Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

I have just become a one-issue voter.

Posted by Greg at May 1, 2007 09:50 AM

Yikes. That not only calls into question his literary taste, but his intelligence as a whole. I think I'd have kept that information to myself, but I guess if you're the sort who liked Battlefield Earth, then these things won't occur to you. . .

Posted by Derek Lowe at May 1, 2007 09:53 AM

Hasn't lost my vote, the book was a fun read for me too. I think though, Hubbard could have made two novels out of it instead of one giant book.

Posted by Mac at May 1, 2007 09:54 AM

Mac, I'm not here to start a flamewar but...please violently combust.

(Survivor of the pre-BE movie wars of 2000.)

Posted by Greg at May 1, 2007 09:57 AM

Egads! A Mormon who is a crypto-scientologist. I wonder how much money Tom Cruise has contributed to his campaign?

Posted by orville at May 1, 2007 10:02 AM

I rather enjoyed the novel. Still if Kerry claiming OLD SCHOOl was his favorite movie wasn't enough to get my vote I doubt BATTLEFIELD EARTH the book is enough to cost Mitt my vote (not that's he has it yet or anything).

Posted by rjschwarz at May 1, 2007 10:11 AM

I'm a writer Greg. The book was good. That's all. Combustible enough?

Posted by Mac at May 1, 2007 10:14 AM

I was just teasing, Mac. I'm a writer too. The book was not good. Harumph!

Posted by Greg at May 1, 2007 10:18 AM

I will agree with you by half. The second half after the Psyclons were defeated was flat stupid. The first half I found enjoyable. Mission Earth I detest though.

Posted by Mac at May 1, 2007 10:31 AM

Fair enough. I'll concede that the first half was fun, at least. Don't get me started on Mission Earth. Is the shade of L. Ron still writing them?

Posted by Greg at May 1, 2007 10:33 AM

This could lose the Sci Fi reader vote too. Couldn't he pick something by Asimov or Bradbury? It does make one wonder about judgement.

Posted by L Riofrio at May 1, 2007 10:33 AM

Riofrio: Asimov and Bradbury are both vastly overrated.

I mean, did Asimov ever tell an interesting story? He had some interesting ideas, but, man... the execution? No, no.

Posted by Sigivald at May 1, 2007 11:03 AM

Well...at least he was telling the truth...which is probably the most positive spin I can put on that. Pardon me...my body Thetans are making me feel a little queezy...

Posted by Gunga at May 1, 2007 11:22 AM

I mean, did Asimov ever tell an interesting story? He had some interesting ideas, but, man... the execution? No, no.

Foundation and Empire, The Gods Themselves, Pebble in the Sky, I, Robot, Lucky Starr series, etc. If you disagree, you've fallen off the edge of my viewpoint map into one of those murky areas marked "Here be brain damage."

Posted by Karl Hallowell at May 1, 2007 11:37 AM

The Moon is a Harsh Mistress is, by far, a better book than Battlefield Earth. I did, however, enjoy reading that one as well.

Oppression, revolution, freedom, individuality, responsibility, nation founding, excitement!

Not to mention accidentally sentient computers.

I'm not sure the group marriage stuff in there is going to ever really appear. Most people have enough trouble staying married to just one person...

Tanstaafl!

Posted by Jeff Mauldin at May 1, 2007 01:01 PM

My respect for Romney as a fan has been stillborn. With all the awesome science fiction out there, all the insightful and wondrous futures, his favorite novel is Battlefield Earth? No disrespect to anyone who enjoyed it, but it's more on the level of Brian Herbert than Frank.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at May 1, 2007 01:53 PM

...it's more on the level of Brian Herbert than Frank.

heh. good line.

Posted by Stephen Kohls at May 1, 2007 02:22 PM

Jeff, the group marriage ethos in Heinlein's book was stated (in the book itself) to be a somewhat rational response to a grossly abnormal situation - a sex ratio skewed from the normal approximate 50/50 to 10:1.

In my opinion, a society forced into such a state would either end up with something like the described society, or total anarchy and women becoming utterly unsafe. If your chance of breeding is 10% or less, what have you got to lose?

Posted by Fletcher Christian at May 1, 2007 04:45 PM

I liked Battlefield Earth. I went around pretending I had 11 fingers for a week.

Posted by Josh Reiter at May 1, 2007 07:54 PM

Maybe Rudy's favorite is Tek War.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at May 1, 2007 10:02 PM

Okay, how is it even possible to talk about any of these books alongside "Moon is a Harsh Mistress?" My father slipped me that one after a year in which I would find a new Heinlein juvenile on my desk every few weeks when I came home from school. I used to hurry home just to see if there was a new one there, and refused to go to the library for them because it was a thing that I shared with my father.

Wow, that was one of the happiest memories of my adolescence. Plunging into all that glorious literature. Now, having said that, there are some flaws. I liked "Citizen of the Galaxy" better the first time I read it when it was called "Kim." But these are nits.

And I wasn't voting for Romney anyway. So

Posted by Jane Bernstein at May 1, 2007 10:56 PM

Moon is a harsh mistress is a much better book,
but I enjoyed both and would not hold battlefield against Romney.

In any case given the choice between Hilliary, Obama and Romney, Romney wins.

The only republican I might not vote for against Hilliary and or Obama is McCain.

I'd love to see some one with real libertarian ideals get the nomination, but its not going to happen this time. (I think Ron Paul is the closest thing to a libertarian running).

Posted by at May 2, 2007 12:02 AM

The Moon is a Harsh Mistress (TMIAHM) is a great work, but I think you righties are misguided in your lopsided devotion to Heinlein. Arthur C. Clarke's work is vastly superior in every way; Asimov's was far more coherent, insightful, and beautiful; and there is nothing ever written, in any genre, that surpasses the work of Frank Herbert. Yet all I ever hear around here on the subject is Heinlein.

Yes, I know he was a pioneer, that he inspired many people as children with his juveniles, and that he wrote a few worthwhile novels before descending into solipsism and incoherence. But is being among the first such a tremendous accomplishment compared to quality? Frankly, Kim Stanley Robinson's best work (the Mars trilogy) is far superior to TMIAHM on every level, or anything else ever written by Heinlein, yet he is far less recognized. Even the juveniles that created his fanbase were easily surpassed by Ender's Game, along with a host of less famous but equally deserving works.

While I appreciate TMIAHM, I find little to admire in the rest of Heinlein's work. I can't quite place the feeling his stories give me, even at their best, but it's a visceral sensation of wrongness and narrative dysfunction. Everything he wrote *other* than TMIAHM is covered in a patina of sickliness and jaundice even at relatively pleasant parts. Of course, if I were to scan the words for examples, I couldn't find them, but somehow that's the perception I got. I didn't like his work even as a kid, and strongly preferred Clarke, Asimov, and Herbert.

The man neither understood humanity, nor individual people, nor history, nor technology, nor sociology, nor beauty, nor the pull of the unknown and infinite, nor living or unliving things in general, and I always got the sensation that his works were deceptive in some way. He could tell a story, but there was never any substance behind it, never any root in the transcendent that motivates the genre's best. Perhaps what I'm saying is that Heinlein was guilty of something that may sound strange given the nature of his status: He lacked imagination.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at May 2, 2007 02:22 AM

Brian said: He could tell a story...

And there you should leave it.

Brian said: I think you righties are misguided in your lopsided devotion to Heinlein.

I never did like Heinlein, but he too could tell a story.

Finally, Brian said: The man neither understood humanity, nor individual people, nor history, nor technology, nor sociology, nor beauty, nor the pull of the unknown and infinite, nor living or unliving things in general

Which is all irrelevant to telling a story. I always loved the Literary professors that want you to expose on what the author was thinking, when the answer is simple. The author was telling a story. As far as we writers go, its always been that simple. Either we can, or we can't effectively tell a story.

Posted by Mac at May 2, 2007 05:44 AM

"Harsh Mistress" is what has persuaded me that Earthly security concerns will never be compatible with the Moon being politically independent. Being on top of that gravity well gives the Moon a little too much strategic advantage.

Therefore, any libertarians who desire to get away from the apron strings of Mother Earth had better aim at least for Mars and probably the asteroids.

Another terrific little sci-fi novel (IMHO) is Larry Niven's "Protector" and I will assert "Blade Runner" blows the doors off "Battlefield Earth" as a movie.

Had Romney said "Blade Runner was his favorite sci-fi movie he actually might have had a chance with me.

Posted by Bill White at May 2, 2007 05:53 AM

Yes, well, that's because you're a lawyer, not a physicist. Launching stuff at the earth from the moon would be an extremely (almost laughably) ineffective weapon.

Posted by Rand Simberg at May 2, 2007 06:00 AM

Bill,
Glad to see another protector fan.
One of my favorite books of all time.
At space access I talked to Mr Niven about the
book and I got the impression that he was not personally fond of the book.

Paul

Posted by Paul Breed at May 2, 2007 07:43 AM

Well...if you're going to talk about Moon Independence then you HAVE to mention Ben Bova. And as for Heinlein lacking imagination...get real. Have you actually read the books? Is it perhaps that you lack the imagination to actually enjoy the book in the first place?

How then would you rate Jerry Pournelle, Larry Niven, Gordon Dickson, Poul Anderson, MZ Bradley, Andre Norton, RE Howard (troubled as he was), LS de Camp, Ward Hawkins, LR Hubbard, Keith Laumer, Kenneth Robeson, David Akers et al?

Posted by CJ at May 2, 2007 10:38 AM

In my opinion, a society forced into such a state would either end up with something like the described society, or total anarchy and women becoming utterly unsafe.

It's not "either" -- the second outcome is more than 99% guaranteed.

When people are thrown together with no laws, they do not work like beavers to build productive businesses, respect each other's rights and individuality, and fight together to preserve their freedom. What really happens is few strong ruthless and charismatic individuals emerge as leaders, and the rest join up with them for protection. IOW, they form gangs/tribes, most if not all of them open to outside influence and bribery.

When men greatly outnumber women, women are not placed on a pedestal, given complete control over their sexuality, and collectively protected by all the men. Instead, they become [i]property. And in the above situation, women would become, essentially, prizes in gang warfare.

I do not know whether Heinlein realized the impossibility of TMIAHM society (and many others he created). He either never understood, or refused to accept that most human beings value security over freedom (Jefferson's famous quote notwithstanding). A slightly different example is the pioneer society Lazarus Long reminesces about in "Time Enough For Love" -- a planet at 19th Century technology level, periodically visited by a trading FTL starship. I can accept that among humanity spread through the Galaxy some would WANT to live with minimal technology. I can not accept that they would have anything worthwhile to trade with anyone who has technology far above our current one. And in fact TEFL never explains what that trade consists of. Such juxtaposition of spaceships and primitive living is not unique to Heinlein, but he really seemed to like it. I think he wanted self-reliant pioneer societies, but with (far enough) civilization to contrast them with. Unfortunately, "far enough" required space travel, often FTL. Again, I found such premises forced and unrealistic. When civilization can reach primitive societies at all, they do not stay primitive for long, even without any malice on civilization's part.

BTW, what Rand meant in "you are a lawyer, not a physisct" comment is completely unreasonable explosive yield of the slugs Loonies' electromagnetic cannon threw at Earth. These slugs would hit at not quite Earth's escape velocity, 11.2 km/sec. That translates into TNT equivalent of 16-17 times the projectile's mass. Nothing to sneeze at, but far from nuclear range unless these slugs measured thousands of tons. Heinlein never said how much they did mass, but that value is absurd.

Posted by Ilya at May 2, 2007 11:45 AM

Mac: "And there you should leave it."

Actually, I may have been overly generous. Aside from TMIAHM, he never created memorable or fascinating or internally plausible characters, civilizations, cultures, politics, or events, it was all just nonsense.

Bill: "Another terrific little sci-fi novel (IMHO) is Larry Niven's "Protector""

Definitely. It doesn't rise to the level of a masterpiece, but it's very cool like a lot of Niven's work--Neutron Star, Tales of Known Space, Integral Trees, etc.

Bill: ""Blade Runner" blows the doors off "Battlefield Earth" as a movie."

I refuse to consider either as science fiction, if only in the former case due to my aversion to cyberpunk and psy-SF. Phillip K. Dick's work, while infused with incredible genius and insight, is emotionally corrosive and depressing, hence contrary to my idea of what SF should be. As for film, genuine science fiction cinema is a painfully rarefied field, with only a few exceptional examples--Destination Moon, 2001, Pi, Code 46, Solaris, and Primer are all that really come to mind, with honorable mention to Gattaca and a few others.

What passes even for respectable SF in film is usually just a "hey, look at all these cool gadgets!" montage grafted on to a strangely contemporary social background, or an "awww, look at how depressing everything is!" expose for implausible cyberpunk aesthetics. A lot of people think that, for instance, Minority Report is a good SF movie, whereas it's clearly an example of the former--"gee whiz, the cars move up the walls!" Blade Runner is clearly the latter--for some reason, everyone has lost all interest in bright colors or living and working in adequately lighted environments. I've never found much interest in either kind of impostor film--it sells style rather than substance, and Hollywood has yet to acknowledge that they're not mutually exclusive. Also, I'm seriously tired of the studios' love affair with Phillip K. Dick--his work is pure psychological masochism to begin with, and then they go and use it as fodder for cheap action flicks.

"if you're going to talk about Moon Independence then you HAVE to mention Ben Bova."

Why mention Ben Bova at all, ever? I read "Mars," and if you've read it too, you know what I'm talking about.

"And as for Heinlein lacking imagination...get real. Have you actually read the books?"

Stranger in a Strange Land, Moon is a Harsh Mistress, Revolt in 2100, Methuselah's Children, Starship Troopers, Cat Who Walks Through Walls, Tunnel in the Sky, and Assignment in Eternity. I only read that much of his work because I felt obligated as a serious SF fan, but I always saw reading his stuff as a tedious chore. TMIAHM was a pleasant surprise that was not repeated.

"Is it perhaps that you lack the imagination to actually enjoy the book in the first place?"

No. I worship Frank Herbert as a god because of work vastly more challenging, intricate, and strange than anything Heinlein ever wrote. And the others, forget about it. Childhood's End? Foundation and Empire? These works were light-years beyond Heinlein, and their authors just kept getting better as his work declined. Foundation's Edge was roughly contemporary with The Cat Who Walks Through Walls, but beyond it in every way.

At the urging of Heinlein fans, I once reread my copies of his works, and yet within months I'd totally forgotten what transpired in them beyond the fact that it wasn't terribly interesting. Something about a Martian hippie, something about a fat old lech surrounded by sexy broads for some reason, some incoherent fourth-wall-violating babblings about "reality as fiction," some Ayn Rand ramblings here or there, etc etc.

"How then would you rate Jerry Pournelle, Larry Niven, Gordon Dickson, Poul Anderson, MZ Bradley, Andre Norton, RE Howard (troubled as he was), LS de Camp, Ward Hawkins, LR Hubbard, Keith Laumer, Kenneth Robeson, David Akers et al?"

Pournelle is very good, Niven can only be described as "super cool," Poul Anderson's work is exquisitely beautiful and imaginative, and Hubbard I would call a talentless hack. The others I've never read, but the following are a list of authors I either like, love, or worship as gods (starred): Arthur C. Clarke*, Isaac Asimov*, Frank Herbert*, Kim Stanley Robinson*, Larry Niven, John Barnes, Poul Anderson, Jerry Pournelle, Vernor Vinge, Iain M. Banks, Dan Simmons, Greg Bear, Gregory Benford, Orson Scott Card (with caveats), Brian Aldiss, Stephen Baxter, David Brin, Michael Crichton (with caveats), Phillip K. Dick (with caveats), Robert L. Forward, Peter F. Hamilton, and Gene Wolfe.

Anyone I've failed to mention I either haven't read, haven't read enough of to form an opinion, or don't like.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at May 2, 2007 07:50 PM

Ilya said: I do not know whether Heinlein realized the impossibility of TMIAHM society (and many others he created). He either never understood, or refused to accept that most human beings value security over freedom

Who cares, he wrote a story with his characters put in that specific situation. He wrote it to tell a story from his perception. Who cares if its possible or not? Its fiction, meant to be read and enjoyed.

Posted by Mac at May 2, 2007 07:51 PM

"Its fiction, meant to be read and enjoyed."

And criticized.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at May 2, 2007 11:36 PM

Me: "Its fiction, meant to be read and enjoyed."

Brian: And criticized.

Absolutely, but save your criticism for the work, and not the man....as in your post, "The man neither understood humanity, nor individual people, nor history, nor technology, nor sociology, nor beauty, nor the pull of the unknown and infinite, nor living or unliving things in general" You have good points on criticizing the works, but leave the authors out of it.

CJ said: Is it perhaps that you lack the imagination to actually enjoy the book in the first place?

It is a lack of imagination in that a lot of readers hold so closely to "reality" that they cannot let their foundation slip, even to enter another world of someone else's reality. Imagination allows a reader to view something outside their usual perspective, unbeholden to reality in any sense, other than what the author provides. Losing control, however minor, is sometimes frightening.

Posted by Mac at May 3, 2007 05:35 AM

"I only read that much of his work because I felt obligated as a serious SF fan, but I always saw reading his stuff as a tedious chore."

Well then you could probably castigate his publisher for that. It's a good bet RAH couldn't get a "thinking man's" book published because the publisher didn't WANT complex books that made you think and ponder. I'd buy your argument if those books were recent...but they're not and they're largely a result of that period in time.

"Why mention Ben Bova at all, ever? I read "Mars," and if you've read it too, you know what I'm talking about."

Exiles Trilogy, The Rock Rats...there're others. They're not ALL bad. Even your Author Gods have put out garbage.

And as for Hubbard being a hack. If the Mission Earth series were all that I'd read then I might agree. However, I rather enjoyed Battlefield Earth (movie sucked), and Ole Doc Methuselah. Fear was hard to follow. The Final Blackout was really interesting considering it was written in '39.

Ah well...

Posted by CJ at May 3, 2007 12:23 PM

Brian:

I thought that list of Heinlein books was interesting. Except for TMIAHM and Starship Troopers, I wouldn't call any of the others among his best. (I also like revolt in 2100, but I wouldn't put it up there with a lot of his.) Based on your comments, I suspect you'd like "Citizen of the Galaxy" quite a bit. "The Day After Tomorrow"/"Sixth Column" is interesting, if sketchy. I really liked "The Door Into Summer," although I rarely hear people talk about it.

I never much cared for Stranger in a Strange Land, Methusalah's children, Friday, Cat Who Walks through Walls, pretty much any of his later works, although I read most of them. You could convince me that he got less interesting with age as Asimov and Clarke improved.

I suspect Heinlein keeps coming up on this page because reading his works somehow helped form some of our political leanings. The Foundation series is amazing, but somehow, to me, deals with such big ideas and scope that it's not always as personal. The robots are wonderful. (I wrote an essay in a summer at Oxford once where I compared "Robbie the Robot" to "Frankenstein." It was probably the best literary essay this engineer ever wrote, andI had to supply the tutor with a copy of "i robot" so she could read it.) Frank Herbert's Dune is one of my favorite Books, but I could never get into the sequels, and it always felt closer to fantasy than to hard sci-fi--not necessarily a bad thing, just not the same. Niven's stories feel more personal, like Heinlein's, but I think I simply started reading him later.

Heinlein, Asimov, Clarke, Niven, Herbert; all great sci-fi authors. For me, Heinlein probably affected my political views the most, and Asimov gave me the most to think about.

Posted by Jeff Mauldin at May 3, 2007 12:34 PM

I wrote an essay in a summer at Oxford once where I compared "Robbie the Robot" to "Frankenstein"

Care to post it? Or e-mail it to me?

Posted by Ilya at May 3, 2007 01:43 PM

Elsewhere I've discussed the idea that the "Starship Troopers" movie wasn't really based on Heinlein's book but rather the screenplay blended "Starship Troopers" with Joe Haldeman's "Forever War" to create some sort of cross-breed movie.

If intended as satire and camp the movie Starship Troopers was brilliantly done. As a faithful movie version of Heinlein's book? It bleeped.

Of course, I liked both "Forever War" and "Forever Peace" -- the soldier boys in "Forever Peace" are a terrific concept -- but I guess my liking Joe Haldeman confirms my being a leftie. ;-)

But for the record, as a teenager, I thought "Harsh Mistress" was the best sci-fi novel ever written.

= = =

Oh, and Josh Whedon of Firefly fame is a raging leftie who actively raised money for John Kerry in 2004.

> wink -- Go figure.

:-)

Posted by Bill White at May 3, 2007 03:06 PM

WTF??? What feature of "Forever War" you see in that movie? As far as I can tell, the movie has little to do with Heinlein's novel, but absolutely zero to do with Haldeman's.

Posted by Ilya at May 3, 2007 05:21 PM

It's a very novel experience for me to read a thread heavy with criticism of Heinlein without a single mention of how Heinlein's women characters are "unrealistic" or "cartoonish" or whatever. That's generally the first card out of the deck when people discuss his works in literary conversations. This is usually the part where I leap to his defense - I see a lot of the typical Heinlein female character in myself, and given the age at which I blasted through the juveniles especially, I have to enterain the idea that my own character was formed somewhat by those characters.

Which come to think of it was probably my father's intention. Clever of him not to tell my mother.

As to the politics, I'm always baffled by the degree Heinlein is identified with a political ideology. I think there are characters that support a fondness for any number of ideologies all through his works. The only pervasive thread I can really discern is a lack of tolerance for stupidity.

Posted by Jane Bernstein at May 5, 2007 12:37 PM

It's a very novel experience for me

First time for everything, I guess :)

to read a thread heavy with criticism of Heinlein without a single mention of how Heinlein's women characters are "unrealistic" or "cartoonish" or whatever

I know some people claim that -- one of my college friends said "Heinlein's women are not women at all. Friday is a man," but I do not agree either with him, or with criticism you mentioned. I said, and will say again -- Heinlein's societies are unrealistic. His individuals are not. Whether male or female.

Posted by Ilya at May 5, 2007 06:02 PM

Dropping in here late.... but I've just discovered that one of my favorite contemporary Science Fiction writers -- John Barnes -- wrote what I take to be a book-length rebuttal of TMIAHM.

In general, Barnes writes in a Heinleinesque vein, including a number of juveniles. His first novel, however, The Man Who Pulled Down the Sky (now out of print) is about the rebellion of the colonized Earthers against the tyrannical space colonies... who enforce a rigid libertarianism that stamps out any signs of "socialism."

Posted by Reb Yudel at July 2, 2007 06:28 PM

Post a comment