Farnham's Freehold

I'm giving this one three stars just because there are some interesting speculations in it about the future of a postapocalyptic world (and because I share the lead character's positive view of the United States, as Heinlein clearly does as well). But this one ranks near the bottom of my own list of Heinlein's novels.

For one thing, he wrote this one smack in the middle of his Nuclear Rant Period, and he's very heavily into Soapbox Mode here. This was a time in Heinlein's life when he got (let's put it gently) deeply annoyed at anyone who suggested that massive nuclear buildup wasn't the way to handle the alleged Soviet threat, or that maybe surviving a nuclear holocaust might not be such a terrific thing. (Indeed, he built a bomb shelter at his Colorado Springs home -- _before_ Colorado Springs was anywhere near a likely nuclear target; NORAD didn't exist yet.) His surly attitude (not to mention his tub-thumping sermons about the Benefits of Military Service) informs this entire novel.

For another -- and it's probably a consequence of the first problem -- _not one_ of the characters in this book is even remotely likeable. Joseph, the 'houseboy', is as close as we come to a decent human being, and even _he_ turns out to be sinister and menacing before we're through. It's hard to take sides between Hugh Farnham and his son Duke; the dad's a jerk and the son's a whiny wuss. Hugh's wife Grace is no prize either, and their daughter Karen -- apparently intended to be sweet and innocent -- just comes across as spoiled. And Barbara never gels as a character at all.

For a third thing, even the stuff some readers _like_ about late-period Heinlein isn't well done here. For example, some readers have commented on Heinlein's apparent approval of incest. That shouldn't be news; _all_ of Heinlein's works stand in part for the proposition that moral standards are relative to time and place, and there's quite a bit of (authorially approved) incest in his later works. Nevertheless, _here_ it just doesn't work: in the context of _this_ family (hardly one of Heinlein's freewheeling horny-redheaded-genius open marriages), Karen's remarks to Hugh on the subject just sound out-of-place and weird.

This one belongs next to _Expanded Universe_ on the shelf of books that could well have turned me off to Heinlein if I'd started with them. It's not without merit -- again, there's some interesting social commentary and speculative future history, and I can't fault the patriotic intent -- but for my tastes the merits are far outweighed by the flaws.

After a bomb warning screaming from the Farnham household television, the family, along with their servant and a friend of their daughter's, rush down into their bomb shelter. They wait in fear at the world they will find upon emerging, but when they finally open the shelter, are amazed at the beautiful untouched world around them. After some adventuring, they find that they are in the same place as when they began, but the land remains untouched by human developement. They are seemingly alone in the newly beautiful world and become adapt to being self sufficient. Together, they plan to start a new civilization, until one day they are discovered. Taken and enslaved in the 'new world' where people of colour become the ruling class and the anglo's the slaves, they find that they somehow had been catapulted into the future. This new world is a place where people are born into certain classes, their futures being determined by birth. Much like the world we live in today, the people accept their places willingly and never question their status. Hugh Farnham, however, see's the injustices of this new world and devises a plan of escape. Although I'm not a huge science fiction fan, I really did enjoy 'Farnham's Freehold'. Heinlein weaves a clever little story with this book, and throws in a few neat twists at the end. Covering the issues of race, governing politics, and those of gender, he comes up with a really creative tale that is accessible to a wide audience. It's really worth a read.

Hugh Farnham is a blue-collar survivalist who likes to play Bridge. His college-age daughter Karen, her friend Barbara, his lawyer son Duke, his alcoholic wife Grace, and house servant Joe are playing cards at his house the night the bombs hit. Everyone scrambles to safety inside Hugh's modern bomb shelter.

As the bombs fall and his wife is passed out, Hugh starts up an affair with his daughter's friend Barbara, right in the shelter. As if Hugh's shallowness and arrogance wasn't enough to turn you against the protagonist, this nauseating little scene will.

When the shakes and quakes finally end, the family pours from the shelter to find themselves in an impossible, pristine, clean world. At first glance, it looks like utopia, but then as they settle into a rustic lifestyle they are suddenly set upon by an advanced race, imprisoned, and brought into a vastly different culture as slaves. Somehow, Hugh needs to find a way to break free of the civilization they are trapped in, so that he can be free with Barbara.

Of all the Apocalypse Fiction, this book is the worst. The protagonist is so lowbrow, so arrogant, so unlikable, so self-centered, so shallow, so immoral that he simply cannot capture any interest. He's not even a "love to hate" person.

The dialogue is flatly emotionless and yet irritatingly flippant, and Barbara and Hugh's constant prattlings of "Darling, Dear, and Beloved" do not fit the characters. Neither does Hugh's occasional spouting of words like "shall" and "shan't" along with racial diatribes that include heavy use of the "N" word.

There is little emotion from these one-dimensional characters even though they face the death of Hugh's daughter and Barbara's friend Karen, cannibalism, castration (Hugh cared more about his "boys" than he did his real children), pedophilia, racism, and $exual slavery, they show no more feeling than they would biting into a doughnut.

The entire plot-over-plot had a contrived and vapid feeling to it, as if the author himself didn't quite believe his story. And if he doesn't believe, how can he expect the reader to?

Overall, there is no depth or flavor in this story at all, other than the ugly aftertaste of a musty trailer park visit in the dusty twilight, as old men drink cheap stinking whiskey and the wind blows over the city dump next door. I recommend avoiding this book.

Normally I don't like rating a book based on "I liked it" or "I didn't like it," but in this case I made an exception. All the pieces of a good book are there, but they don't come together.
It's the story of a man and his family (plus a couple more along for the ride) who are vaulted into the future by a nuclear blast. In this future, dark skin = superiority (i.e. black africans, dark Indians, etc.) and light skin automatically makes you a member of the servant/slave class. Back in the mid-60's, this would have been an uncomfortable (and/or controversial) setup. This aspect kept my interest, but when you strip away the controversy value, there's little left to recommend this book.
Hugh, the main character (and patriach of the family) seems to alternate between extreme (at the time) liberalism and right-wing militarism, as required by the plot. The other characters are barely developed at all. The science is never explained (although, that's not the point of the book, so it's probably better that way).
Overall, I'd have to say I'm dissappointed. Certainly, this is a better book than many of his juvenile novels, but it's far inferior to his other adult works, in my opinion, and hence the 2-star rating.

I'm a big fan of Heinlein in general -- both pre- and post- "Stranger in a Strange Land". I've read nearly all of his novels, and enjoyed them all -- except for this one. I had a problem with how unlikeable the "hero" was and how unrealistic his interactions with the other characters were. Usually I like character motivation and behavior to flow with the plot more realistically, even in fantastic situations like science fiction novels. That didn't really happen for me with this book, though. The "hero" seemed to be there more as a mouthpiece for a political philosophy, and that kind of soapboxing by an author often overshadows the story itself. It certainly did in this case for me. I wouldn't recommend this as your first Heinlein novel.

When I first encountered Heinlein as a teenager, I agreed with the consensus that he was a great science fiction author. However, each of his works I've read lately make me less and less enamored with him.

Some authors have many stories to tell. Heinlein has two. The first is about the military, which is at the core of almost all of his earlier works. The second, which includes Farnham's Freehold, is about free love, and these later works use the science fiction genre as nothing more than a thin veil through which to explore sex. Heinlein's first novel of this type, Stranger in a Strange Land, was groundbreaking, and absolutely worth the read. As I read more though, I start to see patterns that tell me these novels aren't so much about exploring sex as they are about living out the author's personal sexual fantasies.

Incest plays a major roll in this novel, with the main character's daughter throwing herself at him on multiple occasions. Incest is a frequent plot point in Heinlein's novels, allowed because the only thing that makes incest wrong, according to Heinlein, is that it can reinforce harmful genetic mutations. Since Heinlein's main characters are always genetically perfect, that doesn't matter.

Then there's the most problematic part of Heinlein's fiction, exemplified in this book (though not as strongly as in another work of his, The Number of the Beast). Heinlein likes to develop strong female characters only to have them broken down and dominated by even stronger male characters. What starts out sounding enlightened always degrades. Whether through angry lectures, physical violence or just the woman coming to an unexplained realization that her power, career and force of personality just aren't as important as making babies, the man always wins, and the woman falls to obscurity.

Farnham's Freehold takes that a step further. This time, the male character doesn't only dominate the strong female character, but takes his power trip out on his whole family, even nearly murdering his son for disobeying him. Of course, the son eventually comes around and realizes the flaw in his own modern attitudes of equality and free speech.

Besides all that, Farnham's Freehold just isn't a very good story. It explores racism, but not in any unique or interesting way, and otherwise just takes a good hard (and approving) look at domineering men, generically hysterical women, and the joys of incest.

Even if you have the stomach for Heinlein's obsessions with incest and domination of women, skip this book. Try some of Heinlein's other works. While Heinlein does only have two stories to tell, the quality of his writing is high, so he's still worth reading once or twice.

That's what I told the guy who gave me this book by the time I got to chapter three. And it only went downhill from there.

Conceptually it's a good story. A fairly average household of that time, plus one guest, live through a nuclear attack and end up in a very foreign world. You can get the gist of the story from other reviews.

The problem with the book is two-fold.

Firstly, the characters all fall nicely into various stereotypes and they carry out those stereotypes perfectly. When different situations come up, they all act exactly as they would be expected to from the very beginning of the book. I'm not even sure that Hugh Farnham would have been seen as a mold breaker because there were certainly plenty of non-racist White men at that time.

Secondly, I take issue with certain aspects of the future world. I don't want to go into details because I want you to have the same shock I had when reading it. But I will say this, certain things are too convenient, certain things are blatantly unnecessary, and one conversation in particular between Joe and Hugh is completely unrealistic.

That said, the book is worth reading because the situations that this group of people perpetually end up in are completely unexpected even though their reactions to them are.

Farnham's Freehold is not a book I would recommend. It seems to be Heinlein's fantasy about surviving a nuclear war so he could bully his son and wife and sleep with his daughter's friend. The characters are reprehensible people, in my opinion; the dialogue is long-winded and very dated. The philosophies underlying the narrative are disturbing. I felt like I was reading the product of a sick mind. And the story never got interesting enough to make up for these glaring faults. I found myself scratching my head and wondering how this ever got to be considered a classic?

If Heinlein wanted to do a critique of "absolute power corrupting absolutely"- he would have done well to remove the racist and misogynist aspects before he wrote this.

Also, I am not a fan of time travel; it generally does not make much sense.

Both are prominent in this book.

Generally, when I've read Heinlein, he's had 3 characters- multiplied to fill the book: the Geezer, the Stud, and the Chick. I will say that this added the Former Chick, and the Studs were sacrificed on the altar of the Geezer.

The misogyny: Grace (the Geezer's first wife) had an essay about how admirable she used to be, but has "let herself go" by both gaining weight and drinking. Now, our Geezer would frankly drive anyone to drink- and though he admits this, his new Chick gives him a full pass because she thinks he is teh sex0r. Women are not, actually, that stupid. As their relationship coalesces, she gets deeper and deeper into pure admiration of whatever he deals out, and he gets smugger and smugger. Also, he does a fair amount of slut-shaming her- although she does not react- because gods know that ALL the lust must be on the part of the young woman, and not the established man sleeping with someone young enough to be his daughter, literally. Yep.

Also, she becomes pretty much a yes-man for Hugh, and Hugh is totally in the "benevolent patriarch" mode, which wants the best for everyone unless it would make life more uncomfortable for him, in which case "the best for everyone" is OBVIOUSLY the same as the best for him... which is eerily similar to his complaint about the Powers That Be in the black-run future. So It's OK when it's him, but not when it's someone else... While he disclaims this in theory, he also acts it out and preens on it.

I won't even go into the romanticizing of incest- though not acted on here- because it's way creepy and pretty familiar to anyone who has read any Heinlein.

The racism: Heinlein seems to be trying to draw a parallel between American slavery pre-Civil War, and the future version- which not only has the darker-pigmented at the top rather than the bottom, but which is far more controlled and repressive, as witnessed by

1. intentional breeding to make the whites smaller and stupider than the blacks;
2. a far more controlled slave culture without anything like abolitionists; and
3. explicit cannibalism of white people on the part of the black ruling class.

Something more accurately reflective might have made a stronger point.

It was interesting that the most bigoted whites in the book are also the ones who adapted best to slavery for themselves. I am not sure how realistic that is, but it is symmetrical.

And the ending? The "Freehold"? Dangerous to approach! I personally would not want to go to a bar and grill that threatened to kill me before I entered. I'm fussy that way.

Very much a polemic, and not recommended, except as a historical artifact.

If Heinlein wanted to do a critique of "absolute power corrupting absolutely"- he would have done well to remove the racist and misogynist aspects before he wrote this.

Also, I am not a fan of time travel; it generally does not make much sense.

Both are prominent in this book.

Generally, when I've read Heinlein, he's had 3 characters- multiplied to fill the book: the Geezer, the Stud, and the Chick. I will say that this added the Former Chick, and the Studs were sacrificed on the altar of the Geezer.

The misogyny: Grace (the Geezer's first wife) had an essay about how admirable she used to be, but has "let herself go" by both gaining weight and drinking. Now, our Geezer would frankly drive anyone to drink- and though he admits this, his new Chick gives him a full pass because she thinks he is teh sex0r. Women are not, actually, that stupid. As their relationship coalesces, she gets deeper and deeper into pure admiration of whatever he deals out, and he gets smugger and smugger. Also, he does a fair amount of slut-shaming her- although she does not react- because gods know that ALL the lust must be on the part of the young woman, and not the established man sleeping with someone young enough to be his daughter, literally. Yep.

Also, she becomes pretty much a yes-man for Hugh, and Hugh is totally in the "benevolent patriarch" mode, which wants the best for everyone unless it would make life more uncomfortable for him, in which case "the best for everyone" is OBVIOUSLY the same as the best for him... which is eerily similar to his complaint about the Powers That Be in the black-run future. So It's OK when it's him, but not when it's someone else... While he disclaims this in theory, he also acts it out and preens on it.

I won't even go into the romanticizing of incest- though not acted on here- because it's way creepy and pretty familiar to anyone who has read any Heinlein.

The racism: Heinlein seems to be trying to draw a parallel between American slavery pre-Civil War, and the future version- which not only has the darker-pigmented at the top rather than the bottom, but which is far more controlled and repressive, as witnessed by

1. intentional breeding to make the whites smaller and stupider than the blacks;
2. a far more controlled slave culture without anything like abolitionists; and
3. explicit cannibalism of white people on the part of the black ruling class.

Something more accurately reflective might have made a stronger point.

It was interesting that the most bigoted whites in the book are also the ones who adapted best to slavery for themselves. I am not sure how realistic that is, but it is symmetrical.

And the ending? The "Freehold"? Dangerous to approach! I personally would not want to go to a bar and grill that threatened to kill me before I entered. I'm fussy that way.

Very much a polemic, and not recommended, except as a historical artifact.