tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3119816335163312523.post5963556516996848017..comments2023-04-27T04:39:45.647-04:00Comments on JT Thinks About Stuff: Book Review: Battle for the StarsJThttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12170062950345779215noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3119816335163312523.post-736236359634702492016-11-17T11:53:54.427-05:002016-11-17T11:53:54.427-05:00Heinlein was a brilliant short-story writer and an...Heinlein was a brilliant short-story writer and an outstanding young-adult novelist. In my opinion the only quote-adult-quote RAH novel that's still readable is <i>The Moon is a Harsh Mistress</i>. Even that isn't as good as the Heinlein cultists think it is.<br /><br /><i>The Number of the Beast</i> was so awful that I almost never read another Heinlein book. It took me about two years to recover.JThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12170062950345779215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3119816335163312523.post-90664677716625569072016-11-16T18:47:21.314-05:002016-11-16T18:47:21.314-05:00I can't find it in my heart to criticize a guy...I can't find it in my heart to criticize a guy who published a book called "Captain Future and the Space Emperor".<br /><br />I read all of Heinlein in the space of about three months in high school, thanks to Annie's Book Swap. I still think his "juvenile" novels are far better than his "adult" books -- Starship Troopers, Double Star, and Starman Jones (my personal favorite) are far superior to his more ambitious books like The Number of the Beast and I Will Fear No Evil. That's even leaving aside the weird pro-incest stuff -- just as novels I consider them total failures: uninteresting, trivial, poorly plotted. I couldn't even finish Stranger in a Strange land when I was sixteen, and I don't feel any need to try again.MPnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3119816335163312523.post-15522275275372471672015-02-26T10:53:48.542-05:002015-02-26T10:53:48.542-05:00Yeah, award-winning fiction is generally less and ...Yeah, award-winning fiction is generally less and less to my taste. Non-fiction is better--any Pulitzer-winning non-fiction book is likely to be good, in my experience. I feel like genre fiction has kind of walked away from me. I like mysteries, for example, but virtually nobody is writing what I'd consider <i>real</i> mysteries. It's all (a) violent, derivative thrillers, (b) violent, derivative noir knockoffs, or (c) cutesy, smirking "themed" mysteries written--and here I am stereotyping recklessly, but wtf--by and for women. And science fiction is so focused on the current Consensus Future (genetic engineering + computers + depressing) that it's like one book published in 8,000 titles.JThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12170062950345779215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3119816335163312523.post-47147880542178086952015-02-26T01:14:10.887-05:002015-02-26T01:14:10.887-05:00Agree on the non-decorative characters. That was c...Agree on the non-decorative characters. That was certainly the nature of the characters, but there was certainly an eye candy aspect of the casting. Also agree that the only empires were alien. Humans were benevolent, if occasionally misunderstood. <br /><br />The problem with Stranger is how it was built up. I read it without knowing it was a "classic" so my expectations were pretty neutral. Lately, after a long hiatus of not really reading much at all, I choose my fiction based on friend's recommendations and awards. Friend recommendations are the best (thank you, btw). But I find that the award winners are disappointing. I expect a lot more. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3119816335163312523.post-25746280936143572252015-02-24T19:14:54.602-05:002015-02-24T19:14:54.602-05:00Re: Trek, the visibility of non-decorative women a...Re: Trek, the visibility of non-decorative women and actual non-Anglo-Saxons is another deliberate difference. (Not that Lt. Uhura wasn't decorative.) More subtly, <i>Battle for the Stars</i> is set in what we might term the Galactic Empire Consensus Future. The setting assumes that we will sweep out from Earth, conquering the galaxy, and in consequence that all the interesting stories involve exploding spaceships. <i>Star Trek</i> said: no, we will not come as conquerers, but to seek out new life and new civilizations.<br /><br />I should reread <i>Stranger</i>. It's been a while, and I remember not being very impressed.JThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12170062950345779215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3119816335163312523.post-23209322992067040692015-02-23T23:44:56.202-05:002015-02-23T23:44:56.202-05:00Star Trek deliberately reacted against your "...Star Trek deliberately reacted against your "consensus future" in a couple of ways. The lack of cigar-shaped rocket ships are one, the utopian culture is another. <br /><br />It is beholden to that future in that brow ridges (in the next gen) and pointy ears (in the original) are used to show "aliens" as humans with exaggerated human characteristics. Inter-species miscegenation with green Denebian slave girls is more interesting than watching the Horta hatch eggs - one important exception, of course. <br /><br />What I find interesting, however, is that in many ways _Stranger_ still holds up fifty years later. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com