Old Masters of Science Fiction

[pwalker8]

Speaking of Heinlein, apparently they found some old manuscripts of Heinlein's that when put together is some sort of spin off of the Number of the Beast and are releasing it in a month or so as The Pursuit of the Pankera. Can't say that I'm particularly tempted. I don't care for Number of the Beast and in general and I tend to be suspicious of old manuscripts released years and years later.

[Apache]

They were trying to raise money, last year, using GoFundMe and contributors would get a copy. I did not contribute.
Apache

[GlennD]

I'm waiting for the ebook version to be available. It's a curiosity and of interest to me but not one of the limited number of physical books I need on the shelf. It's not my favorite period of RAH's writing.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by Apache

They were trying to raise money, last year, using GoFundMe and contributors would get a copy. I did not contribute.
Apache

I did, if for no more reason than a comparison - before or after.

Heinlein, had been suffering from a blocked carotid artery, when writing the first draft. By all accounts, going downhill fast. He had a pioneering form of bypass surgery, and then re-wrote the last 2/3 of the book and published it as Number Of The Beast-.

I'm curious to see the "before and after". This is not something that one gets to see from a major author. . .

[Pulpmeister]

Never really been a great fan of Heinlein. I was happy enough with some of his earlier short stories, such as the collection "Green Hills of Earth", which I think was the first Heinlein I ever bought, way back when.

I also enjoyed "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress", in which the hero is a computer, and which I interpreted as the American Revolution, re-imagined on the Moon. (Published in 1976). Much of his later work became less and less human, if that is the right word, more ideological, and less well written, too. I also read his posthumous book ("grumbles from beyond the grave?") without much enjoyment. I thought "Farnham's Freehold" was the pits. I couldn't find a single character in it to like.

I haven't read any of his more portentous and voluminous later novels in case they wash away my enjoyment of Green Hills and Harsh Mistress.

One of the early writers not mentioned, I think, is John Wyndham, "Day of the Triffids", "The Kraken Wakes", etc. Incidentally I read "wakes" in the title in the Irish funereal sense, rather than "awakes", so caused some mental confusion at first.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by Pulpmeister

Never really been a great fan of Heinlein. I was happy enough with some of his earlier short stories, such as the collection "Green Hills of Earth", which I think was the first Heinlein I ever bought, way back when.

I also enjoyed "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress", in which the hero is a computer, and which I interpreted as the American Revolution, re-imagined on the Moon. (Published in 1976). Much of his later work became less and less human, if that is the right word, more ideological, and less well written, too. I also read his posthumous book ("grumbles from beyond the grave?") without much enjoyment. I thought "Farnham's Freehold" was the pits. I couldn't find a single character in it to like.

I haven't read any of his more portentous and voluminous later novels in case they wash away my enjoyment of Green Hills and Harsh Mistress.

One of the early writers not mentioned, I think, is John Wyndham, "Day of the Triffids", "The Kraken Wakes", etc. Incidentally I read "wakes" in the title in the Irish funereal sense, rather than "awakes", so caused some mental confusion at first.

I would not recommend his later "post surgery" books.

OTOH, I would recommend the best of his juveniles. The Star Beast, Citizen of the Galaxy, or Have Spacesuit, Will Travel, are recommendations. Double Star is another recommendation.

YMMV

(Personally, I think Farnham's Freehold was his worst book.)

[Pajamaman]

I started reading Tunnel in the Sky recently, and have put it down. Maybe I'll try again, but start skipping forward to a bit that grabs me.

My impressions of the book are that Heinlein writes like a soldier in a war who has never been in a war. He idolizes a mythical American frontier liberalism, that maybe never existed. It feels like a garish pastiche. I wonder if his appeal is particularly American, for those Americans who like that kind of stuff.

[Greg Anos]

All literature consists of two parts - what the author wants to say, and how he says it.

Really good literature is good at both parts simultaneously.

What an author has to say is always context driven. The context of the author's own life experience, and the context of the reader she/he is trying to entertain/communicate with. And that is a variable - every one has a slightly (or greatly) different life experience.

Yes, Heinlein was an American, writing for an audience of people with some form of American life experience. And yes, he was an Naval Academy graduate, who never saw combat (medically retired because of Tuberculosis in the mid 1930's (when there was no effective treatment)). Tunnel In The Sky was an American Science Fiction take on the same subject material as Lord Of The Flies. Different perspective, different results.

[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.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by Pulpmeister

A little esoteric, but

John Brunner: Traveller in Black (1971)

Originally Posted by pdurrant

that is, indeed excellent. But people might prefer The Compleat Traveller in Black (1979?) which includes one extra story.

Just want to point out: The Compleat Traveller in Black is available for $1.99 at Amazon US.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Speaking of Heinlein, apparently they found some old manuscripts of Heinlein's that when put together is some sort of spin off of the Number of the Beast and are releasing it in a month or so as The Pursuit of the Pankera. Can't say that I'm particularly tempted. I don't care for Number of the Beast and in general and I tend to be suspicious of old manuscripts released years and years later.

I bought in, and I'm not even a Heinlein fan. I just thought it was a project worth supporting.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by Pajamaman

I started reading Tunnel in the Sky recently, and have put it down.

My impressions of the book are that Heinlein writes like a soldier in a war who has never been in a war. He idolizes a mythical American frontier liberalism, that maybe never existed. It feels like a garish pastiche.

...perhaps he particulary appeals to people who sympathasize with his idealized conservative world view, which I find silly and shallow.

I agree. His style of idealized libertarianism never really grabbed me. Tunnel in the Sky was one of his that I read. If you didn't like the beginning, I wouldn't expect it to get better.

My strongest memory is when the main character sees a fellow student die in front of him and his reaction is 'too bad!'

Originally Posted by Pajamaman

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.

You have good taste

[Greg Anos]

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?

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

I agree. His style of idealized libertarianism never really grabbed me. Tunnel in the Sky was one of his that I read. If you didn't like the beginning, I wouldn't expect it to get better.

My strongest memory is when the main character sees a fellow student die in front of him and his reaction is 'too bad!'



You have good taste

Hum, methinks we are heading towards drifting off topic, but I think that the main difference between the Clint Eastwood "Man with no Name" character and the John Wayne character in The Searcher and Stagecoach is more a matter of honor and ethics than anything else and The Outlaw Josie Wales was very, very close to the standard John Wayne character.

Early Heinlein is a product of it's time and rugged individualism was a common motif in both literature and film at the time. Yea, John Wayne was popular at the time, while Clint Eastwood's Spaghetti westerns were more a product of the 60's. If John Wayne compares to Heinlein, then Clint Eastwood compares to Roger Zelazny.

I wasn't a huge Tunnel in the Sky fan. I thought it was one of his weaker early works. The situation just seemed forced and unbelievable. I'm much more a Green Hills of Earth, Starship Troopers, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress fan.

[Pajamaman]

I don't agree Heinlein and his politics were a symptom of his time. His politics have not gone away. His romaticized rugged individualist views remain current.

Asimov was writing in the same period, or even earlier, and his politics are not clear from his writing. How would Elijah Bailey have handled one of Heinlein's John Wayne models. Out-witted him, I'm sure.

I read that Heinlein stopped talking to Clarke because Clarke attacked Reagans Star Wars program. But he did buy a broke Philip K Dick a type writer.