
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.
I'm all for Machiavelli's pragmatic approach in "The Prince" (oops, another one I forgot to include), but Heinlein is just downright scary in some of his more forceful works (I mean, the salt hoarding in Farnham's Freehold? COME ON! Even I felt like killing the guy on principle)
I also disliked Atlas Shrugged.
And every author of those biographies also has failings.
But your questions seem to suggest that these biographies aren't worthy for some reason?
I'm a big Heinlein fan. I find it useful to turn to some of the body of writings about Heinlein to understand why he wrote as he did. As just one example, I did not understand that the main character of "Tunnel in the Sky" was Black. This wasn't mentioned directly on the book, though it can be understood from cultural context that I, reading it 30 years after it was written, did not pick up.
Similarly, how do I interpret Heinlein's "Farnham's Freehold"? Stross's commentary (see his blog, but also summarized at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farnham%27s_Freehold#Reception ) gave me some insight, or at least something to reflect upon.
While I read plenty of Asimov's work, I haven't since about 1993, and don't have the same curiosity about him. But surely there are others interested in Asimov the way I am about Heinlein.
Surely there are also people interested in the culture of SF fandom in the 20th century, including in some of the systemic biases against female fans.
I think it's also a useful case example of how someone can be a 'feminist, decrying “male chauvinism” and arguing that women should be given wider professional opportunities' while also being a "Dirty Old Man." It's also an example of how fame can empower a harasser.
This still happens, but someone 30 years dead can't harass you back on Twitter or threaten expensive defamation lawsuits.
Or, for something relevant in 2021, consider the forthcoming Foundation show, where "at least three women have been cast as characters who are male in the books". How do you have a serious discussion about that change without mentioning Asimov's decisions to choose primarily men in the first place?
Edited to add: I realize post-juvenile Heinlein is not to everyone’s taste — and I’m personally convinced Double Star may be his finest single book — but if one is interested — Stranger, Glory Road, Starship Troopers, Moon is a Harsh Mistress, are all worthwhile — and different from each other.
I’m not gonna defend Farnham’s Freehold, but each of the other later Heinlein works not listed above has some merit, though mostly for real fans only.
