Grumbles From The Grave — Robert A. Heinlein — (1989)

Another objection she made has nothing to do with sex, but I find it illustrative of how far afield she has gone to find trouble: she objected to my naming a prospector “Old Charlie” because the first name of Mr. Scribner is Charlesl How silly can one get?

I don’t expect you to do anyhing but wished to inform you because you may hear reverberations. I rapped her knuckles most sharply. There are types of behavior I won’t tolerate for any amount of money. I retaliated in kind (which is why I left you out of it); I took one of her books for girls and subjected it to the sort of analysis she gave mine. I know quite as much Freudian, bogus “psychology” as she does; from the criteria she uses, her book was dirty as hell-and I told her so, citing passages. If she is going to leer and smirk at my perfectly nice kids’ book, I can do the same to her girls’ stories. Amateur psychoanalysts make me sick! That impressive charlatan, Dr. Freud, has done quite as much harm as Queen Victoria ever did.

March 7, 1952: Robert A. Heinlein to Alice Dalgliesh

1. If you are going to make changes, I prefer to see them in advance of proof.

2. “Old Charlie” — I happen to like the name Charlie better than the name Danny, but the issue raised strikes me as just plain silly. “Charlie” is a very common nickname; there is probably at least one character named Charles in over half of currently published novels. Are we to lay off the very common names “Bob” and “Alice” because you and I happen to have them? In any case, nine-tenths of my readers are quite unaware of the name of the publisher; children very rarely pay attention to the name of the publishing house. It would be just as reasonable to place a taboo on “Harry” and on “George” and on “Joe” because of the names of the President, the late King, and the Russian dictator.

3. Flat cats and Freud-no, I most emphatically do not agree to any changes of any sort in the flat cats or anything about them. I am considerably irked by the phrase ” — a bit too Freudian in their pulsing love habits.” What love habits? I remember all too clearly the advice you gave me about Willis in Red Planet and how I should “consult a good Freudian” — in consequence, I most carefully desexed the creatures completely. I used the pronoun “it” throughout (if you find a “he” or “she,” it is a fault of my proofing); the circumstances make it clear that the first one, and by implication, all the others, reproduce by parthenogenesis. Do you object to the fact that they like to be petted? Good heavens, that can’t come out; the whole sequence depends on it-so don’t tamper with it. In any case, I set up a symbiosis theory to account for them being such affectionate pets.

If you choose to class the human response to the flat cats (the desire on the part of humans, particularly lonely humans, for a pet which can be fondled and which will show affection) — if you class this tendency (on which the sequence turns) as a form of sex sublimation, I will not argue the classification. By definition “sex” and “libido” may be extended to almost any human behavior-but I do not agree that there is necessarily anything unhealthy, nor queasily symbolic, in such secondary (sex?) behavior.

Following your theory, I really must point out that the treatment of Rusty in Along Janet’s Way [written by Miss Dalgliesh] is extremely significant (to a good Freudian) and highly symbolic, both in secondary sex behavior and in sublimation phenomena-in fact, not the sort of book to put into the hands of a young girl. That business with the nightgown, for example. From the standpoint of a good Freudian, every writer (you and I among others) unconsciously uses symbols which are simply reeking with the poisonous sexual jungles of our early lives and our ancestries. What would a half-baked analyst make of that triangular scene between the girl, the young man, and the male dog-and the nightgown? Of the phallic symbolism and the fetishism in the dialog that followed? And all this in a book intended for young girls?