know about Heinlein's life and views. I didn't read all the posts here about Asperger's, but... come on. Unless there's a bit of written evidence, then we're hardly talking biographical data here.

Plus, my suggestion has always been to ignore totally theories that are based on Heinlein's written fiction, as he has always indicated that his fiction shouldn't be taken to be biographical. I think we owe the man that much. So theories about Heinlein's stance on topics like euthanasia seem irrelevant as well (at least for this thread) unless we have evidence for it. Am I wrong? If we are to study the man himself, should we really base our theories on the decisions made by some of his characters (therefore ignoring contradicting viewpoints by his other characters)? Sure, Heinlein-the-man shared qualities with some of his characters-- particularly rationality. He also didn't share some of their traits, like being 2000 years old, living on the moon, etc. In other words, they are FICTION. I vote we let Mr. Heinlein speak for himself, which he did in numerous articles, letters, travelogues, radio and television appearances, etc. And if we want to speculate, then we can speculate all we want. But a biographical thread seems a weird place for it.

If I ever have a couple weeks free, I'll type up an extensive list of Heinlein facts that I've wanted to explore. I think a good list, properly cited, would be awesome. I'm sure Bill Patterson has already essentially done this in note-form for the biography.

The question of how to use a writer's fiction to decide events in their biography is an extremely touchy one, fraught with peril.

I just finished reading Michael Reynolds' four-volume biography of Hemingway, and he sets issues clearly in that context more brilliantly than any biographer of a writer that I've ever read. He very, very carefully pins everything he can to letters, particularly since his research shows that most of what Hemingway wrote was imaginary, and not lived, as most of his readers (including myself, at times), believed. Given that many authors tend to be liars in their letters and their conversations, the danger is significantly increased.

Having said that, I do think there is one tactic that tends to be revelatory of an author's true feelings, and that is when you look at what the author chooses to happen to his characters. Plot is an extremely undervalued literary merit for much of the past century of literary criticism, but what an author chooses to do with his characters, is, in fact, his or her own choices, which are almost invariably based on their interior beliefs (even when they choose to have something happen because it makes a better story, the fact that they choose to go for that better story does say something about their belief system).

Also, when an author repeats positions in book after book, one does tend to think this is closer to the author's heart than a single book would indicate.

For example, the issue of Heinlein's take on government is an extremely important one to many people, and one that Libertarians in particular cite. They consider him to be a hard-core libertarian, which isn't an unfair position to take. But when you consider that Heinlein speaks admirably, in numerous places, both nonfiction and fiction, of the value of government, you cannot discard the idea that Heinlein felt government was necessary, sometimes even in large doses -- the Depression and WWII for example, when we know for a fact that Heinlein backed FDR's New Deal (even while wanting it to go further) and the war effort (after being shocked out of an essentially isolationist pov by Pearl Harbor). Any author who has created Mr. Kiku cannot be totally opposed to bureaucracy -- an author who thought government NEVER worked would, in my opinion, not create an admirable bureaucrat.

As for Heinlein's best statement about his own political beliefs, and my summation of them, see my afterword to "For Us, the Living".

Robert

The question of why he fudged information is tangled. Part of it was simply not remembering correctly -- we all do that, as memory is a slippery thing at best. Part of it was as Twain said -- never let the truth get in the way of a good story. And part of it was eliding the facts to bolster his creds, like claiming he went to UCLA, which he did, for a few weeks at best -- but the impression was left that he went there more substantially.

And part of it was simply that he drew an extreme line between his private life and his public life, and he was more than willing to lie -- extensively, if need be -- to protect that privacy, and/or to make a point (such as the time he told an anti-Semite he was good friends with that he was, in fact, Jewish, and left the dinner party to let the bastard stew in his own stupidity...).

Robert

Thanks for the compliment.

Robert - welcome! It's great to see you here. I'm really looking forward to reading more from you.

Well, according to Jim, I've posted 24+ messages, so that should keep you busy for awhile.

I look forward to participating here; now that I'm almost done with the radiation therapy (on low-grade cancer cells in a tumor removed from my right parotid gland), I should be able to start getting back into the groove of things again.

Robert

Well, for my money, two of those would have to be Tramp Royale and How to Be a Politician....

My favorite is "This I Believe"

Very well, then; my next move: "Who Are the Heirs of Patrick Henry?"

Jim,
what do you think about the Schulman interview? Seems to me that Heinlein thought he was just having a long phone call with an adoring fan for a minor article. I never got the impression from the interview that he realized Schulman was going to publish the ENTIRE interview word-for-word.

Do you think this offers the strongest way to view RAH's opinions (as of 1973)?

I guess the alternative is to defer to opinions written by his friends and family about him, or to dimension-hop to an alternate Earth where Grumbles From The Grave is his (oft-threatened) autobiography, rather than just a bunch of letters. Ah, where art thou, Gay Deceiver?

There's much of interest in the Schulman interview, although - well, I'll put a pin in the "althoughs."

A good part of the interview brings to mind Errol Flynn, sipping away at mead from the king's cup while holding off a furiously slashing young twerp of an opponent with lazy, masterful parries. Probably while reading the latest missive from the hinterlands, held by a comely wench, and thinking more of 'laters' with the wench than anything else.

Nice Flynn reference, Jim.

I'd add that it seems RAH was willing to talk at that period; there's a lengthy interview he did with William Tenn that never got published, and seems to have disappeared into Tenn's personal effects, perhaps never to be found, at the same time.

I'd also add that Schulman was just too young to know what questions he should have been asking....which are, of course, the ones we would have asked him

"To my taste government should be limited to exterior defense, interior defense, and adjudication -- and you'll notice I didn't say anything about public roads, public schools."
RAH, in a 12/19/1985 newspaper interview

IIRC, he also tended to approve of the national park system....

Here's another statement by one of Heinlein's characters that I think is revealing about RAH:

" "Back" is for emergencies; the future is better than the past. Despite the crapehangers, romanticists, and anti-intellectuals, the world steadily grows better because the human mind, applying itself to environment, makes it better. With hands . . . with tools . . . with horse sense and science and engineering." D. B. Davis, speaking at the end of The Door into Summer.

There's a maxim that the young see the future, adults see the present and the old see the past - I wouldn't say this is untrue of Heinlein, although his first two stages seem to extend to later years than most.

Look at the extent his later works are concerned with rearranging the past to make a better present. Even Door into Summer was concerned about rearranging the past and present to make a better future...

The first two stories that happened by my mind while I was thinking about rearranging pasts and futures are "By His Bootstraps" and "The Unpleasant Profession of Jonathan Hoag". These are atypical, but they don't seem to fit into any simple schema.

But both loops were precisely that - a loop in an otherwise linear vector. Not a circle. I've read too many poorly-structured analyses (including AP, I believe, and perhaps Stover) that present the events as if they are a closed loop, endlessly repeating with the characters trapped inside. Neither one is.

Both Jane and Bob enter their loops at one point and exit it at another. Actually, both loops have multiple entries and exits, but the main point is that there is an initial entry and a final exit from each series, with a life existing beforehand and one continuing afterwards. The situation of Jane is a little more complex with a closed loop from birth to retro-conception, but even then, the Recruiter eventually exits from that loop after arranging for his own conception.

I wasn't necessarily referring to your analysis or this discussion, only that too many published and public analyses carry the assumption of a closed loop - or state it outright.

I think it is useful to be specific and point out, when analyzing most time-loop stories, that the loop is usually open. Leaving the assumption, often promoted by the story structure itself, that the loop is closed and infinite misleads the unwary reader.

David ought to know -- his articles about time theory and Heinlein are the definitive take on the subject ...

I guess being too busy is a pretty wik excuse. I mean, I should have plenty of time-- there's 52 wiks in a year.

that EW article fails to mention several important contributions to the time travel analects, including Gerrold's The Man Who Folded Himself and Heinlein's own The Door into Summer, but points ought to be awarded for mentioning Bootstraps and Zombies.

[ SPOILERS FOR T.V. SERIES LOST BELOW ]

Interestingly (or stupidly) Lost jumped the time-travel shark when they introduced FOUR separate methods of time travel in the same show:
1. Desmond has visions of the future, which he can alter, but "fate" course-corrects to a similar outcome.
2. Desmond and others have "flashback" episodes where their present-day minds jump into their own past bodies and can change things with their knowledge of the future.
3. Time on the island works separately from the surrounding plane, so a body shows up on the island a day before the owner of the body is killed on the freighter.
4. People on the island flash forward and backward in time.

I'm willing to put up with a lot of weak science for sake of entertainment, but come on, Lost writers: pick ONE. Makes me long for the days of time travel stories that simply worked. But I digress.

Heinlein biography question

Given the possibility that Heinlein (and some of the characters thought to be at last partly biographical) was not noted for his tolerance of differing viewpoints, I wondered if perhaps the circumstances of his life allowed him to function pretty well with that lack of tolerance.

As far as I know once he left the military he never had to follow an order he did not agree with. He dealt with tragedy with Leslyn, married his herione (who ASFIK promptly dropped her own career and devoted her considerable talents to being what was basically a sidekick to him) and seemed to have never had anyone seriously disagree with him again that he HAD to deal with.

He had no teenagers or 2 year olds, had presumably enough disability pension that he did not have to cater too much to editorials with the exception of Alice Dagliesh, and that was overcome by subterfuge (raising John Thomas's) and eventually getting out of the juvenile ghetto. Is there any indication that he had had ANY serious disagreement with Ginny on anything? From either of them?

It would appear that he did not have to worry about the opinions of anyone else for the majority of his adult life. I wonder if that (supposed) intolerance became elevated to a virtue and redefined as an indication of innate superiority or something. There is Ben in SIASL who leaves the nest for intolerance of the cannibalism (though ironically the intolerance of gays is apparently fine) and he comes back when he decides they are right after all, but is there any instance where a character maintains a close relationship with someone where they CONTINUE to disagree on anything?

Just something I was thinking about today....

t would appear that he did not have to worry about the opinions of anyone else for the majority of his adult life. I wonder if that (supposed) intolerance became elevated to a virtue and redefined as an indication of innate superiority or something. There is Ben in SIASL who leaves the nest for intolerance of the cannibalism (though ironically the intolerance of gays is apparently fine) and he comes back when he decides they are right after all, but is there any instance where a character maintains a close relationship with someone where they CONTINUE to disagree on anything?


Audrey, if I remember correctly, Ben left the nest because he was jealous of Jill and Mike, not because of an intolerance to the cannibalism. Earlier when Mike had just arrived in Jubal's home, Duke has a problem with cannibalism, but later decides that "what Mike eats is his own business." Later when Duke has joined the nest, he and Mike have a running joke where Duke calls Mike "Cannibal" and Mike calls Duke "Monster."

Jubal later convinces Ben that he is feeling jealousy and Ben returns to the nest.

The originally published SIASL does smack of homosexuality in the scene with Ben in the nest. Jill encourages Mike and Ben to "share water, my darlings" as Mike makes his clothes disappear; Ben grabs his clothes and jumps down the bounce tube. I could never figure out how that was jealousy; after I read the unabridged version where Mike and Jill are making love in front of Ben and others, the whole bit--if it had been another woman would you have felt the same way, etc, made so much more sense.

Except where different concepts of government are held, but not adhered to in MIAHM (Stuart being a Royalist, Prof an anarchist), I can't think of any circumstances where people disagree but get along off hand. I started to cite Lazarus and Colin Campbell, but while they worked together, I don't think they can be said to have a close relationship.

The foursome in TNOTB often disagree, sometimes violently, but get along...