I've never read Heinlen before, but this book annoyed me like few others. For a start, it was incredibly difficult for me to get around the straightjacket sexism of late 50s America (the book was published in 1961). Lots of literature is sexist- when I read something written in the 19th Century, I can write it off as "of its age", but this jarred and offended me as little does.
For a second, it was a fairly straightforward messiah story just wrapped up in this silly hippie-dippie proto-Beatnik free love shite. As a child of the AIDS age, the idea of salvation through free love and group sex seems about as much of a museum piece as the Victorian Age.
A third criticism, more a question - when you read science fiction from a long time ago (and this is 40 years old) does it bother you more or less if its futurism has come to pass, or hasn't? So much of the "technology" seemed totally dated and 50s (stereovision? bounce tubes?) while other things seemed frighteningly close to home in the Noughties - the casual ease with which their television networks blended infotainment and advertising seemed utterly on the mark. Novels set in the "future" but written in the past - how does this affect your enjoyment of Sci Fi?
And finally - another question. In many ways, the "Fosterite" religion (and the Martian cult) creepily mirrored Scientology. I'm curious to when Dianetics was written, in relation to this novel. Was Heinlin as an author parodying what Hubbard had already written or - more scarily, and I suspect more probably - did Hubbard see the cult that his fellow sci fi writer had dreamed up, and try his hand at starting his own?
Interested to see what perspective others can give me on this novel.
― kate, Saturday, 15 September 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)
― Pete, Saturday, 15 September 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)
AS it happens, re KSC's 3rd question, I recently re-read John Brunner's "The Shockwave Rider", which I found quite amazingly prophetic in places, esp the internet, & virii. His overpopulation scenario-ed book "Stand on Zanzibar" is similarly good, & he wrote another book themed around overpollution which was quite believable. More later (this probably a sinkeresque good intention)
xoxo
― Norman Fay, Saturday, 15 September 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)
― mark s, Saturday, 15 September 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)
― Geoff, Sunday, 16 September 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)
― anthony, Sunday, 16 September 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)
― David Raposa, Sunday, 16 September 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)
― dave q, Sunday, 16 September 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)
― dave q, Monday, 17 September 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)
― Andrew L, Monday, 17 September 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)
― kingfish, Tuesday, 20 March 2007 00:20 (eighteen years ago)
― nickalicious, Tuesday, 20 March 2007 01:31 (eighteen years ago)
― nickalicious, Tuesday, 20 March 2007 01:34 (eighteen years ago)
Mr. Patterson revealed to me, "RAH and LRH had one or more discussions during 1944 and or 1945 when they were both in Philadelphia, and RAH pointed out to LRH that religions had an inordinate amount of legal latitude in the U.S. and that churches could engage in a great many activities otherwise thought of as secular, under the tax and other protection churches enjoy. He had already explored these ideas in some of his stories and was to revisit these notions in their original form in Stranger. It is possible that this conversation or series of conversations took place as late as December 1945 or early 1946 and in Los Angeles." The theme of money and religion was apparently a very popular one for Hubbard as he seems to have mentioned it at several other informal discussions around the same time. In a 1978 interview Harlan Ellison commented "Scientology is bullshit! Man, I was there the night L. Ron Hubbard invented it, for Christ Sakes!...We were sitting around one night... who else was there? Alfred Bester, and Cyril Kornbluth, and Lester Del Rey, and Ron Hubbard, who was making a penny a word, and had been for years. And he said "This bullshit's got to stop!" He says, "I gotta get money." He says, "I want to get rich"." Editor and Author Sam Moskovitz claimed a number of times that Hubbard had made similar remarks at a convention he hosted in Newark in either 1947 or 1948. Another respected SciFi author, Theodore Sturgeon, revealed to Mike Jittlov, himself a respected filmmaker, an incident in the 1940's when Hubbard had become upset and said, "Y'know, we're all wasting our time writing this hack science fiction! You wanta make real money, you gotta start a religion!" Lloyd Arthur Eshback related in his autobiography, an incident in either 1948 or 49, "I think of the time while in New York I took John W. Campbell, Marty Greenberg, and L. Ron Hubbard to lunch...The incident is stamped indelibly in my mind because of one statement that Ron Hubbard made. What led him to say what he did I can't recall--but in so many words Hubbard said: "I'd like to start a religion. That's where the money is!"." Several of these claims have been refuted, but others have not. The Church of Scientology takes these matters very seriously and has won several court cases in regards to the issue of Scientology's origins and disparaging remarks made against it. The origins of Dianetics and Scientology may still be a little clouded but it seems clear to me now that a wager between the two authors, or anyone else for that matter, was not responsible and while it's possible that Heinlein planted the seed for Hubbard's Dianetics, Mr. Patterson cautioned me to remember, "Both LRH and RAH were talkers of the first water. This particular conversation was one of many they had at the time -- it only looks significant when we see it through the historical lens of experience of what LRH did with the ideas, long after he and RAH had fallen out of intimate personal contact."
― Elvis Telecom, Tuesday, 20 March 2007 01:35 (eighteen years ago)
― Elvis Telecom, Tuesday, 20 March 2007 01:40 (eighteen years ago)
― energy flash gordon, Tuesday, 20 March 2007 09:47 (eighteen years ago)
― g-kit, Tuesday, 20 March 2007 11:37 (eighteen years ago)
― Masonic Boom, Tuesday, 20 March 2007 14:10 (eighteen years ago)
So this new Heinlein bio...
― T.V.O.D. Party (James Redd and the Blecchs), Tuesday, 8 February 2011 19:32 (fourteen years ago)
great question
― basically just a 2/47 freak out (sic), Wednesday, 9 February 2011 07:36 (fourteen years ago)
I am in a Science Fiction book club. Once we were given SIASL. It is one of the worst books I have ever tried to read. Kate pretty much nails it upthread, but other dreadful features of it are the long passages of appallingly written dialogue where some mouthpiece of Heinlein's views gets to blah blah blah blah blah at great length.
Kate - I wish I could blot this book out of my memory.
― The New Dirty Vicar, Wednesday, 9 February 2011 10:43 (fourteen years ago)
Found these two reviews of bio:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/11/AR2010081105457.htmlhttp://www.strangehorizons.com/2010/20100628/clute-c.shtml
Seem to say that it's not particularly well-written but has some interesting research. Also didn't realize that this is only Volume 1 and only goes up to 1948.
― the steen-propelled HOOS (James Redd and the Blecchs), Wednesday, 9 February 2011 20:55 (fourteen years ago)