Re: Worst Hugos Ever?

On Mar 16, 11:05=C2=A0am, "David E. Siegel" <sie...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Mar 14, 11:23=C2=A0pm, "dwight.thi...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"
>
>
>
>
>
> <dwight.thi...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > On Mar 14, 10:07 am, "David E. Siegel" <sie...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 13, 9:25 pm, Quadibloc <jsav...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > > > On Mar 13, 7:27 am, Bill Patterson <WHPatter...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Mar 13, 5:21=EF=BF=BDam, Quadibloc <jsav...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > > > > > On Mar 12, 8:45 pm, "David E. Siegel" <sie...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > (I suppose it is constant
> > > > > > > with the idea that Heinlein was grossly mistaken about what
wa=
s
> > > > > > > publishable as a juvenile =EF=BF=BDin 1959).
>
> > > > > > Given the arguments, substantiated by correspondence, that
Heinl=
ein
> > > > > > expected the work to be accepted as a juvenile, I suppose that
i=
s the
> > > > > > only position left, but I find it hard to accept that so
success=
ful an
> > > > > > author could be so far out of touch.
>
> > > > > > If, however, Star****p Troopers as we know it today is the
produc=
t of
> > > > > > at least a few last-minute revisions to make it less like a
juve=
nile
> > > > > > when it was clear that the publisher that did finally accept
it =
would
> > > > > > accept it as mainstream adult fiction and not as a juvenile,
the=
n that
> > > > > > would explain why there are a few traces in it of its origins.
> > > > > Actually, the sequence was that Walter Minton at Putnam's heard
th=
ere
> > > > > was a Heinlein juvenile on the market and instructed his
acquiring=

> > > > > editor (probably Howard Cady) to get it with no other
instructions=
 and
> > > > > no conditions attached. =C2=A0Heinlein separated the last couple
o=
f scenes
> > > > > from the juvenile version and wrote the 20,000 word OCS section
to=

> > > > > make it "more adult" (though it looks to me more like a
clarifying=

> > > > > exposition rather than a change of orientation of the book, but
> > > > > Heinlein may have seen it as taking the gloved (of juvenile
taboo)=

> > > > > off). =C2=A0Putnam's thought even with the addition it could be
re=
leased
> > > > > either as a juvenile or in the adult line. =C2=A0So apparently
the=
y knew
> > > > > something about juvenile publi****ng in 1959 that I don't -- not
> > > > > entirely surprising, of course.
>
> > > > In 1959, novels for general reader****p that weren't specifically
> > > > identified as "racy" or "spicy" wouldn't be... unsuitable... for
> > > > children in the sense of having four-letter words or ***ual
content
> > > > and the like. Heinlein's acknowledged juveniles didn't talk down
to
> > > > their readers like many juveniles did, and they raised serious
topic=
s
> > > > as well. So the line between a Heinlein juvenile and a "normal"
nove=
l
> > > > of that period would be a thin one.
>
> > > But, in 1959, the list of things then considered "unsitable" for
> > > children was far longer than things containg *** or ***ually
> > > suggestive scenese or four-letter words. In particualr, books that
> > > appered to inculcate "unaceptable " doctrines were taboo as juvenile
,=

> > > or so i understand it. Excessive violence of a graphic sort might
have=

> > > been out also. (Consider, In Red Planet, merely having a character
> > > arguing against gun registration in a frontier colony was considered
> > > unaceptable. In The Star Beast, a reviewer for Library Journal felt
> > > that the idea of 'divorce' for children was unaceptable, and ought
to
> > > be edited out before the book was released.)
>
> > > > I hadn't thought of ST as a juvenile, it didn't suggest itself to
me=

> > > > as one, but when the idea was mentioned, upon reflection I could
adm=
it
> > > > that it showed traces of that structure. So, since you've noted
that=

> > > > it *did* get some rewriting, what it was *before* that rewriting
mig=
ht
> > > > well have been what I would recognize as a juvenile. The gulf
betwee=
n
> > > > ST and a juvenile is one that could be bridged by a few tweaks
here
> > > > and there, not one that would have required rewriting from
beginning=

> > > > to end.
>
> > > > And, of course, 1959 was before Political Correctness, and so some
> > > > things that would be taboo today in anything aimed even at older
> > > > children were not then.
>
> > > > John Savard-
>
> > > In Grumbles from the Grave, the section on ST and Podkyane is headed
> > > 'The Last of the Juveniles'. I always thought of ST as fitting into
> > > the other juveniles (such asTtunnel in the Sky, The Star Beast, etc)
> > > in style and =C2=A0structure.
>
> > > -DES
>
> > Er, no, there may have been a longer list of subjects considered taboo
> > back then, but - trust me on this one - violence was most definitely
> > not on that list. =C2=A0Heck, for Christmas, tots regularly demanded
(an=
d
> > received) the Red Ranger BB gun, machine gun look-alikes, cap pistols,
> > tommy-gun facsimilies, etc, up to and including a bazooka toy I
> > received one year on the day celebrating the birth of the Prince of
> > Peace.-
>
> Which leaves rather hard to explain just why Scribners thought the
> book completely unacceptable as a juvinile, and did not offer to
> puiblish it as an adult novel instead. Indeed in view of the
> significant profits that RAH's books had previously brought in, and
> the view of the Putnam editor that ST, even with the editions (the OCS
> section), would be fine as part of their juvinile line, just why did
> Scribner's reject it so firmly and with so little discussion? AFAIK
> this has bever been well explained.
>
> -DES- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Apparently the book was discussed on the editorial board of
Scribner's, just not with Heinlein.

Scribner's seems to have been unusually careful of its prestige
reputation -- a process, I observe, that often leads to cutting back
on risk-taking and therefore to the waning of the prestige -- and Miss
Dalgliesh is shown as being extremely careful of sales to librarians
through the twelve years of Heinlein's association with the house,
based on Scribner's reputation for publi****ng only library-appropriate
material.  It's possible the amount of violence in the first chapter
of ST was simply the trigger but the actual motivating factor for not
accepting it as a juvenile was a concern not to associate their
juvenile line with "challenging" material.  This was 1959, remember,
and what challenged the minds of book-buying librarians, on the
evidence, was mind-boggling.