Rating: 
Summary: A political exercise that begins as a novel
Review: "For Us, The Living" starts as a novel, but becomes... well... something else.
The first and final chapters could be the beginning and the end of a decent Robert Heinlein novel; it's the headache-inducing middle that is the problem.
I suppose that he must have had many different ideas, but could not decide which one to settle on and flesh out. The kindest thing that I could say is, probably, that I'm glad this was his first try, so he could see what to fix later.
I *like* the book (at least the SF parts of it), but trying to cram so many confusing and heavy socio-economic-political ideas into barely 250 pages is problematic at best, and takes an exceptional writer to pull it off. Heinlein is exceptional, but in trying this hard so early, he nearly overbalances himself.
Not bad for a first try, but he does get better.
Rating: 
Summary: The first shall be last
Review: "For Us, The Living" was the first novel Robert Heinlein wrote, but the last to be published (posthumously). For readers already aware that Heinlein was the pioneer without whom science fiction would still be nothing more than space opera, it provides incomparable insights into Heinlein's transformation of the genre from action-adventure into what for many decades was the only form of rational moral philosophy capable of sneaking past the theofascist censors.
"For Us, the Living" is essentially an unedited first draft. That is not to say that it did not already demonstrate Heinlein's monumental literary skills. But whether it qualifies as a novel is debatable. It contains the seeds from which grew many of the later books that made Heinlein a unique phenomenon. For example, by having his protagonist transported from 1939 to 2086 (like Buck Rogers), he is able to show the time traveller recognizing marriage for what it really is, an observable reality unrelated to magic words.
Writing in 1939, and hoping to have his novel accepted by a publisher, Heinlein recognized the necessity of conforming to the publishing mores of the time. While none of his later books contains the kind of sex scene usually understood by the term "explicit," they were at least unambiguous. In "For Us, The Living", the first hint that the hero and heroine have become lovers occurs in a discussion of pregnancy, when he asks, "Say,have I already?"
"For Us, The Living" introduces Nehemiah Scudder, a theofascist politician who, in the Future History series, became the First Prophet. Modern readers will have litle difficulty equating this repulsive character with several later televangelists.
Heinlein's 1939 vision of the future was not flawless. He showed the 2086 man still using the offensively Christian dating system, "AD", that denigrates all other belief systems, instead of the scientifically neutral "CE". He showed people in 2086 casually smoking, with no comprehension that inhaling poisonous smoke would by that date be recognized as slow suicide. He could not conceive of airplanes without propellers. And he showed a 2086 man forecasting that a man would walk on the moon at some future date. But he was one of the few people to acknowledge that the first colonists came to America, not in search of religious freedom, but in search of a place where they could exercise their own brand of religious totalitarianism. (see my unabridged review in "Where Is George Washington Now That America Really Needs Him?")
Rating: 
Summary: Heinlein in a Strange Land
Review: (...) I agree that only literary scholars and die-hard Heinlein geeks will find much of interest in "For Us, The Living." Yet if you fall into the latter category, and grew up reading Heinlien as I did, you will find much of interest here, if only for what it reveals about the sharp and orderly mind of the man who turned you on to books when you were in the seventh grade."For Us, The Living" isn't so much a novel as a thinly veiled utopian tract - which may help explain why it was never published in the first place. Yet for all its faults it is surprisingly well written given that Heinlein was 31 years old and a literary novice. What little plot there is (between political lectures) will not withstand close scrutiny, but apparently plot was not Heinlein's main concern. He had a political agenda and made no bones about it. Heinlein's views on politics and society have always been a puzzle to me, probably because they don't fit neatly with babyboomer sensibilities. After all, he was reared in another era when capitalism appeared to have failed, when modern day categories of "liberal" versus "conservative" had different meanings, if any. In this novel he addresses the failure of capitalism and offers remedies that seem radical (or silly?) even now. More familiar to the Heinlein reader will be his critique of social mores. Throughout his life's work he found fault with traditional marriage and attitudes toward sexuality. The protagonist, for instance, is "cured" of something most of us would regard as basic to human nature - a lover's jealousy. Those who have followed Heinlein's work will find much of interest in "For Us, The Living," especially those little glimpses of future work in miniature. Many of the ideas he would develop for "Astounding" are here in natal form, the seeds from which a dazzling career would grow. Rolling roads, air cars, Coventry, the threat of religious fundamentalism, and a disreputable but well-love tom cat. But newcomers beware. Start with "The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress" or "Time Enough For Love," then come back to this first novel later, and steel yourself for professorial lectures.
Rating: 
Summary: Who knew? The young Heinlein was a socialist!
Review: Actually, I imagine anyone with any depth of knowledge of RAH's bio would in fact know this, but for me, who knew him only through his writings, this was quite a surprise.
Not only was he a socialist, he was a utopian socialist a la H.G. Wells, to whose work FUTL was in part a tribute. But a very poor tribute, as the literary quality of this work is entirely lacking. Having read it, I am surprised he ever got published at all. This was even worse than some of the terrible novels he wrote late in his career.
First, the premise of the story - a car accident victim waking up in someone else's body 150 years later - is interesting, but utterly undeveloped. What caused the original owner to relinquish it? How does Perry actually enter it? What - if any - is the connection between the Diana who sees his accident in 1939 and the Diana who rescues him in 2086? None of this is even touched on. And the breezy acceptance by everyone Perry meets of his claims as to who he is on its face absurd. The natural reaction is to think the guy has gone completely nuts.
For a while, I thought the story was going to end with Perry dying at the bottom of the cliffs in 1939, and that the whole thing was going to be similar to the western story where a condemned man lives out his escape from execution while dangling at the bottom of a rope. But no, the body transfer was nothing more than the set up for the presentation of a utopian vision.
Heinlein's 2086 America is fraught with unexamined problems. First, while preaching a society of supposed social libertarianism - do anything as long as it doesn't harm anyone else - it in fact acts in an entirely totalitarian manner, by banishing anyone who doesn't agree with its customs to internal exile - what RAH called "Coventry", both here and elsewhere - with no hope of return or of governmental protection while in it. Second, the concept of private and public "spheres" simply doesn't work, as there is in reality considerable overlap between the two. Diana's statement that she doesn't even know whether her sister is married is ludicrous, and entirely at odds with the basic tenet of this society - if you are unable to know a person's situation, how can you possibly know whether you are causing harm to that person? And what constitutes "harm" anyway? Apparently not copping a feel of someone else's wife, as Bernard does to Diana. Third, the idea that children are better off in a society with relaxed marital relationships is of course evidentially disproven, as is also the idea that a free love society will exist without rampant STDs.
The big failing, and in fact the primary reason for the novel, is its promotion of Social Credit Theory. The economic theory in and of itself is flawed - it leads necessarily to inflation. It also ignores the most obvious result of the government paying everybody a stipend - that being the lack of inducement to work. The suggestion that the opposite would occur is simply idiotic, and clearly shown false by the disastrous performance of welfare programs. But the biggest weakness to me - a banker - is RAH's woeful understanding of the banking system. He makes numerous misstatements in this novel about how banks operate. First, he confuses the definitions of "fractional reserves", which term is used in two separate ways in banking. He assumes that since banks are only required to maintain partial reserves (deposits at the Federal Reserve) against monies deposited with them, that they consequently are lending fiat-created money. This is not true. If banks were required to maintain 100% reserves against all deposits, then they would be unable to lend anything. The money loaned out by a bank is sourced from the deposits placed with it. Where fractional reserves result in the creation of currency is at a central bank, which is a governmental entity, not a lending institution. Second, banks in the US have never been authorized to create money. Third, the Federal Reserve is a government body and is not owned by the banks. Fourth, a run on a bank is not caused by borrowers exercising their lines of credit (although this does put a liquidity strain on a bank, forcing it to borrow), but by depositors withdrawing their funds.
Finally, the cliched attacks against organized religion, and Christianity in particular (symbolic cannibalism, for heaven's sake!), were distasteful in the extreme.
All in all, a very unenjoyable read and interesting only in that it set the stage for many of Heinlein's later work.
Rating:
Summary: For Serious Heinlein fans only, 4 stars--others, maybe 2-3
Review: As Spider discusses in the prologue, this is interesting if you have read his other books to see what he was thinking at the very beginning of his career. That said, this is clearly a first book and perhaps the weakest of any Heinlein book I've read. If you've never read him, this is NOT a good place to start.
Rating:
Summary: A good book, if not a conventional novel
Review: As Spider Robinson says in his introduction, this book is basically a collection of lectures about utopian political and economic theories, joined in a narrative framework. Heinlein's utopia is not merely libertarian, it's specifically Libertarian. (He wasn't referring to the political party, which is 40 years younger than this book, but he might as well have been.) It's a good book. I wouldn't say it's a good novel, in the normal sense, but I've certainly read many worse examples of this type of story. Where the typical first libertarian novel is based on an unsophisticated understanding of political theory and even weaker writing skills, _For Us, The Living_ presents mature and well-considered theory and top-notch writing. What it lacks is a compelling story-- another point made well by Robinson. The book is 283 pages, of which 235 are the novel. About 41 pages of this comprise a single expository scene, a conversation among three characters in which Heinlein gives a history of the US from 1939 to 2085. Most of this history is only weakly relevant to the themes of the novel, though it's interesting in itself. There are numerous other lectures that also do little to advance the plot. Now, Atlas Shrugged has far longer expository scenes, but then, my hardcover edition has 1,168 pages, each of which has about 2.25 times as many words on average as the pages of _For Us, The Living_. Rand's exposition is not out of place in its context, but Heinlein's is. Of the actual story itself-- well, there isn't much. I count about 100 pages of text that directly or indirectly support the plot, but if the indirect support was boiled down, all of this would add up to only maybe 30 pages out of 235. Like I said, it isn't much. Though there isn't a lot of plot, there's a good deal of specific political and economic advice in this book. Heinlein trots out an authority figure to speak approvingly of a law that requires a public referendum on declarations of war in the absence of foreign aggression, for example. Voting would be open only to those eligible for military service, and those who vote for war would be immediately inducted. An interesting idea, anyway. :-) Heinlein even refers to a whole new Constitution for the United States of 2085, summarized by this passage: "Every citizen is free to perform any act which does not hamper the equal freedom of another. No law shall forbid the performance of any act, which does not damage the physical or economic welfare of any other person. No act shall constitute a violation of a law valid under this provision unless there is such damage, or immediate present danger of such damage resulting from that act." Though I think this proposal is not particularly well expressed, the notion behind it is good orthodox Libertarianism. There are some economic prescriptions that are neither Libertarian nor practical, but Heinlein obviously believed them necessary. Heinlein never did figure out the missing element of political theory needed to make Libertarianism practical, but then, the Libertarians never did either. (I have, but this is not that essay. :-) It doesn't bother me that the economic conclusions in this book are wrong. Heinlein's economic theory appears to be based on an honest study of the conditions of 1939, it was intelligently and independently developed, and it is well presented here. It contains many elements of truth that are not typically presented even in economics classes. They probably shouldn't be presented in a novel, either, but we've already established that this isn't your usual novel. It stimulates thought, which is a good enough reason for me to enjoy it. I doubt _For Us, The Living_ would have had a favorable effect on 1939 society if it had been published then. For one thing, society would have reacted badly to Heinlein's description of it: "But most of all he came to despise the almost universal deceit, half lies and downright falsehood that had vitiated the life of 1939. He realized that it had been a land of hokum and cheat. The political speeches, the advertising slogans, the spitlicking, prostituted preachers, the billboards, the ballyhoo, the kept press, the pussy-footing professors, the incredible papier-mache idol of 'society', the yawping Neanderthal 100% Americanism, paving contracts, special concessions and other grafts, the purchased Senators and hired attorneys, the corrupt judges and cynical politicians, and over and through it all the poor desiccated spirit of the American peasant, the 'wise guy' whose motto was 'Cheat first, lest ye be cheated' and 'Never give a sucker a break.' ...The whole tribe, lying, lied to and lied about, who had been taught to admire success, even in a scoundrel, and despite failure, even in a hero." I suppose Heinlein learned the Swiftian lesson one book too late-- it's much better to be critical of an obviously fictional population, far separated in time and space from his audience. On the other hand, I found it interesting to see Heinlein writing about his own people and not the Brobdingnagians; there was no need to try to figure out how much of the message was aimed specifically at the reader. (Of course, I don't face the worry that Heinlein might be talking about ME. :-) Overall, I like this book. It may not have the usual virtues of a novel, but if you like Heinlein, future histories, or theories of politics, economics, or semantics, you might like it too. I'm happy it was found and published.
Rating:
Summary: The follies of youth
Review: Being an avid Robert A. Heinlein fan, I find the contents of his first novel most perplexing. Why Heinlein would begin his career as a sort of sci-fi political philosopher - before moving on to novels like "Stranger in a Strange Land" and other well-known classics - I will never know. For those familiar with the racy urban action of "The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress" or "Red Planet," expect something different. "For Us, the Living" is more utopian dream-weaving and social commentary than a customary Heinlein story. Character development in this book is minimal, and in the majority of the novel plot is limited to whatever new discovery about the future - 2086 - the protagonist happens upon. Heinlein spends these pages covering topics such as governmental legal systems, human psychology and readjustment, and male-female relations. Being his first large-scale attempt as a novelist, it is interesting to see the missteps of one of sci-fi's greats. Lucky for us, the topics he attempts to cover here are never brought up in subsequent undertakings.
Rating:
Summary: The Heinlein Manifesto
Review: For Us, the Living was the first novel written by Heinlein, but remained unpublished during his lifetime. It is reminiscent of Nowlan's Armageddon 2419 A.D. in its plot, with the hero losing consciousness and awaking decades later. In this case, Perry Nelson blacks out following a fall in 1939 and awakens in 2186. He finds himself is a society that corresponds to his own in many way, yet is strangely different. In 1919, the year that Armageddon 2419 A.D. was published, science fiction was a medium for technological ideas and adventure. By 1939, however, the field was changing to portray the effects of technology on people rather than describing the technology itself. This trend was started primarily by the stories of Don A. Stuart -- John W. Campbell's alter ego -- and became even more influential when Campbell became the editor of Astounding magazine. In this novel, the author presents a utopian future that is quite different from 1939, including many technological and social changes. His presentation fits right into the new approach to science fiction emerging at Astounding and elsewhere. However, the novel itself didn't sell, primarily because it lacks adventure and excitement. Nonetheless, a number of shorter works incorporating these ideas were sold to the SF magazines and later became the basis of his Future History series. The author developed an action-oriented style in these tales. He also created a new type of science fiction story: portrayal of the workplaces of the future. In The Roads Must Roll, the author wrote of the men who built and maintained the passenger-carrying conveyor belts of the future. In The Green Hills of Earth, he wrote of the jetmen who kept the engines running on the interplanetary ships. In many ways, he became his character Rhysling, but in prose rather than poem. He was also the Kipling of his generation in more than one respect. This novel portrays a time when spaceflight is just beginning to develop. In Requiem (1940), the author presents a view of a time when moonflight is common (and introduces D.H. Harriman). The author retroactively describes the development of moonflight in The Man Who Sold the Moon (1950). After writing this novel, the author only wrote for the magazines for several years, although many of the short stories and serials were later published as books. Rocket Ship Galileo, his first novel published orginally as a book, came out in 1947 as a juvenile and was followed in the next year by Space Cadet. However, 1948 also saw the original book publication of an adult SF novel, Beyond This Horizon. Rocket Ship Galileo is not a Future History story, but contains an alternate history of the first moonflight. As did The Man Who Sold the Moon, it takes place in a time when orbital flight is routine. It also introduces the nuclear propulsion used in the later juveniles. Beyond This Horizon is a post-utopian novel and thus is a kind of sequel to For Us, the Living. It contains further technological and social changes. It also features a man from the past, although as a minor character. However, it mostly portrays the utopia from the point of view of contemporary characters and it contains plenty of adventure and excitement as well. Overall, it shows how far the author advanced in his craftsmanship in less than a decade. Highly recommended for Heinlein fans and for anyone else who is interested in the history of science fiction. -Arthur W. Jordin
Rating:
Summary: From Him, the Deceased
Review: Heinlein's first book becomes Heinlein's last book as For Us, the Living was published now some 16 years after Heinlein died, and provides a very interesting preview of how Heinlein sees a world that changes in very radical and strange ways (not unlike our own.) Many of the concepts Heinlein would use in his books would come back to haunt us whether we liked them or not. (1962's "Stranger in a strange Land"'s example of the wife of the leader of the world's use of an astrologer to plan political strategy predated by a generation the revelation of Nancy Reagan's repetition of this practice in her husband's political life.)
This book can be classified as a "Utopia," (a happy example of a society and how it operates) as opposed to some of the more dreary dystopias of an unpleasant future (such as Aldous Huxley's "Brave New World", a future I fear our own society is heading more toward than the one predicted by Heinlein in this book.)
There are some rather interesting predictions of a future that Heinlein could only guess at, from a world of such lower levels of technology than our own that even the automatic transmission in an automobile wouldn't be invented for ten years after he originally wrote this story.
The book's mention of a military attack via two aircraft on New York City in 2003 gave me an eerie flashback to a similar incident two years earlier in our own world.
His references to a more liberalized treatment by society of men and women and their personal relationships with one another has, to a much greater degree than probably could have been imagined then, become much closer to reality (although no where near as far as the book goes; on the other hand we still have more than 30 years to go before the events in the book take place, so there's always room for improvement.)
A number of ideas of his I find amazing and challenging (I thought I understood Fractional Reserve Banking as a concept until I read it here and realize there are details about it that probably most bankers don't even get), even if I find the potential for their implementation extremely unlikely (keeping the power to create money through fractionalized reserves in the government's hands as a way to eliminate income taxation and fund a system of public lifetime pensions for everyone instead of allowing banks to make money off of the process) is something that sounds like a great idea, but those who have a vested interest in the current system are not going to allow it).
It is said that the sexual connections between the characters is so racy that the book would have been unmailable when it was written back in the 1930s, and yet there is not so much as one word of description of any sex acts at all in this book. (I think the idea that people might actually have more than one lover at the same time, or might be able not to be jealous of whomever they are involved with, were too radical to be published for that time and age even if the practice even at that time was probably more common than was admitted.) Even today, the anger over the concept of persons of the same sex marrying (a concept this book doesn't come close to touching) has a number of people very upset.
I think that that, more than anything else, is the Achilles' Heel in the book's utopian future: it demands most people to stay the hell out of other people's private affairs when they aren't hurting anyone else. The scene where a couple, in the middle of a press conference, wanting a private moment with each other and one of them asking the reporters to treat it as such - and the press going along with this request - was a rather amazing incident which I find not very likely, given the standards of the media of today. With the overly large interest by the general public in having a say so - through laws prohibiting such conduct, or licensing it - in the matters of other people's private consentual sex acts, marriage, relationships, and living arrangements, it is hard to envision a free society such as the one contemplated by this book, where most people tend not to care how other people live their lives. (Too many people in their black hearts want to dictate how other people should live according to their standards, not those of the people involved.)
All in all, For Us, The Living is an amazing book that should make you think about your concepts of what our society considers important, how we relate to one another, how we manage to survive and provide for ourselves and our future, and perhaps how we could relate to one another if we chose to stay out of each other's personal, private business (in a general Libertarian point of view.)
Paul Robinson
Rating:
Summary: Ahead of It's Time
Review: How do I like it? Spider Robinson and John Clute rave reviews did not praise it enough! It was not published in 1939 because of its style, although there are some clunky spots. I think it could not be published in 1939 because of its advocacy of social changes that he could finally do starting with "Stranger in a Strange Land." It also could not be published because of it's picture of a future history so at variance with conventional wisdom and it's call for radical change in democracy, banking, sexual mores, religion, education, criminology, the right to privacy, and the list goes on. The afterword is the first time I have seen in print anywhere some of the details it has of Heinlein's life. The influence of the book is more seminal than Heinlein's novels in the 40's and 50's. The basic story of the book takes place because someone in 2083 was conducting experiments in ESP for this Sanctuary Council. During this his mind leaves his body and he doesn't come back. The body is stored and in 2086 Perry Nelson, a man who dies in 1939 wakes up in this body. There is a further hint much later that Perry has moved over from an alternate world. This is directly related to Heinlein's last books involving time and dimension hoping in his "Worlds as Myth," his theory that universes are created by the act of imagining them. John Clute says the world of science fiction and our world would be much different and better if this had been published in 1939. I would agree. My perspective, I have read everything Heinlein published available today and am a social libertarian and an economic liberal.
|
