Meh, I'll skip it. Heinlein is one of those guys you either really love or absolutely loathe. That's a big problem when it happens in the same book, as it did for me with Time Enough for Love. At his best Heinlein is, as you point out, a wonderfully accessible and brilliant writer; it's just when he starts getting political (especially if you don't particularly agree with many of his views) that he becomes unbearable, and he does it far too often to be able to enjoy his work. I can only think of one novel I ever literally threw across a room, and it was a Heinlein novel. I won't tell you which one. #hugos
@Starwatcher: Time Enough for Love is my all-time favorite book. I find the entire Lazarus Long arc fascinating, and I always enjoy hearing a completely different take on life, even if I don't agree completely.
Of course, considering that my other favorites are Stephen Baxter and Gregory Benford, perhaps my taste in authors is suspect. Nevertheless, I do hope you've found an author you enjoy as much as I enjoy R.A.H. #hugos
@Yarrr: Oh, of course. I've found lots of writers whose work I really love--P.K. Dick, Sam Delany, Octavia Butler, Dan Simmons and Liz Hand to name a few. #hugos
@Starwatcher: I've always wanted to give P.K. Dick a try, may have to do that next, and I'm sorry to say I haven't heard of the others but I will make sure that changes. #hugos
@Yarrr: You definitely need to read PKD. Delany, Butler and Hand are probably more personal tastes. Simmons will be coming up in this Hugo series eventually--not soon enough for my liking. #hugos
Heinlein's been my favorite since I read "Door Into Summer" when I was a kid.
I wasn't aware of this one and jumped to Amazon and downloaded the Kindle version. #hugos
Great book.I own all his old books in original 1st edition paperbacks.i have a huge library of older scifi.i also enjoyed the demolished man and own that one which i believe is a cool cover signet paperback. #hugos
Heinlein gets a lot of flack for his political views and I'm not really sure why. Some of it has to do with the fact that his political views seem to have parallelled his wives - when his second wife was liberal, so was he and when Ginny was conservative, he was too.
Still, what he truly believed in were concepts that any society can always use more of - self reliance, resourcefulness, the golden rule, take care of your own behavior before you worry about what others do, enlightened self interest. His utopias are usually libertarian to the point of anarchy and his dystopias are repressive and controlling. Maybe even without knowing it, he was an early voice for civil rights and equality. What's not to like there? The first Heinlein I ever read was "Starship Troopers" which gets vilified as pro war but what I remember most was the concept that "everybody drops." It just embodied the themes of equality and efficiency that I like so much about his work. Especially the early stuff. #hugos
@Dr Emilio Lizardo: I don't think Starship Troopers was pro-war so much as it was pro-military and even then, it seems like the book was trying to make fun of them at the same time. I felt like Robert Heinlein was trying to give the Army noogies during that book. #hugos
@Dr Emilio Lizardo: Don't skip ahead! We don't get to that one until after Christmas!
But no, I never understood the hubbub over his politics, either. It was like some people had formed their opinions about the work without actually reading the work. [Insert blog-commenting joke here.] #hugos
@AmishJohn: Yeah, he's giving noogies to the Marines ("the Navy's army"). Remember, our hero only ends up in the MI b/c he isn't good enough for anything else except brute force. #hugos
Just speaking for myself, I'm pretty sure that I would rather be a jerk than immortal.
From what I remember of the novel (probably not much, it's been maybe 30 years), it was basically a mindwipe. I'd certainly rather be me than immortal as someone else.
-Kle. #hugos
@Klebert L. Hall: That's one of the ways the book fails. The basic theme is still interesting to me, but it doesn't even touch upon the notion that all the stresses of being human, all the flaws that make us jerks, are inextricably intertwined with being us.
It's not exactly a mindwipe, but it's practically the same. I didn't have a lot of interest in the Bossy-fied characters as characters. #hugos
@shadownode: I dunno. I tore through Atlas Shrugged at a pretty fierce pace when I read it more than a decade ago. And the empirical evidence suggests that Rand appeals to more than a few people. #hugos
@lorq: I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume you're saying something like, "Just because a lot of people like Dan Brown's books, that doesn't mean they have any artistic merit." And I will not argue with you, because whatever "artistic merit" is, no, it probably isn't determined by popular taste. This is something many of us figure out around age 13, when we note the discrepancy between how much, say, the New Kids on the Block suck and how many records they sell.
From that point on, we take great pains never to argue that a work's popularity has any brunt upon its quality. For example, instead of saying, "Ayn Rand is a genius of a novelist! She must be because so many people have read her novels!" we say, "Ayn Rand is a compelling novelist. That would seem to be the case because many people have succumbed to the urge to read her novels, and have even finished them despite the fact that they are a thousand pages long. Also, I personally think that she, like Dan Brown, succeeds in creating a sort of narrative tension that fills a reader with the desire to press on, even if upon closer scrutiny the subject matter makes very little sense."
We take great pains. But alas, it is all for naught, because this is the Internet and no matter how careful you are with your diction, in a few minutes someone is going to come along, read whatever they want into them, argue a point that you weren't even making in the first place, and hit "Submit" without a second thought.
@Moff: I don't think they're reading what they want into it. I think they spotted a phrase that wasn't worded in airtight technical speak, and exploited it for the sake of the argument.
I've worked with people like that in real life. They're a pain in the arse (oh, are they ever) but they certainly made me re-word my statements into models of specificity. #hugos
@Moff: I shall cut right to the chase---"Ayn Rand is a shi*ty novelist."
If you stop your novel for a 50 page radio monologue/diatribe, you are a crappy novelist. No matter how philosophically intriguing
your diatribe may be, that's still crappy, for a novel.
Ayn Rand's crappiness is similar to Dan Brown's, in fact, since both of their tomes contain a similar conspiratorial, this-is-how-the-world-REALLY-works... undertone of crap. Brown at least knows how to occasionally get the story to move along smartly, though, which Rand is not so good at.
So, does this "Forever Machine" have that "Atlas Shrugs" tendency to have everybody stop the plot to stand around and talk about The Big Idea for page after page?
@cletar: My personal experience with Atlas Shrugged was that it started slow, but gradually I was engrossed enough in the story that I remember sitting in my shitty basement apartment, junior year of college, chain-smoking Camel Lights and reading it at a furious pace. That was more than ten years ago, I was even younger and more impressionable than I am today, and I'm not going to spend a lot of energy defending the merits of a book I haven't looked at since (and whose central themes I found rather silly once I'd finished the story and had a few moments to reflect).
That said, as much as I think there are objective-ish criteria by which one can judge a novel's quality (story structure, plot coherence, spelling), I've found after many years of giving the matter no small amount of thought that I'm uncomfortable with blanket statements like "If you _____, then you are a shitty novelist." The problems are manifold, but they mostly hinge on the fact that people have subjective and therefore different tastes. If I enjoy reading a 50-page radio diatribe, I mean, am I wrong? You can argue about the merits or lack thereof of the diatribe, and sure, maybe you'll even convince me; but at some point, we're still bound to hit a wall where you say, "Uck, this is bad, and here's why," and I say, "I kinda like it, and here's why," and it may be that the whys are exactly the same.
This persistent, almost desperate need to rank art is a symptom, I think McLuhan would say, of the West's typographical mind-set. It doesn't really bother me not to rank it or grade it or try to do more than say, "Here are my thoughts about it, and here are my plaudits and my criticisms and the reasons for them. If you disagree, I will not be upset." And I try to use as precise of language as possible, and stick to terms that are more objectively defensible -- i.e., compelling instead of, say, brilliant. Obviously, you can still argue that Ayn Rand isn't compelling, but it's tough to convincingly extend that argument beyond "She wasn't compelling to me, personally," because there seem to be many people who have found her enormous books worth starting and finishing.
So is she a shitty novelist? Maybe! Should Americans read her nonetheless, simply because of her influence on the culture? I kinda think so! What's the worst that could happen? They read a shitty book. At least they get to decide for themselves whether it's shitty. Should people read They'd Rather Be Right? Sure! At least it's a lot shorter than Atlas Shrugged. What if they think it's a shitty book too? I'm not losing any sleep over it. #hugos
@Moff: I'd argue that rather than Rand being compelling, she's on a very short list of libertarian authors who can manage even semi-coherence. Heinlein's Stranger in a Strange Land hippyish tendencies probably scare a lot of them off, too.
I really like these reviews, though. If you read this, could you guys maybe put links to the previous for those of us who sometimes have trouble with the firehose that is io9 (and gawker media in general)? #hugos
@shadownode: Do you mean links in the copy, as opposed to on the sidebar, so that they come up in your RSS reader? There is one here, and I will indeed do my best to link to the previous installment somewhere in the column every time. (And thanks!) #hugos
@Moff: Actually, I've just noticed the tagging feature. Is that new? #bloggingthehugos goes in mah feedreader for now, and #books gets a permanent spot. :)
Edit: I swear that sidebar was completely invisible to me before you pointed it out. I think it looks enough like an ad that my mental adblock zapped it.
Talk about synchronicity! I read THEY'D RATHER BE RIGHT about 20 years ago after being alerted to Mark Clifton by Barry Malzberg in his non-fiction essay collection THE ENGINES OF THE NIGHT. The first Clifton novel I could find was WHEN THEY COME FROM SPACE, a humorous satire of govt. bureacracy reacting to visitors from space. Then I read THEY'D RATHER BE RIGHT, a used SFBookclub edition (the one you show here) I found somewhere. Finally, I found and read EIGHT KEYS FROM EDEN, and then special ordered the collection of Clifton's short stories that Malzberg co-edited for the Southern Illinois University Press.
My conclusion? Clifton is a sadly forgotten figure and his work is smart and entertaining. I've read ATLAS SHRUGS and I prefer THEY'D RATHER BE RIGHT; it has the virtue of being better written, more forgiving of human nature, and shorter than Ms. Rand's giant turd of a book. My favorite Clifton book is WHEN THEY COME FROM SPACE.
In any case, some years ago I bought the paperback reissue of THEY'D RATHER BE RIGHT retitled THE FOREVER MACHINE. It's not the same version of the novel: it's expanded with the interpolation of additional material, at least some of which appeared in the book of Clifton's short stories that I have. I had just this week been thinking of picking up THE FOREVER MACHINE as my next book to read. Finding your review here cinches it.
"freeing them from a lifetime of frustrations and problems stemming from the unfounded assumptions that start afflicting everyone shortly after birth" sounds a lot like Scientology's notion of getting clear - wonder how much of an influence there was. #hugos
although i haven't read the book (though i may after reading this article) one issue i have with the premise right off the bat is: what can you program in that is a pure fact and not based in an assumption? even our mathematical systems are based on assumptions; for example, euclid's first 5 postulates are the beginning assumptions for his theory of geometry. even logic is based on the "assumption" of ~(p*~p), the PNC (principle of non-contradiction).
@booklover001: At one point, the authors do get into it -- they discuss how even "Mars has two moons" isn't a fact, because (1) no one's ever seen the moons, just taken measurements of reflected light and inferred that there were moons there (I assume this has changed since 1955), and (2) without having observed them directly, there's no way to know if they're not, say, artificial satellites. So instead of programming Bossy with "Mars has two moons," they've programmed her with the details they've observed, and also with the fact that certain assumptions have been made about those details. And they discuss how at the bottom of all facts, even the purest ones, lies some kind of assumption.
Really, you're right, and I imagine that if pressed, the authors would admit that it would be at least fantastically difficult, and probably impossible, to sort out what was "pure fact," much less to program all of it into a computer. I think you just have to suspend your disbelief for the purposes of the thought experiment. #hugos
"Telling rather than showing" was acommon problem in golden age science fiction. Especially with Asimov where much of the "action" was two characters talking to each other. I think this came about because the style of SF in those days (as you alluded to in your "The Demolished Man" post) valued the ideas and the gimmicks over the characters so rather than show something through characterization or action, the author would just explain it.
It looks like you were tempted to go alittle "Jive Tarkin" there with the wikipedia comment. I'm looking forward to the next entry, when you review a book I've actually read. #hugos
@Dr Emilio Lizardo: Gotta get the JT out somewhere! Yes, I totally think it's because of the dialogue thing. (Heinlein does it so much too.) I'm not sure I'm that against it, though. I mean, I think "Show, don't tell" is a great ideal to strive for because it helps keep you focused on keeping the action going and providing the most pertinent details without getting bogged down, but I also think reading a good fictional conversation about interesting ideas can be as satisfying as listening to a good real conversation about interesting ideas.
@Moff: I also think reading a good fictional conversation about interesting ideas can be as satisfying as listening to a good real conversation about interesting ideas.
I think any fan of Aaron Sorkin's can attest to the truth of this... #hugos
11/15/09
11/15/09
Of course, considering that my other favorites are Stephen Baxter and Gregory Benford, perhaps my taste in authors is suspect. Nevertheless, I do hope you've found an author you enjoy as much as I enjoy R.A.H. #hugos
11/15/09
11/15/09
11/15/09
11/15/09
I wasn't aware of this one and jumped to Amazon and downloaded the Kindle version. #hugos
11/15/09
thanks! #hugos
11/14/09
11/14/09
Still, what he truly believed in were concepts that any society can always use more of - self reliance, resourcefulness, the golden rule, take care of your own behavior before you worry about what others do, enlightened self interest. His utopias are usually libertarian to the point of anarchy and his dystopias are repressive and controlling. Maybe even without knowing it, he was an early voice for civil rights and equality. What's not to like there? The first Heinlein I ever read was "Starship Troopers" which gets vilified as pro war but what I remember most was the concept that "everybody drops." It just embodied the themes of equality and efficiency that I like so much about his work. Especially the early stuff. #hugos
11/14/09
11/14/09
11/14/09
11/14/09
But no, I never understood the hubbub over his politics, either. It was like some people had formed their opinions about the work without actually reading the work. [Insert blog-commenting joke here.] #hugos
11/14/09
11/14/09
Mind you, from the reviews you gave the last two, I'm not sure you were recommending either. #hugos
11/14/09
11/01/09
From what I remember of the novel (probably not much, it's been maybe 30 years), it was basically a mindwipe. I'd certainly rather be me than immortal as someone else.
-Kle. #hugos
11/01/09
It's not exactly a mindwipe, but it's practically the same. I didn't have a lot of interest in the Bossy-fied characters as characters. #hugos
11/01/09
11/01/09
11/01/09
11/01/09
11/01/09
From that point on, we take great pains never to argue that a work's popularity has any brunt upon its quality. For example, instead of saying, "Ayn Rand is a genius of a novelist! She must be because so many people have read her novels!" we say, "Ayn Rand is a compelling novelist. That would seem to be the case because many people have succumbed to the urge to read her novels, and have even finished them despite the fact that they are a thousand pages long. Also, I personally think that she, like Dan Brown, succeeds in creating a sort of narrative tension that fills a reader with the desire to press on, even if upon closer scrutiny the subject matter makes very little sense."
We take great pains. But alas, it is all for naught, because this is the Internet and no matter how careful you are with your diction, in a few minutes someone is going to come along, read whatever they want into them, argue a point that you weren't even making in the first place, and hit "Submit" without a second thought.
11/02/09
I've worked with people like that in real life. They're a pain in the arse (oh, are they ever) but they certainly made me re-word my statements into models of specificity. #hugos
11/02/09
If you stop your novel for a 50 page radio monologue/diatribe, you are a crappy novelist. No matter how philosophically intriguing
your diatribe may be, that's still crappy, for a novel.
Ayn Rand's crappiness is similar to Dan Brown's, in fact, since both of their tomes contain a similar conspiratorial, this-is-how-the-world-REALLY-works... undertone of crap. Brown at least knows how to occasionally get the story to move along smartly, though, which Rand is not so good at.
So, does this "Forever Machine" have that "Atlas Shrugs" tendency to have everybody stop the plot to stand around and talk about The Big Idea for page after page?
11/02/09
That said, as much as I think there are objective-ish criteria by which one can judge a novel's quality (story structure, plot coherence, spelling), I've found after many years of giving the matter no small amount of thought that I'm uncomfortable with blanket statements like "If you _____, then you are a shitty novelist." The problems are manifold, but they mostly hinge on the fact that people have subjective and therefore different tastes. If I enjoy reading a 50-page radio diatribe, I mean, am I wrong? You can argue about the merits or lack thereof of the diatribe, and sure, maybe you'll even convince me; but at some point, we're still bound to hit a wall where you say, "Uck, this is bad, and here's why," and I say, "I kinda like it, and here's why," and it may be that the whys are exactly the same.
This persistent, almost desperate need to rank art is a symptom, I think McLuhan would say, of the West's typographical mind-set. It doesn't really bother me not to rank it or grade it or try to do more than say, "Here are my thoughts about it, and here are my plaudits and my criticisms and the reasons for them. If you disagree, I will not be upset." And I try to use as precise of language as possible, and stick to terms that are more objectively defensible -- i.e., compelling instead of, say, brilliant. Obviously, you can still argue that Ayn Rand isn't compelling, but it's tough to convincingly extend that argument beyond "She wasn't compelling to me, personally," because there seem to be many people who have found her enormous books worth starting and finishing.
So is she a shitty novelist? Maybe! Should Americans read her nonetheless, simply because of her influence on the culture? I kinda think so! What's the worst that could happen? They read a shitty book. At least they get to decide for themselves whether it's shitty. Should people read They'd Rather Be Right? Sure! At least it's a lot shorter than Atlas Shrugged. What if they think it's a shitty book too? I'm not losing any sleep over it. #hugos
11/03/09
I really like these reviews, though. If you read this, could you guys maybe put links to the previous for those of us who sometimes have trouble with the firehose that is io9 (and gawker media in general)? #hugos
11/03/09
11/03/09
Edit: I swear that sidebar was completely invisible to me before you pointed it out. I think it looks enough like an ad that my mental adblock zapped it.
11/03/09
11/03/09
It's an awesome feature, though. I'd love to see more filtering goodness, as there's a lot of gems in the gawker firehose I'm too lazy to look for.
Hmm, is there a Gawker API? #hugos
11/01/09
11/01/09
11/01/09
My conclusion? Clifton is a sadly forgotten figure and his work is smart and entertaining. I've read ATLAS SHRUGS and I prefer THEY'D RATHER BE RIGHT; it has the virtue of being better written, more forgiving of human nature, and shorter than Ms. Rand's giant turd of a book. My favorite Clifton book is WHEN THEY COME FROM SPACE.
In any case, some years ago I bought the paperback reissue of THEY'D RATHER BE RIGHT retitled THE FOREVER MACHINE. It's not the same version of the novel: it's expanded with the interpolation of additional material, at least some of which appeared in the book of Clifton's short stories that I have. I had just this week been thinking of picking up THE FOREVER MACHINE as my next book to read. Finding your review here cinches it.
11/01/09
11/01/09
11/01/09
11/01/09
Really, you're right, and I imagine that if pressed, the authors would admit that it would be at least fantastically difficult, and probably impossible, to sort out what was "pure fact," much less to program all of it into a computer. I think you just have to suspend your disbelief for the purposes of the thought experiment. #hugos
11/01/09
Speaking of showing and not telling, you do realize that this will be followed by a comment board, right? #hugos
11/01/09
11/01/09
11/01/09
It looks like you were tempted to go alittle "Jive Tarkin" there with the wikipedia comment. I'm looking forward to the next entry, when you review a book I've actually read. #hugos
11/01/09
Which is why, although I liked a lot of Asimov's stories, I couldn't read any of the "Foundation" books #hugos
11/01/09
@phoghat: Dude, that is MADNESS. #hugos
11/02/09
I think any fan of Aaron Sorkin's can attest to the truth of this... #hugos