I liked the humor.
It was an interesting story.
I have not. It was fine since it did not get in the way of the story.
The ending was disappointing. It was as if Heinlein didn't know how to end it.
I adore Heinlein but never again will I listen to a book interpreted by Tom Weiner. In an effort to sound sauve and debonair he gives an irritating rendition which sounds as if he has had one drink to many. I will read the book (again, as I do all RAH books) and try to get that damn voice out of my head.
disappointed in the narrative performance
do not listen to Tom Weiner
I find most of Heinlein's novels end rather abruptly. It's like he got bored with the story, and just wanted to end it.
The female voices could have been done better. Most men cannot do good female voices, just as most women cannot talk like a man. It's cartoonish in either case.
Some parts of the story are good, but how Heinlein regards sex is perverse. Seems like everybody has sex with everybody else, and 13-year-olds have sex with 60 or 70-year-olds. Seems like he has a subjectivist view of sex: it has no meaning; it's just like eating dinner or playing some sport: you can do it with anyone. What the hell?
And if there are
I liked the book. I liked the character Richard Ames. I like the entire mantra and idea that there is no free lunch, our society should adopt this entirely, and I like the idea that manners should be obligatory in order to avoid violent reactions from those offended by rudeness. We could all learn a few things from the RAH philosophy. In addition, the multiverse is great though a little confusing. I felt boggled at some points in the story, similiar to Richard Ames. However, unlike Richard Ames I have never left the cornfields and travelled to the multiverse, except through my Ipod, and one part of this book that I will never be able to accept is the parts where men are kissing or having sex with each other. It is wrong, wrong, wrong, and sick. This was the part of the novel that threw me off. Up until this point I enjoyed the book. After this I felt disgusted. I.E. homosexuality does not play well in Peoria, maybe in California or Oregon or Massechusets or wherever it is great to be gay, but it has never been openly accepted any place I've ever lived, sissy boys are to be made fun of, plain and simple. Maybe my values are influenced by the fact that I have always been in the cornfields of the Midwest or the cotton and peanut fields of the deep South. Even RAH made the comment in the book that his character who was originally from Iowa had a hard time accepting gay sex. Not much has changed 100 miles away in Peoria. What else can I say. This is a weird book to say the least.