Quote:
Originally Posted by leebase
I appreciate the art of the early sci to masters.....but time hasn't been kind to all of them. One, 50 or more years have happened and their vision of the future is archaic for much of them. It's kind of like how the Battlestar Galactica reboot series was SO much better than the original. Of course the special effects are better, but so is he acting and the writing.
Forever War by Haldemon must b appreciated for the time period it was written. Just reading it today...it's not very good story telling. Of mice and men didn't hold up well, IMO and I loved that book when younger. To Kill A Mocking Bird...still awesome.
Opinions. Of course
|
The reboot of Battlestar Galactica better than the original? Heresy! Blasphemer! (well except for the awful second season). I bet you like Picard better than Kirk as well.
Your criticism is true for pretty much any book. If the reader isn't familiar with Victorian London, then the actions and attitudes of Sherlock Holmes makes very little sense. The same sort of thing is true of Shakespeare, Milton and Homer.
Quite a bit of Heinlein's science has been bypassed by events. That's certainly true of Jules Verne as well.
I suspect how well a book holds up depends a lot on how familiar the reader is with the attitudes and knowledge of the time period of the book. IMPO, Of Mice and Men has held up quite well, but it only makes sense if you are familiar with the Great Depression and how it effected people.