Entry tags:

author entitlement, books/authors, do your research, i know it because of my learnings, not good with criticism, sci-fi people like to fight, writers are often pompous douches

When academic bunfighting meets NERD RAGE we all win.
The first volume of William H. Patterson's biography of Robert Heinlein is released today, but the scuffle over it is already a week old.

This is approximately the millionth Heinlein biography to hit the shelves, so perhaps it is a bit difficult to see why it matters, but this underestimates the devotion of Heinlein nerds. Jo Walton, (papersky) published a review on Tor.com, in which although she says some nice things, she concludes:

Patterson’s biography is also riddled with tiny insignificant errors of the kind that make me lose trust. [...] If I can’t trust Patterson on details that I know backwards and forwards and inside out, how can I trust him on matters that are new to me?

A reasonable doubt!



In rides DocJames: "this book contains NO errors concerning Heinlein", although it "may have a few minor details wrong," and this bad review is "criminal."

DocJames is particularly insistent that the book has reproduced the primary documents accurately, although he does admit the primary documentation may have errors.

Asks vicki: I am not at all sure what you mean by "the Heinlein materials are utterly reliable...so long as one realizes that error may be in them to begin with." I assume this isn't the oxymoron of "they're reliable except when they're not."

Carlos Skullsplitter brings up two errors which he feels are not minor: the biographer appears to have confused the battles on Iwo Jima with events on Okinawa, and has attributed to Heinlein a disease which does not appear to exist.

DocJames dismisses these: He's talked with the author: the imaginary disease is in the primary sources, and that's good enough for him!

Then the author himself, Bill Patterson shows up! There is no way this can possibly go wrong!

Sez Patterson, there is no Okinawa/Iwo Jima confusion, since nothing of the sort is mentioned in his book! As for the imaginary disease, medical terminology was fluid back then, and if he failed to go into this, "This was a judgment call not about a fact, but about what did and did not require further explication."

Another commenter: There may be teeeeeeny-tiny errors, but the book is extensively footnoted. If the disease name may be different now, that's a question for the history of medicine, not history of Heinlein!

Mr. Skullsplitter, (if I have a teeny-tiny crush on him, it's partly due to his name,) points out that Heinlein's nonexistent disease appears nowhere else in the history of medicine, and if Heinlein suffered from a brand-new disease, that's, to say the least, interesting. Alternately, "it strikes me as plausible that a promising young naval officer with gonorrhea might be diagnosed with a similar-looking organism in order not to have a stain on his record. I can think of stranger things the Navy has done for its people." Possibly relevant in a Heinlein bio?

But no! Why can't people see the important thing: Patterson correctly reproduced the name on the medical paperwork!

James Nicoll shows up to helpfully provide the author with the Iwo Jima reference which slipped his mind. Whoops! Looks like it's actually in the book, which Patterson admits.

DocJames responds to Señor Skullsplitter, charitably admitting he may have a point, which has he considered submitting as an article?

As for the issues of veracity and due diligence, when one looks at the official medical record, one does not often go and research things any further, because the presumption is that the official records are correct, unless one has reason to doubt that record. [...] My sense at reading the biography, which I have done periodically since the earliest stages, is that the author extensively researched every thread that needed explication. The documentation from the Heinlein archives is thorough and exhaustive; there is, with one minor exception, not a single assertion about Heinlein's life that is not grounded and cited. The one minor exception was omitted by accident, but the reference exists.

This is called scholarship.

Also, although Patterson asserts that Heinlein "would have" met Edna St. Vincent Millay, "this was written in the subjunctive tense," so you can't criticize it.

He is eventually brought to admit that Okinawa is not, in fact, Iwo Jima, but still, Patterson is basically right: "These are, in my opinion, minor and unrelated to the veracity of the life story of Heinlein. [...] the Japanese willingness to die is the same."

You may be beginning to wonder why DocJames is defending Patterson's work so diligently. Well, "This is a very important book, and highly readable and informative. There has never been a two-volume biography of any SF author, excepting H.G. Wells, to the best of my knowledge. This is, to be succinct, ground-breaking." TWO VOLUMES, you guys!

DocJames just fell victim to the classic blunder: never get involved in a nerd-fight on Tor.com!

"The best of your knowledge is somewhat lacking, I fear. A quick check reveals "Edgar Rice Burroughs: The Man Who Created Tarzan" by Irwin Porges (ISBN-10: 0345251318)" He included the ISBN! Oh, snap! (Alan Bellingham)

Only slightly less well known is this: Never go in against a grammarian when tense is on the line:

If I may, the term "subjunctive tense" is used incorrectly. It has a technical meaning in grammar, and the given quotation is definitely not in the subjunctive mood (which is not a tense). Nor does the subjunctive mood express the flavor of a time and place; it is used counterfactually.

(swoons a bit at correct definition of subjunctive.)

It's all cooled down quite a bit as of writing, with Patterson thanking commenters for catching his errors, but who knows what will happen if DocJames returns.