# The Number of the Beast by Heinlein (1980)



## AE35Unit (Mar 5, 2012)

I was looking forward to reading this and it started off quite pleasantly, I was enjoying the story, such as it was, but then it got dull, quickly, that is about a third of the way in, and its a 500+ page book.

Basically a scientist invents a dimension jumping machine cum time machine, based around an old Ford car, and he comes up with a theory of the number of universes based on the number 6 raised to the power of 6, 6 times - 6 6 6. A group is assembled, a kind of family group, off on their jollies, but I began to find the characters incredibly annoying and twee. I hate that word twee, its such a, well, twee word, but it is quite apt with this book, apart from its size! (drop this on your toe and you'll be hopping round the room!)
"Oh John I SO love you, youre such a remarkable man, my hero, Daddy will be happy to have you as a son" If thats not bad enough the young lady is known as DT, which I discover is short for Deja Thoris. Anyone who has read Edgar Rice Burroughs' Barsoom  books will know that name! But also her erstwhile husband just happens to be called John Carter. And guess what planet they land on-its red and ends in 'ars'! For Christ's sake, could it get any more twee? Its like eating a really sweet candy bar, so sweet it makes your teeth itch! 
Enough was enough, life is too short etc
Moving on.....


----------



## Metryq (Mar 6, 2012)

The concept was fun—that all the fictional universes in books are "real" somewhere, and that the "real" universe of the characters in _Number of the Beast_ turns out to be a fiction novel elsewhere—but yes, the characters tended to make long orations. (That was fun in _A Princess of Mars_ because it was so ridiculously flowery.) Heinlein had already suffered the "brain bubble," as one friend put it, and the books just got weirder and weirder after that. (By the way, that "old Ford car" was a "duo," a futuristic flying and ground vehicle.)

_Number of the Beast_ completely falls apart by the time the travelers encounter Lazarus Long. After that it is like being dragged into a hippie commune where all one's dead friends from other novels get together to have group sex.


----------



## Foxbat (Mar 6, 2012)

I never finished this book. I had about fifty pages to go but couldn't take any more and threw it away.


----------



## Vertigo (Jun 24, 2017)

It sounds from the comments above that it's a good job I didn't attempt to finish this one. Here's my thoughts:


Sadly I had to put this down after just under a hundred pages; I just couldn’t take any more. Most of my reading of Heinlein was done as a teenager when I absolutely loved his work and I’m guessing I probably would have loved this one as well (I don’t recall reading it at the time). However this was one of Heinlein’s later works and he did get more and more proselytistic with regard to his slightly off kilter views on marriage and sexual freedom and 45 years on from my innocent youth I struggled desperately. And this book certainly has plenty of that preaching, in fact most of those first 100 pages seem to be taken up by Heinlein presenting some sort of utopian relationship ideal rather than doing anything to move the story on. At the end of those first one hundred pages almost nothing has been added to the story beyond the brief burst of action in the first few pages. Instead the reader has to plough through extensive descriptions of how wonderful the close knit group of husband, wife, father and step mother are. This is especially wearing when you consider that, by this stage of the book husband and wife only met, fell in love and got married the previous day and, caught up in the flow, the wife’s widowed father also gets married to his lifelong friend who he hadn’t previously realised he loved! I’m sorry Mr Heinlein but even if you hadn’t swamped me with all the social stuff that alone went way beyond my ability to suspend disbelief.

I still probably could have got past that except for how offensive I (now) find much of his social claptrap. Heinlein seemed to want to present the women – Deety, the wife, and Hilda, the stepmom – as his idea of the perfect “FemLibbers” (his word) – Deety, for example, is an expert at karate and a genius software engineer – and then he goes and spoils it by having both women’s nipples springing to attention at the slightest sign of male macho, all kitchen chores being automatically delegated to these women and even Deety declaring in internal thoughts: “I _am_ good at karate; Pop made sure that I learned all the dirty fighting possible. But not against Zebadiah! If I ever do—Heaven forbid!—find myself opposed to my husband, I’ll quiver my chin and cry.” Bear in mind she only met said husband at a party the previous day. There’s loads more in a similar vein as well as a continuous stream of stuff for which I just couldn’t sufficiently raise that level disbelief (such as a university professor who just happens to own an aircar, privately and secretly souped-up to a military level complete with a “highly illegal laser cannon”).

No, I’m sorry, but I simply couldn’t continue. Sure it’s probably a product of the times, but those times are 1980 so even _that’s_ not a particularly strong an excuse. Maybe I should confine any of my future Heinlein reads to his earlier stuff.


1/5 stars


----------



## Parson (Jun 24, 2017)

I missed this one too. I remember I was about 20 when I started realizing the Heinlein might tell a good story, but his real objective was to preach the gospel of unrestrained sexuality and to have every taboo broken in a perfectly logical way. I never went back to read those juveniles. I'm afraid of what I'll find I was filling my head full of, when I was even more sheltered and naive.


----------



## TheDustyZebra (Jun 24, 2017)

I'm a big Heinlein fan, and this one was just about more than I could bear. I've never bothered reading it again, which says a lot, considering how many times I've read some of his others. It's not the Heinlein sexuality -- I'm a fan of that, too -- but the sheer ridiculousness of the whole thing.


----------



## Vertigo (Jun 25, 2017)

TheDustyZebra said:


> I'm a big Heinlein fan, and this one was just about more than I could bear. I've never bothered reading it again, which says a lot, considering how many times I've read some of his others. It's not the Heinlein sexuality -- I'm a fan of that, too -- but the sheer ridiculousness of the whole thing.


Yes, just about everything about the protagonists - what they were capable of and what they did - was just too ridiculous. Also one of the things I found a little disturbing was the paranoia it all showed; a professor with a military grade aircar complete with laser cannon and a scientist who has built a house that is completely undetectable; the smoke from the fires comes out hundred's of metres away at almost ambient temperature, builders brought in from Mexico to be sure they wouldn't recognise the location and the materials all brought in by helicopter with the pilots using a beacon and not allowed to use conventional navigation and then there was all the tax dodging. This is libertarianism mixed with paranoia taken to an incredible extreme and Heinlein presents it all as perfectly normal. Just too much for me. Shame!


----------



## TheDustyZebra (Jun 25, 2017)

Oh, I believe in a healthy degree of paranoid libertarianism, too.   But libertarians now aren't what they were then.


----------



## Pyan (Jun 25, 2017)

Vertigo said:
			
		

> This is libertarianism mixed with paranoia taken to an incredible extreme and Heinlein presents it all as perfectly normal.



Maybe so -  but the way the story turns out also shows that on _this_ timeline (and don't forget that it's not ours -  Ballox O'Malley is the first man on the Moon, in 1952, not Armstrong, DuQuesne or Fairacre) paranoia is eminently justified...


----------



## Danny McG (Jun 25, 2017)

I have a feeling that at sometime in my life I've sat and read this. 
I have a faint memory SPOILER COMING!!

that at one point they end up in Oz and are mincing about in Gina's palace. Was this that same book does anyone know?
Or was I the only one to read that far?


----------



## TheDustyZebra (Jun 25, 2017)

dannymcg said:


> I have a feeling that at sometime in my life I've sat and read this.
> I have a faint memory SPOILER COMING!!
> 
> that at one point they end up in Oz and are mincing about in Gina's palace. Was this that same book does anyone know?
> Or was I the only one to read that far?



Yup, that's in there somewhere.


----------



## Danny McG (Jun 25, 2017)

Ha! Nailed it!
I knew I'd read it at some point, funny how little details stick in your mind.

(Not exactly an earth-shattering revelation that I've read yet another book years ago)


----------



## Toby Frost (Jun 26, 2017)

Wow. I don't think I'll be reading this any time soon!


----------



## Pyan (Jun 26, 2017)

Toby Frost said:


> Wow. I don't think I'll be reading this any time soon!


But you really should, Toby - the thing is, it's like quite a few of RAH's books, a real Marmite tale (as are Starship Troopers, Stranger In A Strange Land, Time Enough For Love, etc, etc). I wouldn't trust _anyone_ to write an unbiased review of 90% of RAHs' output...


----------



## Vertigo (Jun 26, 2017)

Toby Frost said:


> Wow. I don't think I'll be reading this any time soon!





pyan said:


> But you really should, Toby - the thing is, it's like quite a few of RAH's books, a real Marmite tale (as are Starship Troopers, Stranger In A Strange Land, Time Enough For Love, etc, etc). I wouldn't trust _anyone_ to write an unbiased review of 90% of RAHs' output...


In fairness I have since seen that TNotB is generally considered to be a somewhere between a parody and an homage to 1930s pulp SF which does sort of answer many of my criticisms; the problem being that that was not what I was looking for at this time. Maybe I should try again sometime when I'm in the mood for parody.


----------



## Venusian Broon (Jun 26, 2017)

Vertigo said:


> In fairness I have since seen that TNotB is generally considered to be a somewhere between a parody and an homage to 1930s pulp SF which does sort of answer many of my criticisms; the problem being that that was not what I was looking for at this time. Maybe I should try again sometime when I'm in the mood for parody.



I wish someone had told me that when I purchased this book, when I was a fresh faced teenager in the 80's trying out all sorts of SF. I thought it was awful.

It put me off Heinlein for good. I was truly inoculated. I've only managed _Stranger in a Strange Land_ in the thirty years that followed.

Part of the reason for it's poor reception is that I believe Heinlein refused to allow an editor on it and just got it published on his say-so.  

There's too many other books in the world that _are _and _must _be better than this! I'd definitely not recommend anyone to try and read it. I expect if you want to experience a much better Heinlein go to his early works (although I can't recommend any as TNoTB hangs heavy over me and I am constantly dissuaded from reading any of his stuff!)


----------



## TheDustyZebra (Jun 26, 2017)

I feel truly sorry for anyone who read this as their first Heinlein book. It's so not representative of his work that it's a crying shame if you started with that and were turned off.

Of course, one does have to have a certain tolerance of (or penchant for) his political and socio-cultural leanings in order to appreciate any of his books -- but there are brilliant commentaries on human nature among his books, that should not be missed by any genre fan.


----------



## tinkerdan (Jun 26, 2017)

I enjoyed this novel. I'd always thought of it as an unvarnished unedited version of true Heinlein work. It seemed somehow he was able to not only make fun of a lot of other works, but truly make fun of his own to the nth degree or at least 6 by 6 by 6.


----------



## Toby Frost (Jun 27, 2017)

Not meaning to derail the thread, but so far, I've read three Heinlein books. Leaving aside the specific politics of the books, and talking only about the writing, I'd say:

The Puppet Masters - pretty good
Star Beast - I can't remember it very well, but my lasting feeling is of it being slight but entertaining
Starship Troopers - pretty weak

Hmm.


----------



## Vertigo (Jun 27, 2017)

Toby Frost said:


> Not meaning to derail the thread, but so far, I've read three Heinlein books. Leaving aside the specific politics of the books, and talking only about the writing, I'd say:
> 
> The Puppet Masters - pretty good
> Star Beast - I can't remember it very well, but my lasting feeling is of it being slight but entertaining
> ...


A lot of his early stuff from the '40s and '50s is a bit variable; some is YA stuff that I loved as a YA at the time and I'd now find, in your word, quite slight, some is pure SF adventure romp which hasn't aged well and I'd also find quite slight. From that early period one of my favourites was The Door into Summer.

For me the '60s and '70s produced some of his best more thoughtful work: Time Enough for Love, I Will Fear No Evil, Stranger in a Strange Land, The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress. Though he was beginning to get a bit self indulgent with regard to his social and political views.

His later stuff I have generally found go too far into the self indulgence. Though there are one or two that I liked; Friday was a fun romp.


----------



## Parson (Jun 27, 2017)

Vertigo said:


> For me the '60s and '70s produced some of his best more thoughtful work: Time Enough for Love, I Will Fear No Evil, Stranger in a Strange Land, The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress. Though he was beginning to get a bit self indulgent with regard to his social and political views.
> 
> His later stuff I have generally found go too far into the self indulgence. Though there are one or two that I liked; Friday was a fun romp.



You've picked my favorites there. I always knew you were a discerning character.


----------



## tinkerdan (Jun 28, 2017)

The original manuscript Panki-Barsoom Number of the Beast was written in 1977 during the onset of this and was admittedly something veering off from normal Heinlein::Written in Zebediah's POV.::


Metryq said:


> Heinlein had already suffered the "brain bubble," as one friend put it, and the books just got weirder and weirder after that. (By the way, that "old Ford car" was a "duo," a futuristic flying and ground vehicle.)



::Afterwords when rereading the finished piece he found it to be fatally mediocre and that was when he decided to experiment with multiple first person POV and he cannibalized the old manuscript for the new.

The book was largely experimental and seems more focused on self-conscious, self referential writing.
The antagonist or villain in the story is the writer himself. Neil O'Heret Brain is an anagram  of Robert A. Heinlein.

I loved 
Friday
That Cat Who Walks Through Walls
To Sail Beyond the Sunset

The two I had the most trouble with of the time period were
Job:A Comedy of Justice
The Number of the Beast
Still I found them to be entertaining.

Some of the information here comes from volume 2 of William H. Patterson,Jr's Robert A Heinlein [The Man who Learned Better| 1948-1988]


----------



## TheDustyZebra (Jun 28, 2017)

Parson said:


> You've picked my favorites there. I always knew you were a discerning character.



Really?! 

Those are among my favorites, too, but I would never in a million years have expected that you'd like them. 

Out of curiosity, what did you think of Job: A Comedy of Justice?


To Sail Beyond the Sunset (my all-time favorite)
Time Enough for Love
Friday
The Moon is a Harsh Mistress
I Will Fear No Evil
Job: A Comedy of Justice
Stranger in a Strange Land
The Cat Who Walks Through Walls


----------



## Toby Frost (Jun 28, 2017)

Well, authors did seem to write quite referential stories sometimes, and I guess it would be easy to put in various in-jokes (Lovecraft did, too). I remember a Philip K Dick story in which Poul Anderson went to the future and was being hunted by the secret police.

My original image of Heinlein was of a grouchy, ex-military tough guy, but he seems to have had a lot of difference facets, depending on what he was writing. Did he adopt a kind of writing persona, like Hemmingway or Orwell, or did he just write whatever he felt like at the time?


----------



## Vertigo (Jun 28, 2017)

tinkerdan said:


> The original manuscript Panki-Barsoom Number of the Beast was written in 1977 during the onset of this and was admittedly something veering off from normal Heinlein::Written in Zebediah's POV.::
> 
> 
> ::Afterwords when rereading the finished piece he found it to be fatally mediocre and that was when he decided to experiment with multiple first person POV and he cannibalized the old manuscript for the new.
> ...


I read somewhere that all the villains were anagrams of either his name or his wife's; Virginia (?) Heinlein

So maybe an experimental step too far for some of us


----------



## Parson (Jun 28, 2017)

TheDustyZebra said:


> Really?!
> 
> Those are among my favorites, too, but I would never in a million years have expected that you'd like them.
> 
> Out of curiosity, what did you think of Job: A Comedy of Justice?



Now you've got me curious. Why would you think that I wouldn't like Friday and Time Enough for Love, I Will Fear No Evil, Stranger in a Strange Land, The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress? I also like "The Cat Who Walked through Walls" ---- I just thought of that this morning when I walked into the hospital to pick my wife up after a 2 day battle with a kidney infection and someone was playing the piano in the lobby, .... "Amazing Grace!" ..... I was tickled pink. 

I'm pretty sure I never read "Job: A Comedy of Justice" ------ Is the title referencing a "job" or the Biblical character "Job" if the later I might take a peek at it.


----------



## tinkerdan (Jun 28, 2017)

Biblical:: definitely; this one has religious overtones.


Parson said:


> I'm pretty sure I never read "Job: A Comedy of Justice" ------ Is the title referencing a "job" or the Biblical character "Job" if the later I might take a peek at it.


----------



## Pyan (Jun 28, 2017)

Parson said:


> Now you've got me curious. Why would you think that I wouldn't like Friday and Time Enough for Love, I Will Fear No Evil, Stranger in a Strange Land, ...


I can see where Dusty is coming from - these four are probably, with _To Sail beyond the Sunset_, the most 'shocking'(for the time in which they were written) of all RAH's books. They also, IMHO, contain some of the best literary SF ever written - I defy anyone to read the last few paragraphs of _The Tale of the Adopted Daughter_ in TEFL with dry eyes.



> I'm pretty sure I never read "Job: A Comedy of Justice" ------ Is the title referencing a "job" or the Biblical character "Job" if the later I might take a peek at it.



Believe me, you'd know if you'd read it. Go and buy it *now *and then come back and tell us what you think. My bet is that you'll like it, especially as your vocational background will mean you'll get all the 'in' jokes...

As for _The Moon is a Harsh Mistress_, I said about it: *It's one of my very favourite RAH books, and in my All-Time Top Ten list*_. _Spookily enough, this was exactly ten years ago, and is in this thread: RAH Reading Group - The Number of The Beast *which is the first one referenced in the Similar Threads section directly below ...
*
_Muhahaha..._


----------



## TheDustyZebra (Jun 28, 2017)

I agree -- you should definitely read Job. It's a biblical allegory, and a helluva book (pun thoroughly intended). 

Oh, and yes, what Pyan said. I know you're not a prude, but I would have thought some of those might stretch even your demonstrated liberal-mindedness. I'm pleased to be wrong.


----------



## Parson (Jun 29, 2017)

Ok, "Job, A Comedy of Justice" is ordered. I'm actually getting a real book. Hardly ever order one of those. I'm not sure How I'll deal with it. You might find it interesting that almost all of the people offering to sell it were from the U.K. --- Perhaps it was more popular there?


----------



## TheDustyZebra (Jun 29, 2017)

That is interesting. I wonder why?


----------



## Pyan (Jun 29, 2017)

Parson said:


> I'm actually getting a real book. Hardly ever order one of those. I'm not sure How I'll deal with it.


Right. Cradle the 'spine' (the edge with the writing on it) in the left hand, and swipe right-to-left, maintaining a light pressure on each 'page'. Repeat as necessary. Peruse the 'writing' from left to right, _simultaneously _scanning the 'page' from top to bottom. When you've finished a session, insert a manual position-keeping app at the place that you've reached - this will help locate the same point when you resume the session. If you're left handed, reverse these instructions. Good luck!


----------



## TheDustyZebra (Jun 29, 2017)

pyan said:


> If you're left handed, reverse these instructions. Good luck!



If he's left-handed, he has to read the book from back to front?


----------



## Pyan (Jun 29, 2017)

No, that's if it's printed for the Japanese market...


----------



## Parson (Jun 29, 2017)

Um, they say that a paper book comes without a charging cord. Do you have time limit to finish the book before all the print disappears?


----------



## TheDustyZebra (Jun 29, 2017)

If you read it over and over, some of the print does start to wear out, yes. But I've had mine for about thirty years and it still has most of the words. Luckily, if you've read it enough times, you know what the missing words are anyway.


----------



## chrispenycate (Jun 30, 2017)

Actually, I quite like multiperson pantheistic solipsism as a theory, even if it does explain away anything, as much as 'and then the little boy woke up, and it had all been a dream'. The characters must be stereotypes, as they are fictionalised fiction, an exra step away from 'reality'. Obviously the book is too long, and could have used an editor - but just about everything he wrote after 'Stranger…' suffers from this, even 'The Moon is a Harsh Mistress', probably my favourite of all his books (least favourite? Farnham's Freehold, or I will fear no Evil, which I notice a couple of people on this thread seriously approve of). It is a pity that he couldn't better simulate the writing style of the other authors he - cited? emulated?, particularly Dodgeson (and probably Baum, though Ihaven't read the originals) and was to incestuous recuperation of his own oeuvre.


----------



## Parson (Jun 30, 2017)

chrispenycate said:


> Actually, I quite like multiperson pantheistic solipsism as a theory, even if it does explain away anything, as much as 'and then the little boy woke up, and it had all been a dream'. The characters must be stereotypes, as they are fictionalised fiction, an exra step away from 'reality'. Obviously the book is too long, and could have used an editor - but just about everything he wrote after 'Stranger…' suffers from this, even 'The Moon is a Harsh Mistress', probably my favourite of all his books (least favourite? Farnham's Freehold, or I will fear no Evil, which I notice a couple of people on this thread seriously approve of). It is a pity that he couldn't better simulate the writing style of the other authors he - cited? emulated?, particularly Dodgeson (and probably Baum, though Ihaven't read the originals) and was to incestuous recuperation of his own oeuvre.



Parson scratches his head; digs out the dictionary, and sees the faint light of meaning glowing somewhere in the distance.


----------



## Pyan (Jul 1, 2017)

chrispenycate said:


> Actually, I quite like multiperson pantheistic solipsism as a _*theory*_


(my emphasis)

As a theory, yes: in practice, I suspect that most of the average people's lives would be nasty, brutish and short, to quote Thomas Hobbes. Would you really like to visit Geidi Prime or be a colonist on Acheron (LV-426)? How about surviving on Pyrrus? or Gor? How about Eddore? Shayol? No thanks - I'd rather these, and others, remain fictional...


----------



## Danny McG (Sep 3, 2017)

Friday by RH gets mentioned a few times in this thread.
I faintly remember buying it based solely on the girl on the cover. A thing I wouldn't even consider nowadays!


----------



## Parson (Sep 4, 2017)

(Blush!) I read a lot of Heinlein before Friday, which I liked a lot. But I have to admit that cover made me look and had me interested.


----------



## Vertigo (Sep 4, 2017)

Rather different cover on the one I had in which she was perched on the side of an aircar and wasn't quite as alluring but still definitely drew my younger self in.


----------



## Danny McG (Sep 4, 2017)

Vertigo said:


> Rather different cover on the one I had in which she was perched on the side of an aircar and wasn't quite as alluring but still definitely drew my younger self in.







Thread has been hi-hacked by hot women on sci fi book covers!


----------



## Vertigo (Sep 4, 2017)

dannymcg said:


> View attachment 39206
> 
> Thread has been hi-hacked by hot women on sci fi book covers!


Yup that's the one  now stop it before we get into trouble!!!!!


----------



## Pyan (Sep 4, 2017)

Try googling the 1969 NEL/4square edition of 'Glory Road' - but in your own time. _I'm_ not going to post it, that's for sure...


----------



## Parson (Sep 4, 2017)

Hm, actually I find the Friday cover more "interesting." Glory Road reminds me of National Geographic and Jr. High.


----------



## Vertigo (Sep 4, 2017)

pyan said:


> Try googling the 1969 NEL/4square edition of 'Glory Road' - but in your own time. _I'm_ not going to post it, that's for sure...





Parson said:


> Hm, actually I find the Friday cover more "interesting." Glory Road reminds me of National Geographic and Jr. High.


Ah yes, that cover. I'm more with Parson there. Also it's reminiscent of all those fantasy books back in those days that invariably (whether relevant or not) had scantily unclad women on the covers which I actually somehow found to be strangely sexless.


----------



## Pyan (Sep 4, 2017)

Heinlein, for various reasons, seems to be marketed with a lot more scantily-dressed females on his covers than, say Clarke or Asimov. Poddy, Joan and Maureen all get the treatment if you look hard enough. I suppose it's the 60s and 70s equivalent of what we'd categorise today as 'clickbait'...


----------



## Danny McG (Sep 4, 2017)

pyan said:


> Try googling the 1969 NEL/4square edition of 'Glory Road' - but in your own time. _I'm_ not going to post it, that's for sure...



Googled. Viewed. Wow - ed!


----------



## Parson (Sep 5, 2017)

pyan said:


> Heinlein, for various reasons, seems to be marketed with a lot more scantily-dressed females on his covers than, say Clarke or Asimov. Poddy, Joan and Maureen all get the treatment if you look hard enough. I suppose it's the 60s and 70s equivalent of what we'd categorise today as 'clickbait'...


I wonder if that's because Heinlein had some quite (shall we say) liberal views of sexual mores? I think Lazarus Long broke every sexual taboo there was out there in his day.


----------



## anno (Sep 5, 2017)

dannymcg said:


> View attachment 39206
> 
> Thread has been hi-hacked by hot women on sci fi book covers!


That's the one I have,always wondered how he got Toyah to pose...


----------



## Stephen Palmer (Sep 5, 2017)

Like many on this thread, I read quite a few Heinleins when I was discovering SF as a teenager. But quite soon they palled. 
I think it was the ridiculousness. :/


----------



## Pyan (Sep 5, 2017)

Stephen Palmer said:


> Like many on this thread, I read quite a few Heinleins when I was discovering SF as a teenager. But quite soon they palled.
> I think it was the ridiculousness. :/


That's a strong word, Stephen - what aspect/s of the books were you thinking of?


----------



## Stephen Palmer (Sep 5, 2017)

The daft "constructed" plots.
People halting the plot to get married.
The artificial relationships.
But especially the daft plots!


----------



## AE35Unit (Sep 12, 2017)

dannymcg said:


> Friday by RH gets mentioned a few times in this thread.
> I faintly remember buying it based solely on the girl on the cover. A thing I wouldn't even consider nowadays!
> View attachment 39179


I have that very same copy! Not read it yet tho


----------



## Parson (Sep 13, 2017)

AE35Unit said:


> I have that very same copy! Not read it yet tho



In my opinion one of Heinlein's better works. A lot of memorable scenes.


----------

