What do you think?
Rate this book
Beyond This Horizon
Utopia has been achieved. For centuries, disease, hunger, poverty and war have been things found only in the history tapes. And applied genetics has given men and women the bodies of athletes and a lifespan of over a century.
They should all have been very happy....
But Hamilton Felix is bored. And he is the culmination of a star line; each of his last thirty ancestors chosen for superior genes. Hamilton is, as far as genetics can produce one, the ultimate man. And this ultimate man can see no reason why the human race should survive, and has no intention of continuing the pointless comedy.
However, Hamilton's life is about to become less boring. A secret cabal of revolutionaries who find utopia not just boring, but desperately in need of leaders who know just What Needs to be Done, are planning to revolt and put themselves in charge. Knowing of Hamilton's disenchantment with the modern world, they have recruited him to join their Glorious Revolution. Big mistake! The revolutionaries are about to find out that recruiting a superman was definitely not a good idea....
158 pages, Mass Market Paperback
First published January 1, 1948
About the author
Robert A. Heinlein
826 books9,627 followersRobert Anson Heinlein was an American science fiction author, aeronautical engineer, and naval officer. Sometimes called the "dean of science fiction writers", he was among the first to emphasize scientific accuracy in his fiction, and was thus a pioneer of the subgenre of hard science fiction. His published works, both fiction and non-fiction, express admiration for competence and emphasize the value of critical thinking. His plots often posed provocative situations which challenged conventional social mores. His work continues to have an influence on the science-fiction genre, and on modern culture more generally.
Heinlein became one of the first American science-fiction writers to break into mainstream magazines such as The Saturday Evening Post in the late 1940s. He was one of the best-selling science-fiction novelists for many decades, and he, Isaac Asimov, and Arthur C. Clarke are often considered the "Big Three" of English-language science fiction authors. Notable Heinlein works include Stranger in a Strange Land, Starship Troopers (which helped mold the space marine and mecha archetypes) and The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress. His work sometimes had controversial aspects, such as plural marriage in The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress, militarism in Starship Troopers and technologically competent women characters who were formidable, yet often stereotypically feminine—such as Friday.
Heinlein used his science fiction as a way to explore provocative social and political ideas and to speculate how progress in science and engineering might shape the future of politics, race, religion, and sex. Within the framework of his science-fiction stories, Heinlein repeatedly addressed certain social themes: the importance of individual liberty and self-reliance, the nature of sexual relationships, the obligation individuals owe to their societies, the influence of organized religion on culture and government, and the tendency of society to repress nonconformist thought. He also speculated on the influence of space travel on human cultural practices.
Heinlein was named the first Science Fiction Writers Grand Master in 1974. Four of his novels won Hugo Awards. In addition, fifty years after publication, seven of his works were awarded "Retro Hugos"—awards given retrospectively for works that were published before the Hugo Awards came into existence. In his fiction, Heinlein coined terms that have become part of the English language, including grok, waldo and speculative fiction, as well as popularizing existing terms like "TANSTAAFL", "pay it forward", and "space marine". He also anticipated mechanical computer-aided design with "Drafting Dan" and described a modern version of a waterbed in his novel Beyond This Horizon.
Also wrote under Pen names: Anson McDonald, Lyle Monroe, Caleb Saunders, John Riverside and Simon York.
Heinlein became one of the first American science-fiction writers to break into mainstream magazines such as The Saturday Evening Post in the late 1940s. He was one of the best-selling science-fiction novelists for many decades, and he, Isaac Asimov, and Arthur C. Clarke are often considered the "Big Three" of English-language science fiction authors. Notable Heinlein works include Stranger in a Strange Land, Starship Troopers (which helped mold the space marine and mecha archetypes) and The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress. His work sometimes had controversial aspects, such as plural marriage in The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress, militarism in Starship Troopers and technologically competent women characters who were formidable, yet often stereotypically feminine—such as Friday.
Heinlein used his science fiction as a way to explore provocative social and political ideas and to speculate how progress in science and engineering might shape the future of politics, race, religion, and sex. Within the framework of his science-fiction stories, Heinlein repeatedly addressed certain social themes: the importance of individual liberty and self-reliance, the nature of sexual relationships, the obligation individuals owe to their societies, the influence of organized religion on culture and government, and the tendency of society to repress nonconformist thought. He also speculated on the influence of space travel on human cultural practices.
Heinlein was named the first Science Fiction Writers Grand Master in 1974. Four of his novels won Hugo Awards. In addition, fifty years after publication, seven of his works were awarded "Retro Hugos"—awards given retrospectively for works that were published before the Hugo Awards came into existence. In his fiction, Heinlein coined terms that have become part of the English language, including grok, waldo and speculative fiction, as well as popularizing existing terms like "TANSTAAFL", "pay it forward", and "space marine". He also anticipated mechanical computer-aided design with "Drafting Dan" and described a modern version of a waterbed in his novel Beyond This Horizon.
Also wrote under Pen names: Anson McDonald, Lyle Monroe, Caleb Saunders, John Riverside and Simon York.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 244 reviews
August 2, 2016
Beyond this Horizon by Robert A. Heinlein was written ten years after Huxley’s Brave New World and the influence from this genetic and sociological masterpiece is evident.
Also noteworthy is that the book was published during WWII and this may comprise Heinlein’s response to Hitler’s Nietzschian policies, especially ideas about elitist racism and possible supermen. Cannot help wonder if Woody Allen thought of this book while producing Sleeper as at least a couple of scenes reminded me of the 1970s film, though the film was apparently loosely based upon Wells’ The Sleeper Awakes.
Heinlein would come back to this theme several times, most notably in Methuselah's Children and Time Enough for Love. This is one of his earlier works and the reader can also see glimpses of his strong libertarian principles taking shape in the narrative.
Being one of his earlier works, though, RAH had yet to come into his own in terms of characterization, flat here, but will blossom into masterpieces The Moon is a Harsh Mistress and Stranger in a Strange Land about twenty years later. The plot is also disjointed and incomplete, but all in all this is a good entry in the RAH pantheon and a fan will enjoy.
Also noteworthy is that the book was published during WWII and this may comprise Heinlein’s response to Hitler’s Nietzschian policies, especially ideas about elitist racism and possible supermen. Cannot help wonder if Woody Allen thought of this book while producing Sleeper as at least a couple of scenes reminded me of the 1970s film, though the film was apparently loosely based upon Wells’ The Sleeper Awakes.
Heinlein would come back to this theme several times, most notably in Methuselah's Children and Time Enough for Love. This is one of his earlier works and the reader can also see glimpses of his strong libertarian principles taking shape in the narrative.
Being one of his earlier works, though, RAH had yet to come into his own in terms of characterization, flat here, but will blossom into masterpieces The Moon is a Harsh Mistress and Stranger in a Strange Land about twenty years later. The plot is also disjointed and incomplete, but all in all this is a good entry in the RAH pantheon and a fan will enjoy.
March 11, 2018
It's time to prepare for the 1943 retro Hugo awards that will be presented in 2018! (Why? Why not? Some books deserve love even if they're before the Hugos even began!)
In this case, novels published in 1942 are eligible. Books like C.S. Lewis's Screwtape Letters are technically eligible but really shouldn't be. There's nothing much SF about the religious satire.
On the other hand, I really enjoyed Olaf Stapledon's anti-novel and worldbuilding masterpiece The Darkness and the Light that came out this year and please imagine how thrilled I was to learn that Heinlein also published a bona fide adult-oriented novel, too!
He was generally known for his Juveniles by this point, so an early adult novel is something of a treat. And fortunately, his writing is always polished and clear and sometimes funny and always full of light agendas. It's Heinlein! He's a very opinionated man. :)
In this case, we're treated to science lessons on genetics and a superior-gene race of humanity planning on overthrowing the current Utopia. The hero is the ultimate perfect superman and I kept thinking about the Howard families in his later fiction, the prototype that gets so fully explored later.
We shouldn't forget the day. 1942.
Does this kind of story sound familiar? In Heinlein's case, it feels like a mirror to a huge segment of the American population that already agreed with the Eugenics movement and what was happening in Europe at the time. Maybe no one really understood the impact or scope or even the reality of the death camps, but everyone could see the implications and the stated goals. It was war and knowing the publishing field, there's a long stretch between when a writer finishes a text and when it actually gets put on the shelves. I'll assume for a moment that Pearl Harbor had not happened yet, or if it did, there was no way Heinlein could have fixed his novel to reflect America's sudden inclusion in the war.
However, it should be noted that he got all the salient points and sentiments RIGHT. It might have been a utopia like Stapledon's work but unlike Stapledon, he went the full "good story" option with interesting characters, exciting plots, cool snags, romance, and a big blowout. :)
Without even mentioning the Hugos or the need to find the best SF or Fantasy of 1942, I would have read this early Heinlein novel thinking that it's a very polished introduction to his later genetic-field obsession with longevity.
No Lazarus Long here, but enough ideas were packed in here to stand proudly with any of his later works. :)
Between Stapledon and Heinlein, I choose Heinlein for the sheer fun factor, the timeliness of the topic, the sophistication of the storytelling, and lastly, the idea. :) Stapledon might blow him out of the water for sheer scope and range of ideas and world-building and commentary, but Heinlein's soup had the perfect mix.
He's my main choice for the Hugo. :) So far. I'm still reading, however. :)
In this case, novels published in 1942 are eligible. Books like C.S. Lewis's Screwtape Letters are technically eligible but really shouldn't be. There's nothing much SF about the religious satire.
On the other hand, I really enjoyed Olaf Stapledon's anti-novel and worldbuilding masterpiece The Darkness and the Light that came out this year and please imagine how thrilled I was to learn that Heinlein also published a bona fide adult-oriented novel, too!
He was generally known for his Juveniles by this point, so an early adult novel is something of a treat. And fortunately, his writing is always polished and clear and sometimes funny and always full of light agendas. It's Heinlein! He's a very opinionated man. :)
In this case, we're treated to science lessons on genetics and a superior-gene race of humanity planning on overthrowing the current Utopia. The hero is the ultimate perfect superman and I kept thinking about the Howard families in his later fiction, the prototype that gets so fully explored later.
We shouldn't forget the day. 1942.
Does this kind of story sound familiar? In Heinlein's case, it feels like a mirror to a huge segment of the American population that already agreed with the Eugenics movement and what was happening in Europe at the time. Maybe no one really understood the impact or scope or even the reality of the death camps, but everyone could see the implications and the stated goals. It was war and knowing the publishing field, there's a long stretch between when a writer finishes a text and when it actually gets put on the shelves. I'll assume for a moment that Pearl Harbor had not happened yet, or if it did, there was no way Heinlein could have fixed his novel to reflect America's sudden inclusion in the war.
However, it should be noted that he got all the salient points and sentiments RIGHT. It might have been a utopia like Stapledon's work but unlike Stapledon, he went the full "good story" option with interesting characters, exciting plots, cool snags, romance, and a big blowout. :)
Without even mentioning the Hugos or the need to find the best SF or Fantasy of 1942, I would have read this early Heinlein novel thinking that it's a very polished introduction to his later genetic-field obsession with longevity.
No Lazarus Long here, but enough ideas were packed in here to stand proudly with any of his later works. :)
Between Stapledon and Heinlein, I choose Heinlein for the sheer fun factor, the timeliness of the topic, the sophistication of the storytelling, and lastly, the idea. :) Stapledon might blow him out of the water for sheer scope and range of ideas and world-building and commentary, but Heinlein's soup had the perfect mix.
He's my main choice for the Hugo. :) So far. I'm still reading, however. :)
January 26, 2011
I read this book when I was 11, and I don't care who knows: I really liked it. I don't guarantee I'd like it as much if I read it again today. I'll admit I can't remember all that much about it. It's this future society run along sort of eugenic/libertarian lines. Everyone walks around carrying a deadly weapon, except for a few wusses. If somebody offends you, you challenge him to a duel on the spot. Or her, did I hear you ask? Good question. I don't think it ever came up.
The bit I remember best is near the beginning. They're having dinner at a fancy French restaurant, sitting on a balcony and eating bouillabaisse. A member of the hero's party carelessly drops a crab claw over the railing, and it lands on a table below. The guy downstairs pulls out his blaster, the hero is quicker on the draw, and honour is satisfied all round. I'm not sure if the other guy is killed or just seriously wounded - I think the latter.
At the time, I'm afraid I bought Heinlein's argument that, if everyone carried a gun and was ready to use it, people would have better manners. Look, I was 11. I still can't eat bouillabaisse without thinking of this scene.
The bit I remember best is near the beginning. They're having dinner at a fancy French restaurant, sitting on a balcony and eating bouillabaisse. A member of the hero's party carelessly drops a crab claw over the railing, and it lands on a table below. The guy downstairs pulls out his blaster, the hero is quicker on the draw, and honour is satisfied all round. I'm not sure if the other guy is killed or just seriously wounded - I think the latter.
At the time, I'm afraid I bought Heinlein's argument that, if everyone carried a gun and was ready to use it, people would have better manners. Look, I was 11. I still can't eat bouillabaisse without thinking of this scene.
November 4, 2020
Yeah, it's kind of a mess. And remember Heinlein has a certain sort of disturbingly sexist attitude, doesn't understand women at all - certainly the only armed one is seen as, erm, eccentric, to put it mildly.
Females don't need guns because men (aka people) are all about being protective and chivalrous... except when they're spanking the girls or otherwise dominating them, that is. I did like "Women will forgive anything. Otherwise the race would have died out long ago." And he gets a few other things right, like how to read that resource which replaces newspapers. And I appreciate his view of amiable eugenics, as it seems carefully thought out given the context of the times.
(For example, this was written a few years before it was figured out that genes are made of DNA, and well before the structure of DNA was determined to be the double helix. And so, the methods of genetic selection described are, erm, interesting.)
Heinlein is well-read, and clever. It could be argued that he's smart. He's not wise, though.
And finance is not his forte; is description of the Utopia in which nobody goes hungry and the government prints more money when statisticians tell it to is implausible. "A polite society is an armed society" is nonsense. The low incidence of atheism is quaint.
But mostly it's both BS and lame. I guess I'll keep working through the stack of Heinlein books I own, but without high hopes for the enjoyment I'd expect given his popularity, and given the fact that I do remember liking him when I was a teen.
Editing to add a comment I made below which imo needs to be seen more widely:
Bear in mind that there's a lot of even older fiction, for boys and girls, men and women, that is not so sexist and otherwise problematic.
"A product of its time" is something people with less understanding of history and the history of literature and storytelling say to excuse the weaknesses of the books they enjoy.
It's not a good argument for reading or recommending garbage. The state of SF today would be better had Heinlein less success.
Females don't need guns because men (aka people) are all about being protective and chivalrous... except when they're spanking the girls or otherwise dominating them, that is. I did like "Women will forgive anything. Otherwise the race would have died out long ago." And he gets a few other things right, like how to read that resource which replaces newspapers. And I appreciate his view of amiable eugenics, as it seems carefully thought out given the context of the times.
(For example, this was written a few years before it was figured out that genes are made of DNA, and well before the structure of DNA was determined to be the double helix. And so, the methods of genetic selection described are, erm, interesting.)
Heinlein is well-read, and clever. It could be argued that he's smart. He's not wise, though.
And finance is not his forte; is description of the Utopia in which nobody goes hungry and the government prints more money when statisticians tell it to is implausible. "A polite society is an armed society" is nonsense. The low incidence of atheism is quaint.
But mostly it's both BS and lame. I guess I'll keep working through the stack of Heinlein books I own, but without high hopes for the enjoyment I'd expect given his popularity, and given the fact that I do remember liking him when I was a teen.
Editing to add a comment I made below which imo needs to be seen more widely:
Bear in mind that there's a lot of even older fiction, for boys and girls, men and women, that is not so sexist and otherwise problematic.
"A product of its time" is something people with less understanding of history and the history of literature and storytelling say to excuse the weaknesses of the books they enjoy.
It's not a good argument for reading or recommending garbage. The state of SF today would be better had Heinlein less success.
August 10, 2022
“The one thing that could give us some real basis for our living is to know for sure whether or not anything happens after we die. When we die, do we die all over—or don’t we?”
A fine Heinlein utopian, futuristic novel on genetics and economics. Sometimes I felt like the plot wasn't really going anywhere and that he was trying to cover too much ground, but it was certainly an enjoyable read nonetheless. I couldn't stop thinking in how this relates to Huxley's Brave New World hierarchical society but with synthesists and geneticists; it's, of course, way more science-packed as you might expect from the Grandmaster.
Hamilton Felix is the culmination of a three hundred year program of controlled genetics and selective breeding. Leader type. He is part of a "star line" group of high-quality human characteristics. He enjoys life but thinks it's meaningless, thus he gives a rat's ass about line continuity... until he is drawn into new adventures.
3.5
A fine Heinlein utopian, futuristic novel on genetics and economics. Sometimes I felt like the plot wasn't really going anywhere and that he was trying to cover too much ground, but it was certainly an enjoyable read nonetheless. I couldn't stop thinking in how this relates to Huxley's Brave New World hierarchical society but with synthesists and geneticists; it's, of course, way more science-packed as you might expect from the Grandmaster.
Hamilton Felix is the culmination of a three hundred year program of controlled genetics and selective breeding. Leader type. He is part of a "star line" group of high-quality human characteristics. He enjoys life but thinks it's meaningless, thus he gives a rat's ass about line continuity... until he is drawn into new adventures.
3.5
September 12, 2008
This book answered a question for me that I've wondered about for a long time: what does an author do with his leftover story tangents that he likes but can't quite work in anywhere? Answer: he saves them all up for when he builds a great make-believe/alternate-reality society but has no storyline to go along with it.
Building great make-believe/alternate-reality societies is what Heinlein just does naturally, like a fish breathing water. In this particular novel, there are 2 fascinating aspects. 1) Guided human evolution (more like old-school dog breeding than outright genetic engineering) that has increased physical strength and intelligence while nearly eliminating disease, and 2) a well-armed society with impeccable manners.
However, there's no real story here. He instead clutters the book with tangents (a man transported alive but unaging through time in a stasis field, a secret group bent on overthrowing the near-utopian society, reincarnation, telepathy, etc) that feel random and pointless.
--update: Turns out that this is only the second "novel" Heinlein ever wrote. In addition, it was initially serialized rather than written as a single, cohesive whole, and it was initially credited to a pen name. These 3 facts, in my opinion, explain a lot about the book that I disliked.
Building great make-believe/alternate-reality societies is what Heinlein just does naturally, like a fish breathing water. In this particular novel, there are 2 fascinating aspects. 1) Guided human evolution (more like old-school dog breeding than outright genetic engineering) that has increased physical strength and intelligence while nearly eliminating disease, and 2) a well-armed society with impeccable manners.
However, there's no real story here. He instead clutters the book with tangents (a man transported alive but unaging through time in a stasis field, a secret group bent on overthrowing the near-utopian society, reincarnation, telepathy, etc) that feel random and pointless.
--update: Turns out that this is only the second "novel" Heinlein ever wrote. In addition, it was initially serialized rather than written as a single, cohesive whole, and it was initially credited to a pen name. These 3 facts, in my opinion, explain a lot about the book that I disliked.
August 21, 2019
The blurb on the cover implies this is an adventure story set in a future. In reality, the plot is hardly relevant at all, as this novel serves mostly as a way for Heinlein to express his ideas. I haven't read the blurb on the cover until after I had finished Beyond This Horizon, but if I had I would have probably been mislead into expecting a more dramatic story. Not that there isn't a dramatic story. The protagonist Felix does have to fight for his life, love and freedom. While Felix spies on a secret society that wants to take over the well organized society he lives in, there are bullets and deadly rays fired, lives lost, love interested aroused and all that. However, all those things happenings are just a means to the end. I got a feeling that the plot was there only as a pretense for Heinlein to develop his ideas. I might be wrong, but I don't think I am.
A world building of a future society gives Heinlein an opportunity to discuss what it means to be human as well to speculate what favourable developments and trends might happen in the management of human society. Genetics, social organizations and parenthood are some of the themes discussed in this novel. The protagonist of the novel, our Felix, is a reluctant hero. Felix is a carrier of supreme genes but he refuses to have children- until he finds the answer to the all important question (or persuade someone do it for it). The plot had some predictable twists and turns, but it didn't phase me, because the novel is ultimately all about ideas, really.
Similarly, the cast of characters is written in much the same way. Beyond This Horizon is anything but a character or a plot driven novel. The characters are the typical Heinlein superhuman types and I didn't find myself particularly interested in them. I was more interested in their (well better say- Heinlein's ideas). Beyond This Horizon is quite a philosophical work. Now, that I think of it, Heinlein often uses word building and dystopia societies to put his ideas through. Beyond This Horizon is a fine novel in the sense that it offers plenty food for the mind.
So, is there anything I didn't like? Quite a few details rubbed me the wrong way, but perhaps that is understandable since the writer belonged to another era and to a culture somewhat foreign to me. There is this other thing. The more I read of Heinlein, the more predictable his novels seem to become. That is only to be expected and perhaps not a fault of the author as such. Still, I find myself not enjoying his works as much as I did. These days, I often see and notice things in his writing that bug me. However, his ideas stay interesting even when he gets a bit preachy and repetitive (and he can be quite a preacher).
Heinlein does get a bit repetitive with many arguments, especially with his pro-arm arguments. It takes more space in the novel that it needs to. It is an argument that is repeated ad nauseaum and ultimately gets boring, even if a person agrees with: “An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.” I personally don't see it that way, although that part about how the police shouldn't be better armed or more willing to fight for the right thing than its citizens- I can see how that makes sense. Any government that doesn't teaches or allows its citizens to carry or use weapons shows that it doesn't trust them one bit (and possibly also that it wants to hold them under tight control). Handing weapons to everyone doesn't seem like a realistic idea in our day and time, but in certain societies it could work. Similarly, some other ideas are explored in too much detail. I would have loved to read more about economics, for that is one problem we as human race have yet to serve. So, even the philosophical aspect of the novel had some small issues. Nevertheless, Beyond This Horizon remains an interesting and though provoking book. I'm glad I've read it. Would I recommend it? I would, especially to fans of Heinlein.
A world building of a future society gives Heinlein an opportunity to discuss what it means to be human as well to speculate what favourable developments and trends might happen in the management of human society. Genetics, social organizations and parenthood are some of the themes discussed in this novel. The protagonist of the novel, our Felix, is a reluctant hero. Felix is a carrier of supreme genes but he refuses to have children- until he finds the answer to the all important question (or persuade someone do it for it). The plot had some predictable twists and turns, but it didn't phase me, because the novel is ultimately all about ideas, really.
Similarly, the cast of characters is written in much the same way. Beyond This Horizon is anything but a character or a plot driven novel. The characters are the typical Heinlein superhuman types and I didn't find myself particularly interested in them. I was more interested in their (well better say- Heinlein's ideas). Beyond This Horizon is quite a philosophical work. Now, that I think of it, Heinlein often uses word building and dystopia societies to put his ideas through. Beyond This Horizon is a fine novel in the sense that it offers plenty food for the mind.
So, is there anything I didn't like? Quite a few details rubbed me the wrong way, but perhaps that is understandable since the writer belonged to another era and to a culture somewhat foreign to me. There is this other thing. The more I read of Heinlein, the more predictable his novels seem to become. That is only to be expected and perhaps not a fault of the author as such. Still, I find myself not enjoying his works as much as I did. These days, I often see and notice things in his writing that bug me. However, his ideas stay interesting even when he gets a bit preachy and repetitive (and he can be quite a preacher).
Heinlein does get a bit repetitive with many arguments, especially with his pro-arm arguments. It takes more space in the novel that it needs to. It is an argument that is repeated ad nauseaum and ultimately gets boring, even if a person agrees with: “An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.” I personally don't see it that way, although that part about how the police shouldn't be better armed or more willing to fight for the right thing than its citizens- I can see how that makes sense. Any government that doesn't teaches or allows its citizens to carry or use weapons shows that it doesn't trust them one bit (and possibly also that it wants to hold them under tight control). Handing weapons to everyone doesn't seem like a realistic idea in our day and time, but in certain societies it could work. Similarly, some other ideas are explored in too much detail. I would have loved to read more about economics, for that is one problem we as human race have yet to serve. So, even the philosophical aspect of the novel had some small issues. Nevertheless, Beyond This Horizon remains an interesting and though provoking book. I'm glad I've read it. Would I recommend it? I would, especially to fans of Heinlein.
February 3, 2015
First time I've read this book in several (for some definitions of the word several). It's mostly noted, and maybe notable for its first few sentences, where Heinlein uses phrasing to put you in the midst of his future world. "The door dilated" is justly famous. His portrayal of a society where everyone (or most people) carry weapons (of one sort or another) is known to with its supposed corollary an armed populous is a polite populous. i don't buy it, and he really doesn't demonstrate here. As David Brin pointed out recently, in an essay that reminded me I hadn't read this book in a long time, those who support its views on gun control pretty much ignore the other aspect of its utopia: people get all their needs taken care of by the government. Nobody has to work to earn a living. Other points about the society are that there's a bureaucracy that is guiding society, mostly through advising people on their breeding and how to improve the race. Eugenics!
As able as Heinlein is at using language in the first pages to dump you right into the world, the book is clumsy with a lot of its exposition, especially the early stuff about the eugenics wars. Two people sit there telling each other what they would have known forever, just so we can hear it. The plotting is a mess, too, with a silly revolution that is not well-drawn, and some very silly male-female relationship stuff. In most ways, this book is a real failure.
But. As is often with Heinlein, I very much enjoyed reading it. This isn't as bad as Sixth Column, Heinlein's other early novel I read recently. It has some entertaining spots, but by the end it grew tiresome. Maybe I'll read it again in another 30 years.
As able as Heinlein is at using language in the first pages to dump you right into the world, the book is clumsy with a lot of its exposition, especially the early stuff about the eugenics wars. Two people sit there telling each other what they would have known forever, just so we can hear it. The plotting is a mess, too, with a silly revolution that is not well-drawn, and some very silly male-female relationship stuff. In most ways, this book is a real failure.
But. As is often with Heinlein, I very much enjoyed reading it. This isn't as bad as Sixth Column, Heinlein's other early novel I read recently. It has some entertaining spots, but by the end it grew tiresome. Maybe I'll read it again in another 30 years.
August 8, 2022
It was a delightful surprise to find that there are still Heinlein stories that I hadn't read in 2010. I would have bet against it. It makes me really appreciative that Audible Frontiers is releasing some of the oldest and less popular books in audio.
That said, this was one of my least favorite Heinlein novels. I'm such a huge fan that this is sort of a "bad sex" conclusion in that it just can't be that bad, but still it suffers by comparison. It feels like an early groping toward characteristics in which he would ultimately become a nearly unparalleled master.
Take the character development. This is usually the best aspect of a Heinlein novel. The characters in this novel have some remarkable aspects of development, but are still flatter and less sympathetic than what I expect from Heinlein.
Similarly, Heinlein typically creates startling, vivid worlds extending in plausible ways from his own generally colored by his own startling benevolence and sense of hope. There are interesting aspects of this world from his early occupation with social credit explained more thoroughly in his posthumously published first work, For Us, the Living: A Comedy of Customs . He also creates an extremely mannered society typical of many of his works and backed up by a well-armed citizenry. It also presents a eugenic society that is rather utopian rather than disaster because of the high virtue of the society. While ideas like this are perfectly integrated into plots and the lives of the characters in later works, here the ideas hang like window dressing. There are spectacles such as some nasties wanting to grab hold of control of the genetic program and destroy as side effect the liberty of the society which could become a major theme of the novel and highlight the dangers of such practices in the hands of a realistic citizenry. Instead, the rebellion is quietly put down and the story moves along forgetting the incident.
Some of his early and more limited books are explicitly aimed at juveniles and the limitations aren't weaknesses, but rather intentionally aiming at a more limited audience. Also, early works are mostly limited by the censorship of his day, both explicit and market, but both real. Neither seems to fit here. Instead, this seems like groping toward the future talent Heinlein demonstrates. Hardened fans will see glimmers of what future work will come to hold, but ultimately this work fails to deliver.
2014: I decided to revisit this, and while my comments above all apply, I felt a bit warmer toward it. I can't really explain why. The characters seemed a bit stronger this time, and I was more caught up in the story. It had been long enough I had pretty much forgotten most everything, so I got to experience anew in a sense.
2016: This really holds up with rereading.
That said, this was one of my least favorite Heinlein novels. I'm such a huge fan that this is sort of a "bad sex" conclusion in that it just can't be that bad, but still it suffers by comparison. It feels like an early groping toward characteristics in which he would ultimately become a nearly unparalleled master.
Take the character development. This is usually the best aspect of a Heinlein novel. The characters in this novel have some remarkable aspects of development, but are still flatter and less sympathetic than what I expect from Heinlein.
Similarly, Heinlein typically creates startling, vivid worlds extending in plausible ways from his own generally colored by his own startling benevolence and sense of hope. There are interesting aspects of this world from his early occupation with social credit explained more thoroughly in his posthumously published first work, For Us, the Living: A Comedy of Customs . He also creates an extremely mannered society typical of many of his works and backed up by a well-armed citizenry. It also presents a eugenic society that is rather utopian rather than disaster because of the high virtue of the society. While ideas like this are perfectly integrated into plots and the lives of the characters in later works, here the ideas hang like window dressing. There are spectacles such as some nasties wanting to grab hold of control of the genetic program and destroy as side effect the liberty of the society which could become a major theme of the novel and highlight the dangers of such practices in the hands of a realistic citizenry. Instead, the rebellion is quietly put down and the story moves along forgetting the incident.
Some of his early and more limited books are explicitly aimed at juveniles and the limitations aren't weaknesses, but rather intentionally aiming at a more limited audience. Also, early works are mostly limited by the censorship of his day, both explicit and market, but both real. Neither seems to fit here. Instead, this seems like groping toward the future talent Heinlein demonstrates. Hardened fans will see glimmers of what future work will come to hold, but ultimately this work fails to deliver.
2014: I decided to revisit this, and while my comments above all apply, I felt a bit warmer toward it. I can't really explain why. The characters seemed a bit stronger this time, and I was more caught up in the story. It had been long enough I had pretty much forgotten most everything, so I got to experience anew in a sense.
2016: This really holds up with rereading.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
April 14, 2013
Beyond This Horizon
by Robert A. Heinlein
read by Peter Ganim
Beyond This Horizon is classic science fiction with social commentary thrown in as you may expect from Heinlein.
Mankind has created a Utopian society where poverty and hunger are studied in school but don't actually happen anymore. Mankind has also worked toward eliminating weaknesses in the human chromosome via gene selection and intentional breeding. There are still some normal people (referred to as "control naturals") that could potentially provide new genetic mutations for the good of mankind.
Hamilton Felix genetically represents the best of what humanity has to offer. He gets wrapped up in a group plotting to overthrow the government that thinks only the best of humanity should thrive in society while the control naturals are destroyed or used for experiments. There is little risk or adventure in this society, so a bored Hamilton decided to act as a mole within this organization. It's not really surprising that this novel came out in the 1950's when eugenics and superiority of different races was a current topic.
While their society is Utopian and futuristic, they also have notions of honor and violence such that people can get into gun duels when slighted. I found Heinlein's debate of honor and privilege in this to be interesting in much the same way as his notions of earning rights by military service in Starship Troopers.
I liked the main plot as described but thought it could have happily ended about halfway through. The main plot of the story wraps up and the second half of the book felt like a really long epilogue to me. Heinlein seems to spread himself a bit thin on so many different issues like government influence of the market, government spending, the meaning of life, telepathy, duels for honor, and the afterlife. There were a few looong monologues/dialogues going into painful detail of chromosome selection where I had trouble paying attention and following the book.
On the audio book side of things, Peter Ganim does a good job. I thought he had a good conversational tone, did some decent voices (they didn't differ much though), and was easy to understand. If you're trying to decide whether reading or listening is preferable, I don't think there is much benefit either way.
Helpful tip if listening to this book: Hamilton Felix (superman, star line, game making guy) is referred to as "Hamilton" in the first half of the book but people start calling him "Felix" later for some reason. This wouldn't be confusing except that his friend Monroe-Alpha Clifford (finance, mathematician guy) also goes by "Monroe-Alpha" and "Clifford" at different times. Since Ganim's voices aren't very distinct, there were some moments where it took me a little bit to realize which character was talking.
by Robert A. Heinlein
read by Peter Ganim
Beyond This Horizon is classic science fiction with social commentary thrown in as you may expect from Heinlein.
Mankind has created a Utopian society where poverty and hunger are studied in school but don't actually happen anymore. Mankind has also worked toward eliminating weaknesses in the human chromosome via gene selection and intentional breeding. There are still some normal people (referred to as "control naturals") that could potentially provide new genetic mutations for the good of mankind.
Hamilton Felix genetically represents the best of what humanity has to offer. He gets wrapped up in a group plotting to overthrow the government that thinks only the best of humanity should thrive in society while the control naturals are destroyed or used for experiments. There is little risk or adventure in this society, so a bored Hamilton decided to act as a mole within this organization. It's not really surprising that this novel came out in the 1950's when eugenics and superiority of different races was a current topic.
While their society is Utopian and futuristic, they also have notions of honor and violence such that people can get into gun duels when slighted. I found Heinlein's debate of honor and privilege in this to be interesting in much the same way as his notions of earning rights by military service in Starship Troopers.
I liked the main plot as described but thought it could have happily ended about halfway through. The main plot of the story wraps up and the second half of the book felt like a really long epilogue to me. Heinlein seems to spread himself a bit thin on so many different issues like government influence of the market, government spending, the meaning of life, telepathy, duels for honor, and the afterlife. There were a few looong monologues/dialogues going into painful detail of chromosome selection where I had trouble paying attention and following the book.
On the audio book side of things, Peter Ganim does a good job. I thought he had a good conversational tone, did some decent voices (they didn't differ much though), and was easy to understand. If you're trying to decide whether reading or listening is preferable, I don't think there is much benefit either way.
Helpful tip if listening to this book: Hamilton Felix (superman, star line, game making guy) is referred to as "Hamilton" in the first half of the book but people start calling him "Felix" later for some reason. This wouldn't be confusing except that his friend Monroe-Alpha Clifford (finance, mathematician guy) also goes by "Monroe-Alpha" and "Clifford" at different times. Since Ganim's voices aren't very distinct, there were some moments where it took me a little bit to realize which character was talking.
March 10, 2023
An early example of Heinlein learning the craft of writing novel length works. First published in serial form under his pseudonym, "Anson MacDonald". It is mostly a vision (or description) of a possible future, with. Much of this was taken from "For Us, The Living" an H.G. Wells-like novel written during the late thirties (but left unpublished until 2003). Both these include the seeds of things to come within the future works from RAH's as he refines his technique and finds his 'voice'.
June 6, 2020
I'm not the biggest fan of Robert Heinlein, even though people seem to think I should be.
Prefiguring the sentiment behind the song Pleasant Valley Sunday before the Monkees were even born, a guy living in a utopia starts a revolution because he is bored.
Prefiguring the sentiment behind the song Pleasant Valley Sunday before the Monkees were even born, a guy living in a utopia starts a revolution because he is bored.
May 16, 2018
“Easy times for individuals are bad times for the race.”
Utopias have their downside. A landmark science fiction novel by a dean of the genre. Written before the United States entered World War Two, yet amazing prescient of the next fifty years.
“But man is a working animal. He likes to work. … likely to spend his spare time working out some gadget which will displace labor and increase productivity.” (20th maybe, not 21st century)
Marred by lengthy exposition/preaching. While Heinlein was ahead of society in some ways and clearly foresaw many technology advances only made possible by the invention of the transistor some years later, he mistook then-current fads in economics and para-psychology as indicative of future trends. “The structural nature of finance is too deeply imbedded in our culture for pseudo-capitalism to return.” (Can’t win them all.)
“The only thing that could give us some real basis for our living is to know for sure whether or not anything happens after we die.”
The protagonist voice is like P. G. Wodehouse’s Bertie Wooster. “I’m one long joke on myself.”
“An armed society is a polite society.”
Skip the post-script blather by Tony Daniels. “Which shows how much of the modern negative criticism that Heinlein evokes in the present day is not only completely mistaken and stupid, but pernicious and hatefully intended.” Denounces ad hominem attacks by “critics, most of whom I consider idiots.” Claims it “does not end with a twist” but with “an authentic answer.” Dissuades trying any of his works.
“The only choices that matter are those that we responsibly made based on the evidence, not on anyone’s declarations, however well-intentioned.”
(Finalist for Hugo retro award for 1943)
Utopias have their downside. A landmark science fiction novel by a dean of the genre. Written before the United States entered World War Two, yet amazing prescient of the next fifty years.
“But man is a working animal. He likes to work. … likely to spend his spare time working out some gadget which will displace labor and increase productivity.” (20th maybe, not 21st century)
Marred by lengthy exposition/preaching. While Heinlein was ahead of society in some ways and clearly foresaw many technology advances only made possible by the invention of the transistor some years later, he mistook then-current fads in economics and para-psychology as indicative of future trends. “The structural nature of finance is too deeply imbedded in our culture for pseudo-capitalism to return.” (Can’t win them all.)
“The only thing that could give us some real basis for our living is to know for sure whether or not anything happens after we die.”
The protagonist voice is like P. G. Wodehouse’s Bertie Wooster. “I’m one long joke on myself.”
“An armed society is a polite society.”
Skip the post-script blather by Tony Daniels. “Which shows how much of the modern negative criticism that Heinlein evokes in the present day is not only completely mistaken and stupid, but pernicious and hatefully intended.” Denounces ad hominem attacks by “critics, most of whom I consider idiots.” Claims it “does not end with a twist” but with “an authentic answer.” Dissuades trying any of his works.
“The only choices that matter are those that we responsibly made based on the evidence, not on anyone’s declarations, however well-intentioned.”
(Finalist for Hugo retro award for 1943)
October 18, 2008
This was the last Heinlein book I had not read, and ironically the first one I really hated. The plot was all over the place, seemingly thrown together at random. Two of the three main characters had names that were very similar and caused confusion, and the third main character turned out to be an idiot (very rare for Heinlein). The way the female main character was treated and then capitulated to the man’s wishes was frustrating (though somewhat understandable for a book written in the forties). I actually skimmed through sections of this book, and I almost never skim. It was a large disappointment, and I was glad to be finished with it.
January 30, 2023
Before I read this book I had no Did Not Finish shelf. Despite Year Zero, a book I genuinely disliked, I managed to grind through. Beyond This Horizon possessed qualities that necessitated a new shelf. Taken out of context, that's something. It's probably the pull quote a publisher would stick on the back of the book, if I warranted quoting, while ignoring the ignominious reason for the statement.
As a man of ideas, Heinlein was at or near the summit of science fiction writers. As a writer, at least in this book, he was a man tumbling end over end down the mountainside.
For proper perspective, it should be noted this story was initially released serially. In which case you'd expect short chapters with tight storylines and several resolved dilemmas within, maybe, an overarching story. Instead, it's a patchwork of story arcs starring a main character, Hamilton Felix, with an enviable genetic makeup who refuses to pass it on to future generations for the good of society because... mostly because he's bored and doesn't want his children to be bored. Also, he hates children. There's also a rebellion that wraps up a little more than halfway through the story, and a few Melville-esque explanatory chapters addressing Finance and Mendelian genetics.
Were the story released today I'm skeptical it would get published even with an update to the technology and attitude toward gender equality. The story raises interesting overarching questions about the nature of utopia, how humans would prevent utter boredom in a perfect world, but these get drowned in a compulsion to explain ad nauseum and, in spite of some short chapters, take an inordinate amount of time getting where the story needs to go before changing gears violently when it gets there.
Strangely, the story resolves a considerable conflict, the very conflict iterated on the back cover, a little over halfway through the story. Then it keeps going. This likely owes to the initial serial nature. However, the conflict wraps up with little fanfare, with a condescending analysis of the results (the organizers were mediocre people and legends in their own minds), meaning there was never really any threat—a point repeated before, during, and after the conflict—and making the main character’s involvement as a spy completely unnecessary. One would think an editor would have recommended, at the very least, eschewing this strategy to avoid dialing down tension with respect to the driver of the story.
After the end of the rebellion a difficult read became impossible. One could see hints of Heinlein’s burgeoning ability to craft a unique story, but this work was too arbitrary, too tedious, and the main character was all but unbearable. The main story arc addressed on the back cover concludes, perhaps metaphorically, at Chapter 11. The book trundles on for an additional seven chapters. Chapter 12 begins with the introduction of a new sport the society is considering introducing and at that point I decided I couldn’t go on.
It’s interesting to note that all of the endorsements on the back of the book, from Dean Koontz, the Chicago Tribune, The Wall Street Journal, and the Chicago Sun-Times all address Heinlein’s career rather than the story—a telling strategy.
This story was more of a haphazard plot stretched out over an idea. The plot was probably of far less interest to Heinlein and the publisher than the idea itself. If that’s what compelled the publisher to accept the work, it makes sense. Because the plot and main characters were not the strong points.
The main character, Hamilton Felix, is an intelligent yet raging self-righteous asshole empowered by his intellect, quick to mistreat people he deemed without value and confident a simple apology was sufficient to amend his error without changing his behavior in the future. Which made the apology worthless because he wasn’t apologizing for being an ass, he was apologizing for misjudging, and it’s a lesson he never learns from because there are no penalties. He still gets what he wants. This is no invective against intelligent people, but rather jerks absent of empathy who flit through the world unpunished for their mistreatment of people because others are kinder than they are. I initially liked this character because he seemed to be the only one thinking for himself where others merely filled roles, but that was before it became apparent he was an arrogant jerk.
Even Heinlein excuses this behavior by stating if women weren’t so forgiving there would be no humanity, as if women possess the civilization-saving virtue of tolerating unapologetic male abuse. The only one who expresses regret for shoddy behavior is the oft-derided Monroe-Alpha Clifford, who, incredibly, attempted to murder the woman he loves because she is not a genetically modified human (incredibly, she forgives him), as though only low-wattage, easily influenced males stoop to sincere apology.
Felix, by comparison, is a man who detests children and thinks they don’t require affection, yet feels the compulsion, repeatedly, to disfigure a member of the rebellion for mistreating “barbarian” humans. I suppose it's possible the feelings of contempt for the helpless can be separated from empathy for the abused.
It’s possible we can blame this contradiction of empathy to genealogy and parentless upbringing for some of this attitude. As for the former, it’s shocking this utopia treats Felix’ DNA as the “star line” unless the goal is a society of sociopaths.
Phyllis, Felix’ mate as intended by the geneticists guiding human evolution, is a comparatively strong, independent, intelligent female who doesn’t quite fit the submissive mold, even carrying a gun (at which Felix scoffs, since men are the protectors of women), nevertheless falls under the charms of the main character. Though she tends to endure Felix’ uncouth behavior with loving scorn rather than kicking him to the curb. It’s not an abusive relationship, but it’s not a great match considering Felix is a particularly difficult individual. One can rationalize this tolerance as a means to an end—she is dedicated to recovering his DNA.
There’s an afterword written by Tony Daniel who summarizes the question the book poses well: can human individuality (something Heinlein espoused) exist in a utopia and does the utopia he’s created allow for individualism? It’s a valid question with an answer that is both yes and no. Obviously, Felix is very much an individual, but he’s bored. As are most people. Though that may stem from the fact that Heinlein hasn’t given them much of anything interesting to do. The only rewarding activity seems to be work, even for people who receive a stipend that makes working unnecessary. Ignorance, as everyone knows, is bliss, which would seem to support a sentiment that intelligence (though likely the quote refers to a degree of awareness) breeds unhappiness. Alternatively, to quote Harvey Danger, “if you’re bored, then you’re boring.” It seems Harvey Danger got this one right.
He goes on to espouse personal freedom expressed physically in this story through gun ownership and the willingness f individuals to draw down on one another at any moment—a frankly asinine judgment given the petty causes for which people plunge willingly into potentially fatal gunfights (accidents, misunderstandings, tests, etc., issues over which no sensible human would gamble). This might be seen as an effective way to select qualities for intelligent skilled gunmen, but at the same time a hair trigger that belies intellectual calm. For highly intelligent beings, they’re perfectly happy putting their lives at risk over minor squabbles, foregoing intellect by resorting to spurious gunfights rather than judicial review or relying on the capacity to discuss a problem like adults. Despite the purported intelligence bestowed upon this evolved form of humanity there is quite a bit about them that seems developmentally stunted.
The essay becomes even less tolerable than the story can be at its worst. In it, Daniel insists Heinlein is a libertarian, and many of these beliefs shine through, but we shouldn’t judge a story, or its author, on politics even as the author’s story asserts them. It’s absurd to on one hand describe an author’s politics and see the evidence of these politics in the story, then defend the work and the author as apolitical and beyond judgment on the other. As an editor, there are some things I would not have included in this book. Excising the entire afterword would have improved my impression of the book--it reads as though Daniel has taken the wrong fork in the road when it comes to changing societal norms and doesn't like being called out for his outdated mentality, making the afterword as much about himself as Heinlein.
What little I’ve read of Heinlein, and the less I remember, stories have always possessed a thread of intellectualism with contradictory Hemingway bravado. Maybe it’s a product of the genre and the era, but it’s something that pains a modern, smart reader. The contemporary Heinlein conundrum is that he’s too smart to appeal to those who enjoy space cowboys, but he felt the need to include Wild Western machismo in his work, and that mars the story for contemporary science fiction readers who see a society where everyone is carrying weapons as a failure of society, a dystopian, militaristic, or authoritarian world rather than utopian world where people still need to protect themselves from other humans. A utopian freedom, such as gun rights and use linked to manliness (it’s considered emasculating not to have a gun and untoward for women to carry them), shouldn’t potentially impinge on the freedoms of others—most obviously their lives. But this right and its risks are mutually accepted, regardless how nonsensical. Clearly, Heinlein, or maybe Heinlein’s characters, had a peculiar definition of utopia.
Herein lies the biggest trouble with science fiction over the passage of time, moreso when your story relies upon Utopia, a perfect society, as its foundation. Unlike other genres, science fiction looks forward. Its quality is dependent on its ability to predict the future. When it does so badly, and does so without any hint of satire, and cultural views shift in a direction far different than the writer anticipated, this puts the story in a bad spot. A writer who writes about the past or the present draws from what exists. There are no surprises even when we look back on them because we know those human faults were true and we make no claims to utopia. It's very likely any utopia written now, viewed from 50 years in the future, will be an embarrassment. It's probably why so many authors prefer to write dystopias--if they don't come true it's a relief; if they do, well, the writer tried to warn us.
Based on this story, I respect Heinlein as a seminal writer whose politics I likely disagree with and whose stories are thickly padded in a way that makes them dull and unfocused. But I intend to keep reading to revise this assessment, hopefully in a more positive fashion.
As a man of ideas, Heinlein was at or near the summit of science fiction writers. As a writer, at least in this book, he was a man tumbling end over end down the mountainside.
For proper perspective, it should be noted this story was initially released serially. In which case you'd expect short chapters with tight storylines and several resolved dilemmas within, maybe, an overarching story. Instead, it's a patchwork of story arcs starring a main character, Hamilton Felix, with an enviable genetic makeup who refuses to pass it on to future generations for the good of society because... mostly because he's bored and doesn't want his children to be bored. Also, he hates children. There's also a rebellion that wraps up a little more than halfway through the story, and a few Melville-esque explanatory chapters addressing Finance and Mendelian genetics.
Were the story released today I'm skeptical it would get published even with an update to the technology and attitude toward gender equality. The story raises interesting overarching questions about the nature of utopia, how humans would prevent utter boredom in a perfect world, but these get drowned in a compulsion to explain ad nauseum and, in spite of some short chapters, take an inordinate amount of time getting where the story needs to go before changing gears violently when it gets there.
Strangely, the story resolves a considerable conflict, the very conflict iterated on the back cover, a little over halfway through the story. Then it keeps going. This likely owes to the initial serial nature. However, the conflict wraps up with little fanfare, with a condescending analysis of the results (the organizers were mediocre people and legends in their own minds), meaning there was never really any threat—a point repeated before, during, and after the conflict—and making the main character’s involvement as a spy completely unnecessary. One would think an editor would have recommended, at the very least, eschewing this strategy to avoid dialing down tension with respect to the driver of the story.
After the end of the rebellion a difficult read became impossible. One could see hints of Heinlein’s burgeoning ability to craft a unique story, but this work was too arbitrary, too tedious, and the main character was all but unbearable. The main story arc addressed on the back cover concludes, perhaps metaphorically, at Chapter 11. The book trundles on for an additional seven chapters. Chapter 12 begins with the introduction of a new sport the society is considering introducing and at that point I decided I couldn’t go on.
It’s interesting to note that all of the endorsements on the back of the book, from Dean Koontz, the Chicago Tribune, The Wall Street Journal, and the Chicago Sun-Times all address Heinlein’s career rather than the story—a telling strategy.
This story was more of a haphazard plot stretched out over an idea. The plot was probably of far less interest to Heinlein and the publisher than the idea itself. If that’s what compelled the publisher to accept the work, it makes sense. Because the plot and main characters were not the strong points.
The main character, Hamilton Felix, is an intelligent yet raging self-righteous asshole empowered by his intellect, quick to mistreat people he deemed without value and confident a simple apology was sufficient to amend his error without changing his behavior in the future. Which made the apology worthless because he wasn’t apologizing for being an ass, he was apologizing for misjudging, and it’s a lesson he never learns from because there are no penalties. He still gets what he wants. This is no invective against intelligent people, but rather jerks absent of empathy who flit through the world unpunished for their mistreatment of people because others are kinder than they are. I initially liked this character because he seemed to be the only one thinking for himself where others merely filled roles, but that was before it became apparent he was an arrogant jerk.
Even Heinlein excuses this behavior by stating if women weren’t so forgiving there would be no humanity, as if women possess the civilization-saving virtue of tolerating unapologetic male abuse. The only one who expresses regret for shoddy behavior is the oft-derided Monroe-Alpha Clifford, who, incredibly, attempted to murder the woman he loves because she is not a genetically modified human (incredibly, she forgives him), as though only low-wattage, easily influenced males stoop to sincere apology.
Felix, by comparison, is a man who detests children and thinks they don’t require affection, yet feels the compulsion, repeatedly, to disfigure a member of the rebellion for mistreating “barbarian” humans. I suppose it's possible the feelings of contempt for the helpless can be separated from empathy for the abused.
It’s possible we can blame this contradiction of empathy to genealogy and parentless upbringing for some of this attitude. As for the former, it’s shocking this utopia treats Felix’ DNA as the “star line” unless the goal is a society of sociopaths.
Phyllis, Felix’ mate as intended by the geneticists guiding human evolution, is a comparatively strong, independent, intelligent female who doesn’t quite fit the submissive mold, even carrying a gun (at which Felix scoffs, since men are the protectors of women), nevertheless falls under the charms of the main character. Though she tends to endure Felix’ uncouth behavior with loving scorn rather than kicking him to the curb. It’s not an abusive relationship, but it’s not a great match considering Felix is a particularly difficult individual. One can rationalize this tolerance as a means to an end—she is dedicated to recovering his DNA.
There’s an afterword written by Tony Daniel who summarizes the question the book poses well: can human individuality (something Heinlein espoused) exist in a utopia and does the utopia he’s created allow for individualism? It’s a valid question with an answer that is both yes and no. Obviously, Felix is very much an individual, but he’s bored. As are most people. Though that may stem from the fact that Heinlein hasn’t given them much of anything interesting to do. The only rewarding activity seems to be work, even for people who receive a stipend that makes working unnecessary. Ignorance, as everyone knows, is bliss, which would seem to support a sentiment that intelligence (though likely the quote refers to a degree of awareness) breeds unhappiness. Alternatively, to quote Harvey Danger, “if you’re bored, then you’re boring.” It seems Harvey Danger got this one right.
He goes on to espouse personal freedom expressed physically in this story through gun ownership and the willingness f individuals to draw down on one another at any moment—a frankly asinine judgment given the petty causes for which people plunge willingly into potentially fatal gunfights (accidents, misunderstandings, tests, etc., issues over which no sensible human would gamble). This might be seen as an effective way to select qualities for intelligent skilled gunmen, but at the same time a hair trigger that belies intellectual calm. For highly intelligent beings, they’re perfectly happy putting their lives at risk over minor squabbles, foregoing intellect by resorting to spurious gunfights rather than judicial review or relying on the capacity to discuss a problem like adults. Despite the purported intelligence bestowed upon this evolved form of humanity there is quite a bit about them that seems developmentally stunted.
The essay becomes even less tolerable than the story can be at its worst. In it, Daniel insists Heinlein is a libertarian, and many of these beliefs shine through, but we shouldn’t judge a story, or its author, on politics even as the author’s story asserts them. It’s absurd to on one hand describe an author’s politics and see the evidence of these politics in the story, then defend the work and the author as apolitical and beyond judgment on the other. As an editor, there are some things I would not have included in this book. Excising the entire afterword would have improved my impression of the book--it reads as though Daniel has taken the wrong fork in the road when it comes to changing societal norms and doesn't like being called out for his outdated mentality, making the afterword as much about himself as Heinlein.
What little I’ve read of Heinlein, and the less I remember, stories have always possessed a thread of intellectualism with contradictory Hemingway bravado. Maybe it’s a product of the genre and the era, but it’s something that pains a modern, smart reader. The contemporary Heinlein conundrum is that he’s too smart to appeal to those who enjoy space cowboys, but he felt the need to include Wild Western machismo in his work, and that mars the story for contemporary science fiction readers who see a society where everyone is carrying weapons as a failure of society, a dystopian, militaristic, or authoritarian world rather than utopian world where people still need to protect themselves from other humans. A utopian freedom, such as gun rights and use linked to manliness (it’s considered emasculating not to have a gun and untoward for women to carry them), shouldn’t potentially impinge on the freedoms of others—most obviously their lives. But this right and its risks are mutually accepted, regardless how nonsensical. Clearly, Heinlein, or maybe Heinlein’s characters, had a peculiar definition of utopia.
Herein lies the biggest trouble with science fiction over the passage of time, moreso when your story relies upon Utopia, a perfect society, as its foundation. Unlike other genres, science fiction looks forward. Its quality is dependent on its ability to predict the future. When it does so badly, and does so without any hint of satire, and cultural views shift in a direction far different than the writer anticipated, this puts the story in a bad spot. A writer who writes about the past or the present draws from what exists. There are no surprises even when we look back on them because we know those human faults were true and we make no claims to utopia. It's very likely any utopia written now, viewed from 50 years in the future, will be an embarrassment. It's probably why so many authors prefer to write dystopias--if they don't come true it's a relief; if they do, well, the writer tried to warn us.
Based on this story, I respect Heinlein as a seminal writer whose politics I likely disagree with and whose stories are thickly padded in a way that makes them dull and unfocused. But I intend to keep reading to revise this assessment, hopefully in a more positive fashion.
July 4, 2023
This book really suffers from the sexism of Heinlein's writer, poor character development, and a plot that just did not age well. Why they chose this one for a retro-Hugo is baffling (but then so is Conjure Wife by Leiber!) I just could not get into this story and found the characters uninteresting. There are some interesting concepts here around genetic engineering which later writers like Lois McMaster Bujold would exploit to much more successful ends in later decades.
December 18, 2018
Beyond this Horizon is essentially about eugenics. Felix Hamilton is a man with a nearly perfect gene code. Mordan, a synthecist and geneticist, has taken special interest in Hamilton and wants to conduct research in selecting for specific genes in order to create a superior race. He has found a mate for him, Phyllis, who has a similarly perfect gene code and their children could be the future of science.
Is eugenics ethical? Does one own their own body if it can be used to perpetuate the human race? These are the questions this novel from 1942 dares to ask. Hamilton, however, doesn't see any real meaning in this utopian society of 2075 and doesn't think the human race deserves to continue. It's a very scientific novel with long explanations on genetics, reproduction, and chromosome patterns. Halfway through this book the tone shifts completely and becomes a bit more action oriented as the geneticists fight a radical nazi like group that wants to destroy control naturals as they see them as inferior human beings.
I loved this book. I have a fascination with eugenics and i love the thoroughly scientific approach to this novel. Heinlein has an excellent way of weaving scientific fact with fantastical story lines set in the distant future.
Sadly, I found many parallels between their own society and our current political climate. They live in a fairly socialist utopia and their ideas of government are pretty similar to my own. A quote that really stood out to me is this: "There's no parallel between a government and a business. They have entirely different purposes."
The reason why I gave this 4 stars instead of 5 is twofold. It was a bit wordy at times and the last few chapters were the best part of the book. I wish Heinlein had focused more of the novel on that as it greatly interested me. Though I know it was more common of the time period, a running theme in Heinlein novels is the treatment of women is antiquated and a bit rapey if I'm being honest. Women are viewed as property with less rights than men and their main purpose being to bare children and please men at the cost of their own happiness. It was even mentioned that women will forgive men for anything. That's what they do. I found that slightly disturbing and it's nice to see in 2018 that there is more equality and independence. In Heinlein's universe, strong independent women are viewed extremely negatively by men. Otherwise, I highly recommend if you are a fan of hard science fiction.
Is eugenics ethical? Does one own their own body if it can be used to perpetuate the human race? These are the questions this novel from 1942 dares to ask. Hamilton, however, doesn't see any real meaning in this utopian society of 2075 and doesn't think the human race deserves to continue. It's a very scientific novel with long explanations on genetics, reproduction, and chromosome patterns. Halfway through this book the tone shifts completely and becomes a bit more action oriented as the geneticists fight a radical nazi like group that wants to destroy control naturals as they see them as inferior human beings.
I loved this book. I have a fascination with eugenics and i love the thoroughly scientific approach to this novel. Heinlein has an excellent way of weaving scientific fact with fantastical story lines set in the distant future.
Sadly, I found many parallels between their own society and our current political climate. They live in a fairly socialist utopia and their ideas of government are pretty similar to my own. A quote that really stood out to me is this: "There's no parallel between a government and a business. They have entirely different purposes."
The reason why I gave this 4 stars instead of 5 is twofold. It was a bit wordy at times and the last few chapters were the best part of the book. I wish Heinlein had focused more of the novel on that as it greatly interested me. Though I know it was more common of the time period, a running theme in Heinlein novels is the treatment of women is antiquated and a bit rapey if I'm being honest. Women are viewed as property with less rights than men and their main purpose being to bare children and please men at the cost of their own happiness. It was even mentioned that women will forgive men for anything. That's what they do. I found that slightly disturbing and it's nice to see in 2018 that there is more equality and independence. In Heinlein's universe, strong independent women are viewed extremely negatively by men. Otherwise, I highly recommend if you are a fan of hard science fiction.
October 17, 2019
3/10 en 2006. Media de los 45 libros leídos del autor : 8/10
Otro de mis autores icónicos de juventud, De hecho mis dioses en la CF eran dos : Asimov y Heinlein. ¿Cuál prefería?. Buena pregunta. Difícil pregunta.
El caso es que me lo pasaba como un enano leyendo las aventuras heinlenianas, sin plantearme eso que leí luego sobre que si era militarista, fascista o lo que os de la gana. Me lo pasaba de maravilla leyéndole.
Eso sí, no me atrevo a leerle ya de adulto, previendo una posible decepción. Me quedo con los recuerdo de la juventud y que no me los quite –ni me los amargue- nadie con otras consideraciones socio-políticas.
Una vez dicho lo anterior añadir que todos esos libros los leí de jovenzuelo... y este hace "poco". Mejor dejarle reposar en paz... porque por ejemplo este lo re-leí en 2006 no recuerdo por qué y ya veis la nota. Fracaso total.
P.D. Que no lea esto Mónica de mi grupo de "Ciencia Ficción en español", que me asesina. A ver si se ocultar este comentario....
Otro de mis autores icónicos de juventud, De hecho mis dioses en la CF eran dos : Asimov y Heinlein. ¿Cuál prefería?. Buena pregunta. Difícil pregunta.
El caso es que me lo pasaba como un enano leyendo las aventuras heinlenianas, sin plantearme eso que leí luego sobre que si era militarista, fascista o lo que os de la gana. Me lo pasaba de maravilla leyéndole.
Eso sí, no me atrevo a leerle ya de adulto, previendo una posible decepción. Me quedo con los recuerdo de la juventud y que no me los quite –ni me los amargue- nadie con otras consideraciones socio-políticas.
Una vez dicho lo anterior añadir que todos esos libros los leí de jovenzuelo... y este hace "poco". Mejor dejarle reposar en paz... porque por ejemplo este lo re-leí en 2006 no recuerdo por qué y ya veis la nota. Fracaso total.
P.D. Que no lea esto Mónica de mi grupo de "Ciencia Ficción en español", que me asesina. A ver si se ocultar este comentario....
October 8, 2014
I read this years (and years) ago but when I ran across it I couldn't remember much beyond the "general world" in which it takes place.
I reread it.
Now I..."remember why i really didn't remember it".
It's okay. It's a pretty good story set in an interesting world but for a teen it does have a "bog-down-factor". In the middle of the book we get a fairly long dissertation on Mendelian Genetics. While it's of course a bit dated it's somewhat more interesting than it was when i was a kid...
Especially since my high school biology teacher assigned me to do a paper on the said Mendelian Genetics...
Anyway good story as is usually reliably what you get from Heinlein...enjoy, even if not as much as some other of his books.
:)
I reread it.
Now I..."remember why i really didn't remember it".
It's okay. It's a pretty good story set in an interesting world but for a teen it does have a "bog-down-factor". In the middle of the book we get a fairly long dissertation on Mendelian Genetics. While it's of course a bit dated it's somewhat more interesting than it was when i was a kid...
Especially since my high school biology teacher assigned me to do a paper on the said Mendelian Genetics...
Anyway good story as is usually reliably what you get from Heinlein...enjoy, even if not as much as some other of his books.
:)
January 17, 2021
Its a clunker of the novel that deserves begrudging respect. The science infomercials are tedious, the plot is absent. It is like it is super smart on some scientific elements and utterly moronic with some things like common sense, personal social skills, and entertainment. I'm glad I read it, I'm glad I never will read it again.
There is a fascinating segment in chapter twelve regarding football. Considering reading it in 1948 and then considering the milieu of football now, this segment is probably most worth reading. Its cynical and amusing.
Also, this contains one of the most boring, dullest, deadpan rebellions in all of literature.
There is a fascinating segment in chapter twelve regarding football. Considering reading it in 1948 and then considering the milieu of football now, this segment is probably most worth reading. Its cynical and amusing.
Also, this contains one of the most boring, dullest, deadpan rebellions in all of literature.
February 22, 2021
Hundreds of years in the future, Hamilton Felix represents the culmination of a genetic star line, the pinnacle of thirty generations of carefully controlled breeding to produce a perfected member of the human species. His world is a utopia free of disease, poverty, and overpopulation. But Felix is bored and restless because his life presents no challenges. So, when he learns of a revolution to overthrow the current government, he jumps at the chance to infiltrate the usurpers and play the role of saboteur…
This was Robert Heinlein's first novel, serialized in Astounding Science Fiction magazine in 1942 and eventually collected in book form in 1948. It is usually considered one of his lesser works, even though it won a 1943 Retro Hugo Award for Best Novel. The book certainly has flaws, but Heinlein succeeded in layering on quite a bit of original world-building that was unusual for the era.
Heinlein's imagined world is built on a realistic and advanced theory of eugenics, especially when you consider the discovery of DNA was still a decade in the future. Humanity has discovered that breeding out violent tendencies is not a workable solution--"it turns men to sheep". Overspecialization was also a failure. It introduced new vulnerabilities to the species and only worked in a top-down totalitarian system (this may have been Heinlein commenting on then-current Nazi demagoguery).
In Heinlein's utopia, men walk around armed and engage in duels over matters of honor. The theory being, if man is to be optimized for survivability, he must maintain his aggressive fighting spirit. "Easy times for individuals are bad times for the race. Adversity is a strainer which refuses to pass the ill-equipped… The genetic technician eliminates in the laboratory the strains which formerly were eliminated by natural selection."
The resulting world reflects typical Heinlein themes on freedom and autonomy: "The police of a state should never be stronger or better armed than the citizenry. An armed citizenry, willing to fight, is the foundation of civil freedom."
Also, on gender roles: "Men seldom make passes at girls that wear guns." "Women will forgive anything. Otherwise the race would have died out long ago."
In this utopia, the economy is perfectly balanced, productivity maximized, and the profit motive lessened but not removed. People work primarily because they want to, not because they have to. "Man is a working animal. He likes to work. And his work is infernally productive. Even if he is bribed to stay out of the labor market and out of production by a fat monthly dividend, he is quite likely to spend his spare time working out some gadget which will displace labor and increase productivity. Very few people have the imagination and temperament to spend a lifetime in leisure."
In this milieu, the family unit still exists but it is less strong than today. Infants are raised in solicitous government-run institutional development centers. Most children still spend time with their parents, but the parents are not taxed with the burden of living with them all the time. As a result, marriages are treated as temporary, easily dissolvable partnerships.
Modern audiences often complain about the lack of diversity in Heinlein's work. This was not a glaring issue in this book. Several women are depicted in positions of leadership. There is a plot involving a 'natural control' (i.e., a person who is the product of uncontrolled random breeding) that emphasizes the nastiness of prejudice, even in a society that claims to accept all races. However, the only character who is explicitly mentioned to be a person of color is a half-white, half-Indian woman. There is also an allusion to scattered "barbarian" tribes of Africa and Asia which never regrouped after the Second Genetics War.
The last third of the novel seems highly disjointed, at least to a modern audience. Subplots are quickly wrapped up, then Felix becomes involved in a large initiative to employ the tools of science on subjects traditionally considered outside the realm of the scientific method. This includes telepathy, the existence of an afterlife, and the origin and destination of the universe. There are digressions on topics as diverse as how to achieve interstellar travel to look for alien life, the advantages of building superconductors on Pluto, and using dreams as a predictor of future events. Felix's children even validate, in a roundabout way, the phenomena of reincarnation.
This entire final section feels tacked on and even somewhat at odds with the mechanistic universe established in the first half of the book. I read one critic who noted this may have been part of the book's appeal to its original readership. The book was widely acclaimed in 1942 because it addressed all the popular tropes of sci-fi at that time--search for utopia, genetic mutations, space exploration, even the paranormal--and presented them for the first time not as fodder for a pulp action-adventure but as serious topics worthy of study and extrapolation. It is worth nothing Arthur C. Clarke's more famous 1953 utopia classic Childhood's End also included several occult elements.
Enjoyable reading - recommended for fans of Heinlein and/or science fiction's golden age.
This was Robert Heinlein's first novel, serialized in Astounding Science Fiction magazine in 1942 and eventually collected in book form in 1948. It is usually considered one of his lesser works, even though it won a 1943 Retro Hugo Award for Best Novel. The book certainly has flaws, but Heinlein succeeded in layering on quite a bit of original world-building that was unusual for the era.
Heinlein's imagined world is built on a realistic and advanced theory of eugenics, especially when you consider the discovery of DNA was still a decade in the future. Humanity has discovered that breeding out violent tendencies is not a workable solution--"it turns men to sheep". Overspecialization was also a failure. It introduced new vulnerabilities to the species and only worked in a top-down totalitarian system (this may have been Heinlein commenting on then-current Nazi demagoguery).
In Heinlein's utopia, men walk around armed and engage in duels over matters of honor. The theory being, if man is to be optimized for survivability, he must maintain his aggressive fighting spirit. "Easy times for individuals are bad times for the race. Adversity is a strainer which refuses to pass the ill-equipped… The genetic technician eliminates in the laboratory the strains which formerly were eliminated by natural selection."
The resulting world reflects typical Heinlein themes on freedom and autonomy: "The police of a state should never be stronger or better armed than the citizenry. An armed citizenry, willing to fight, is the foundation of civil freedom."
Also, on gender roles: "Men seldom make passes at girls that wear guns." "Women will forgive anything. Otherwise the race would have died out long ago."
In this utopia, the economy is perfectly balanced, productivity maximized, and the profit motive lessened but not removed. People work primarily because they want to, not because they have to. "Man is a working animal. He likes to work. And his work is infernally productive. Even if he is bribed to stay out of the labor market and out of production by a fat monthly dividend, he is quite likely to spend his spare time working out some gadget which will displace labor and increase productivity. Very few people have the imagination and temperament to spend a lifetime in leisure."
In this milieu, the family unit still exists but it is less strong than today. Infants are raised in solicitous government-run institutional development centers. Most children still spend time with their parents, but the parents are not taxed with the burden of living with them all the time. As a result, marriages are treated as temporary, easily dissolvable partnerships.
Modern audiences often complain about the lack of diversity in Heinlein's work. This was not a glaring issue in this book. Several women are depicted in positions of leadership. There is a plot involving a 'natural control' (i.e., a person who is the product of uncontrolled random breeding) that emphasizes the nastiness of prejudice, even in a society that claims to accept all races. However, the only character who is explicitly mentioned to be a person of color is a half-white, half-Indian woman. There is also an allusion to scattered "barbarian" tribes of Africa and Asia which never regrouped after the Second Genetics War.
The last third of the novel seems highly disjointed, at least to a modern audience. Subplots are quickly wrapped up, then Felix becomes involved in a large initiative to employ the tools of science on subjects traditionally considered outside the realm of the scientific method. This includes telepathy, the existence of an afterlife, and the origin and destination of the universe. There are digressions on topics as diverse as how to achieve interstellar travel to look for alien life, the advantages of building superconductors on Pluto, and using dreams as a predictor of future events. Felix's children even validate, in a roundabout way, the phenomena of reincarnation.
This entire final section feels tacked on and even somewhat at odds with the mechanistic universe established in the first half of the book. I read one critic who noted this may have been part of the book's appeal to its original readership. The book was widely acclaimed in 1942 because it addressed all the popular tropes of sci-fi at that time--search for utopia, genetic mutations, space exploration, even the paranormal--and presented them for the first time not as fodder for a pulp action-adventure but as serious topics worthy of study and extrapolation. It is worth nothing Arthur C. Clarke's more famous 1953 utopia classic Childhood's End also included several occult elements.
Enjoyable reading - recommended for fans of Heinlein and/or science fiction's golden age.
April 3, 2021
Un gran bel romanzo ricco di idee, ancora più apprezzabile quando si pensa che fu scritto nel 1942 per la pubblicazione in rivista e nel 1948 come volume, quindi prima che la genetica assumesse la forma che assunse oltre vent'anni dopo. Eppure è ancora attuale per le tematiche che tratta.
Inoltre è un romanzo abbastanza corale. Vero, Hamilton Felix è il protagonista, ma i suoi amici, tra cui il sintetista Morden e tutti gli altri/e sono qualcosa di più di comprimari.
Presenta una civiltà futura, diversi secoli da oggi, nel quale, dopo quelle che chiamano guerre mondiali genetiche, la civiltà occidentale si presenta come fortemente individualista, liberista ma non liberale, con una economia abbastanza simile a quella sviluppata in Star Trek The Next Generation, tanto che un uomo (un finanziere di wall street e calciatore) del 1929 intrappolato in un campo di stasi durante un esperimento e liberato in questo futuro non ci si raccapezza proprio. Il dividendo economico è così alto che praticamente il lavoro è una scelta.
Uno quindi è libero di seguire le proprie inclinazioni e aspirazioni.
L'interesse principale è nello sviluppo della specie. Sì, la traduzione italiana usa sempre il termine razza, ma si intende specie. Se nel 1942 Heinlein volesse fare della satira sull'idea di razza migliore nazista non lo so, dovrei leggere i termini nella versione originale per farmi un'idea.
Comunque il mondo futuro concede la scelta: la gente può cercare, tramite la fecondazione in vitro tra gameti selezionati, il miglioramento per i propri figli, ma non c'è un obbligo. Anzi, c'è un bel vantaggio economico nel rimanere un "naturale di controllo" perché tutti gli esperimenti hanno un controllo di riferimento. Ci sono quindi linee genetiche di discendenza considerate migliori di altre, ma tutti i caratteri non negativi vengono comunque mantenuti. E c'è il secondo emendamento della costituzione USA portato alle conseguenze migliori: il diritto di possedere armi e girare armati.
Chi non vuole avvalersi di questo diritto porta un bracciale che lo identifica come un pacifico. Le regole sociali sono strettamente determinate da questo fatto, i duelli sono legali e sono la norma. Tizio mi reca offesa in qualche modo, non mi chiede scusa e ci si spara. La vendetta non è un diritto. L'omicidio è punito con la morte, ma ovviamente tra armati e seguendo le regole, il duello non è un omicidio.
La gente è molto più gentile e attenta, perché sa che rischia la vita, e se sei un inferiore sociale che gira disarmato col bracciale, lascia spazio. In fondo è una tua scelta quella di essere inferiore. Scelta che viene fatta liberamente.
A cosa questo miglioramento continuo della razza sta portando, dopo secoli di selezione? Se ne accorgerà il co-protagonista del 1929, che si renderà conto in fretta che non può più giocare a calcio. Gioco che lui stesso reintroduce, visto che nel futuro ci si è dimenticati dell'esistenza di questo sport (questo è l'unico vero aspetto fantascientifico incredibile del romanzo!) ma si rende conto in fretta di essere lento di riflessi, meno veloce e meno resistente dell'umanità del futuro.
Verso il finale, dopo un tentato colpo di stato degli ennesimi falliti convinti che il nazismo (la forma che assumerà in quel futuro lontano) sia meglio, la filosofia della scienza ha il predominio sulla parte di azione e la ricerca scientifica si sposta verso domande giudicate ancora oggi di poco senso.
Viene intrapresa la Grande Ricerca, la risposta a tante domande. Heinlein non è Adams, non risponde 42. Non risponde proprio. In fondo afferma che vale la pena cercare risposte scientifiche a domande tipo "c'è vita oltre la morte?" ed "esiste la reincarnazione?" ma anche "Perché siamo qui?" e "Ha uno scopo la vita? E la Consapevolezza?"
Negli ultimi capitoli, nelle ultime pagine, R.A. Heinlein diventa estremamente suggestivo.
4 stelle piene, alcune ingenuità e alcuni dettagli lo penalizzano per la quinta stella.
Inoltre è un romanzo abbastanza corale. Vero, Hamilton Felix è il protagonista, ma i suoi amici, tra cui il sintetista Morden e tutti gli altri/e sono qualcosa di più di comprimari.
Presenta una civiltà futura, diversi secoli da oggi, nel quale, dopo quelle che chiamano guerre mondiali genetiche, la civiltà occidentale si presenta come fortemente individualista, liberista ma non liberale, con una economia abbastanza simile a quella sviluppata in Star Trek The Next Generation, tanto che un uomo (un finanziere di wall street e calciatore) del 1929 intrappolato in un campo di stasi durante un esperimento e liberato in questo futuro non ci si raccapezza proprio. Il dividendo economico è così alto che praticamente il lavoro è una scelta.
Uno quindi è libero di seguire le proprie inclinazioni e aspirazioni.
L'interesse principale è nello sviluppo della specie. Sì, la traduzione italiana usa sempre il termine razza, ma si intende specie. Se nel 1942 Heinlein volesse fare della satira sull'idea di razza migliore nazista non lo so, dovrei leggere i termini nella versione originale per farmi un'idea.
Comunque il mondo futuro concede la scelta: la gente può cercare, tramite la fecondazione in vitro tra gameti selezionati, il miglioramento per i propri figli, ma non c'è un obbligo. Anzi, c'è un bel vantaggio economico nel rimanere un "naturale di controllo" perché tutti gli esperimenti hanno un controllo di riferimento. Ci sono quindi linee genetiche di discendenza considerate migliori di altre, ma tutti i caratteri non negativi vengono comunque mantenuti. E c'è il secondo emendamento della costituzione USA portato alle conseguenze migliori: il diritto di possedere armi e girare armati.
Chi non vuole avvalersi di questo diritto porta un bracciale che lo identifica come un pacifico. Le regole sociali sono strettamente determinate da questo fatto, i duelli sono legali e sono la norma. Tizio mi reca offesa in qualche modo, non mi chiede scusa e ci si spara. La vendetta non è un diritto. L'omicidio è punito con la morte, ma ovviamente tra armati e seguendo le regole, il duello non è un omicidio.
La gente è molto più gentile e attenta, perché sa che rischia la vita, e se sei un inferiore sociale che gira disarmato col bracciale, lascia spazio. In fondo è una tua scelta quella di essere inferiore. Scelta che viene fatta liberamente.
A cosa questo miglioramento continuo della razza sta portando, dopo secoli di selezione? Se ne accorgerà il co-protagonista del 1929, che si renderà conto in fretta che non può più giocare a calcio. Gioco che lui stesso reintroduce, visto che nel futuro ci si è dimenticati dell'esistenza di questo sport (questo è l'unico vero aspetto fantascientifico incredibile del romanzo!) ma si rende conto in fretta di essere lento di riflessi, meno veloce e meno resistente dell'umanità del futuro.
Verso il finale, dopo un tentato colpo di stato degli ennesimi falliti convinti che il nazismo (la forma che assumerà in quel futuro lontano) sia meglio, la filosofia della scienza ha il predominio sulla parte di azione e la ricerca scientifica si sposta verso domande giudicate ancora oggi di poco senso.
Viene intrapresa la Grande Ricerca, la risposta a tante domande. Heinlein non è Adams, non risponde 42. Non risponde proprio. In fondo afferma che vale la pena cercare risposte scientifiche a domande tipo "c'è vita oltre la morte?" ed "esiste la reincarnazione?" ma anche "Perché siamo qui?" e "Ha uno scopo la vita? E la Consapevolezza?"
Negli ultimi capitoli, nelle ultime pagine, R.A. Heinlein diventa estremamente suggestivo.
4 stelle piene, alcune ingenuità e alcuni dettagli lo penalizzano per la quinta stella.
April 22, 2016
4.6 stars
“In the Name of the Egg!”
“Light is dark; up is down; and, life is death.”
Robert Heinlein continually surprises.
Somewhere beyond the dark future dystopia of Huxley’s Brave New World sits Robert Heinlein’s brilliant and provocative adult novel, Beyond This Horizon.
Subtitled “a Post-Utopian Novel,” the author earnestly sets out to create such a narrative amidst a future “utopian” society. Written eleven years after the Huxley novel, with its sub-plot anticipating the later horrific world of Orwell’s 1984, Beyond This Horizon “bravely” presents humanity’s “progress” in a supposedly better” and positive future. Yet, Heinlein tacitly presents the idea that this future is not necessarily “better” or more positive.
Like other Heinlein “futures,” Beyond This Horizon presents a “general” future date, (later than 2075). And following, large geographical areas are merged into “districts.” Here, the new society unites a “whole hemisphere” and the society has stations on various planets and satellites. The society has eliminated poverty through “an ever surplus” economics. American West type duels, an old European genteel politeness, (“Gentle Sir,” “Most Gracious Lady”), and a Gattaca-like class (or caste) system become a few elements within this future culture.
With this novel, Heinlein’s characters, plot, thematic investigations, cultural commentary, and other elements wonderfully combine for a truly unique vision.
Indeed, here, Heinlein seeks to explore life’s “meaning.” And so, of the literary allusions made in the chapter headings, Shakespeare’s Hamlet appropriately appears twice. And like Shakespeare with his melancholy Dane, Heinlein presents his protagonist, Hamilton Felix, a genetically bred yet ennui-stricken “superman” who will explore life, death, friendship, and more, to include "investigat[ing] what the Universe had been and what it would become."
Needless to say, Beyond This Horizon exceeds both story and genre expectations.
“In a nutshell,” the author weaves two plotlines in which he explores Preservation and Extinction, (or Life and Death), Evolution and Mutation, (or Fate and Chance / Free Will), the Individual and the Community, Logic and Emotion, and lastly, the Simple and the Complex via the Pastoral and the Metropolitan.
A “sneeze” may reveal one to be a “Control Natural,” i.e., not genetically bred and therefore “inferior,”—to be eliminated in future breeding alignments. The writer sketches out a history which includes a “Second Genetic War” and an ensuing “Empire of the Great Khans.” He posits the actions of Hamilton and his best friend’s actions, (Monroe “Clifford” Alpha) in relief against this highly specialized culture.
The error of history, so stated, was that the Great Khans directly experimented and cultivated desirable gene sequences. Learning from history, the culture now aims “to progress” through multi-generational breeding processes. And this yields a Social Darwinism-based culture.
[To] "eliminate . . . recessives . . . to tell whether or not an adult . . . was actually clean . . . Natural Selection . . . goes on day in and day out, inexorable and automatic. It is as tireless, as inescapable, as entropy.”
Another surprise occurs when Heinlein reverses his usual stance on individualism, making a case for community, and the larger society:
[Hamilton] "realized consciously and sardonically, that he himself was part of the throng," and [Martha] "He doesn't own the life in his body. It belongs to all of us--to the race."
Unlike Monroe (Clifford) Alpha, the protagonist, Hamilton Felix comes across as privileged and arrogant. Yet, through his actions, he becomes likable. He acts out of friendship, rather than indifference. He maintains a sense of devotion, honor, and love despite the culture’s focus on logic and indifferent action. And, the reader can see a protagonist without the usual Heinlein- strident dogmas, (Major Ardmore of The Sixth Column, MacRae of Red Planet, the Old Man of The Puppet Masters, and Jubal of Strangers In a Strange Land). Here indeed is another pleasant surprise.
As Monroe Clifford acts as a foil to Hamilton Felix, Heinlein’s Time Traveler, J. Darlington Smith, (and the present-day culture he represents—ca. 1926), acts as a foil to Heinlein’s created culture. Smith provokes in Clifford a Romantic feeling for “the Simple.” Heinlein extends this with an episode involving Clifford in a “Redwoods Park.” The scenes become affecting and even poetic, with an amazing irony: Clifford easily can “burn down” a “Control Natural” but becomes sick when he shoots a deer. The woman he seeks, incidentally, is named “Marion Hartnet.” Hence, echoing Shakespeare again, Heinlein plays on the word “hart.” Wonderful.
At the center of the novel’s plot lies an agreement. Unwilling Felix agrees to propagate, (to continue his “Star Line), if and only if he is allowed to participate as a Double Agent within a revolutionary underground revolutionary movement called “The Survivor’s Club.” Later, the novel shifts to a “domestic sphere,” wherein Felix conquers his “ennui.” This “shift” may cause reader disappointment simply because of the exciting action of the revolutionary sub-plot coupled with Heinlein’s “clipped style” of writing. Yet, here again, the sub-plot functions as a foil revealing an “alternative” society, (that Orwellian, fascistic authoritarian state), to this genetically-bred based one.
The writer’s diction alternates between his typical clipped descriptions to his charming, revealing, and sometimes outright funny dialogue: “Filthy!” “For Egg’s Sake,” and the “operator had stepped back without looking and stepped on pussy's tail. Pussy did not like it and said so."
Given Heinlein’s influence, readers may see here parallels to aspects in Herbert’s Dune, Orwell’s 1984, Clark’s 2001, A Space Odyseey, Gattaca, and, of course, Star Trek, (even the greeting “Long Life,” we see here 20 years before the original television series).
Finally, allusion and social commentary permeate the novel. From H.G. Wells’ notion of an “elite class as weakening through its own luxury” to Nietzsche’s concept of the “over-man,” Heinlein explores. From Gregor Mendel’s work on genetics to Socrates’ discerning “the good,” Heinlein leads the reader to his greater question(s). Ultimately, he settles on an Ancient Greek / Freudian notion—one that links to his overarching metaphysical question.
Heinlein’s conclusion both inspires and repels. And, the novel’s last line admittedly frustrates. While it perfectly presents “an open interpretation,” the effect of humor seems to thwart the otherwise seriousness of its implications. Yet, that invitation for interpretation, Heinlein does make.
And so, this early novel becomes beguiling. Seemingly a pop- Sci-fi, pulp novel, it excels in presenting and exploring serious questions.
A great novel, Beyond This Horizon deserves serious consideration—to include, frankly, a presentation and art cover representative of its achievement.
“Dark is light; down is up; and death is life.”
“Great Egg!”
“Not a whit, we defy augury.
There is special Providence in the fall of a sparrow.
If it be now,‘tis not to come;
if it be not to come, it will be now;
if it be not now, yet it will come
—the readiness is all.”
--Hamlet, (V, ii)
November 28, 2020
Aside from really interesting world-building (including a couple of astounding predictions, considering this was the 1940s) and startling economic ideas in the background, this book was disappointing and poorly written. The story jumps around all over the place, trying to do too much at once, and the exposition is shoe-horned in so awkwardly that it didn’t feel like Heinlein at all. It doesn’t help that the narrator switches perspectives from character to character without warning or that the reader can never tell whether a paragraph is what some character is thinking or what the impersonal narrator is telling us.
(I published a longer review on my website.)
March 6, 2015
Beyond This Horizon, is the second of Heinlein's published novels, and introduces us to a future utopia where poverty no longer exists and genetic engineering has advanced to a point where it is possible to selectively breed children for increased health, intelligence and longevity. The biggest problem faced by most of this world's denizens is what to do with their time, leading to a society in which decadence is the norm and duelling with sidearms is considered an acceptable way of resolving disputes. Non-advanced citizens also exist, known as control normals, and are seen by the majority of others as a baseline with which to compare the genetic improvements found in the general populace.
The main bulk of the story follows the adventures of Hamilton Felix, a notably superior (others refer to him as an example of a star line), albeit mildly disillusioned citizen of this world's breeding program and his attempts to find a meaning in life. When he is approached by a synthesist (effectively an administrator of the breeding program) with a request to help propagate the next generation of advanced humans Felix's apathy towards the future, along with an unwillingness to propagate initially leads him to decline, but only after he is convinced to agree that if the synthesist can provide him with proof that a man's life is more than just the existence he experiences then he would be willing to reconsider.
Along the way he is also drawn into a burgeoning conspiracy by a group of citizens who feel that the current system needs to be overthrown, and that their society needs to be restructured under their control. Felix agrees to join this group, known as The Survivor's Club, though his decision is motivated more by a sense of loyalty to society, leading him to act as a double agent within their midst, than by any need to change the status quo. When the Survivor's Club do make their move Felix turns against them and helps to overturn their coup.
The second half of the novel then explores the results of Felix falling in love with and marrying Longcourt Phyllis, the woman selected for him by the synthesists. Between them they produce a son, Theobald, who they soon discover has powers that seem to equate to telepathy.
By the end of the book Felix has found a purpose for his life, and his original apathy no longer causes him concern.
Some have suggested that Beyond This Horizon represents one of the first examples of a post-singularity novel and to some degree I can agree with that assertion, though many of the elements required for a true post-singularity world are absent simply as a result of when it was written; computers were barely known of, and the idea of a world-wide interconnected communication network (the internet) was still a few decades away from being considered.
Personally I don't consider this to be one of Heinlein's best, though it's still better than much of the sci-fi of the time. In it he explores themes of reincarnation and the immortality (and possibly even the existence) of the human soul. He also presents a world of social equality, a world where things such as race, creed, faith and gender are simply portions of a person's make-up, and not things to get concerned over. In that respect it was a highly progressive novel for the times, and introduced a number of themes that continued to crop up in his future novels.
In all I still enjoyed re-reading this one, though if you're new to Heinlein I'd suggest starting with one of his later works.
The main bulk of the story follows the adventures of Hamilton Felix, a notably superior (others refer to him as an example of a star line), albeit mildly disillusioned citizen of this world's breeding program and his attempts to find a meaning in life. When he is approached by a synthesist (effectively an administrator of the breeding program) with a request to help propagate the next generation of advanced humans Felix's apathy towards the future, along with an unwillingness to propagate initially leads him to decline, but only after he is convinced to agree that if the synthesist can provide him with proof that a man's life is more than just the existence he experiences then he would be willing to reconsider.
Along the way he is also drawn into a burgeoning conspiracy by a group of citizens who feel that the current system needs to be overthrown, and that their society needs to be restructured under their control. Felix agrees to join this group, known as The Survivor's Club, though his decision is motivated more by a sense of loyalty to society, leading him to act as a double agent within their midst, than by any need to change the status quo. When the Survivor's Club do make their move Felix turns against them and helps to overturn their coup.
The second half of the novel then explores the results of Felix falling in love with and marrying Longcourt Phyllis, the woman selected for him by the synthesists. Between them they produce a son, Theobald, who they soon discover has powers that seem to equate to telepathy.
By the end of the book Felix has found a purpose for his life, and his original apathy no longer causes him concern.
Some have suggested that Beyond This Horizon represents one of the first examples of a post-singularity novel and to some degree I can agree with that assertion, though many of the elements required for a true post-singularity world are absent simply as a result of when it was written; computers were barely known of, and the idea of a world-wide interconnected communication network (the internet) was still a few decades away from being considered.
Personally I don't consider this to be one of Heinlein's best, though it's still better than much of the sci-fi of the time. In it he explores themes of reincarnation and the immortality (and possibly even the existence) of the human soul. He also presents a world of social equality, a world where things such as race, creed, faith and gender are simply portions of a person's make-up, and not things to get concerned over. In that respect it was a highly progressive novel for the times, and introduced a number of themes that continued to crop up in his future novels.
In all I still enjoyed re-reading this one, though if you're new to Heinlein I'd suggest starting with one of his later works.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
January 3, 2012
As a big fan of Heinlein, I was extremely disappointed by this book. Maybe I was distracted by the misleading blurb on the back cover, or the Burt Reynolds/Charles Bronson cover art.
But I think it was something more than that. The narrative was random and disorganized. Too much of the book was spent towards something that never really developed, and not enough of the story was devoted to the actual story.
The actual story was about a man whose dilemma was what's so great about life that I need to have children.
Yeah. First of all, very close premise to "Time Enough for Love," which was fantastic. Maybe the seeds of that novel were born with this one. But not much was done with that.
Not much was done with anything.
There was a brief and pointless eugenics war.
There was a man from the past that served no purpose.
Advantages of antique weaponry.
Breeding for specific traits.
An experimental eugenically engineered woman who could get sick.
Telepathic babies.
Reincarnation.
Just way too much going on for such a short book that didn't properly address any of that.
What it did do was showcase Heinlein's misogynistic views. He's created some extremely strong female characters in his prolific career, but every once in a while, a bit of chauvinism creeps in. In the case of this book, it was entirely too much.
There were a couple things about the book that I did enjoy. First all, the society that is created seems to be the basis of Joss Whedon's Firefly episode "Shindig." Aside from the Asi-ctorian dress, the philosophies of the society with politeness and dueling seemed to echo through Whedon. The book even mentions "registered companions." Makes me wonder if Whedon has read this book and took notes.
That's it.
There was no connection with any of the characters. No story was truly and fully developed. Nothing in it that really made me like this book.
But I think it was something more than that. The narrative was random and disorganized. Too much of the book was spent towards something that never really developed, and not enough of the story was devoted to the actual story.
The actual story was about a man whose dilemma was what's so great about life that I need to have children.
Yeah. First of all, very close premise to "Time Enough for Love," which was fantastic. Maybe the seeds of that novel were born with this one. But not much was done with that.
Not much was done with anything.
There was a brief and pointless eugenics war.
There was a man from the past that served no purpose.
Advantages of antique weaponry.
Breeding for specific traits.
An experimental eugenically engineered woman who could get sick.
Telepathic babies.
Reincarnation.
Just way too much going on for such a short book that didn't properly address any of that.
What it did do was showcase Heinlein's misogynistic views. He's created some extremely strong female characters in his prolific career, but every once in a while, a bit of chauvinism creeps in. In the case of this book, it was entirely too much.
There were a couple things about the book that I did enjoy. First all, the society that is created seems to be the basis of Joss Whedon's Firefly episode "Shindig." Aside from the Asi-ctorian dress, the philosophies of the society with politeness and dueling seemed to echo through Whedon. The book even mentions "registered companions." Makes me wonder if Whedon has read this book and took notes.
That's it.
There was no connection with any of the characters. No story was truly and fully developed. Nothing in it that really made me like this book.
January 11, 2019
Eeeuuuuuurrrgh.
I don't love Heinlein, anyway. At his best, though, I can respect Heinlein. This is... not his best.
Part of it is that the ideas have just aged poorly. It's a book about breeding a race that is better than all other races. A... "master race", if you will. This is where you have to remind yourself that this was written during World War II, before it had really become apparent that the Nazis were committing genocide in the name of this concept.
Then you add in sf's usual absolute obsession with telepathy from this time period, which I'm frankly just tired of reading about, here at the end of the Hugo quest.
But there are also ideas that people today, in the year of our lord 2019, think are good. Libertarian dreams, like how every able-bodied man carries a gun at all times. Anybody who doesn't carry a gun, of course, is a lower class of citizen. And women, it goes without saying, hardly ever carry guns.
And he takes it to the next logical step, even! People get in pointless, stupid gunfights all the time. People discharge firearms in their offices, and the bullets ricochet around and nearly kill bystanders. You can't go out to eat at a restaurant without some fool starting a duel and shooting the place up.
I literally can't tell if Heinlein is trolling us, here. Is he, like, doing a Colbert Report, and trying to parody Libertarianism from the inside? It's so over-the-top, but... I can't even tell.
Anyway, at least it's only 250 pages.
I don't love Heinlein, anyway. At his best, though, I can respect Heinlein. This is... not his best.
Part of it is that the ideas have just aged poorly. It's a book about breeding a race that is better than all other races. A... "master race", if you will. This is where you have to remind yourself that this was written during World War II, before it had really become apparent that the Nazis were committing genocide in the name of this concept.
Then you add in sf's usual absolute obsession with telepathy from this time period, which I'm frankly just tired of reading about, here at the end of the Hugo quest.
But there are also ideas that people today, in the year of our lord 2019, think are good. Libertarian dreams, like how every able-bodied man carries a gun at all times. Anybody who doesn't carry a gun, of course, is a lower class of citizen. And women, it goes without saying, hardly ever carry guns.
And he takes it to the next logical step, even! People get in pointless, stupid gunfights all the time. People discharge firearms in their offices, and the bullets ricochet around and nearly kill bystanders. You can't go out to eat at a restaurant without some fool starting a duel and shooting the place up.
I literally can't tell if Heinlein is trolling us, here. Is he, like, doing a Colbert Report, and trying to parody Libertarianism from the inside? It's so over-the-top, but... I can't even tell.
Anyway, at least it's only 250 pages.
July 22, 2011
People who knock on this work as "the worst of Heinlein" obviously haven't taken time to understand it. This is a masterpiece. But it is a subtle masterpiece. If you buy this copy, I'd suggest you also check out the essay in the beginning of the "Gregg Press science fiction series" version. It explains some important details that the average reader may miss. Most prominently, it calls the readers attention to a particular transition that occurs on a particular page in the second half of the novel. Simply put, if you don't understand the transition, you haven't understood the book at all.
I recommend you read it, and hang on for a great ride. But read it with care!
I recommend you read it, and hang on for a great ride. But read it with care!
June 22, 2008
I never really could get into this book. The language is (appropriately) formal, as befitting the setting Heinlein set up which is one reason. Another is that the plot doesn't necessarily progress nearly as fast as the political commentary.
I agree with much of it, but it's more commentary than story.
The ending isn't that satisfying either, although it does follow from the overall story and makes good sense.
You've got to think to read this one.
I agree with much of it, but it's more commentary than story.
The ending isn't that satisfying either, although it does follow from the overall story and makes good sense.
You've got to think to read this one.
January 31, 2019
This definitely isn't one of Heinlein's best works, and not because the language is dated. The plot itself is not that interesting - it's exciting at first and shows promise - but the story putters out miserably with a rather boring conclusion. Some ideas are introduced in here, such as genetics, and makes for a good read. If you're an Heinlein fan, you might enjoy this. It's not the best, but it isn't junk, either. Just don't expect a deep/fascinating read.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 244 reviews