Farnham's Freehold

Frankly I am SHOCKED at the poor reviews this book recieves. There are two MINOR complaints I have about this book, one that the son's acceptance of his castration is a little too easy, could have had 2 or 3 sentences that would have made this more believable, either to set him up as a yes man (where he would do anything to get ahead) wich he did not seem to be; or to have him willing to do anything to be with mommy and make her happy (wich he was not when it came to talking about her drug problem etc). The second minor complaint that I have is that I think the sign at the end of the book could have had more impact and shown the moral of the story or what the characters learned through their experiences more. Such as: books for barter was good but it should have listed other things wich would have underlined the story such as labor/work (underlying theme is that labor is virtue and sloth is evil), Training (self improvement is stressed, the value of knowledge), Durable goods (items saved from pre apocolipse = forthought and planning, Items manufactured post apocolipse = labor and skills) etc. Keep the bridge lessons as a insider joke but they could have had something about Be nice or leave- no intolorance will be tolorated etc to underline the anti racism message. I just feel like he diddnt wrap it all up in a nice polished way and that it was a missed oppertunity. Ok now onto the positives. This book is not racist. If you think it is you are completely missing the whole point and I kind of wonder if you really read the whole book. Im going to refute things in list form since there are so many points and they overlap. people have claimed Racism because- 1. The Dark skinned overlords are Cannibals. Cannibalism was practiced worldwide in history, and often by caucasians. Look it up in Wikipedia. Not to mention that Cannibalism is sprinkled throughout european mythology. So Yes cannibalism is a metaphor for barbarianism (no pun intended barbary pirates) but that is not nessicarily African or dark skinned barbarism and to assume that they are cannibals BECAUSE they are black is the readers being racist and missing the authors non racist point. He is showing how the Slaves are being treated as livestock. Eating them only drives this point home. Yes its shock value, but frankly its a shock the story needs so that people dont think to themselves "hey, true they arent free men (and women) but is it really so bad? The protagonist starts out (when he is captured) thinking "Ill just play allong for now..." and as things progressively get worse he thinks "ok this is bad but I should bide my time" untill he see's the furthest extreme wich is the cannibalism that shows how he is not just viewed as chattel but as cattle; thats when he finally thinks "I gotta get outta here no matter what happens... death is better than this!" We can accept castration as a outrageous but believable cultural norm for this society, why is everyone so outraged that the autho

It's been close to 30 years since I first read Farnham's Freehold, and I've read it once or twice since then. Don't get too wound up in "liking" Farnham; he's a bastard, you're not gonna like him. Heinlein just went through a libertarian period, and this is the result of that. The message isn't "only the strong survive, and screw everyone else", I got out of it "We make our own choices, and a responsible adult lives with the consequences of those choice and isn't a big crybaby when things go bad". Don't get me wrong, I'm not an insane libertarian (more of a Green Party/Ralph Nader sympathizer), just read it with an open mind, and not through the PC filter of today.

Clearly one of the most controversial novels by Robert A. Heinlein (author of Starship Troopers, Space Cadet, Stranger In A Strange Land, The Puppet Masters, etc.), pushing the envelope of political correctness a quarter of a century before that phrase was coined. A typical American family is plunged into the future in a nuclear attack - bomb shelter and all. Survivalism is just the beginning of this engrossing novel; the strange society they discover in the future challenges the reader's sense of decency and tolerance. A short version of this novel, as cut and revised by Frederik Pohl, appeared in Worlds of If Magazine, 1964. It's easy to see why Pohl censored it; this is the full text. But to call Heinlein racist absurdly ignores his whole body of work - some 30 other novels. This novel explores ideas - including cannibalism; but no one has called the author a cannibal.

Is this science-fiction's most contraversial novel? I'm not sure if I could call it that, there's plenty here to raise eyebrows but I can probably think of three or four SF books that exacted the "contraversial" feeling from me more than this book. It's typical Heinlein and if you just left it at that, longtime Heinlein fans would probably know exactly what I was talking about. For those not so blessed, let me explain then. Heinlein generally takes an idea that's a little on the edgy side (here blacks taking over the world after the whites wipe themselves out) and runs with it, having his characters functioning as little more than mouthpieces arguing his points over and over. If you're into it, you'll forget the lack of extensive plotting and delve into the idea . . . if not then you've got a hard road in front of you. Farnham and his family take cover in a fallout shelter to avoid a nuclear war . . . the resulting war somehow propels them two thousand years into the future where the Chosen race (guess who?) has taken over and all light skinned folks are used as slaves (among other things, but you'll discover that when you read the book) . . . Farnham gets dropped into this and being the practical self made man that he is, adapts himself while thinking of ways to get out, while Joseph, a young black man who worked for him, sees little problem is taking advantage of the situation, while remaining essentially decent (sort of a "shoe is on the other foot thing" but Heinlein wisely stays away from too much of that line of thinking). They are about the most well rounded characters, though Farnham is a typical Heinlein protagonist, always thinking, uses his wits, an unshakeable core of his own morality, stuff like that. Joseph is much the same way. The women fall into two catagories, either simpering useless wimps (Grace) or mindnumbingly devoted sex kittens, smart and loyal. Right. Some of the stuff shown here will definitely make you wonder how much he believed in and how much was pure shock value (and it wouldn't be a Heinlein book without a discussion on sex, this time revolving around incest, but I'll let you discover that one for yourself) but overall it's a swift tale that contains a bunch of ideas that are worth thinking over, mostly how slavery is bad no matter who does it, among other things. Gear yourself up for it before you read it, because he's not going to make it easy, keep your head above water and you'll make it through, it is a strong novel and not one of his absolute best but maybe strong enough to make the second tier of greats.

Reading other reviews of FF surprised me by showing RAH "fans" that didn't understand the concept of "lifeboat rules". In a lifeboat, there has to be one captain who imposes STRICT discipline for the group to maximize its chances for survival. There isn't time for democracy. AFTER the action slowed down, Hugh's "bullying" stopped. Hmmm. . . RAH looks at the REAL bottom line - survival. ALL political and economic ideologies, rights, etc. MUST take a back seat during times when the fertilizer hits the fan. I do not recall RAH saying Hugh bedding Barbara was for the good of the world. He DID say that, given the number of people involved, one more set of genetic material increased the group's chances of survival. IT DID! Even a cursory study of genetics will demonstrate this to be factual.