Olaf Stapledon?

[ahi]

I am a huge fan of Olaf Stapledon's "Last and First Men" and "Star Maker".

How likely am I to like his other stuff? Or, rather, which of his other stuff am I likely to like?

I'd like some wisened Stapledon fans to advise me, as upon superficial inspection it seems to me that Stapledon's other books are bound to be a tad (or more than a tad) bit more hoakey* than his two most widely celebrated works.

Am I wrong? Or will I really be happier if I don't contaminate my deep admiration for this author by reading his less popular books and stories?

- Ahi

Ps.: For example, a talking dog just seems sooo young adult literature to me...

[Greg Anos]

I can vouch for Odd John. It is a masterpiece of the homo superior genre...

P.S. I don't claim my writing is worth a John Nance Garner Vice-Presidency.

[queentess]

The only Stapledon book I've tried to read is Odd John, and that's because it was listed on the recommended reading list of the Sci-Fi Museum in Seattle. I've been working on it for months now and I'm only about halfway through it. I really doubt I'll bother finishing it because it just got too repetitive.

Can't speak for Sirius though.

[ahi]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

I can vouch for Odd John. It is a masterpiece of the homo superior genre...

Thanks, perhaps I'll give that a try soon.

Originally Posted by queentess

The only Stapledon book I've tried to read is Odd John, and that's because it was listed on the recommended reading list of the Sci-Fi Museum in Seattle. I've been working on it for months now and I'm only about halfway through it. I really doubt I'll bother finishing it because it just got too repetitive.

Can't speak for Sirius though.

Thanks also! Though I have a suspicion that the repetition you mention is a staple (ah-ha-ha!) of Stapledon.

"Last and First Men" and particularly "Star Maker" are not really novels but fictional histories of humanity and the university, respectively. Not hugely character / plot driven in the traditional sense. Perhaps the author's writing naturally tends toward a style that is infrequent (and rarely applauded) in fiction.

- Ahi

[queentess]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

I can vouch for Odd John. It is a masterpiece of the homo superior genre...

Yeah, I hear it gets really good, but I'm still stuck in the "he's so superior, let's list all the ways" mode of the book. And bored with John's dialog. Perhaps it's my age or my inability to deal with pretentious dialog.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by queentess

Yeah, I hear it gets really good, but I'm still stuck in the "he's so superior, let's list all the ways" mode of the book. And bored with John's dialog. Perhaps it's my age or my inability to deal with pretentious dialog.

<Shrug> That's Stapledon's style. If you don't care for it, you won't like any of his stuff. Nothing wrong with that, to each his own. Since Ahi stated he liked Stapledon's style, I was just mentioning that Odd John was a good book of the author's style.

For an example, I like James Branch Cabell. But his writing style is so fancy that 9 out of 10 readers today would just bounce trying to read him. At that, I've tried reading another writer of the era (Java Head, 1919, by Joseph Hergesheim) and gave up after 10 pages. He'd spend 10 pages doing nothing but describing a room. And Java Head was considered a masterpiece at the time....

[ahi]

I actually find the the more ornate/embellished English of older early and pre-20th century books has grown on me. I have gotten used to the quirks and can now readily find even aesthetic pleasure of sorts therein.

Anybody familiar with "The Last Men in London"? It vaguely relates to "Last and First Men" but any description of it that I have read so far left me feeling like it's probably going to be too different for me.

"The Flames: A Fantasy" seems like it might turn out to be pretty good though; and I recently found out about "Darkness and the Light". The conceptual basis of the latter appeals to me, being rather like his two big books... but the (to me, rather silly) notion that the salvation of the world depends on what happens to Tibet makes me fear that it'll be a bit politically trollopy.

Not to mention I did not think much of the portion of most of the portion of "Last and First Men" that dealt with the near future with present-day existant countries. In fact there were a few parts that I found nothing short of distastefully ludicrous. Of course, both the better parts of the chapter/part and all the rest of the book more than made up for it. But it vaguely seems like "Darkness and Light" has no other parts.

So how is Stapledon with addressing unabstracted politics though? Is "Darkness and the Light" deep enough to be worth reading, or does it also have its share of ocean nymphs bestowing ultimate victory upon fortuitously unmarried world leaders?

- Ahi

P.s.:

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

He'd spend 10 pages doing nothing but describing a room.

I remember my annoyance with J. F. Cooper ("The Last of the Mohicans", et al) for seemingly starting every book of his with a 20-30+ page description/enumeration of the landscape.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by ahi

...

I remember my annoyance with J. F. Cooper ("The Last of the Mohicans", et al) for seemingly starting every book of his with a 20-30+ page description/enumeration of the landscape.

Have you read Mark Twain's The Literary Offenses of James Fenmore Cooper ? If not, it's the best "writer's guide" ever written...

[ahi]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

Have you read Mark Twain's The Literary Offenses of James Fenmore Cooper ? If not, it's the best "writer's guide" ever written...

That sounds delightful!

[queentess]

That sounds delightful!

I second this