The first SF book I ever bought with my allowance money was Robert Heinlein's Starman Jones, one of his later "juveniles". I was ten years old. I read it for t

The first SF book I ever bought with my allowance money was Robert Heinlein's Starman Jones, one of his later "juveniles". I was ten years old. I read it for the spaceships, and the computers, and the other whiz-bang technology stuff. I never even noticed the characters. I went on to read a bunch of E E "Doc" Smith and other space opera and was happy. On a lark, I re-read Starman Jones a few days ago. I'm 56 now. I am astonished at how well Heinlein had drawn his characters, and I could now spot the pivotal moment where the protagonist makes his big change; all stuff I missed when I was a pre-teen, but that is obvious now. If Heinlein hadn't put all that "character stuff" there, I would not have enjoyed the book, but I wasn't conscious enough to appreciate it. I realized quite a few years ago that most of the SF I read used the whiz-bang stuff as a hook, but that the books I enjoyed the most had the best character development. I strongly disagree that character is inherently secondary in SF. Or rather, it is just as secondary in crappy SF as it is in the crappy books of just about any genre (mystery, bodice buster, adventure, western, spy novel, etc.). [Apologies for the word "crappy", but I'm feeling rather Ellisonesque this morning]