3 ms·

> Heinlein’s 1959 novel Stranger in a Strange Land, which owned a species of cult-status through the 1970s, can be read today only with vicarious embarrassment.

> Heinlein’s 1959 novel Stranger in a Strange Land, which owned a species of cult-status through the 1970s, can be read today only with vicarious embarrassment. The reviewer dislikes this genre. OK. But it's like sending someone who hates horror to review a history of horror movies. The review tends to say more about the reviewer than the subject. Assigning me to the review would be the opposite mistake. I just love Heinlein's voice and read his old stuff from time to time to hear it again. From me you'd get a hear-no-evil encomium. I'd rather hear from a fan of hard sci fi that just hasn't had a chance to read the old masters until lately.

doodliego 7y ago
That's a serious mischaracterization, the author is clearly a fan of science fiction, but he prefers (from what I gather from the review, at least) the literary and metaphysical forms to the Campbell school. And it's a perfectly valid take. I consider myself well read in science fiction and of the writers of the 50s and 60s, I would rather read PK Dick or Jack Vance than Asimov's akward prose or Heinlein's sexual hangups. Not that Heinlein doesn't have great moments, for example one of the best time travel stories ever, but he's hardly infallible or immune to criticism.
- cairo_x 7y ago
  It always amazes me how many authors I personally find to be unreadable, awful and repugnant in the genre, that others absolutely love, and I see that as good thing. Aesthetic is not fact. The diversity in sci-fi is awesome.
- sdrothrock 7y ago
  > for example one of the best time travel stories ever It's been a while for me, but do you mean By His Bootstraps or We're All Zombies? The latter, for anyone curious, has nothing to do with zombies. Those two always fight for the top position in my head, so I'm curious if one of those is your top pick, or if you perhaps prefer another one. :)
TMWNN 7y ago
>> Heinlein’s 1959 novel Stranger in a Strange Land, which owned a species of cult-status through the 1970s, can be read today only with vicarious embarrassment. >The reviewer dislikes this genre. OK. But it's like sending someone who hates horror to review a history of horror movies. The review tends to say more about the reviewer than the subject. I grew up reading Heinlein. I've read it all; the short stories, the juveniles, the late-period novels, the early and late nonfiction essays, the recently published "lost" works. I consider him and Asimov among my formative influences. I very much agree that Stranger can only be read with vicarious embarrassment.
sdrothrock 7y ago
> The reviewer dislikes this genre That's not what I got from this at all -- it sounds like the author of the review seriously detests the science fiction authors in the book and that that distaste carries over to the things they've written. > . . . the study’s exposure of the selfish, banal, and prurient little world that his group of contributing personae, all of whom knew and socialized with one another, constituted. Nevala-Lee himself treats of that selfishness, banality, and prurience rather indifferently, as though it neither shocked nor repelled him. Perhaps the ambient moral relativism has inveigled his outlook. That lack of objectivity makes me suspicious of the review more than anything -- not only does he dislike the subjects of the book, but he is willing to go the extra mile to make sure that he's loud about it. Another example: > Hubbard’s vulgarity and lewdness mark him as the most repugnant of Nevala-Lee’s cast of characters, but Asimov earns his place next to Hubbard in the repugnance category. Lascivious and self-licensing, he regularly mauled women and tried to seduce them. When science fiction conventions became a feature of the genre, Asimov would patrol the floor and greet strange women by fondling their breasts. . . . He was running his own sexual con-game. Without bringing the truthfulness into question (I don't know either way), those are some serious claims and he's not at all making it clear whether this is from the book that he's reviewing or whether he's going off on his own with "everybody knows this" facts. Either way, he should be clear about that -- and if it's the latter, it really has no place in a book review unless to point out the omission, in which case he'd still need to be clear about the sourcing. It sounds less like he's reviewing a book and more like he's taking the book to use as a soapbox to vent.

doodliego 7y ago

That's a serious mischaracterization, the author is clearly a fan of science fiction, but he prefers (from what I gather from the review, at least) the literary and metaphysical forms to the Campbell school. And it's a perfectly valid take. I consider myself well read in science fiction and of the writers of the 50s and 60s, I would rather read PK Dick or Jack Vance than Asimov's akward prose or Heinlein's sexual hangups. Not that Heinlein doesn't have great moments, for example one of the best time travel stories ever, but he's hardly infallible or immune to criticism.

cairo_x 7y ago
It always amazes me how many authors I personally find to be unreadable, awful and repugnant in the genre, that others absolutely love, and I see that as good thing. Aesthetic is not fact. The diversity in sci-fi is awesome.
sdrothrock 7y ago
> for example one of the best time travel stories ever It's been a while for me, but do you mean By His Bootstraps or We're All Zombies? The latter, for anyone curious, has nothing to do with zombies. Those two always fight for the top position in my head, so I'm curious if one of those is your top pick, or if you perhaps prefer another one. :)

TMWNN 7y ago

>> Heinlein’s 1959 novel Stranger in a Strange Land, which owned a species of cult-status through the 1970s, can be read today only with vicarious embarrassment. >The reviewer dislikes this genre. OK. But it's like sending someone who hates horror to review a history of horror movies. The review tends to say more about the reviewer than the subject. I grew up reading Heinlein. I've read it all; the short stories, the juveniles, the late-period novels, the early and late nonfiction essays, the recently published "lost" works. I consider him and Asimov among my formative influences. I very much agree that Stranger can only be read with vicarious embarrassment.

sdrothrock 7y ago

> The reviewer dislikes this genre That's not what I got from this at all -- it sounds like the author of the review seriously detests the science fiction authors in the book and that that distaste carries over to the things they've written. > . . . the study’s exposure of the selfish, banal, and prurient little world that his group of contributing personae, all of whom knew and socialized with one another, constituted. Nevala-Lee himself treats of that selfishness, banality, and prurience rather indifferently, as though it neither shocked nor repelled him. Perhaps the ambient moral relativism has inveigled his outlook. That lack of objectivity makes me suspicious of the review more than anything -- not only does he dislike the subjects of the book, but he is willing to go the extra mile to make sure that he's loud about it. Another example: > Hubbard’s vulgarity and lewdness mark him as the most repugnant of Nevala-Lee’s cast of characters, but Asimov earns his place next to Hubbard in the repugnance category. Lascivious and self-licensing, he regularly mauled women and tried to seduce them. When science fiction conventions became a feature of the genre, Asimov would patrol the floor and greet strange women by fondling their breasts. . . . He was running his own sexual con-game. Without bringing the truthfulness into question (I don't know either way), those are some serious claims and he's not at all making it clear whether this is from the book that he's reviewing or whether he's going off on his own with "everybody knows this" facts. Either way, he should be clear about that -- and if it's the latter, it really has no place in a book review unless to point out the omission, in which case he'd still need to be clear about the sourcing. It sounds less like he's reviewing a book and more like he's taking the book to use as a soapbox to vent.