"DRM" in Ye Olden Days

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying it's a good series. I do think, however, that there's a tendency to make Hubbard's SF writing out to be worse than it is due to his crackpot beliefs (or, in an alternate viewpoint, extremely clever business) in Scientology. One of Hubbard's books in particular, "Battlefield Earth" (not to be confused with "Mission Earth"), I think is great Space Opera (although it was made into a quite stunningly awful film).

One contemporary review I saw of BATTLEFIELD EARTH said something like: "...Hubbard hasn't written any SF since the 30's and apparently he thinks no one else has..."

I think it was in Asimov's.

Much like Gore Vidal's Kalki, I never had any interesting in sampling his wares, for much the same meta reasons as why I have no interest in Go Set a Watchman. Some books are simply too blatant for my taste.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

One contemporary review I saw of BATTLEFIELD EARTH said something like: "...Hubbard hasn't written any SF since the 30's and apparently he thinks no one else has..."

I think it was in Asimov's.

Give it a go - you might just enjoy it. I think it's an excellent book.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Give it a go - you might just enjoy it. I think it's an excellent book.

I really don't know.
I've read Weber and Hogan and Drake. I've seen 21st century Space Opera.
The old school stuff works for me because of its historical value. Hubbard...

Maybe when I get the next root canal while I'm still numb.

(I'm having a similar problem with superhero comics; after seeing how good the genre can be on movies, TV, and in indie prose novels--all DRM and curse free, BTW-- the current storylines at Marvel and DC just don't work for me.)

[TimW]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying it's a good series. I do think, however, that there's a tendency to make Hubbard's SF writing out to be worse than it is due to his crackpot beliefs (or, in an alternate viewpoint, extremely clever business) in Scientology. One of Hubbard's books in particular, "Battlefield Earth" (not to be confused with "Mission Earth"), I think is great Space Opera (although it was made into a quite stunningly awful film).

Everyone has their own preferences. The world would be a terribly boring place if that weren't so. However, nearly everyone in creation would have to agree that the worst poetry in the universe was written by Paula Nancy Millstone Jennings.

http://hitchhikers.wikia.com/wiki/Pa...stone_Jennings

[gmw]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying it's a good series. I do think, however, that there's a tendency to make Hubbard's SF writing out to be worse than it is due to his crackpot beliefs (or, in an alternate viewpoint, extremely clever business) in Scientology. One of Hubbard's books in particular, "Battlefield Earth" (not to be confused with "Mission Earth"), I think is great Space Opera (although it was made into a quite stunningly awful film).

+1 I'm certainly not a Hubbard fan, but I enjoyed reading "Battlefield Earth".

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying it's a good series. I do think, however, that there's a tendency to make Hubbard's SF writing out to be worse than it is due to his crackpot beliefs (or, in an alternate viewpoint, extremely clever business) in Scientology. One of Hubbard's books in particular, "Battlefield Earth" (not to be confused with "Mission Earth"), I think is great Space Opera (although it was made into a quite stunningly awful film).

I dunno. I read Hubbard's Fear and hated it. Then, ten years or so later, I suspected my impressions might have been colored by his crackpot beliefs/clever business, so I tried Fear again, with fresh eyes. It remained awful.

I did at some point also try The Invaders Plan (Mission Earth, book 1) and it was similarly terrible.

The fact that Asimov, Bradbury, Clarke and Heinlein still have fans but for the most part Hubbard does not isn't completely due to Scientology. I suspect that if it weren't for Dianetics, his reputation would be at about the level of Doc Smith, if he was lucky.

[HarryT]

Sure, Hubbard was a "mid range" author. A comparison with Smith is very apt. As I said, I think "Battlefield Earth" is a damn good book.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by HarryT

As I said, I think "Battlefield Earth" is a damn good book.

Are there any shorter works by him you would recommend, maybe to work my way up? I wouldn't mind trying once again, but based on my previous experiences with him, I have a hard time wanting to dive into that door-stopper.

[murg]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Give it a go - you might just enjoy it. I think it's an excellent book.

This explains so much...

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Sure, Hubbard was a "mid range" author. A comparison with Smith is very apt.

Dunno. Smith is historically significant to the whole field of SF.
For both SKYLARK and LENSMEN.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._E._...riting_Skylark

Hubbard wasn't even significant in his own time.
If it weren't for his other activities he'd be L. Ron Who? by now.

But mileage does vary.

[crich70]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Dunno. Smith is historically significant to the whole field of SF.
For both SKYLARK and LENSMEN.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._E._...riting_Skylark

Hubbard wasn't even significant in his own time.
If it weren't for his other activities he'd be L. Ron Who? by now.

But mileage does vary.

And different writers having different styles catch the eye of different readers.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by crich70

And different writers having different styles catch the eye of different readers.

Indeed.
Samuel Delany is one of the better (and more significant) authors of the 60's but I just can't get into his style. I keep trying to read Dahlgren and I keep bouncing off. I just get no traction.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by murg

This explains so much...

Can you explain exactly what you mean by that comment, please?