Quote:
Originally Posted by Pajamaman
I enjoyed the points you made at the start of your post. That made a lot of sense. Intention and execution. I suppose Heinleins intention was to show that the world is tough and you must stand on your own two feet. Though in his later works it seemed to become its okay to have babies with a sibling.
I haven't even got to lord of the flies bit. He hasn't entered the tunnel. I'm commenting on his mentor's tough guy speech at the start, and some idealized description of a frontiersman about to enter a gate on his horse. Its all very tough guy rugged individualist.
The style reminds me a bit of You Might Survive, a memoir of an American soldier invading Germany. Its very good. The style is rapid, clear and quite plain in a good way. It does not sensatoinalize. Heinleins sentence style in tunnel in the sky reminds me of it.
Starship Troopers is also full of this rugged individualism. I suppose its his best expression of it. But it all seems very John Wayne to me. Some people like John Wayne. I prefer my Westerns with Clint Eastwood.
I find Tunnel in the sky poor. There are far far better writers and works who are less mentioned. Perhaps Heinlein is the emperors new clothes. Or perhaps he particulary appeals to people who sympathasize with his idealized conservative world view, which I find silly and shallow.
|
It is clear that what Heinlein was trying to communicate, you don't want to read. Since it failed the part one, part two (how he says it) doesn't matter. That's fine, there is no disputing personal taste.
Can we steer clear of the politics involved? I don't want this thread to end up in P&R.
At the other end of the science fiction literary spectrum, have you read any Cordwainer Smith?