October 12, 1967: Margo Fischer (secretary to) Lurton Blassingame to Robert A. Heinlein
A drunk began calling at 3:15 insisting on Heinlein's phone number...After telling him at least seven times that he would have to write a letter which would be forwarded airmail, he became sarcastic and went on and on. After 15 minutes I told him I was hanging up, and I did. He was incoherent and it was impossible to tell him he had to write a letter. He said he would wire. He wanted to know about " -- We Also Walk Dogs." I told him it was in an anthology published by World. He'll probably call you and be abusive about me. Over and over he kept saying, "Mam, Mam" -- long silence, then he'd say, "It's a hard world." Silence. Then, "We should all be courteous to one another." Etc.
February 28, 1968: Margo Fischer to Robert A. Heinlein
Here's a little ego boo for you.
The telephone just rang. A voice said, "I was told I could get some information from you. About one of your clients. About Robert Heinlein." Cagey Margo. "Who is this?" "I'm nobody-that is, nobody in the business," he said. "Just a Heinlein fan." Me again -- "Well, what did you want to know?" .
He wanted to know when Heinlein was going to have another book. "He hasn't written anything for some time," was the complaint. "I have two favorite authors. Michener and Heinlein. Michener just came out with one and I was hoping I could make it a double red-letter day."
Then he added, "Heinlein is the one bright spot in this whole fantasy-science-fiction world." A pause. "Moon is the last one he's written, right?" Then I said, "Have you read Stranger1?" Answer: "Four times." Finally, ' 'Just one more thing-how long does it usually take him to write a book?"
HOW CAN YOU DEPRIVE YOUR FANS A MINUTE LONGER, BOB?
CHAPTER IX
MISCELLANY
STUDY
April 10, 1961: Robert A. Heinlein to Lurton Blassingame
No, we are not contemplating any immediate ventures into Arabic-speaking lands; all of Africa and the Middle East are too unstable at the present time to be attractive -- besides, we've been there a couple of times. Tackling Arabic is simply to keep my mind loosened up with something new. It could have been any language I don't know, but I picked it because it is one of the five "critical" languages as listed by the State Department-i.e., an important language which is known by too few Americans; they have plenty of people who know French, German, Spanish, and such. One of the five is Russian and I didn't want to duplicate what Ginny has already done (besides, Russian is very hard; Arabic is relatively simple, save for the odd alphabet) and two of the critical languages are tonal languages, and my ear for tones is not very good; I don't think I could learn them as an adult. But I must admit that I have made no real progress as yet; I've nothing to force me to a schedule and there are too many other things that demand attention.
But I would like to, in time, be able to be of some use to the country by knowing a language which is needed. But if it is never of any use that way, I find the study of strange languages rewarding per se; I always learn a lot about the people and the culture when I tackle one.
But I have a dozen subjects that I want to study. I would like to go back to school and take a formal course in electronics; it has changed so much since I studied it more than thirty years ago-and I may, some day soon. About twenty years ago I dropped out of a figure-drawing class because I needed to buckle down and pay off a mortgage-and that turned me into a writer and I haven't been back. But I want to go back, it is something I love doing-and I would like to add a wing to this house and get into sculpture again, too, but simply signing up for a figure sketching class is more likely. I am not a still-life artist. There are only five things really worth drawing; four of them are pretty girls and the fifth is cats.
PREDICTIONS
March 13, 1947: Robert A. Heinlein to Saturday Evening Post
...I could list many more variables-never mind. Swami Heinlein will now gaze into the crystal ball. First unmanned rocket to the Moon in five years. First manned rocket in ten years. Permanent base there in fifteen years. After that, anything! Several decades of exploring the solar system with everyone falling all over each other to do it first and stake out claims.
However, we may wake up some morning and find that the Russians have quietly beaten us to it, and that the Lunar S.S.R. -- eight scientists and technicians, six men, two women-has petitioned the Kremlin for admission of the Moon to the USSR. That's another unknown variable.
And keep your eyes on the British-the British Interplanetary Society is determined to get there first.
The worst thing about this business of predicting technical advance is that there is an almost insuperable tendency to be too conservative. In almost every case, correct prophecy of the Jules Verne type has failed in the one respect of putting the predicted advance too far in the future. Based on past record, if the figures I gave above are wrong, they are almost certainly wrong in being too timid. Space flight may come even sooner. I know that, yet I have trouble believing it.
November 7, 1949: Robert A. Heinlein to Lurton Blassingame
...My real claim to being a student of the future, if I have a claim, lies in noting things going on now and then in examining speculatively what those trends could mean-particularly with respect to atomics, space travel, geriatrics, genetics, propaganda techniques, and food supply. To evaluate my success in such it would be necessary for a person to have some familiarity with my published writings. But I don't intend to dig through my writings and say, "Look, here in Beyond This Horizon I predicted the robot-secretary recording telephone and now it has been patented!" I did-and it has-but that doesn't mean anything. The short-term prediction of gimmicks isn't prophecy; it is merely a parlor trick.
PROPHECY
September 24, 1949: Robert A. Heinlein to Lurton Blassingame
EDITOR'S NOTE: With the motion picture about to start shooting, and with Robert at work on the next juvenile for Scribner 's, a request came in from Cosmopolitan for an article about prediction of what the U. S. would be like in the year 2000. In this letter Robert was asking for information about what sort of article the editors would like-he made some suggestions about it.
When the article was finished, Cosmopolitan turned it down. It sold to Galaxy and was published as ' 'Pandora's Box." The article was periodically updated, and the most recent version can be found in Expanded Universe.
...Under "treatment" come a couple of other questions: This article is to be prophetic. Fine-that's my business; I make my living as a professional prophet of what science will bring to us. But such an article-nonfiction-must consider and to some extent report the present status in various fields before the author can go out into the wild blue yonder with predictions. Therefore, I inquire how much reporting do they [Cosmopolitan] want of the sort which one finds in Scientific American, Science News Letter, Nature, etc., and how much speculation or prediction do they want? The two things are closely related, but are not the same thing. Also, how far in the future shall I go? (For example, everybody knows that the cancer men, radiation men, and biochemists stand an excellent chance of perfecting selective radiation treatment of certain types of cancer in the very near future by finding ways to bond short half-life isotopes to some compound which a particular type of cancer will pick up selectively.)
Or should I go well into the future and consider the necessary statistical effect of food supply, geriatrics, life-span research, public health, etc., in forcing the development of a brand-new art, planetary engineering, as it affects the growth of colonies on the planet Mars?