Scan barcode
btemplet's review against another edition
adventurous
inspiring
lighthearted
fast-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
3.25
autumnesf's review against another edition
5.0
I really enjoyed this book although a little dated on racial and gender issues. It's so easy to forget the Russian scare Americans were so caught up in at one time. Story is about a family and some extras that are blasted into the future during nuclear war. The new present is run by "blacks" and the whites are all slaves. Book focus is on being a free man and what that means.
johnmckinzie's review against another edition
4.0
My favorite Heinlein I've read. In a manner similar to Philip K. Dick, Heinlein manages to brilliantly use sci-fi as a canvas to address timeless social and relationship issues.
smcleish's review against another edition
3.0
Originally published on my blog here in May 1998.
When I first read this book some years ago, it came over as racist and sexist. Re-reading it, I'm not so sure; I think Heinlein was trying to do something rather more subtle.
Farnham's Freehold starts as a fairly standard post-apocalyptic tale, with a Russian missile attack on the US leading to the Farnham family hiding out in the bunker built by Hugh Farnham and derided by most of the family. Damage to the bunker forces the family - and Barbara, who was spending the evening with them - to leave it early, and they emerge to discover themselves in a completely different world, an apparently untouched wilderness version of the mountains in which they lived.
Here, the problems between Hugh and his son Duke eventually pale into insignificance when they are captured by the people who rule this world, in which they have unknowingly set themselves up in a private park. They turn out to be living in a world ruled by black men, who treat white slaves very harshly though it is not seen in this light by the slaves who have been conditioned to it by thousands of years of breeding. The slaves suffer, among other things, cannibalism (though this isn't how it is perceived, as the whites are not considered human) and sexual relations between grown men and girls of fourteen and less.
The question of racism hinges on the reasons why Heinlein sets up this society. If Heinlein is intending the way in which whites are treated to make a predominantly white readership realise how black people felt in sixties America, then what he is doing is not racist. The exaggerations beyond what would be considered acceptable are there to bring home to the reader the evils of what was going on around them. On the other hand, if the exaggerations are supposed to show how much further black rulers might go, then it is a profoundly racist book. On the whole, I am inclined to go for the former rather than the latter; in his other books, Heinlein only appears racist through lack of thought.
When I first read this book some years ago, it came over as racist and sexist. Re-reading it, I'm not so sure; I think Heinlein was trying to do something rather more subtle.
Farnham's Freehold starts as a fairly standard post-apocalyptic tale, with a Russian missile attack on the US leading to the Farnham family hiding out in the bunker built by Hugh Farnham and derided by most of the family. Damage to the bunker forces the family - and Barbara, who was spending the evening with them - to leave it early, and they emerge to discover themselves in a completely different world, an apparently untouched wilderness version of the mountains in which they lived.
Here, the problems between Hugh and his son Duke eventually pale into insignificance when they are captured by the people who rule this world, in which they have unknowingly set themselves up in a private park. They turn out to be living in a world ruled by black men, who treat white slaves very harshly though it is not seen in this light by the slaves who have been conditioned to it by thousands of years of breeding. The slaves suffer, among other things, cannibalism (though this isn't how it is perceived, as the whites are not considered human) and sexual relations between grown men and girls of fourteen and less.
The question of racism hinges on the reasons why Heinlein sets up this society. If Heinlein is intending the way in which whites are treated to make a predominantly white readership realise how black people felt in sixties America, then what he is doing is not racist. The exaggerations beyond what would be considered acceptable are there to bring home to the reader the evils of what was going on around them. On the other hand, if the exaggerations are supposed to show how much further black rulers might go, then it is a profoundly racist book. On the whole, I am inclined to go for the former rather than the latter; in his other books, Heinlein only appears racist through lack of thought.
traveller1's review against another edition
3.0
"FF" is far from my fav H. Interesting read, but (from memory) not a great story, plot just a little silly, even contrived (tell the libertarian tale), with a weak ending. A. Rand would approve. I still vote for "tMiaHM".
benjaminharrisonofficial's review against another edition
3.0
This seems to have a reputation as a somewhat minor Heinlein - and sure it is, I ain't disputing that - but it's also ridiculous, absurd, and impossibly readable, and enjoyable, and just a plain goddamn rollicking good time. Certainly you can tell R.A.H. must've had a ball writing it, clearly making it up as he went along, each successive bombshell twist more audacious than the last. And hey, maybe it is unenlightened by the high standards of our perfect era, what isn't? But I don't accept that it's racist. In fact, I don't quite see how anyone can read it as being anything other than doggedly anti-racist, even if it is handled somewhat clumsily.
Having said all that, what's the deal with the incest stuff? What's the go with that, eh Bobby?
Having said all that, what's the deal with the incest stuff? What's the go with that, eh Bobby?
swekster's review against another edition
3.0
Well, Heinlein was never one for complex characters, the good guys are good, the bad guys are bad, the annoying ones are annoying and so on. And, of course, we get some very awkward social situations, especially for the reader, if not for the characters themselves. Heinlein is never shy to wear his opinions and stances on his sleeve, so in this particular book we get a somewhat heavy handed lecture about fun topics like racism, incest, nuclear war, slavery and such.
The book starts on the brink of a nuclear holocaust which somehow transports our heroes to a weirdy non nuclear bombed place. The first half of the book focuses on the problems of a very limited group of survivors, basically the Farnham family led by its patriarch. There is an bait-and-switch at the halfway point, when in turns out that the survivors are actually two millenia in the future, and the world they know has changed, a lot.
Not Heinlein's best work, and while when he's good he's great, when he's not that good, he's still very readable, fun, and always, always thought provoking.
The book starts on the brink of a nuclear holocaust which somehow transports our heroes to a weirdy non nuclear bombed place. The first half of the book focuses on the problems of a very limited group of survivors, basically the Farnham family led by its patriarch. There is an bait-and-switch at the halfway point, when in turns out that the survivors are actually two millenia in the future, and the world they know has changed, a lot.
Not Heinlein's best work, and while when he's good he's great, when he's not that good, he's still very readable, fun, and always, always thought provoking.
editor_b's review against another edition
2.0
One has to be in a peculiar frame of mind to enjoy a Heinlein novel. He has some odd fixations, and his politics are very prominent; indeed, he bludgeons the reader with all the subtlety of an inter-ballistic missile assault. Hunker down in your fallout shelter, but there's no escape.
That's how this novel begins, with a small cast of characters riding out a nuclear firestorm. The shelter is small and quickly gets very hot. If you know Heinlein, you fully expect the characters will get naked and have sex. Which they do. They also play a lot of bridge. And of course, there's a cat.
That quotation sums up the ostensible theme of the book pretty well. It is about slavery and power relations. Heinlein is against slavery, so we gather, and goes out of his way to show that racial oppression is not exclusively the domain of the white man.
This was published in the early 60s in serial form in Worlds of If magazine. Even touching on race in such a venue might have seemed progressive at the time. However, I can't help but wonder about the function of the future vision delivered here. Does it serve to absolve white guilt? Furthermore, the story ultimately pushes past any ambiguity into the realm of moral certainty, with the net effect that American slavery doesn't look so bad by comparison.
It's very hard, if not impossible, to avoid seeing the protagonist as a stand-in for the author. Hugh Farnham is a flag-waving patriotic libertarian, a patriarchal white male with a very stiff neck, a staunch proponent of "God, guns and guts," even though he seems to be an agnostic, an idealized rugged individualist. At one point his daughter offers herself to him sexually. It reads like pure id-driven wish-fulfillment. I'm relieved to learn Heinlein never had children.
As mentioned earlier, Heinlein's politics are front and center here. It's mostly rendered through highly unrealistic dialog. I wondered if it was the content or the delivery that seemed so obnoxious. As a thought experiment, I imagined dialog that reflected my own sense of politics, which are quite different from Heinlein's. It was even worse.
However, despite numerous flaws, there is a certain underlying vitality that propels this story forward. It may be obnoxious, even offensive, but it is never dull. I actually enjoyed reading this - once I learned to laugh at it.
That's how this novel begins, with a small cast of characters riding out a nuclear firestorm. The shelter is small and quickly gets very hot. If you know Heinlein, you fully expect the characters will get naked and have sex. Which they do. They also play a lot of bridge. And of course, there's a cat.
You don't own a cat, he is a free citizen. Take dogs; dogs are friendly and fun and loyal. But slaves. Not their fault, they've been bred for it. But slavery makes me queasy, even in animals.
That quotation sums up the ostensible theme of the book pretty well. It is about slavery and power relations. Heinlein is against slavery, so we gather, and goes out of his way to show that racial oppression is not exclusively the domain of the white man.
This was published in the early 60s in serial form in Worlds of If magazine. Even touching on race in such a venue might have seemed progressive at the time. However, I can't help but wonder about the function of the future vision delivered here. Does it serve to absolve white guilt? Furthermore, the story ultimately pushes past any ambiguity into the realm of moral certainty, with the net effect that American slavery doesn't look so bad by comparison.
It's very hard, if not impossible, to avoid seeing the protagonist as a stand-in for the author. Hugh Farnham is a flag-waving patriotic libertarian, a patriarchal white male with a very stiff neck, a staunch proponent of "God, guns and guts," even though he seems to be an agnostic, an idealized rugged individualist. At one point his daughter offers herself to him sexually. It reads like pure id-driven wish-fulfillment. I'm relieved to learn Heinlein never had children.
As mentioned earlier, Heinlein's politics are front and center here. It's mostly rendered through highly unrealistic dialog. I wondered if it was the content or the delivery that seemed so obnoxious. As a thought experiment, I imagined dialog that reflected my own sense of politics, which are quite different from Heinlein's. It was even worse.
However, despite numerous flaws, there is a certain underlying vitality that propels this story forward. It may be obnoxious, even offensive, but it is never dull. I actually enjoyed reading this - once I learned to laugh at it.