Talk:Friday (novel)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to narrative novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class. | ||
| Mid | This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. | ||
|
Assessment comments
|
|||
Contents |
[edit] Was Friday dark skinned
Was Friday really dark skinned? One of the points of the story was that she "passed" as white, so to speak, with one of her families. This became apparent when one of her kids went on to *date* a dark-skinned fellow and she discovers the prejudice of that family.
So, I'm not so sure that Friday was dark skinned, so much as she had many genetic components from all kinds of human beings. There's even a point where she lists them and is puzzled by the human drama.
But it's been at least a decade since I read the book, so I could be mistaken.
Having read this book several times, I believe you are correct. I could not find any mention of her actually having dark skin. There is mention of her various genetic backgrounds, including Native American, but there is nothing to suggest that she has dark skin. Djgranados 01:10, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
Did some basic cleanup on the book, and deleted the "cleanup" tag. I've never read the book, so I can't improve the article too much. -Lampros, August 20 2005
[edit] Skin-colour
(Spolier Warning. Are these needed on the talk pages?) I don't have the book to hand, but I am fairly certain Friday is not pure white. I think she is described as having a natural tan. I belive the S-Family she "passed off" as white in considered her as native american, something Friday only discovers after it turns out the question of her race was discussed by her family before she was allowed into the family. Will try and dig out the book later to get some page refs... Here we go Publisher: New English Library Pg72 ... (Friday says) "So? Vickie, this built-in suntan of mine - you know where I got it?" "Certainly, you told us. Amerindian. Uh, Cherokee, you said. Marj! Did I hurt your feelings? Oh, dear! It's not like that at all! Everybody knows that Amerindians are - Well, just like white people. Every bit as good."
Note that Vickie knows Friday as Marjorie Baldwin. I don't like the Microsoft comparison - it's right in the sense that Shipstone holds a monopoly on an intellectual property (Heinlein seems to think this means it isn't a monopoly for some reason), but the "sinister" aspect of Shipstone is more the huge number of companies it is behind, which on the face of it have nothing to do with Shipstone. An early "Sinister Mega-Global Corp". The uprisings in the book turn out to be a inter-departmental despute within Shipstone. I may try and improve the article a bit, but haven't edited any pages before, so will see.
[edit] Friday and feminism
Someone really dumbed down the analysis of the male chauvinist cliches that frame the beginning and the end of the book. I restored the point that the reality is the opposite of the cliches in both cases. This is important, because Heinlein's trick here is one of the most sophisticated and skillful he ever managed--in what is probably the most successful of his adult novels.--Dec. 30, 2005
- I don't see the ending as a skewering of any cliche. It's known that Robert and Virginia wanted children but didn't have any and it seems to me that this seeps into Heinlein's works as the attitude that having and raising children is very important. Also, a number of Heinlein's stories show pioneer planets positively. The ending could very well be completely serious. Ken Arromdee 20:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- It is clear throughout Heinlein's career from The Rolling Stones to the Tertius novels that he felt that true freedom comes only on the pioneer edge of a culture, that once the culture has built up for a while, government expands to strangle. Look at Time Enough for Love, Moon is a Harsh Mistress, Red Planet. So, Botany Bay, as a non-built-up planet with little government other than what is needed (in Heinlein's eyes) is a place where freedom can flourish.--Wehwalt 22:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Links to other novels
The conjecture that Friday might be in Timeline 3, is based on similarities between the other 3 stories canonically set in Timeline 3: The Rolling Stones, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress and The Cat who walks through Walls. Of course, the problem is trying to set Gulf in Timeline 3 :-) Albmont 16:48, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- Hmm..I think this section should be reworked:
- Friday is loosely tied to the novelette "Gulf", which appeared in Assignment in Eternity, since both works share characters — "Kettle Belly" Baldwin and "Mr. and Mrs. Joseph Green". (The latter two do not appear in Friday, but are mentioned as two of the title character's genetic progenitors.)
- I would describe Friday as a sequel to Gulf. (In contrast, The Cat Who Walks Through Walls is loosely tied to Friday through references to Shipstones and the colony worlds, including Fiddler's Green.)
- Kettle Belly Baldwin is the boss of Friday's organization, a central character in the novel.
- And "Mr. and Mrs. Joseph Green" don't appear in Friday for the very good reason that they died at the end of Gulf.
- -- Jim Douglas 17:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- Where is it stated that Rolling Stones is in the TMiaHM timeline? Because there is a Hazel Stone in each? The Moon seems very different from the overregulated state described by Mannie. I suggest we hedge on this. --—Preceding unsigned comment added by Wehwalt (talk • contribs)
-
- Hmm, I've never thought about it like that; you make a good point. I don't think Heinlein had come up with the Multiverse concept as early as 1966. But you're right...there are significant discrepancies. -- Jim Douglas 21:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Sorry about the unsigned. I don't have a copy of RS around the house, it is not one of my favorites, but I will lay my hands on one. But I do not think we would be justified in saying that RS is in the same timeline as Moon.--Wehwalt 22:10, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
-
- No problem, I just signed it for clarity's sake. And I'm with you on Rolling Stones...at one point, I thought it would be interesting to read Rolling Stones -> The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress -> The Cat Who Walks Through Walls in order, but I dropped Rolling Stones after a dozen pages; it's not my favourite of the juveniles. -- Jim Douglas 22:14, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- Friday is a sequel to Gulf, The Rolling Stones is a prequel to TMiaHM, and The Cat Who Walks Through Walls is a sequel to TMiaHM. The inconsistencies exist, but they are not fatal: there are even less inconsistencies among those stories then among the stories that canonically compose the Future History. My private heretic hypothesis is that Heinlein wrote Friday not only as a sequel to Gulf, but also as a sequel to TMiaHM and The Cat Who Walks Through Walls, but now I see that I must be wrong: Friday was published in 1982, and The Cat Who Walks Through Walls in 1985. It doesn't matter: the balkanization of the USA that is history in Friday is an important event in The Cat Who Walks Through Walls. Albmont 22:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, folks, Roger Stone move to Fiddler's Green is mentioned in TCWWTW, not in The Rolling Stones <:-( Albmont 23:40, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
- This section might need a bit of rework:
Friday is loosely tied to the novelette "Gulf", which appeared in Assignment in Eternity, since both works share characters — "Kettle Belly" Baldwin and "Mr. and Mrs. Joseph Green". (The latter two do not appear in Friday, but are mentioned as two of the title character's genetic progenitors.) The motif of a secret superman society in the latter work, however, is not mentioned in Friday.
Apart from the things already mentioned by Jim Douglas, the superman society IS mentioned, in passing, several times in Friday with the references to the planet "Olympia". After the death of Dr. Baldwin, the attorney Mrs. Tomosawa explains "Olympia is where those self-styled supermen went". I am assuming those are the same supermen as in Gulf. WanderingSpirit 00:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Removed the Microsoft bashing
I removed this POV: "...eerily suggestive of today's Microsoft".
- Specially because the Shipstone Corporation looks more like Standard Oil... And Shipstone might be a pun on Rockefeller.Albmont 22:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] The Year of the Jackpot
This is sort of interesting. Friday's research into various cycles that led her to recommend emigrating off-planet is almost identical to the plot of The Year of the Jackpot, which was written thirty years earlier. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 04:50, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
- I'd call it similar in theme, touching on some of the same cycles. Probably Heinlein's idea of a bit of a joke, recycling his old material!--Wehwalt 05:08, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Widely theorized; by whom?
The story occurs against a backdrop of general social collapse, widely thought to represent the theorized decline of Western Civilization.
- If someone can produce two references to such a supposition made by a reviewer or critic, I'll say that sentence can stay. If not, I will move it into talk in a while, or at the very least remove the qualifier "widely", as unsupported. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 05:57, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Friday82.jpg
Image:Friday82.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 21:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] plot summary
The plot summary is terribly written. Not even sure what it means. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.102.224.166 (talk) 22:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I've just reread Friday, first-edition hardcover, and (as I suspected) never once is the year mentioned. Yet the writer of the plot summary has included dates for past and present events in the novel. Such dates are at odds with Heinlein's intent; if he'd wanted dates in his story, he would have provided them.
For example, in the novel, the "Second Atlantic Rebellion" is mentioned exactly once, undated, in Hartley Baldwin's posthumous note to Friday, whereas the summary says that it "concluded July 4th 2076." Moreover, Red Thursday is said to occur in 2093, thus dating most of the events in the novel. Where on earth do these dates come from?
Other similar suppositions are made without giving specific dates, such as that the Quito Skyhook sabotage occurred "5 years before the novel begins." Nowhere in the book is the date specified; we are only told that it occurred after Friday met Douglas (that is, some seven or eight years before the novel begins, based on Friday's description of S-group daughter Ellen's age then and now).
Better for the entire plot summary to be reduced to a few sentences than for this nonsense to remain posted. Plot summaries should include no inferences about dates or anything else not given in the story. (Moreover, it is pointless to contrast this novel with the "established" future history against which many Heinlein stories take place.) Gottacook (talk) 06:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
