Talk:Glory Road

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Literature Portal 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.
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-Class.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Fantasy task force. (with unknown importance)
Assessment comments This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

I know of an off-site review of this page at http://srehn.com/books/rh_gloryroad.html but I feel it would be dishonest for me to link to it because it's on my site.

If anybody else feels it's appropriate to put that link there, do so, but I won't.

Contents 1 Tesseract, or Banach-Tarski? 2 Designation as hard science fiction 3 Editions 4 Cover illustration 5 "Pure Fantasy" 6 "several weeks" 7 Vietnam

[edit] Tesseract, or Banach-Tarski?

In the Tesseract article, it's claimed that the box in Glory Road that is much larger unfolded than folded, is some sort of four-dimensional object. I always took it to be a reference to the Banach-Tarski paradox. Can anyone settle this? --Trovatore 05:37, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

The book involves unvolding a special box into a much larger (and non-empty) object. While this does seem to go along with the Banach-Tarski paradox, there is nothing in the book to suggest that this is what the author had in mind. It might be the case, but it is simply not made clear. -swelke

[edit] Designation as hard science fiction

Several of the plot elements, such as the folding box mentioned above, are quite possibly explicable by real-world scientific principles, again as delineated above: however, the technology is never explained in accordance with real-world scientific principles (only the results of the miraculous technology is shown), and never becomes the focus of the story, which to me are both defining elements of hard science fiction. Admittedly, the 'magic' used in the book has a bit more of a technical air to it than most fantasy novels, but it remains magic- unexplained and miraculous. Is the designation truly appropriate in this case? -Toptomcat 13:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Editions

Surely the listing of the Gregg Press edition is wrong wrong wrong. The first edition was Putnam's, the leading publisher of Heinlein's adult fiction from this period. Signinstranger 14:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cover illustration

I've replaced the ugly paperback cover with that of Part One of the magazine serial. However, a low resolution image of the first edition can be found as GloryRoad_1st_ed.jpg. Signinstranger 14:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Pure Fantasy"

I just read this book, and I think it's inaccurate to call it "pure fantasy." While there are plenty of fantasy elements, it's more of a science fiction spin on fantasy. The book opens on (then) contemporary Earth, and the denouement takes place mostly on the super-scientifically advanced administrative hub of twenty universes. I'd hazard to classify it as "science fiction," but unless my understanding of the genre is faulty, I don't see how Glory Road can be called "pure" fantasy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 160.39.214.146 (talk • contribs) .

I agree with you, and so did Heinlein. In 1973, he made this comment to J. Neil Schulman: "You've read Glory Road? Well that's both science fiction and fantasy all mixed up together." -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 18:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it's fantasy only because it's got magic—in the Clarke's Third Law sense of magic.

—wwoods 01:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "several weeks"

"Heinlein himself reported that the book only took several weeks to write..."

That was true of virtually everything he wrote; Stranger in a Strange Land is the exception. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 19:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vietnam

If the author never says Vietnam, should the article say it? Lots42 04:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Probably not, since the book was published in 1963! Lkleinow (talk) 02:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)