Sci-fi authors you (and I) should NEVER read

[EatingPie]

Originally Posted by dwanthny

I agree.

Even in my general despising of Heinlein, he was indeed an important author, and if you like golden age of science fiction you would want to check him out.

But I would not go so far as to say he's required reading if you're interested in Science Fiction at all. There have been a variety of iterations and styles through out the history of the genre, and Heinlein was most important to a specific period. If you preferred "New Wavers" like John Varley or J.G. Ballard, Heinlein (or Asimov, etc.) would not necessarily be an imperative.

I actually like hard science fiction the best, and a lot of golden age fit in that period, which is why I read Heinlein. I even liked some of his work. But as I said, his viewpoints were terribly off-putting in a few specific works, and I would not recommend him because those particular works are his most seminal. And to this day, every time I hear the word "grok" a shudder runs down my spine.

-Pie

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by EatingPie

Even in my general despising of Heinlein, he was indeed an important author, and if you like golden age of science fiction you would want to check him out.

But I would not go so far as to say he's required reading if you're interested in Science Fiction at all. There have been a variety of iterations and styles through out the history of the genre, and Heinlein was most important to a specific period. If you preferred "New Wavers" like John Varley or J.G. Ballard, Heinlein (or Asimov, etc.) would not necessarily be an imperative.

It depends on what your goals are. Heinlein was one of the important influences shaping the field as it exists today. If you just want to read SF, and have particular sorts of things you like, you don't have to read anybody in particular, beyond those who scratch your particular itch.

If your goal it to be knowledgeable about SF as a whole and claim any particular knowledge of it, and you haven't read Heinlein, expect people who do know something about the field to point at you and laugh.

I actually like hard science fiction the best, and a lot of golden age fit in that period, which is why I read Heinlein. I even liked some of his work. But as I said, his viewpoints were terribly off-putting in a few specific works, and I would not recommend him because those particular works are his most seminal.

You found certain viewpoints off putting. That doesn't mean that others will, and it doesn't even mean they're wrong. (They may be wrong, but that fact that you didn't like them is not proof of anything save that you didn't like them.)

And to this day, every time I hear the word "grok" a shudder runs down my spine.

Too bad, because grok has slipped into more general parlance, and may be used by people who have no idea of its provenance.
______
Dennis

[kennyc]

True, very few authors can claim to have created a word or concept that has become universal.

[BenG]

Remember "I grok Spock"?

The big three, or rather the giant three writers of SF in the 40s and 50s were Heinlein, Asimov, and Clarke. There's no getting around them.

[DiapDealer]

The big three, or rather the giant three writers of SF in the 40s and 50s were Heinlein, Asimov, and Clarke. There's no getting around them.

Too true. And while I only truly enjoy the works of one of them... I have plenty of respect to spare for all three of them.

[EatingPie]

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

It depends on what your goals are. Heinlein was one of the important influences shaping the field as it exists today. If you just want to read SF, and have particular sorts of things you like, you don't have to read anybody in particular, beyond those who scratch your particular itch.

If your goal it to be knowledgeable about SF as a whole and claim any particular knowledge of it, and you haven't read Heinlein, expect people who do know something about the field to point at you and laugh.

I would hope people would be more polite than that.

But this is the Internet...

You found certain viewpoints off putting. That doesn't mean that others will, and it doesn't even mean they're wrong. (They may be wrong, but that fact that you didn't like them is not proof of anything save that you didn't like them.)

Yeah I find his viewpoints off putting. That was why I would say put certain of his books in the NEVER read category. I mean, isn't that the point of this thread? Everyone is expressing their opinions about certain authors and books, but that does not mean we all have the gospel on what is good or bad.

And I think I mis-spoke. I don't simply find some of his viewpoints off-putting, I find them completely unconscionable. But we already discussed that earlier in this thread.

Too bad, because grok has slipped into more general parlance, and may be used by people who have no idea of its provenance.

Totally agree! More people should realize it's an annoying word from an annoying book with annoying ideologies.

-Pie

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by EatingPie

....

Totally agree! More people should realize it's an annoying word from an annoying book with annoying ideologies.

-Pie

In Your Opinion. One that is not necessarily shared by others.

[Penforhire]

Not only "not necessarily" but not even likely shared by most, hence grok going mainstream like Xerox, um, xerox.

[kennyc]

Good point wrt GROK...but probably also wrt Heinlein's importance and him being "required reading" for anyone interested in the genre.

I should add to my original post on the matter that all the Heinlein I have ever read was done as a boy of between 11-12 years old. At that time I read every science fiction novel available in my local public and school libraries (not as many books as one might think since I lived in a very small town). My recollection of Stranger in a Strange Land is that it was about a man raised to adulthood among Martins, and this rendered him so attractive to women that when he returned to Earth all the women were fighting to have sex with him.

Originally Posted by dwanthny

Interesting how everyone is different.

Three of the above are on the Top 100 Sci-Fi books list and two of them were Hugo award winners. Two are listed as targeted to teenage boys and are part of what are referred to as Heinlein Juveniles. Starship Troopers was meant to be the 13th of the Heinlein Juveniles series but was turned down by Scribner, it ended up published by Putnam and won the Hugo for best novel.

Personally I have only read Stranger in a Strange Land in my early 20s and Starship Troopers just prior to the movie coming out. I recall enjoying both of these books quite a lot.

With 4 Hugo awards, I think it is safe to say that Robert Heinlein is not a Science Fiction author you should never read.

I can certainly see the targeted for teenage boys observation.

So anyway my opinions should only be assigned the worth due to the opinion of one person with that opinion formed as as a 12 year old boy.

Originally Posted by BenG

Remember "I grok Spock"?

The big three, or rather the giant three writers of SF in the 40s and 50s were Heinlein, Asimov, and Clarke. There's no getting around them.

I did not even recall that “grok” originated with Heinlein. I have always associated it with Spock and Star Trek.

I certainly agree with Clarke, and even more so with Asimov. I just finished with reading books 4 and 5 in the Foundation series (having read the original three many years ago) and was impressed with the quality of writing and the seamless integration into the plot and concepts of the first three even though 4 and 5 were written 30 years later.

Maybe I can toss a does anyone recognize a title request in here? I recall many years ago reading a SF anthology (by Niven or Norton maybe?) that may have been sole author collection, or a number of authors. One story included a pilot of a space ship considering releasing a cloud of radioactive fluorine as a defensive maneuver. It is probably because I had just completed my first course in physical sciences that that bit stuck with me; not just fluorine, but radioactive fluorine. Anyway the collection contained a lot of enjoyable titles as I recall.

[AndrewH]

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

If your goal it to be knowledgeable about SF as a whole and claim any particular knowledge of it, and you haven't read Heinlein, expect people who do know something about the field to point at you and laugh.

I don't know about anyone else, but my goal when reading fiction is entertainment.

I've never read one word of Heinlein (for no particular reason, I simply haven't gotten around to reading him), but consider myself well exposed to sci-fi. Asimov, Brin, Card, Clarke, Herbert, McCaffrey, Simmons, others I can't think of off the top of my head. Feel free to point and laugh.

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by AndrewH

I don't know about anyone else, but my goal when reading fiction is entertainment.

I've never read one word of Heinlein (for no particular reason, I simply haven't gotten around to reading him), but consider myself well exposed to sci-fi. Asimov, Brin, Card, Clarke, Herbert, McCaffrey, Simmons, others I can't think of off the top of my head. Feel free to point and laugh.

Nope, because you aren't claiming the sort of expertise I'm talking about. "Well exposed" is a good descriptor for your experience, but I doubt you would call yourself an expert on the field as a whole.

(I've met all of the folks you mention, and I'm deeply sorry at the passing of Asimov, Clarke, and Herbert. Especially so in Isaac and Frank's cases: Asimov succumbed to AIDS contracted through tainted blood given during otherwise successful bypass surgery (we were just beginning to learn about HIV/AIDS, and donated blood was not scanned for it), and Herbert was felled by a pulmonary embolism after surgery for pancreatic cancer, which is one of the nastier forms of the disease. Sir Arthur, at least, lived a full and productive span, and was something of a national treasure in his adopted homeland of Sri Lanka.)
______
Dennis

[kennyc]

But this thread is about authors you should NEVER read. Are you saying that about Heinlein or just saying that you haven't gotten to him or don't know. That's a very different thing then saying to NEVER read him as Pie is.

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by Hamlet53

I should add to my original post on the matter that all the Heinlein I have ever read was done as a boy of between 11-12 years old. At that time I read every science fiction novel available in my local public and school libraries (not as many books as one might think since I lived in a very small town). My recollection of Stranger in a Strange Land is that it was about a man raised to adulthood among Martins, and this rendered him so attractive to women that when he returned to Earth all the women were fighting to have sex with him.

Your recollection is faulty. He doesn't "get" women at all until some time after his return. ("Get" used in the sense of "understand".) He's been raised by a species that has nothing in common with humanity, including sex. He eventually learns enough about humanity to engage in sex and romance with fair success, but they are never the point of his exercise.

I can certainly see the targeted for teenage boys observation.

So anyway my opinions should only be assigned the worth due to the opinion of one person with that opinion formed as as a 12 year old boy.

That's where a lot of folks got introduced to him. 12 is widely considered the "golden age" at which to be introduced to SF. It happened for me somewhat earlier, but that was happenstance.

I did not even recall that “grok” originated with Heinlein. I have always associated it with Spock and Star Trek.

It came from Heinlein's novel _Stranger In a Strange Land_, concerning the curious life and career of a human child - the only survivor of a Mars colony expedition, raised to adulthood by Martians - when he is found by a follow up flight and returned to Earth. It was a term used by Heinlein's Martians meaning "to understand something so totally you merge with the thing being understood". It was also the Martian word for "drink", which makes sense in the context.

The Martians have a much different view of reality than humanity, and the simple difference in viewpoint gives them odd abilities they taught in part to their human foundling. (Among other differences, Martian's spirits don't go elsewhere when they discorporate. They stay home on Mars. The body which they no longer require is consumed in a form of ritual cannibalism by their living neighbors, and the "Old One" who formerly inhabited the body is an honored guest at the ceremony.

Heinlein is revisiting Voltaire's Candide in SF terms, viewing human society through the distorting lens of someone raised outside it and trying to understand and come to terms with it. His protagonist finally becomes a willing martyr to a new faith he winds up founding as he attempts to teach humanity some of what he learned from the Martians and challenges a lot of cherished preconceptions. (Telling people everything they know is wrong and proving it is a very good way to get into fatal trouble. )

I certainly agree with Clarke, and even more so with Asimov. I just finished with reading books 4 and 5 in the Foundation series (having read the original three many years ago) and was impressed with the quality of writing and the seamless integration into the plot and concepts of the first three even though 4 and 5 were written 30 years later.

Asimov was good at plotting, and less so at characterization. People who don't like the Foundation series are often put off by people they don't find believable. He was a master at exposition, and when not writing SF he wrote well received non-fiction titles on a variety of scientific topics, plus Shakespeare and the Bible. Isaac had a gift for soaking up a wide variety of knowledge about an abstruse subject and then explaining it in layman's terms comprehensible by a wider audience.

Maybe I can toss a does anyone recognize a title request in here? I recall many years ago reading a SF anthology (by Niven or Norton maybe?) that may have been sole author collection, or a number of authors. One story included a pilot of a space ship considering releasing a cloud of radioactive fluorine as a defensive maneuver. It is probably because I had just completed my first course in physical sciences that that bit stuck with me; not just fluorine, but radioactive fluorine. Anyway the collection contained a lot of enjoyable titles as I recall.

That doesn't ring a bell offhand.
______
Dennis

[EatingPie]

Originally Posted by kennyc

In Your Opinion. One that is not necessarily shared by others.

LOL. I even said that in my post. Imagine that!

It's so silly that two posters (beside me!) feel it's necessary to point out an opinion they disagree with is just an opinion, as if that somehow diminishes it or distinguishes it from any other post here.

Everything in this thread is opinion last I checked. Even that Top-100 list of science fiction books is no more than opinion. That's why it keeps changing!

-Pie