"No villains." And Jim likes it lot, pointing out its strengths and flaws. Also, it supposedly is very much akin to Lord of the Flies and it would be interesting to compare them.

Dad read this to both of us. ( )

OK, I love how Heinlein doesn't repeat himself with these juveniles. I never know what kind of story I'm going to get. This one... well, most people will think of "Lord of the Flies" in another planet. However, Lord of the Flies (published a year before Tunnel in the Sky) is not its true spiritual predecessor. I believe that honor belongs to Jules Verne's "Two Years' Vacation", published 67 years earlier. Lord of the Flies takes a pessimistic look at human nature, showing how a group of boys stranded on an island quickly lose the thin veneer of civilization and become savages (this is obviously beloved by critics). Two Years' Vacation is much more optimistic, and shows how another group of boys, also isolated from civilization, survive and create a civilized society with the means they have. I liked Verne's books as a child and this one was my absolute favorite, even if for some reason it is not among the best-known. I wonder whether Heinlein had read it.

I thoroughly enjoyed Tunnel in the Sky. I thought it was very well done and it has stood the test of time better than other Heinlein juveniles. Of course, it has the advantage that technology and computers (or the lack thereof) don't play a big role in it. In fact, that ¡s the only real criticism I can make: this is not a very science-fictional story. It is in the tradition of the great adventure stories of the past, like Verne's novel, but the fact that we do not know which planet it is set on means that we can have more unknown perils.

Some thoughts:

* Those survival classes are too brutal: I understand this is an age of adventure and exploration, and I can see the point of these classes for future colonists and explorers. But we are talking about high school students taking a test where a number of them will die, even if nothing unexpected happens... There's no way I can imagine our society accepting that. Not even for adults. The students are not even well-prepared for it. With the excuse that survival is an art and not a science, their teacher seems content to give them a few pointers and philosophical advice, without being systematical about it.

* Unlike other Heinlein juveniles, this doesn't seem to be set in the same universe, since the portal technology is too different from the solar system society based on space travel of other novels.

* Verne's "Two Years' Vacation" was longer and we could get more details on how the kids organized themselves and made improvements. Tunnel in the Sky is shorter and we lose some of that detail. However, Heinlein did very well with the pages he had, making judicious use of time skips.

* I loved how Heinlein did not try to make things too black-and-white. With another writer Grant Cowper might have been a villain, being our hero's rival for leadership. However, although Cowper has his flaws, he nonetheless does his very best for the colony, and he is clearly a heroic character. This makes the story better, in my opinion. The main character doesn't always know better and isn't always right.

* Heinlein also did a good job with the society the stranded teenagers created. There were some unsavory characters but the majority of them understood the need for cooperation. There was also some attention paid to the conflict between the need to have leaders with legitimacy and popular support but at the same time more authoritarian than a society in less dire conditions would require. Also, it is shown how politics often trumps ability. Grant Cowper and Rod Walker are never friends and they don't like each other, but they are able to work with each other for the good of the colony. As one character says "government is the art of getting along with people you don't like".

* Regarding the treatment of female characters, it's notorious how many highly competent and intelligent female characters there are here. Only seven years earlier, in Space Cadet, girls were not allowed to become cadets. Here they take the same extremely dangerous test, and they do well. There's some of that "gallantry" where the boys try to get the girls out of danger when there's a crisis (which, I think, is a bit absurd considering that they are taking the same survival test and sharing the same extreme risks) but all in all this is much more advanced in that sense than what I would expect of a 1955 novel. Also, according to the wikipedia article on this novel that I have read after finishing, Heinlein thought of Rod Walker (the main character) as black, but was not allowed to describe him that way directly. However, there are subtle hints (like the fact that other characters are described as being tanned or sunburnt, but never Rod, or how other characters tended to assume that he would end up in a relationship with Caroline, who is also black.) Caroline, by the way, becomes Rod's deputy and second in command, although she never breaks the barrier of becoming the leader. She was qualified to be a good leader, but I guess a female "president" was still too much for the time.


All in all, this was very readable and entertaining. Not very science-fictional, perhaps, and it ends up paying more attention to the dynamics of the society the teenage survivors build than to world-building. The ending was quite good and appropriate too, although I'll avoid spoilers. ( )

A coming-of-age story from one of sci-fi's masters. Stranded children on a field expedition must band together and reestablish society in the wilds of a strange planet. Once they have build a viable, growing colony, they are rescued and must deal with re-entering their former lives, no longer as young adults in the colony they built, but again seen as children. ( )

interesting but too long-253 pages. ( )