What do you think?
Rate this book
O Mundo que Nos Espera
Farnham's Freehold
Hugh Farnham was a practical, self-made man and when he saw the clouds of nuclear war gathering, he built a bomb shelter under his house. What he hadn't expected was that when the apocalypse came, a thermonuclear blast would tear apart the fabric of time and hurl his shelter into a world with no sign of other human beings.
304 pages, Paperback
First published November 1, 1964
About the author
Robert A. Heinlein
840 books9,663 followersRobert Anson Heinlein was an American science fiction author, aeronautical engineer, and naval officer. Sometimes called the "dean of science fiction writers", he was among the first to emphasize scientific accuracy in his fiction, and was thus a pioneer of the subgenre of hard science fiction. His published works, both fiction and non-fiction, express admiration for competence and emphasize the value of critical thinking. His plots often posed provocative situations which challenged conventional social mores. His work continues to have an influence on the science-fiction genre, and on modern culture more generally.
Heinlein became one of the first American science-fiction writers to break into mainstream magazines such as The Saturday Evening Post in the late 1940s. He was one of the best-selling science-fiction novelists for many decades, and he, Isaac Asimov, and Arthur C. Clarke are often considered the "Big Three" of English-language science fiction authors. Notable Heinlein works include Stranger in a Strange Land, Starship Troopers (which helped mold the space marine and mecha archetypes) and The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress. His work sometimes had controversial aspects, such as plural marriage in The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress, militarism in Starship Troopers and technologically competent women characters who were formidable, yet often stereotypically feminine—such as Friday.
Heinlein used his science fiction as a way to explore provocative social and political ideas and to speculate how progress in science and engineering might shape the future of politics, race, religion, and sex. Within the framework of his science-fiction stories, Heinlein repeatedly addressed certain social themes: the importance of individual liberty and self-reliance, the nature of sexual relationships, the obligation individuals owe to their societies, the influence of organized religion on culture and government, and the tendency of society to repress nonconformist thought. He also speculated on the influence of space travel on human cultural practices.
Heinlein was named the first Science Fiction Writers Grand Master in 1974. Four of his novels won Hugo Awards. In addition, fifty years after publication, seven of his works were awarded "Retro Hugos"—awards given retrospectively for works that were published before the Hugo Awards came into existence. In his fiction, Heinlein coined terms that have become part of the English language, including grok, waldo and speculative fiction, as well as popularizing existing terms like "TANSTAAFL", "pay it forward", and "space marine". He also anticipated mechanical computer-aided design with "Drafting Dan" and described a modern version of a waterbed in his novel Beyond This Horizon.
Also wrote under Pen names: Anson McDonald, Lyle Monroe, Caleb Saunders, John Riverside and Simon York.
Heinlein became one of the first American science-fiction writers to break into mainstream magazines such as The Saturday Evening Post in the late 1940s. He was one of the best-selling science-fiction novelists for many decades, and he, Isaac Asimov, and Arthur C. Clarke are often considered the "Big Three" of English-language science fiction authors. Notable Heinlein works include Stranger in a Strange Land, Starship Troopers (which helped mold the space marine and mecha archetypes) and The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress. His work sometimes had controversial aspects, such as plural marriage in The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress, militarism in Starship Troopers and technologically competent women characters who were formidable, yet often stereotypically feminine—such as Friday.
Heinlein used his science fiction as a way to explore provocative social and political ideas and to speculate how progress in science and engineering might shape the future of politics, race, religion, and sex. Within the framework of his science-fiction stories, Heinlein repeatedly addressed certain social themes: the importance of individual liberty and self-reliance, the nature of sexual relationships, the obligation individuals owe to their societies, the influence of organized religion on culture and government, and the tendency of society to repress nonconformist thought. He also speculated on the influence of space travel on human cultural practices.
Heinlein was named the first Science Fiction Writers Grand Master in 1974. Four of his novels won Hugo Awards. In addition, fifty years after publication, seven of his works were awarded "Retro Hugos"—awards given retrospectively for works that were published before the Hugo Awards came into existence. In his fiction, Heinlein coined terms that have become part of the English language, including grok, waldo and speculative fiction, as well as popularizing existing terms like "TANSTAAFL", "pay it forward", and "space marine". He also anticipated mechanical computer-aided design with "Drafting Dan" and described a modern version of a waterbed in his novel Beyond This Horizon.
Also wrote under Pen names: Anson McDonald, Lyle Monroe, Caleb Saunders, John Riverside and Simon York.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 482 reviews
March 16, 2009
Bridge-playing libertarian type gets hit by nuclear weapon and ends up in future world where whites are enslaved by blacks.
Well, you can see why I gave up playing bridge.
Well, you can see why I gave up playing bridge.
May 31, 2019
I read an overly simplified summary of this book that went something like this: libertarian veteran saves family in fallout shelter, gets moved forward in time 2,000 years, goes into survivalist mode and then runs into an advanced civilization where black people are the chosen race and who rule over a racially determined slave system.
Succinct.
This could have been shortened, reducing the first half with all the survivalist development, moving faster to the more interesting second half when the protagonists run into the chosen. Heinlein took a lot of heat for this obvious allegory, but critics should remember that this was written in 1964 and he did take on some controversial issues; not just racism, but also sexism, alcoholism, drug addiction, and traditional family mores.
Like Lazarus Long and Jubal Harshaw, in Hugh Farnham Heinlein has created a character who is an alter ego for himself and a vehicle by which he can espouse his libertarian and, in some respects, contrarian philosophies.
This book was very influential, but Heinlein’s influence by H.G. Wells is also obvious as he borrowed heavily from The Time Machine. Not one of his best, but still pretty good.
Succinct.
This could have been shortened, reducing the first half with all the survivalist development, moving faster to the more interesting second half when the protagonists run into the chosen. Heinlein took a lot of heat for this obvious allegory, but critics should remember that this was written in 1964 and he did take on some controversial issues; not just racism, but also sexism, alcoholism, drug addiction, and traditional family mores.
Like Lazarus Long and Jubal Harshaw, in Hugh Farnham Heinlein has created a character who is an alter ego for himself and a vehicle by which he can espouse his libertarian and, in some respects, contrarian philosophies.
This book was very influential, but Heinlein’s influence by H.G. Wells is also obvious as he borrowed heavily from The Time Machine. Not one of his best, but still pretty good.
May 3, 2013
I'm giving this two stars because I can't give 1.5 and because even worse books like Glory Road deserve the one--or an explicit zero, which unfortunately is not an option. This, however, is pretty bad. Hugh Farnham, right-thinking patriot, is ready for the bombs when they fall, what with his amazingly well-equipped bomb shelter, so even though for no logical reason whatsoever the bombs throw his shelter (along with his family and a couple more hangers-on) forward in time, he's ready to survive, if only he can get everyone else to follow along after his lead, enforced by a gun yet laughably still called democracy. About the first half of the book tracks their survivalist phase alone in this future world, replete with unbelievable caricatures of Farnham's alcoholic wife, weak-minded commie pinko liberal son, and a daughter who not only accepts that the continuation of the species depends on incest but also eagerly calls dibs on dad, which takes the ick factor to about 11. First of all, that there would be no debate or discussion whatsoever on whether even trying to propagate the species with a gene pool of fewer than ten people is wise seems unlikely. The complete dismissal of the incest taboo is simply beyond unlikely and laughable, except insofar as it serves Heinlein's apparent intent to shock (and apparent thing about incest, since it comes up a lot in his work). And THIS is the good part of the book, relatively speaking!
Then, halfway through, the book takes an abrupt turn into social satire (one wishes the first part could be seen as a satire of fascist lunatics, but I doubt that's the case), as we find that there is in fact a future society, governed by blacks who enslave whites, neuter white males, take the women as concubines, and practice cannibalism. Hey, why not? We've already ruled out incest as worth any debate. Farnham manages to get into the ruler's good graces, keep his testicles and ultimately escape, leaving his son and wife to their fates among the cannibals (but taking a hot young tomato with him, natch), managing to return to the "past," albeit now an alternate-world past where the fallout shelter doesn't get thrown into the future but instead stays in a post-apocalyptic America, bravely flying Old Glory over Farnham's Freehold. In short, the book can't make up its mind whether it's a survivalist story, a time travel story, an alternate world story, a post-holocaust story, and/or a social satire. Furthermore, Hugh Farnham is the most loathsome Heinlein protagonist I've encountered, which admittedly isn't saying much, since I don't like most of what I've read by him so have kept my intake down. But, since most of his protagonists (in th ebooks I've read, anyway) are dicks, this is still saying something. This book's hectoring tone is hard to take even by Heinleinian standards, though; Hugh fairly clearly is Heinlein's mouthpiece in the book, and he never frickin' shuts up. I wish I could believe it's supposed to be a deadpan satire, but even if it were, the joke would wear more than thin by the end. Painful.
Then, halfway through, the book takes an abrupt turn into social satire (one wishes the first part could be seen as a satire of fascist lunatics, but I doubt that's the case), as we find that there is in fact a future society, governed by blacks who enslave whites, neuter white males, take the women as concubines, and practice cannibalism. Hey, why not? We've already ruled out incest as worth any debate. Farnham manages to get into the ruler's good graces, keep his testicles and ultimately escape, leaving his son and wife to their fates among the cannibals (but taking a hot young tomato with him, natch), managing to return to the "past," albeit now an alternate-world past where the fallout shelter doesn't get thrown into the future but instead stays in a post-apocalyptic America, bravely flying Old Glory over Farnham's Freehold. In short, the book can't make up its mind whether it's a survivalist story, a time travel story, an alternate world story, a post-holocaust story, and/or a social satire. Furthermore, Hugh Farnham is the most loathsome Heinlein protagonist I've encountered, which admittedly isn't saying much, since I don't like most of what I've read by him so have kept my intake down. But, since most of his protagonists (in th ebooks I've read, anyway) are dicks, this is still saying something. This book's hectoring tone is hard to take even by Heinleinian standards, though; Hugh fairly clearly is Heinlein's mouthpiece in the book, and he never frickin' shuts up. I wish I could believe it's supposed to be a deadpan satire, but even if it were, the joke would wear more than thin by the end. Painful.
October 25, 2023
Farnham's Freehold is one of Heinlein's most neglected novels from his middle period, not as well-received or remembered as his other 1960s books: Glory Road, the iconic pair of Stranger in a Strange Land and The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, or his final juvenile, Podkayne of Mars. It's got some problematic elements that struck me this time that didn't bother me on my first reading way-back-when, but I enjoyed it and think it's still a worthwhile book. It's a stand-alone, not part of his famous future history sequence, and is much more political and philosophic than his earlier works. It's essentially a two-part story, the first half being a survivalist manual in the wake of an atomic war, and the second a Libertarian examination of racism and freedom. There's a deus-ex-machina element of time travel that's sort of silly (spoiler: the bombs blew them into the future), and the book has far too much bridge playing. There are several references that have dated poorly; I had to look up Chic Sales, for example. I've read several reviews that pillory the book for being racist and sexist, but I believe that his intent was to show the inherent evil, waste, and illogic of those prejudices. (His ideas about incest are indefensible.) Remember the book was published before the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed and Heinlein didn't have any children. (Though his description of the death of daughter Karen is grueling and anguished.) It struck me that his ideas on how to run a fallout shelter like a lifeboat were repeated many years later in The Number of the Beast (and, of course, The Pursuit of the Pankera.) As several biographers have observed, Farnham separating from his old wife and getting a new one parallel Heinlein's own experience, as does the construction of the bomb shelter. Heinlein was a great storyteller, and a great thinker, and it's great that his work is still being studied and discussed so many years after his death. There's no doubt that he was convinced that the ideas he presented were accurate, though I can't agree with some of them. (For example, pets should be spayed or neutered, despite what he says.)
May 26, 2018
Like Glory Road, this is almost 2 books. The first one focuses on the Cold War, an atomic attack, & then a survival story. I liked it a lot. RAH actually managed some subtlety with his characters at times. They weren't all perfect & some of the imperfections were well used later in the book. For instance, Karen's perfection was marred by her aping black slave speech that was common to older movies of the time & it's brought up later to great advantage.
It's at least partially autobiographical since RAH was in the Navy & he had a bomb shelter. So does Hugh Farnham. A lot of the ideas on religion & politics seem the same, too. IOW, the same older Heinlein lead character like Lazarus & Jubal. Barbara is a younger, female version - Hazel in her prime. Still, Joe & Duke were both far better & more complex than normal.
I doubt younger folks will understand how well the whole bomb shelter & imminent nuclear war setup was done. I heard conversations similar to those early on in the book debating the worth of bomb shelters, how preparedness talk worried people, & a lot of people had radios tuned for emergency broadcasts. The way Hugh commanded things was high-handed & completely believable for the time & characters. While he wasn't perfect, at least he kept it from becoming a mess like The Shelter, a fantastic Twilight Zone episode. Reading this was a real blast from the past that I'm glad is gone. Sure, we have terrorism today, but that seems less likely to roast the entire planet in a few minutes. It was a nervous time.
While RAH was quite progressive in his ideas on race & sex, he's pretty heavy-handed with them for the most part. Very good for the times, not so hot 50 years later to a younger crowd that doesn't realize how much things have changed. For its time, I think this did a wonderful job pointing out some issues. Joe's extreme shyness of the girls was well done. It becomes obvious that it's both because of the mores of the time as well as his race. For all that 3 of them show no racial prejudice, it's still there.
Then they're found & it's a whole other book. The tone & themes change. He went too far with the cannibalism & the creation of the society isn't believable, but otherwise did a pretty good job with showing how power corrupts with Joe & the dangers of temporary security with Grace & Duke. The end is kind of fun, but would fit better in a comic book.
The biggest thread I had an issue with was the damn cats, but I've never cared for them much & the way he treated them has caused far too many issues. Feral cats are a huge issue, so his no spay or neuter policy is awful.
This is the wrong edition. Mine is a 1992 (I think) cassette I got from my library & ripped into a file many years ago, but I don't recall listening to it before. It's a Baen edition for the Blind. Well narrated.
It's at least partially autobiographical since RAH was in the Navy & he had a bomb shelter. So does Hugh Farnham. A lot of the ideas on religion & politics seem the same, too. IOW, the same older Heinlein lead character like Lazarus & Jubal. Barbara is a younger, female version - Hazel in her prime. Still, Joe & Duke were both far better & more complex than normal.
I doubt younger folks will understand how well the whole bomb shelter & imminent nuclear war setup was done. I heard conversations similar to those early on in the book debating the worth of bomb shelters, how preparedness talk worried people, & a lot of people had radios tuned for emergency broadcasts. The way Hugh commanded things was high-handed & completely believable for the time & characters. While he wasn't perfect, at least he kept it from becoming a mess like The Shelter, a fantastic Twilight Zone episode. Reading this was a real blast from the past that I'm glad is gone. Sure, we have terrorism today, but that seems less likely to roast the entire planet in a few minutes. It was a nervous time.
While RAH was quite progressive in his ideas on race & sex, he's pretty heavy-handed with them for the most part. Very good for the times, not so hot 50 years later to a younger crowd that doesn't realize how much things have changed. For its time, I think this did a wonderful job pointing out some issues. Joe's extreme shyness of the girls was well done. It becomes obvious that it's both because of the mores of the time as well as his race. For all that 3 of them show no racial prejudice, it's still there.
Then they're found & it's a whole other book. The tone & themes change. He went too far with the cannibalism & the creation of the society isn't believable, but otherwise did a pretty good job with showing how power corrupts with Joe & the dangers of temporary security with Grace & Duke. The end is kind of fun, but would fit better in a comic book.
The biggest thread I had an issue with was the damn cats, but I've never cared for them much & the way he treated them has caused far too many issues. Feral cats are a huge issue, so his no spay or neuter policy is awful.
This is the wrong edition. Mine is a 1992 (I think) cassette I got from my library & ripped into a file many years ago, but I don't recall listening to it before. It's a Baen edition for the Blind. Well narrated.
April 27, 2007
My Heinlein phase is continuing.
If you are easily offended by your views (or societies givens) being challenged or called into question Heinlein is not an author for you.
Heinlein is probably the best author that I have found in the Science Fiction category. His futuristic worlds provide an excellent commentary of our current social life as well as remarkable insight into the human psyche. His characters are multi-dimensional and some of his best characters are very strong women. He writes women remarkably well in my opinion.
Most of the best novels that I have read are his later works. He had some bubble gum novels during the beginning of his writing career and they are entertaining (but not nearly so memorable).
This particular book has elements of a survivalist novel. It has many sociological discussions about race, government, and religion. I read it two days. Couldn't put it down.
If you are easily offended by your views (or societies givens) being challenged or called into question Heinlein is not an author for you.
Heinlein is probably the best author that I have found in the Science Fiction category. His futuristic worlds provide an excellent commentary of our current social life as well as remarkable insight into the human psyche. His characters are multi-dimensional and some of his best characters are very strong women. He writes women remarkably well in my opinion.
Most of the best novels that I have read are his later works. He had some bubble gum novels during the beginning of his writing career and they are entertaining (but not nearly so memorable).
This particular book has elements of a survivalist novel. It has many sociological discussions about race, government, and religion. I read it two days. Couldn't put it down.
January 14, 2023
I cannot remember the last time I read this novel by RAH (although GR tells me it was 10 years ago, really ?). Anyway my 1976 corgi SF collectors library edition split in half as I was reading, disappointing as its only 47 years old, what is the world coming to ??
On to more serious topics, this is feeling a little dated ( published 64 so understandable), not just in the technology aspect but also the interpersonal aspects. Some may call it mildly racist, but it was written in a different time to our own, although that is not an excuse, its just that different things were acceptable.
Whether it was or not, this book also feels like it was written on the cusp of what I like to call Heinlein falling off a cliff. I love a lot of his earlier work, hey I started reading it in the early 70s (yes 1970s, I winder if GR will still be going when that comment makes sense ? ), where was I, oh yes. I loved a lot of his early work, the future history stories, both short and the novels, but then he started writing some very (to my mind I hasten to add) strange books. This and I feel Glory Road (one of my favourite books) were on the cusp of his "free love, male superiority, if it moves have sex with it, at least 500 pages per novel " kick.
Don't get me wrong, I still cite RAH as one of my all time favourite authors, having a major influence on the teenage Adrian growing up (along with Asimov, Bradbury, Niven and Wyndham) and this was a fun read, just so well written that the story flows like a smooth river (ooh very poetic !!) And I will read more. Having finally got access to my books I'm catching up on the books I WANT to read. Life is too short to read rubbish !!
On to more serious topics, this is feeling a little dated ( published 64 so understandable), not just in the technology aspect but also the interpersonal aspects. Some may call it mildly racist, but it was written in a different time to our own, although that is not an excuse, its just that different things were acceptable.
Whether it was or not, this book also feels like it was written on the cusp of what I like to call Heinlein falling off a cliff. I love a lot of his earlier work, hey I started reading it in the early 70s (yes 1970s, I winder if GR will still be going when that comment makes sense ? ), where was I, oh yes. I loved a lot of his early work, the future history stories, both short and the novels, but then he started writing some very (to my mind I hasten to add) strange books. This and I feel Glory Road (one of my favourite books) were on the cusp of his "free love, male superiority, if it moves have sex with it, at least 500 pages per novel " kick.
Don't get me wrong, I still cite RAH as one of my all time favourite authors, having a major influence on the teenage Adrian growing up (along with Asimov, Bradbury, Niven and Wyndham) and this was a fun read, just so well written that the story flows like a smooth river (ooh very poetic !!) And I will read more. Having finally got access to my books I'm catching up on the books I WANT to read. Life is too short to read rubbish !!
December 21, 2015
This isn't my favorite book by Heinlein, but it certainly isn't my least favorite (that honor is held by "The Number of the Beast" or "The Cat Who Walks Through Walls"). I give it 4 stars - should be 3.5 - because it has a lot of good ideas running through it, although it isn't as well written as many of his novels. Still, I really liked it as a teen back in the 70's. Like "Stranger in a Strange Land", it hasn't aged as well, though.
Written at the height of the cold war, back before the civil rights movement, he shocks us too much & is as subtle as a brick to the head. The typical American family isn't perfect, uses legal drugs, lusts after women they shouldn't. Worse, he-man Hugh has screwed up his parenting & family responsibilities so badly that his son likes being a mama's boy, better than a hot-blooded, man-of-freedom like his dad.
Whites are so unprepared & pampered that after the big war, blacks control the world with high tech, but they aren't doing much better than anyone else ever had for all their technology. Their society is a back-biting as ours. The table turned severely on the complacent Americans of the 1950s!
It was a lot of fun reading about his bomb shelter & the plans he made for survival. Bomb shelters were a big thing at one time & I believe Heinlein had one himself. The survival thing has recently come back into vogue, but for different reasons & people handle it differently, so that makes for interesting comparisons & contrasts.
Written at the height of the cold war, back before the civil rights movement, he shocks us too much & is as subtle as a brick to the head. The typical American family isn't perfect, uses legal drugs, lusts after women they shouldn't. Worse, he-man Hugh has screwed up his parenting & family responsibilities so badly that his son likes being a mama's boy, better than a hot-blooded, man-of-freedom like his dad.
Whites are so unprepared & pampered that after the big war, blacks control the world with high tech, but they aren't doing much better than anyone else ever had for all their technology. Their society is a back-biting as ours. The table turned severely on the complacent Americans of the 1950s!
It was a lot of fun reading about his bomb shelter & the plans he made for survival. Bomb shelters were a big thing at one time & I believe Heinlein had one himself. The survival thing has recently come back into vogue, but for different reasons & people handle it differently, so that makes for interesting comparisons & contrasts.
March 20, 2015
There aren’t many better recommendations for a book than ‘Sick as a dog but couldn’t put it down’. This is one of those.
It works for survivalists, bridge players, parallel worldists, philosophers, post-catastrophists, cannibals looking for new recipes and anybody with Woody Allen’s tastes.
It’s gotta be a fav of his. Those naked young things in the bunker with the middle-aged unattractive but pizazzy leader, one his daughter. Although his daughter confesses of the three breeding partners available, he’s the only one that does it for her,
rest here:
https://alittleteaalittlechat.wordpre...
It works for survivalists, bridge players, parallel worldists, philosophers, post-catastrophists, cannibals looking for new recipes and anybody with Woody Allen’s tastes.
It’s gotta be a fav of his. Those naked young things in the bunker with the middle-aged unattractive but pizazzy leader, one his daughter. Although his daughter confesses of the three breeding partners available, he’s the only one that does it for her,
rest here:
https://alittleteaalittlechat.wordpre...
February 26, 2015
This book has some notoriety among Heinlein's legions of critics for being a "reverse racism" story in which a group of white people (and their one black house-servant) are blasted thousands of years forward in time by a nuclear war, and find themselves in a future ruled by black overlords, served by an underclass of subservient whites.
Farnham's Freehold is actually not that bad, nor is the narrative message as ham-fisted as I expected; Heinlein was a progressive for his time, and notwithstanding all those people who claim he was a libertarian, less plausibly, a "right-winger," or absurdly, a fascist, he was clearly trying to make a positive statement about freedom, self-determinaton, and racial coexistence. The story is more complex than some of the more inflammatory reviews give it credit for — most of the characters, white and black, are decent by their own standards but flawed in various ways, and no one is made out to be inherently better or villainous by virtue of their race.
That said, it's understandable that a novel written in 1964 about blacks imposing chattel slavery and racial supremacy over whites — and literally ranching them for food — might be seen as a somewhat less than elevating contribution to the genre today.
As a story, this was okay, but not one of Heinlein's best (though certainly not his worst either). Hugh Farnham is a typical Heinleinian omni-capable Everyman, aided and assisted by a typical Heinleinian woman (hot, willing, smart and capable but knows her place and likes it) as they try to escape from the dystopian nightmare they have found themselves in. Actually, as dystopias go, none of the characters in the book are treated particularly badly, a point made repeatedly by their "Charity"/master, and refuted effectively by Farnham when he points out what the "King's Charity" really means. Like most Heinlein novels, there is food for thought here, and a decent amount of adventure, and a lot of nubile fourteen-year-old sex slaves (who the main character of course is too noble to take advantage of).
Interesting but dated, and not what I would recommend to someone new to Heinlein, but if you like his other, better works, Farnham's Freehold will probably entertain you.
Farnham's Freehold is actually not that bad, nor is the narrative message as ham-fisted as I expected; Heinlein was a progressive for his time, and notwithstanding all those people who claim he was a libertarian, less plausibly, a "right-winger," or absurdly, a fascist, he was clearly trying to make a positive statement about freedom, self-determinaton, and racial coexistence. The story is more complex than some of the more inflammatory reviews give it credit for — most of the characters, white and black, are decent by their own standards but flawed in various ways, and no one is made out to be inherently better or villainous by virtue of their race.
That said, it's understandable that a novel written in 1964 about blacks imposing chattel slavery and racial supremacy over whites — and literally ranching them for food — might be seen as a somewhat less than elevating contribution to the genre today.
As a story, this was okay, but not one of Heinlein's best (though certainly not his worst either). Hugh Farnham is a typical Heinleinian omni-capable Everyman, aided and assisted by a typical Heinleinian woman (hot, willing, smart and capable but knows her place and likes it) as they try to escape from the dystopian nightmare they have found themselves in. Actually, as dystopias go, none of the characters in the book are treated particularly badly, a point made repeatedly by their "Charity"/master, and refuted effectively by Farnham when he points out what the "King's Charity" really means. Like most Heinlein novels, there is food for thought here, and a decent amount of adventure, and a lot of nubile fourteen-year-old sex slaves (who the main character of course is too noble to take advantage of).
Interesting but dated, and not what I would recommend to someone new to Heinlein, but if you like his other, better works, Farnham's Freehold will probably entertain you.
June 16, 2022
Gross, racist, inappropriate and very, very dated. The women characters are insulting and his labeling of Black people as cannibals is racist.
Especially considering the fact white men absolutely were cannibals during chattel slavery, a fact rarely discussed in the history of slavery and one I presume this author didn't know.
Do read The Delectable Negro: Human Consumption and Homoeroticism within U.S. Slave Culture by Vincent Woodard and discover just how wrong and insulting this novel is.
West Africans in the middle ages often didn't eat milk based products so the idea that they would eat human flesh is highly insulting and a common colonial myth.
This was published in 1964, the same year as the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. So clearly Heinlein was painfully racist as well as sexist. This is what Heinlein was imagining during the Civil Rights Movement.
What a sick fuck.
Especially considering the fact white men absolutely were cannibals during chattel slavery, a fact rarely discussed in the history of slavery and one I presume this author didn't know.
Do read The Delectable Negro: Human Consumption and Homoeroticism within U.S. Slave Culture by Vincent Woodard and discover just how wrong and insulting this novel is.
West Africans in the middle ages often didn't eat milk based products so the idea that they would eat human flesh is highly insulting and a common colonial myth.
This was published in 1964, the same year as the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. So clearly Heinlein was painfully racist as well as sexist. This is what Heinlein was imagining during the Civil Rights Movement.
What a sick fuck.
May 19, 2018
The author is a GENIUS, every bit as good as Stranger in a Strange Land.
I have plans on rereading this book in a few months after the mega trip of knowledge sinks in a little for a deeper insight-the man was years ahead of his time
Plan on rereading this agin
I have plans on rereading this book in a few months after the mega trip of knowledge sinks in a little for a deeper insight-the man was years ahead of his time
Plan on rereading this agin
April 29, 2012
Wow. I've read a lot of books in my day--probably over a 1000--but I've never read a book that dovertailed into being utter garbage like Farnham's Freehold did. It starts off so well until the big twist (Which I'm not really spoiling since it's the only real attraction of this book at this point--blacks are in control of whites). Given that this book was published in the 60s, this would have been huge and inflammatory. Today, it's all hampered by crummy sci-fi elements that are utterly laughable and embarrassing. And here's the thing. The book is so promising until this element occurs. The story regarding the family trying to survive in the future after a bomb sent them hurtling into the future is magnificently done. But when the "Chosen" people arrive, it all goes downhill.
Now, I'm black myself, and I just couldn't take this book. Not because I felt like it was racist (Or sexist, as many people say), but just because it's too out there for its own good. It was going so well and then, it just dives straight down into the crapper. Don't read this book. I know what you might have heard about it, but don't. Just don't. It's not worth it. You'll be better off for it.
Now, I'm black myself, and I just couldn't take this book. Not because I felt like it was racist (Or sexist, as many people say), but just because it's too out there for its own good. It was going so well and then, it just dives straight down into the crapper. Don't read this book. I know what you might have heard about it, but don't. Just don't. It's not worth it. You'll be better off for it.
April 1, 2022
Even having read this book before several times, it still blew my socks off. Heinlein's deep look at racism, his typically brilliant characters and one of the cases where he didn't lose interest in his plot all dovetail in a great book.
2016: Probably this is one of the books that stimulated the best conversations with kids when we read it. They really latched on to the ideas of racism and slavery as seen in the book. It was so brilliant of Heinlein not only to have blacks lording over whites in his alternate world, but to have them be kind, gentle and generous. It is easy to hate whip-cracking, evil overlords, but the message is so much more profound watching the distinction between our protagonists who accept and come to like their new benevolent masters, and our heroes who struggle against it, despite their special treatment, fighting to be free at any cost.
Read this one with your kids!
2016: Probably this is one of the books that stimulated the best conversations with kids when we read it. They really latched on to the ideas of racism and slavery as seen in the book. It was so brilliant of Heinlein not only to have blacks lording over whites in his alternate world, but to have them be kind, gentle and generous. It is easy to hate whip-cracking, evil overlords, but the message is so much more profound watching the distinction between our protagonists who accept and come to like their new benevolent masters, and our heroes who struggle against it, despite their special treatment, fighting to be free at any cost.
Read this one with your kids!
June 9, 2013
Farnham's Freehold is #6 on my list of All Time Favorite Science Fiction Novels. Number six. I probably reread this novel about every three years. Heinlein was clearly having a lot of fun while he wrote it, and that shows. Copyright 1964. Structurally, it's cleaner than Stranger in a Strange Land; although it lacks the brilliance of the first half of Stranger.
My favorite part is the love story between the old guy and his son's date. I probably like that too much.
Nuclear War. Time Travel. Fascinating family dynamics. A future where the power hierarchy is completely restructured.
There is some "racial stuff" going on that will probably piss off people obsessed with political correctness. But I like the way Heinlein handled it.
Do you like to play Bridge?
@hg47
(And yes, I am guilty of stealing from Heinlein's Farnham's Freehold and sticking background bits into one of my own novels. Can I call it "tribute?")
⥨
⥨✹⥨
⥨✹⨠✹⥨
⥨✹⥨
⥨
Update
June 8, 2013
8:37 PM
I seem to be temporarily fixated on FARNHAM'S FREEHOLD reviews. My favorite review, so far, is this one by Adrienne Martini:
http://www.bookslut.com/specfic_flooz...
She won me over completely when she wrote: "Almost every writer has taken a swing at the sneakiness of time and how it pads about on little kitten feet."
My favorite part is the love story between the old guy and his son's date. I probably like that too much.
Nuclear War. Time Travel. Fascinating family dynamics. A future where the power hierarchy is completely restructured.
There is some "racial stuff" going on that will probably piss off people obsessed with political correctness. But I like the way Heinlein handled it.
Do you like to play Bridge?
@hg47
(And yes, I am guilty of stealing from Heinlein's Farnham's Freehold and sticking background bits into one of my own novels. Can I call it "tribute?")
⥨
⥨✹⥨
⥨✹⨠✹⥨
⥨✹⥨
⥨
Update
June 8, 2013
8:37 PM
I seem to be temporarily fixated on FARNHAM'S FREEHOLD reviews. My favorite review, so far, is this one by Adrienne Martini:
http://www.bookslut.com/specfic_flooz...
She won me over completely when she wrote: "Almost every writer has taken a swing at the sneakiness of time and how it pads about on little kitten feet."
May 18, 2015
Everything I can say is a spoiler. When I picked up the book, I knew nothing about it. And everything about it was surprising. So, I'll hide my review from those that do not want the surprise to be spoiled. Those who have read it, go ahed.
July 24, 2012
Farnham’s Freehold was copyrighted in 1964 by Robert A. Heinlein and published that same year by G. P. Putnam’s Sons of New York. Initially set in the time in which it was written, at the height of the Cold War, in typical Heinlein fashion, this book starts off with a bang as the main character, Hugh Farnham and his family were blasted 2000 years into the future by a Russian atomic bomb. They survived the event because Hugh had the foresight to build a bomb shelter under his home. How the family adapted to this strange new world of the future constitutes the bulk of the novel.
Staying alive was their first priority and Hugh packed the shelter with everything he thought they would need to live after a nuclear war. But once in the event, it turned out that they needed to improvise-and some of their improvisations were quite ingenious. For example, Heinlein described how they constructed an irrigation canal using a homemade transit of the type employed by the ancient Egyptians to ensure the proper slope; and, how they lined it with clay tiles similar to what the Romans used in their aqueducts. Their 250 ton steel re-enforced concrete bomb shelter had been tilted on an angle by the bomb blast. Using tools and techniques first developed by the ancient Egyptians to erect their monuments, the Farnhams were able to re-level the heavy structure without any power equipment.
Compounding the practical problems, Hugh had to deal with conflicts within the family. In addition to his wife, Grace, Hugh had two children: Duke, his grown son and Karen his college age daughter. There were also two others who were not actually blood relatives: Barbara, a friend of Karen who happened to be staying with them at the time of the attack, and Joe, their African American hired man. Early on, Grace and Duke attempted to gang up on Hugh in a struggle for power. However, everyone else had confidence in Hugh’s leadership, sided with him, and Hugh prevailed. But the conflict remained barely beneath the surface for the rest of the story, erupting on several occasions.
After six months of carving out a homestead, planting and irrigating a garden and successfully working out a division of labor; despite their differences, the extended Farnham household seemed destined to prosper. Heinlein had a surprise for them, however. Unfortunately, their homestead was located in the private game preserve of a heretofore unseen landlord. This landlord was a member of The Chosen, the people who had inherited the Earth after the European and Asian races had all but wiped each other out in the nuclear war, and they were descendents of Black Africans. The Chosen now held the remaining light skinned people of North America in slavery. The landlord, whose nickname was Ponse, had the homestead destroyed and the Farnham clan was carried off into bondage. How this was resolved, I’ll allow readers to discover for themselves.
Heinlein uses irony with great skill in this story. The reversal of the relative status of the black and white races is only the most obvious. There are numerous subtle ironies within this over arching one. The Chosen, who in this story were Moslems, proved to be just as ruthless as the white Christian slave owners were in their time and equally hypocritical in their religious justifications. Joe, who in his own time was a second class citizen, suddenly found himself one of The Chosen, while Hugh, his former employer, became a slave. There are many more such ironies for the reader to discover: some are funny and some are not so funny.
As social commentary, this book is a Heinlein tour de force. He addresses racism, a dysfunctional family, sexual liberation, adultery, property rights, religion, intellectual freedom, methods of leadership in a crisis, the Cold War, and human rights in general. And, despite the doomsday backdrop of the story, he does all of this in a way that leaves the reader feeling optimistic about the future of the Farnhams and of the human race.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7V6mS...
Staying alive was their first priority and Hugh packed the shelter with everything he thought they would need to live after a nuclear war. But once in the event, it turned out that they needed to improvise-and some of their improvisations were quite ingenious. For example, Heinlein described how they constructed an irrigation canal using a homemade transit of the type employed by the ancient Egyptians to ensure the proper slope; and, how they lined it with clay tiles similar to what the Romans used in their aqueducts. Their 250 ton steel re-enforced concrete bomb shelter had been tilted on an angle by the bomb blast. Using tools and techniques first developed by the ancient Egyptians to erect their monuments, the Farnhams were able to re-level the heavy structure without any power equipment.
Compounding the practical problems, Hugh had to deal with conflicts within the family. In addition to his wife, Grace, Hugh had two children: Duke, his grown son and Karen his college age daughter. There were also two others who were not actually blood relatives: Barbara, a friend of Karen who happened to be staying with them at the time of the attack, and Joe, their African American hired man. Early on, Grace and Duke attempted to gang up on Hugh in a struggle for power. However, everyone else had confidence in Hugh’s leadership, sided with him, and Hugh prevailed. But the conflict remained barely beneath the surface for the rest of the story, erupting on several occasions.
After six months of carving out a homestead, planting and irrigating a garden and successfully working out a division of labor; despite their differences, the extended Farnham household seemed destined to prosper. Heinlein had a surprise for them, however. Unfortunately, their homestead was located in the private game preserve of a heretofore unseen landlord. This landlord was a member of The Chosen, the people who had inherited the Earth after the European and Asian races had all but wiped each other out in the nuclear war, and they were descendents of Black Africans. The Chosen now held the remaining light skinned people of North America in slavery. The landlord, whose nickname was Ponse, had the homestead destroyed and the Farnham clan was carried off into bondage. How this was resolved, I’ll allow readers to discover for themselves.
Heinlein uses irony with great skill in this story. The reversal of the relative status of the black and white races is only the most obvious. There are numerous subtle ironies within this over arching one. The Chosen, who in this story were Moslems, proved to be just as ruthless as the white Christian slave owners were in their time and equally hypocritical in their religious justifications. Joe, who in his own time was a second class citizen, suddenly found himself one of The Chosen, while Hugh, his former employer, became a slave. There are many more such ironies for the reader to discover: some are funny and some are not so funny.
As social commentary, this book is a Heinlein tour de force. He addresses racism, a dysfunctional family, sexual liberation, adultery, property rights, religion, intellectual freedom, methods of leadership in a crisis, the Cold War, and human rights in general. And, despite the doomsday backdrop of the story, he does all of this in a way that leaves the reader feeling optimistic about the future of the Farnhams and of the human race.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7V6mS...
April 21, 2023
A difficult novel to "get you head around". I see the intention and time it was written. Heinlein's view of racism and slavery (which he had addressed in previous work). This can be cringe-worthy at times - especially during these current times. However, I interpenetrated this via the view that Heinlein often leaned on: That of "free men"and the restraints of adhering to various man-made customs. Though, dare I say, it was rather clumsily executed at times, I took it to mean that racism is ridiculous, yet it exists in various forms throughout the world, and perhaps, beyond the limits of time: past, present and future.
Yet I must mention that my favourite parts of the novel are those referring to survivalist preparation and execution.
Yet I must mention that my favourite parts of the novel are those referring to survivalist preparation and execution.
January 12, 2017
Lieber würde ich nach einem atomaren Schlag völlig einsam in der Strahlungswüste verenden, als Zuflucht in FARNHAMS FREEHOLD zu finden!
Hugh Farnhams ist ein Teufelskerl, und obwohl er wie einst Noah verlacht worden ist, hat er für den Fall der Fälle einen Bunker auf seinem Grundstück gebaut, in dem sich ein Nuklearschlag der bösen Russen überleben läßt. Und genau in diesem Bunker finden er und seine Familie sowie der farbige (!) Hausdiener Joe und Barbara, die Freundin der Tochter Karen, Schutz, nachdem es zum gr0ßen Knall kommt.
Nun sind überlegtes Handeln und Nervenstärke gefragt. Zwecks Herstellung der erforderlichen klaren Hierarchie droht Old Farnham seinem Sohn, ihn kaltblütig zu exekutieren, so ein netter Kerl ist Hugh. Alle, vor allem natürlich die Frauen, haben sich auf sein Geheiß nackig zu machen, damit man im Bunker nicht unnötig schwitze, Scham wird per Hughschem Dekret verboten; Genüßlich berichtet Heinlein, wie Barbara später auf Hughs Weisung ihre nasse Unterwäsche anziehen muss, weil der Kittel angeblich zu warm ist. Da wird Herr Heinlein Schweißperlen auf seiner Stirn gehabt haben.
Während Hughs alkoholkranke Frau den Rausch in der Koje ausschläft, treibt der es mit Barbara, ein Spaß, den ihm seine Tochter von Herzen gönnt. Das ist eine der peinlichsten, weil unvorstellbar schlecht geschriebenen Sex-Passagen, die ich je gelesen habe. Später gesteht Tochter Karen ihrem Vater unmissverständlich, sie wolle lieber Kinder von ihm, als von den anderen potenziellen Vätern, die den Weltuntergang in Farnhams Bunker überlebt haben. Schwängern muss Hugh seine Tochter dann aber zum Glück doch nicht, da diese schon in anderen Umständen ist, genauso übrigens wie Barbara und die Katze.
Mitsamt dem Bunker durch die Zeit katapultiert, müssen sich die Farnhams und ihre Begleiter neu einrichten und der Roman wird zur Bridge-Robinsonade (denn das Bridge-Spiel hat es Heinlein angetan, er schreibt mehr über das Spiel, als irgend ein Leser wissen will).
Als schließlich ein gewisser Status Quo hergestellt ist und wieder gewohnt wird (Ikea würde fragen: Wohnst du noch oder lebst du schon), stellen sich Autor und Leser die Frage, wie es nun weitergehen soll, schließlich ist die Handlung noch nicht maßgeblich in Gang gekommen und der Roman schon über 200 Seiten alt.
Heinlein hat an dieser Stelle offenbar die Nase genauso voll von der Story wie ich. Kurzerhand läßt er Karen bei der Geburt ihres Kindes sterben und das unschuldige Kind folgt wenig später nach. Nun ist die Bühne frei für einen neuen Handlungsstrang, der vom vorausgegangenen komplett losgelöst ist. Unsere tapferen Zeitreisenden werden von einer Gruppe Menschen entführt und mitgenommen, die jetzt, 2000 Jahre später, über die Erde herrschen. Ein wenig mutet das Szenario wie aus "Planet der Affen" an, und man zuckt zusammen, es zu sagen: Die Macht liegt nun nicht mehr beim Weißen Mann, sondern beim Schwarzen.
Hugh ist ein rechtes Stehaufmännchen und wird bald vom Sklaven zum Leitenden Wissenschaftler befördert, bekommt einen Bettwärmer (eine 14-jährige Hübsche, namenlos, die er Kätzchen tauft und der er das Schreiben beibringen will, Pymalion läßt grüßen) und macht sich unverzichtbar. Und als auch diese Handlung sich und den Leser erschöpft hat, kommt das Ende des Romans, das nicht vorherzusehen fast unmöglich ist...
Rassistisch, sexistisch, inzestuös, albern ist FARNHAMS FREEHOLD, und ich kann keine Anhaltspunkte dafür erkennen, dass Heinlein das Buch als Satire gedacht hat – auch wenn es absolut unvorstellbar ist, dass er ernst meinte, was er hier vorgelegt hat.
Mich erstaunt, dass er überhaupt ein solches Buch schreiben konnte und dass kein Lektor die Notbremse gezogen hat; nicht minder erstaunt mich, dass es bis heute neu aufgelegt wird. Vielleicht könnten biografische Informationen zu Heinlein oder Äußerungen von ihm in Briefen noch etwas Licht ins Dunkel bringen, entschuldbar und lesenswert würde dieser Supergau von Roman, eines der schlechtesten Bücher, die ich gelesen habe, aber selbst dann nicht.
Nur die Faszination des Grauens erklärt, wie ich mich durch diesen Schund durchkämpfen konnte, immer wieder mit geweiteten Augen gebannt auf die Seiten starrend wie das Kaninchen auf die Schlange.
Grauenhaft!!!
Hugh Farnhams ist ein Teufelskerl, und obwohl er wie einst Noah verlacht worden ist, hat er für den Fall der Fälle einen Bunker auf seinem Grundstück gebaut, in dem sich ein Nuklearschlag der bösen Russen überleben läßt. Und genau in diesem Bunker finden er und seine Familie sowie der farbige (!) Hausdiener Joe und Barbara, die Freundin der Tochter Karen, Schutz, nachdem es zum gr0ßen Knall kommt.
Nun sind überlegtes Handeln und Nervenstärke gefragt. Zwecks Herstellung der erforderlichen klaren Hierarchie droht Old Farnham seinem Sohn, ihn kaltblütig zu exekutieren, so ein netter Kerl ist Hugh. Alle, vor allem natürlich die Frauen, haben sich auf sein Geheiß nackig zu machen, damit man im Bunker nicht unnötig schwitze, Scham wird per Hughschem Dekret verboten; Genüßlich berichtet Heinlein, wie Barbara später auf Hughs Weisung ihre nasse Unterwäsche anziehen muss, weil der Kittel angeblich zu warm ist. Da wird Herr Heinlein Schweißperlen auf seiner Stirn gehabt haben.
Während Hughs alkoholkranke Frau den Rausch in der Koje ausschläft, treibt der es mit Barbara, ein Spaß, den ihm seine Tochter von Herzen gönnt. Das ist eine der peinlichsten, weil unvorstellbar schlecht geschriebenen Sex-Passagen, die ich je gelesen habe. Später gesteht Tochter Karen ihrem Vater unmissverständlich, sie wolle lieber Kinder von ihm, als von den anderen potenziellen Vätern, die den Weltuntergang in Farnhams Bunker überlebt haben. Schwängern muss Hugh seine Tochter dann aber zum Glück doch nicht, da diese schon in anderen Umständen ist, genauso übrigens wie Barbara und die Katze.
Mitsamt dem Bunker durch die Zeit katapultiert, müssen sich die Farnhams und ihre Begleiter neu einrichten und der Roman wird zur Bridge-Robinsonade (denn das Bridge-Spiel hat es Heinlein angetan, er schreibt mehr über das Spiel, als irgend ein Leser wissen will).
Als schließlich ein gewisser Status Quo hergestellt ist und wieder gewohnt wird (Ikea würde fragen: Wohnst du noch oder lebst du schon), stellen sich Autor und Leser die Frage, wie es nun weitergehen soll, schließlich ist die Handlung noch nicht maßgeblich in Gang gekommen und der Roman schon über 200 Seiten alt.
Heinlein hat an dieser Stelle offenbar die Nase genauso voll von der Story wie ich. Kurzerhand läßt er Karen bei der Geburt ihres Kindes sterben und das unschuldige Kind folgt wenig später nach. Nun ist die Bühne frei für einen neuen Handlungsstrang, der vom vorausgegangenen komplett losgelöst ist. Unsere tapferen Zeitreisenden werden von einer Gruppe Menschen entführt und mitgenommen, die jetzt, 2000 Jahre später, über die Erde herrschen. Ein wenig mutet das Szenario wie aus "Planet der Affen" an, und man zuckt zusammen, es zu sagen: Die Macht liegt nun nicht mehr beim Weißen Mann, sondern beim Schwarzen.
Hugh ist ein rechtes Stehaufmännchen und wird bald vom Sklaven zum Leitenden Wissenschaftler befördert, bekommt einen Bettwärmer (eine 14-jährige Hübsche, namenlos, die er Kätzchen tauft und der er das Schreiben beibringen will, Pymalion läßt grüßen) und macht sich unverzichtbar. Und als auch diese Handlung sich und den Leser erschöpft hat, kommt das Ende des Romans, das nicht vorherzusehen fast unmöglich ist...
Rassistisch, sexistisch, inzestuös, albern ist FARNHAMS FREEHOLD, und ich kann keine Anhaltspunkte dafür erkennen, dass Heinlein das Buch als Satire gedacht hat – auch wenn es absolut unvorstellbar ist, dass er ernst meinte, was er hier vorgelegt hat.
Mich erstaunt, dass er überhaupt ein solches Buch schreiben konnte und dass kein Lektor die Notbremse gezogen hat; nicht minder erstaunt mich, dass es bis heute neu aufgelegt wird. Vielleicht könnten biografische Informationen zu Heinlein oder Äußerungen von ihm in Briefen noch etwas Licht ins Dunkel bringen, entschuldbar und lesenswert würde dieser Supergau von Roman, eines der schlechtesten Bücher, die ich gelesen habe, aber selbst dann nicht.
Nur die Faszination des Grauens erklärt, wie ich mich durch diesen Schund durchkämpfen konnte, immer wieder mit geweiteten Augen gebannt auf die Seiten starrend wie das Kaninchen auf die Schlange.
Grauenhaft!!!
September 25, 2008
One of the things about being a book geek is that, sometimes, you enjoy getting together with other book geeks and, well, geeking out about books. Part of this is that you it makes you feel better to know others enjoy reading a particular type of novel or genre as much as you do and that while most of your friends and family find your zealousness for said books frightening, there are others out there who understand. And another big part is that you get recommendations for new books you might not normally read.
Last night, I ventured out to my first meeting of the science-fiction/fantasy discussion group at the Linebaugh library in downtown Murfreesboro. I've known about the existance of the group for a while now, but hadn't been able to make a meeting. I'd read a few of the books they'd selected but somehow life always seemed to interfere with my good intentions of actually getting there.
This month's selection was the Robert A. Heinlein novel, Farnham's Freehold. Let me preface this by saying that as a science-fiction reader, I find Heinlein vastly overrated. He may have been great in his day, but I've found the large majority of his work to be vastly inferior to other contemporaries of his day such as Issac Asimov or Arthur C. Clark. I've read a fair number of his bigger works such as Stranger in a Strange Land, just becuase it seems you can't be a sci-fi geek without having plowed through the book. But apart from Starship Troopers and The Puppet Masters, there's not been a lot of Heinlein I've come away really enjoying or thinking I'd actually want to re-read it again someday.
Alas, Farnham's Freehold feel in the category of how I feel about the majority of Heinlein's work--vastly overrated.
The front cover states this is "science-fiction's most controversial novel." Maybe in 1964, it was but the story is really showing signs of age. The story centers on Hugh Farnham and his family. Hugh has built a nuclear bunker under his house, which comes in handy when the U.S. in nuked by the Russians. Hugh, his family, a friend and their servant all hide out in the bunker, emerging to find that the bombs have somehow shifted them forward in time. The book then becomes a survivalist type of story about forging their way in a new world, until it takes an abrupt left turn about 150 pages into the book. The group is discovered by the new rulers of this world, all of whom are African-American. In a role-reversal of the time it was written, all the white people are treated as slaves, with the men nuetered.
Now, all of this may have seemed edgy, contemporary and brilliant social satire in the mid-60s, but today it all seems dated. The story lacks focus and abruptly shifts in tone and focus too much as the story unfolds. Even though the book barely hits the 300 page mark, it feels too padded and long, with Heinlein spendng a lot of time on the initial days in the new world and only hinting at the better novel that could have been in the last two pages. This is a novel that could have been a better novella.
But the biggest thing is that in a story about the survival of humanity, there should be at least one person you want to survive. That's not the case here. It's hard to identify with any of them or really care if they make it or not.
That said, as much as I didn't enjoy the book, it was interesting to be part of a discussion with people who had different views. One person shared my view on the lack of enjoyment in the book but others did like it and were able to share why. It didn't change my overall feeling on the book, but it was interesting to think about.
Last night, I ventured out to my first meeting of the science-fiction/fantasy discussion group at the Linebaugh library in downtown Murfreesboro. I've known about the existance of the group for a while now, but hadn't been able to make a meeting. I'd read a few of the books they'd selected but somehow life always seemed to interfere with my good intentions of actually getting there.
This month's selection was the Robert A. Heinlein novel, Farnham's Freehold. Let me preface this by saying that as a science-fiction reader, I find Heinlein vastly overrated. He may have been great in his day, but I've found the large majority of his work to be vastly inferior to other contemporaries of his day such as Issac Asimov or Arthur C. Clark. I've read a fair number of his bigger works such as Stranger in a Strange Land, just becuase it seems you can't be a sci-fi geek without having plowed through the book. But apart from Starship Troopers and The Puppet Masters, there's not been a lot of Heinlein I've come away really enjoying or thinking I'd actually want to re-read it again someday.
Alas, Farnham's Freehold feel in the category of how I feel about the majority of Heinlein's work--vastly overrated.
The front cover states this is "science-fiction's most controversial novel." Maybe in 1964, it was but the story is really showing signs of age. The story centers on Hugh Farnham and his family. Hugh has built a nuclear bunker under his house, which comes in handy when the U.S. in nuked by the Russians. Hugh, his family, a friend and their servant all hide out in the bunker, emerging to find that the bombs have somehow shifted them forward in time. The book then becomes a survivalist type of story about forging their way in a new world, until it takes an abrupt left turn about 150 pages into the book. The group is discovered by the new rulers of this world, all of whom are African-American. In a role-reversal of the time it was written, all the white people are treated as slaves, with the men nuetered.
Now, all of this may have seemed edgy, contemporary and brilliant social satire in the mid-60s, but today it all seems dated. The story lacks focus and abruptly shifts in tone and focus too much as the story unfolds. Even though the book barely hits the 300 page mark, it feels too padded and long, with Heinlein spendng a lot of time on the initial days in the new world and only hinting at the better novel that could have been in the last two pages. This is a novel that could have been a better novella.
But the biggest thing is that in a story about the survival of humanity, there should be at least one person you want to survive. That's not the case here. It's hard to identify with any of them or really care if they make it or not.
That said, as much as I didn't enjoy the book, it was interesting to be part of a discussion with people who had different views. One person shared my view on the lack of enjoyment in the book but others did like it and were able to share why. It didn't change my overall feeling on the book, but it was interesting to think about.
September 18, 2007
After reading this book it is rather obvious that it was written with one thing in mind. And that is to stir controversy. This book is not for the feint of heart but I rate it so highly because of Heinlein's talent for weaving an intricate story from just about anything. I will say that the plot certainly does get weak towards the end but I still give this my highest rating just from the joy of reading it and realizing just how controversial this book had to have been at the time of its original publishing.
July 28, 2017
Robert A. Heinlein wanted so much to not be racist, and this is the book that shows him trying so damned hard, and yet failing.
The plot, in which suburban white folk from 1960s America are transported to a future in which dark-skinned people have the upper hand, is a fairly obvious morality play. Heinlein seems to obsess over showing off how he thinks white/black racism is kind of stupid. But in doing so, he depicts the African master race with unintentional stereotyping that's pretty damned offensive.
It's well-written, the prose is workmanlike, but the characters are flat. This isn't Heinlein at is best as a writer or as an imaginative force.
Even for a novel from 1964, this book has aged badly. That being said, I'm willing to give Heinlein points for at least *trying* to be woke.
The plot, in which suburban white folk from 1960s America are transported to a future in which dark-skinned people have the upper hand, is a fairly obvious morality play. Heinlein seems to obsess over showing off how he thinks white/black racism is kind of stupid. But in doing so, he depicts the African master race with unintentional stereotyping that's pretty damned offensive.
It's well-written, the prose is workmanlike, but the characters are flat. This isn't Heinlein at is best as a writer or as an imaginative force.
Even for a novel from 1964, this book has aged badly. That being said, I'm willing to give Heinlein points for at least *trying* to be woke.
August 5, 2016
This novel starts off with a bang - literally an atomic one. Libertarian veteran Hugh Farnham, family and guests are playing bridge when Hugh gets wind of an attack and hustles everyone into his fallout shelter. A third blast sends them all 2000 years into the future.
The first half of the novel is group survival and interrelations. Just as things begin to fracture the second half occurs, part racist dystopia and part Time Machine. I found neither half particularly well written, but felt compelled to read on. The reward was the last chapter, which I won't spoil here but will say scratched my particular itch.
The first half of the novel is group survival and interrelations. Just as things begin to fracture the second half occurs, part racist dystopia and part Time Machine. I found neither half particularly well written, but felt compelled to read on. The reward was the last chapter, which I won't spoil here but will say scratched my particular itch.
December 30, 2016
Robert A. Heinlein is not a Nazi. He is not a racist. He is also not a god. FARNHAM'S FREEHOLD is of, by and for the American white middle class of a half-century ago. It also challenges concepts of what is, can, and should be. Science fiction used to do that all the time. It needs to start doing it more, again.
May 12, 2014
There was an enticing rumor going round at one point that a Blue Club edition of this book existed, with the bridge sequences extended and some rather sexy new ones added. Unfortunately, it turned out to be a hoax. Pity.
April 9, 2021
What I know of Robert A. Heinlein, the author wasn’t the most facile and uncontroversial kind of guy. Nevertheless he wrote some masterpieces of Science Fiction. “Farnham’s Freehold”, kindly spoken, does definitely not belong to his better works. In fact, it combines the worst prejudices of the Sixties with a total lack of originality. The plot is most simple: A bunch of people in a vault gets catapulted into future by third world war bombs.The only unusual thing there is that black people have the rulership and white people are their servants.
Now you could say “wow, that’s really progressive, considering that the book was published in 1965”. That may be true – the protagonist thinks that there’s no difference between white and black men. But the emphasis is on MEN. The protagonist’s (and most probably also the author’s) perception of women ist as conservative as it could be in the Sixties: Young Women have to be attractive, so much older men can have sex with them and make them pregnant. The female characters in this book are so hot for super-authoritarian alpha males that even the daughter of the protagonist dreams to have sex with her father.
Even now you could say, ok, put these strange and outdated ideas apart, it still may be an interesting SF novel. But unfortunately it isn’t. The secondary characters are all shallow and blunt and the story itself has no suspense. The main occupation of the protagonist in the unloved future is translating old books, re-inventing card and board games and playing endless rounds of bridge. If there was a statement besides ‘Young girls love authoritarian patriarchs’ I didn’t get it. The only value of reading this book is a historical one: to see that Heinlein had some strange views of equality and that not each of Heinlein’s books was well crafted.
Now you could say “wow, that’s really progressive, considering that the book was published in 1965”. That may be true – the protagonist thinks that there’s no difference between white and black men. But the emphasis is on MEN. The protagonist’s (and most probably also the author’s) perception of women ist as conservative as it could be in the Sixties: Young Women have to be attractive, so much older men can have sex with them and make them pregnant. The female characters in this book are so hot for super-authoritarian alpha males that even the daughter of the protagonist dreams to have sex with her father.
Even now you could say, ok, put these strange and outdated ideas apart, it still may be an interesting SF novel. But unfortunately it isn’t. The secondary characters are all shallow and blunt and the story itself has no suspense. The main occupation of the protagonist in the unloved future is translating old books, re-inventing card and board games and playing endless rounds of bridge. If there was a statement besides ‘Young girls love authoritarian patriarchs’ I didn’t get it. The only value of reading this book is a historical one: to see that Heinlein had some strange views of equality and that not each of Heinlein’s books was well crafted.
January 9, 2024
My original star score was a 5. Looking at it now, I would give a 3. So I will balance the 2 scores, and now, from me, the book gets the star score of 4 to a 4.25.
Franham's Freehold starts out in the 1960s, at the home of Hugh and Grace Farnham. Their daughter brings home, from college, a friend to stay the night. Their son is also home for the Sunday dinner. The only other person in the house is the house boy, as Grace calls him.
Hugh is wearing an ear radio, which enraged Grace. But it's for their protection. The northern countries are getting ready to go to war, which, unlike the last World War, will be fought with nuclear weapons. Hugh, Duke, their daughter, and Barbara sit down to play bridge. Grace has passed out, and Hugh asks Duke to help him carry his mother to the bedroom. When they get back, the girls have decided to make crepes. As they eat and play bridge, they start talking about the situation and how some things are going to be signed. They look at the clock ,now knowing that they can catch the last few minutes of the news. It's going nuts at the knowledge that nuclear bombs are headed towards the US.
Hugh gets everything, and everyone sets up to get into the bomb shelter. The daughter goes to wake up Joe, the house boy,and he goes hunting for the cat.
That's a fast write-up about a complicated time. But wait until you get about halfway through it and everything goes topsy-turvy.
Franham's Freehold starts out in the 1960s, at the home of Hugh and Grace Farnham. Their daughter brings home, from college, a friend to stay the night. Their son is also home for the Sunday dinner. The only other person in the house is the house boy, as Grace calls him.
Hugh is wearing an ear radio, which enraged Grace. But it's for their protection. The northern countries are getting ready to go to war, which, unlike the last World War, will be fought with nuclear weapons. Hugh, Duke, their daughter, and Barbara sit down to play bridge. Grace has passed out, and Hugh asks Duke to help him carry his mother to the bedroom. When they get back, the girls have decided to make crepes. As they eat and play bridge, they start talking about the situation and how some things are going to be signed. They look at the clock ,now knowing that they can catch the last few minutes of the news. It's going nuts at the knowledge that nuclear bombs are headed towards the US.
Hugh gets everything, and everyone sets up to get into the bomb shelter. The daughter goes to wake up Joe, the house boy,and he goes hunting for the cat.
That's a fast write-up about a complicated time. But wait until you get about halfway through it and everything goes topsy-turvy.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
January 2, 2023
1974 grade A+
2011 grade A-
2022 grade B+
While this novel still enjoys Heinlein's master level writing skill, the story is rather out of date. It is so steeped in 1950-60s politics, personalities, and prejudices that is more of a speculative period story than true SciFi. It starts with an amazing 10 page (out of 260) chapter that fully introduces the characters and situation, and then initiates the disaster - some of the most compact, comprehensive, and effective writing I have ever read. The next chapter completes the disaster. The next third of the book is a post nuclear war survival story. Most of the rest deals with the society of the future (in effect the aliens). The book is concluded by a not quite short enough escape with a delightful end. As of 2022 I would have to say the story is rather preachy, predictable, and ponderous, and I did speed read lightly and automatically. I cannot give it an unqualified recommendation. But if you are interested in a severe honest look at what survival might be like and at racism, it is excellent.
[Yes, the alliteration was intentional. They are all words I thought of while reading the story ;) ]
2011 grade A-
2022 grade B+
While this novel still enjoys Heinlein's master level writing skill, the story is rather out of date. It is so steeped in 1950-60s politics, personalities, and prejudices that is more of a speculative period story than true SciFi. It starts with an amazing 10 page (out of 260) chapter that fully introduces the characters and situation, and then initiates the disaster - some of the most compact, comprehensive, and effective writing I have ever read. The next chapter completes the disaster. The next third of the book is a post nuclear war survival story. Most of the rest deals with the society of the future (in effect the aliens). The book is concluded by a not quite short enough escape with a delightful end. As of 2022 I would have to say the story is rather preachy, predictable, and ponderous, and I did speed read lightly and automatically. I cannot give it an unqualified recommendation. But if you are interested in a severe honest look at what survival might be like and at racism, it is excellent.
[Yes, the alliteration was intentional. They are all words I thought of while reading the story ;) ]
April 23, 2018
Nije toliko dobro pisano jer ima puno Heinlinovog praznog hoda i potpunog nepotrebnog blebetanja, ali sve ostalo je odlično. 1964. napisati roman koji okreće rasizam u americi za 180 stupnjeva je vrlo smjelo i s mudima. Dakle, kratka radnja ide ovako: Hugh Farnham je alfa amerikanac koji gradi slonište od mogućeg nuklearnog rata između Rusa i Amera, ima ženu, djecu(odraslu) i crnca kao slugu. Nakon napada, vrijeme se pomiče nekoliko stoljeća u budućnost(vremenski procjep) gdje Crnci imaju bijele sluge i bijelci nemaju nikakva prava nego žive u skupinama, ne znaju pisati ni čitati i služe samo kao sluge. Hugh je sa svojom djecom i ženom i jednom prijateljicom prebačen u to vrijeme. Čak ide toliko daleko da crni gospodari kontroliraju i razmnožavanje bijelce. Uz Heinleinov muško šovinistički pristup u kojem je žena samo objekt ili teret, ima nekoliko fino smišljenih situacija da se čovjek zamisli nad svime. Kažu da je ovo najkontroverznija Bobova knjiga, žalosno je to, što je još uvijek aktualna.
January 14, 2008
Without a doubt, Heinlein has a great imagination. Unfortunately, his ability as a writer is hit and miss. "Farnham's" was a miss. Clunky and awkward. Not the sentence structure per se, but the story construction. Considering that this book was written in the 60s, I can understand how its material might have been considered "edgy" (cold war, fallout shelters, civil rights, racism) and that could carry the story. Not so, today. The characters were wooden and their reactions unbelievable. Sure, it's science fiction, but I need at least a little believability.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 482 reviews