>>I've tried to resist commenting on this post, in case you might think I'm poking fun at you, but - you do realize "Tunnel in the Sky" (I'm assuming that's the work you're referring to) is a work of fiction?<<

Hmm. Ok.. how, exactly, am I supposed to take that otherwise, again? I mean, poking fun at me is fine, but you seem to indicate that instead of taking it that way, I'm supposed to take your question seriously.

Ok.. well, lessee here... teleportation to distant planets, alien creatures, future society pretty different from our own. Yup, I'd hazard a guess that it's fiction, all right.

Is that better?

Now, I've met some folks who discount any ideas that come from fiction, and one or two that refused to read it at all. Their prerogative, of course, but personally, I think that it leads to a narrow viewpoint. Fiction, especially Science Fiction, is where society brainstorms new ideas, where it tries them out for size and sees which ones it might want to adopt. The novel "Kings of the High Frontier", about a private space effort, seemed like pretty wild speculation just a few years ago... and was ridiculed.

But, to each their own.

As for him being an "authoritative reference"- of course not, at least by background.. but perhaps you're familiar with the "ad hominum" fallacy? It's really not valid to attack a line of reasoning by attacking the person who puts it forth, at least where it may be judged independently. In an extreme example, it is not valid to state that a mathematical equation must be false because the person who came up with it lacks an advanced degree in a related field. The equation, like an author's ideas, can be judged on it's own merit, and should be. I doubt there's an interesting author in the history of literature who's background is immune to criticism. Mark Twain was apparently a deserter, Mary Shelly was hardly a qualified science writer, somehow or other they've both managed to have some influence anyway. More, I'd dare to guess, than "qualified" writers of their times.

Generations of readers have now found much of value in Heinlein's work as well... but you're free not to.

As for scantily-clad women, that was so much a feature of SF in the 40's and 50's as to be a common cliche. It was certainly an artifact of it's time. I don't find it an indictment of the genre, or a particular author's work per se, though it seems that you're trying to frame it that way... but if it offends your moral or religious principles, then, by all means- be offended, I don't mind a bit. <img src="/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />