The "best" science fiction writer for most [readers] is a composite entity: Heinleinasimovclarke—usually in that order…. Omitting the enthusiastic burblers who can neither see, hear, nor speak evil of Heinlein, most critics have managed a certain consensus—they like his writing, but the sins of commission and omission in his writing are staggering: poor use of language, weak and inadequate plotting, poor storytelling techniques, and incapacity to handle mature sexual themes being the worst offenders. Yet people, even his severest critics, like his writing, and he sells well. Most importantly, he is capable of attracting readers with a wide age differential and with widely disparate educational backgrounds.

The most common criticism of Heinlein is based on his (supposed) political ideology, and much of the political philosophy expressed by some of his characters does set the teeth on edge; but Liberal knee-jerk reflex has no more place in a mature consideration of his work than Conservative knee-jerk adulation does. Ideological considerations aside, Heinlein appeals to and is criticized by a wide variety of "-ists," "-ats," "-ites"; and there is little consensus on what is his best work. (p. 222)

The problem facing the archetypal or mythic scholar who applies his talents to popular culture is a simple one: the myths or topoi remain constant, but the thematic treatment suffers from changing styles in form and language. What is a deeply moving experience to one generation, because it has been phrased in forms and words most vital to their unconscious needs, withers to unreadability as attitudes, language, and form change…. The true classic has a universality or greatness that can transcend writing styles and formalistic devices so that it has greatness for the present generation and for generations to come, and I believe that at least one-fourth of Heinlein's work may have this universality, especially portions of his last work to date, Time Enough for Love (1973). (p. 223)

Heinlein's critical theory is simplistic: he has read many books but knows little theory. For him there are only two kinds of fiction: realistic (or possible) and fantasy (or impossible) fiction. He breaks these two categories down into three subclasses each. Fiction may be set in the past, the present, or the future. He makes a strong point that most of the best science fiction (or speculative fiction as he prefers) is realistic fiction set in the future, but this is not an inflexible dogma. A novel may be set in both the past and the present, or any other combination of the temporal classifications, including a combination of past, present, and future.

For our purposes his most meaningful use of his classifications is when he declares that it is perfectly possible for a story to combine fantasy and realistic writing, have historical, contemporary, and future settings, and it may include comedy, tragedy, burlesque, and straight hortatory propaganda…. Heinlein knew that it was possible to write such a story, even though it posed serious technical problems, because he had read and liked a book which did all of these things: Caleb Catlum's America by Vincent McHugh. In writing Time Enough for Love I believe that Heinlein, either consciously or unconsciously, patterned his book on the earlier work…. (pp. 224-25)

If there is this relationship between the two books, and if Heinlein's book follows the pattern set out above, then Time Enough for Love is not science fiction as its own author defines it in his article "Science Fiction": "… such exotic creatures as to defy almost any method of literary taxonomy."… There are extensive elements of fantasy in the book: most of the love sequences, references to Gilgamesh and the Wandering Jew as real people, and the claim that Shakespeare—a brother to Queen Elizabeth—was a red-haired immortal who dyed his hair to conceal his identity. Heinlein also claims in his essay that any story involving a talking mule is fantasy…. Note that he does not say donkey or ass, the traditional talking animal of Fable and Märchen. Heinlein states that a talking mule equals fantasy, and in the Dora/Lazarus section of Time Enough for Love there are talking mules—who can reproduce their own kind. To a former farm boy, I don't know which would seem more fantastic: the ability to reproduce or the ability to talk. Heinlein has an out for this sort of implausibility in his essay under the rubric of "imaginary but possible," and there is a quick gloss in the novel about "special mutations." Possible, perhaps, but so little explained that it is closer to the old magic wand than the genetics laboratory…. Heinlein may be pulling our leg, or even trying to tell us something about his fantasy. So much of Time Enough for Love is imaginary but (not very) possible, that it is difficult to classify it as anything short of fantasy.

What is this exotic creature if it isn't science fiction? Unlike the horse put together by a committee it isn't a camel, nor is it even a talking mule. It has elements of a picaresque, but surface elements only, and is actually a romance masquerading as a novel…. I believe that McHugh and Heinlein are … [true] writers in the [romance] genre. This is particularly seen in Time Enough for Love where the fear which one might feel at the death of a hero or demigod (Lazarus Long) is transformed into the adventurousness, the marvelous, and pensive melancholy (the latter is especially noted at the beginning of Time Enough for Love and the end of Caleb Catlum's America). It turns pity into chivalrous rescue and tender charm, and pity without an object into creative fantasy.

Because there is a good deal of amatory adventure in both Time Enough for Love and Caleb Catlum's America, it should be made clear that the term romance as used in this chapter has nothing to do with sentimental novels (although Heinlein exudes sentimentality at every paragraph) [or] love stories (although there are several love stories in Time Enough for Love…. (pp. 225-26)

The true romance is a medieval (primarily) genre which succeeded the epic and chanson de geste. Although the romance … has been called a predecessor of the novel, it is one by several removes at least. A romance is typically a collection of adventures tied together with a central theme or around a central character, often developing minor characters into adventures of their own. (p. 226)

The major stumbling block to consider Time Enough for Love as a romance is that it is written in a moderately realistic manner with little attention paid to metaphorical, rhetorical, and literary techniques. It is baldly written where it does not descend to sentimentality and awkward prose (especially the embarrassingly written sexual episodes). (p. 227)

In Heinlein's later novels the characters sweat, vomit, and have normal excretory functions—usually signs of realistic writing. Because of the prudish censorship of the science fiction magazines these elements are lacking in his earlier novels and short stories, but he prizes tough, realistic writing styles….

Despite realistic elements in Heinlein's later novels, the final determination of his genre or mode of writing revolves around his use of the hero. Lazarus Long, the hero of Time Enough for Love, and the hero of I Will Fear No Evil, are both men who are superior in degree to other men rather than superior in kind, which would make them divine beings. (Even Valentine Michael Smith of Stranger in a Strange Land, for all of his "Thou art God," is still different only in degree.) Lazarus Long is different in degree; but even in relationship to the other members of the Howard Families—who are of a similar kind of human—he is so different that he is considered something special among his kin, and his exploits approach the realm of myth. (p. 228)

Heinlein's later novels have been obscured for us critically because of his incurable penchant for diatribe, hortatory propaganda, and his blending of heroic/romantic modes and irony. I believe that there is a parallel situation between Heinlein and the very first speculative fiction writer, Aristophanes. (p. 229)

Aristophanes' The Birds is the story of two disaffected Athenian citizens who "split the scene" and decided to found their own perfect polis. It is called Cloudcuckooland, and is built in the air—about as close to No-where as one can get…. [Consider] what Heinlein's later work, especially Time Enough for Love, is like, while reading [Northrop Frye's description] of Aristophanes: "Old Comedy, like the tragedy contemporary with it, is a blend of the heroic and the ironic. In some plays this fact is partly obscured by Aristophanes' strong desire to get his own opinion of what the hero is doing into the record, but his greatest comedy, The Birds, preserves an exquisite balance between comic heroism and comic irony."… Conservative, polemical, and libertarian, Heinlein and Aristophanes have much in common, including the fact that both were writing speculative fiction about society, thus clouding their status as writers of high mimetic comedy.

If Time Enough for Love is high mimetic comedy and a romance, there are still many areas of the book that do not fit these descriptions easily. Part of the problem lies in the inadequacy of the critical tools we have to handle popular culture, but more important is Heinlein's writing what purports to be a novel in an age of low mimetic fiction—and we expect a fictive piece in prose to be a novel. Time Enough for Love is just about everything that a novel is not, and most of his "novels" since 1960 (excepting the juveniles) are neither novels nor low mimetic fiction. This major change in his writing has irritated most of his critics who find his plots diffuse and his structure rambling. This irritation may well be due to differences in political views …, but some of the irritation may also come from the fact that there is a conflict between the ostensible form and the actual content of his works.

The final argument on form rests on the similarities between Time Enough for Love and McHugh's Caleb Catlum's America…. McHugh wrote the definitive folktale adventure-romance of the United States of America, and Heinlein attempted to write the definitive equivalent of outer space adventure-romance. As Caleb is the quintessential American hero, Lazarus is the folk hero of the Howard Families and, hence, of the human race…. (pp. 229-30)

The major content element which convinces me of the similarities of the McHugh and Heinlein books is the question of immortality and red hair. Caleb is an immortal—that is a given by the author, and Lazarus is a presumed immortal (he was three hundred years old before his first rejuvenation). For Heinlein there is a mystique about red hair. Many of the heroes and heroines of his earlier fictions are redheaded…. Heinlein provides no explanation for the immortality of Lazarus, but [Caleb and Lazarus] are both redheads, and it is these linkages between the books which make me believe that Caleb Catlum's America was the source for Heinlein's Lazarus.

There is a curious similarity between the politics expressed in both novels…. Both [writers] might be classed as Jeffersonian, populist, libertarians…. McHugh's book is an affirmation of what he considers the American spirit: unbounded, free, open, and founded upon the natural, innate goodness of the common man. (pp. 231-32)

[The] element that apparently appeals to [Heinlein] is the libertarian quality in McHugh; a man ought to be able to do whatever he damn well pleases—unless it conflicts with the wishes of a Heinlein hero…. [The] overlap of Heinlein and McHugh comes in their belief that the Nietzschean superman must experience his intense emotions without let or hindrance from men of lesser breed or governmental systems that prohibit and restrain beyond the minimum necessary for survival of society…. Both recognize that the free man is a fiercely independent man, capable, competent, and master of his desires, but both recognize the legitimacy of all man's desires that do not conflict with rationality. (Lazarus is perfectly willing to impregnate his clone sisters or have intercourse with his mother if he is convinced that the offspring of the first situation will not carry lethal or defective genes, and in the second case when he is sure that there will be no issue.)

Both writers apparently find the sexual act as the ultimate expression of personal freedom…. Both heroes are restricted in their freedom by social and political considerations, but neither are restricted sexually, and both are breakers of sexual taboos. (pp. 232-33)

This brings us to a consideration of Heinlein's sexuality, as expressed in his novels. I have earlier made reference to Time Enough for Love as Heinlein's last and greatest novel. I believe that he considered it to be the capstone to his career as a writer, and there are unconscious elements which lead one to the conclusion that his entire writing career was a working out of his oedipal conflicts. Most authors go through cycles in their development, and I believe that Time Enough for Love is the culminating work of his final cycle. (p. 233)

Heinlein's ["All You Zombies" (1959)] was a shocker compared to what had come before. [The story] involves time travel that allows a single transsexual individual to impregnate himself and be both his own father and his own mother. The narrator of the story declares that he knows where he comes from, "—but where did all you zombies come from?" and in the final line, speaking as his female self, Jane, says, "I miss you dreadfully!"

Psychologically this is the tremendous first step in working out the oedipal conflict in the writer. Earlier stories have commented on the fact that adults do have sexual intercourse, but he is still denying that his father and his mother would ever do such a thing. So he does it to himself. This is a perfect denial of oedipal desires; since it does not resolve the conflict of desiring intercourse with the mother and supplanting the father, it merely avoids the problem….

[The] implication of this story and the stories that are to come in this period of Heinlein's writing shows strong, unresolved sexual conflicts, until we get to Time Enough for Love. Resolving a conflict does not mean solving a conflict, however, and even in this last work we see unsolved problems obscuring the quality of the writing. This may simply be that Heinlein lacks the technical skill to write explicit sexual scenes without resorting to embarrassing clichés and coyness. (pp. 236-37)

In Time Enough for Love there is a recapitulation of sexual development through several stages, each development clearing the ground for the next stage. (p. 237)

From the moment that Lazarus lands in Missouri we start on a sequence that viewed psychologically might lead one to suspect that the author is "putting us on." Does Lazarus land at the place of the author's birth? No, he lands below the site of his birth, and after a bit of plot fooling around, gets into this long thing (a train where the little sperm cell of Lazarus waits, ready), passes through his birthplace, still in the train, and is finally ejected into the womb/home/egg of Kansas City. The author's stand-in has finally returned to the womb in a symbolic sense, and is eventually destined to return to his mother's womb via his actual penis. It is either brilliantly humorous or mordantly grotesque—I can't make up my mind.

In any event, this return to the womb, solving both the aggressive and retrogressive desires of the author surrogate, clears the air of a great deal of sexual tension. (pp. 237-38)

[In the sequence describing the Dora/Lazarus relationship we find] Heinlein at his very best. He is dealing from his special area of expertise, how to do something—in this case how to explore and homestead in a totally uninhabited wilderness. The writing is compact, believable, well plotted, and it is a believable treatment of a mature sexual love. Only a little of his fatal coyness remains in the love sequences, and the ending is at least highly charged with pathos if not full-fledged tragedy seen through a rose-colored framework. Reemphasizing that last point is crucial. The ending is not pathetic, although there is an element of pathos; the ending is not sentimental, although he sentimentalizes to a certain degree; and in the end, an old man learns wisdom (to paraphrase the ending of Antigone): the arrogant pride of an immortal being brings the final catastrophe home to Lazarus. His hubris over his greatness is what eventually brings him to the point where he see no further point in living. I do not know if Heinlein intended this interpretation. He has obviously read Greek tragedy and Shakespeare, but, even if unplanned and unintentional, it is the only reason why Lazarus wishes to die: he has done everything, including the experience of a complete love. And Heinlein, like Lazarus, has written everything, including a mature love story. (pp. 238-39)