On Reading Heinlein

There has been some talk in the SFF community recently about the value of reading the work of Robert A. Heinlein. Now I happen to have read some Heinlein, because when I was in high school I went through a phase of reading science fiction classics, and I read Heinlein, and Asimov and Niven, and Dune, and all the Darkover books, and I don't remember what else. Anyways I don't think it did me any harm thought I did get into some stupid arguments about sexism that I would have rather avoided.

At some point I decided reading the classics was all very well, but I wasn't going to read things because they were good for me, or helped me understand history I was only going to read things because I enjoyed them. Which doesn't mean I've stopped reading older books, I've just have stopped reading them because of their place in the cannon.

I have no intention of reading any more Heinlein because his treatment of women makes me angry, and I don't enjoy reading books that make me angry. I wouldn't recommend his work, unless you have high tolerance for that type of thing.

Still I'm annoyed at his place in the cannon. Why was it easy for high school me to find Heinlein, but I only discovered Delany, Slonczewski, Hambly, and Russ recently? When Alex Dally MacFarlane started talking about non-gender binary SF, many people had only read The Left Hand of Darkness? Why has no review of I've read of Ancillary Justice talked about how it is simlar to Stars in My Pocket Like Grains of Sand? Why is that book only in print as an e-book?

If there is any value in reading to get historical perspective than surely there is value in reading more than just the few canonized authors. Though of course I think the authors I mentioned in the last paragraph are worth reading simply because they are good.

The tendency to canonize Heinlein and few of his contemporaries is not only unwelcoming to new fans but it robs us of the full richness of our own history.