Rate Heinlein

[Soapy Sam]

Four.

I agree with much of what has been said.
Early stuff and teenager's novels, original and fun.
Starship Troopers was a good yarn, but the fascist ideology was disturbing.
(c/f Joe Haldeman's "The Forever War").

Number of the Beast is the only novel I ever failed to finish, even though I was stuck on a desert drilling rig with nothing else to read but tech. manuals. I actually threw it away.

The later stuff is dull, self indulgent and apparently paid by the word, hence the increasing thickness.

I do think his effect on other writers may be a more valuable contribution than most of his own work.

 

[Seismosaurus]

Four.

I agree with much of what has been said.
Early stuff and teenager's novels, original and fun.
Starship Troopers was a good yarn, but the fascist ideology was disturbing.

There's nothing remotely fascist about Starship Troopers. I defy anybody to post a widely accepted definition of fascism and identify it in that book. (Not the massively insulting movie, mind, but the book.)

 

[Darat]

There's nothing remotely fascist about Starship Troopers. I defy anybody to post a widely accepted definition of fascism and identify it in that book. (Not the massively insulting movie, mind, but the book.)

I loved the movie, it was much more subversive then I think it was given credit for.

It does depend on what you mean by fascism of course but given the time that Heinlein grew-up and was writing I'd say the society he describes is a fascist society. Now I could be way off the mark because this is from memory and my copy of the book is packed away on the attic so I can’t quickly check. Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism
) has it defined as:

exalts nation and sometimes race above the individual,
From the book it is apparent that any sacrifice is worthwhile to destroy the “enemy”

uses violence and modern techniques of propaganda and censorship to forcibly suppress political opposition,
The armed services and the war are propagandised in the book (look at all the glamorous branches of the armed services the “hero” wants to enlist in before the grunts), then throughout the book the “hero” comes to realise that the “greater” truth that is served by the propaganda. (This also re-enforces point one fact the nation is more important then the individual.)

engages in severe economic and social regimentation.
Exemplified by voting rights in the book and the consequences of not being a “real” citizen.

engages in corporatism,
Don’t think this one is in the book.

By this definition I’d say the book does describe a fascist society.

Also look at the quotes from Mussolini’s entry for the the Italian Encyclopedia definition of fascism (see: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/mussolini-fascism.html)

…snip…

….
believes neither in the possibility nor the utility of perpetual peace. It thus repudiates the doctrine of Pacifism -- born of a renunciation of the struggle and an act of cowardice in the face of sacrifice. War alone brings up to its highest tension all human energy and puts the stamp of nobility upon the peoples who have courage to meet it. All other trials are substitutes, which never really put men into the position where they have to make the great decision -- the alternative of life or death....
…

That I would say sums up one of the key messages of the book – adulthood is achieved by facing life and death during war.

…

Fascism combats the whole complex system of democratic ideology, and repudiates it, whether in its theoretical premises or in its practical application. Fascism denies that the majority, by the simple fact that it is a majority, can direct human society; it denies that numbers alone can govern by means of a periodical consultation, and it affirms the immutable, beneficial, and fruitful inequality of mankind, which can never be permanently leveled through the mere operation of a mechanical process such as universal suffrage....

There is no universal suffrage in the book.

Again I would say the society that Heinlein describes can be accurately described using Mussolini’s definition as a “fascist society”.

 

[Seismosaurus]

I loved the movie, it was much more subversive then I think it was given credit for.

That's what I hate most about it. They took a "straight" book and basically subverted and mocked it as much as possible.

It does depend on what you mean by fascism of course but given the time that Heinlein grew-up and was writing I'd say the society he describes is a fascist society. Now I could be way off the mark because this is from memory and my copy of the book is packed away on the attic so I can’t quickly check. Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism
) has it defined as:

exalts nation and sometimes race above the individual,
From the book it is apparent that any sacrifice is worthwhile to destroy the “enemy”

The book does not show this attitude at all. In fact, it specifically states that "destroying" the enemy is not the point of war at all. Consider what Rico's drill sergeant says when one of his recruits wonders why they don't just use atom bombs all the time :

"There can be circumstances when it's just as foolish to hit an enemy city with an H-bomb as it would be to spank a baby with an axe. War is not violence and killing, pure and simple; war is controlled violence, for a purpose. The purpose of war is to support your government's decisions by force. The purpose is never to kill the enemy just to be killing him...but to make him do what you want to do. Not killing...but controlled and purposeful violence. But it's not your business or mine to decide the purpose of the control. It's never a soldier's business to decide when or where or how -- or why -- he fights; that belongs to the statesmen and the generals."

To back this up in practice, the opening action sequence is a raid on a city designed to convince the government in question to switch sides, not to destroy them.

It's true that the war against the bugs seems to be an all-out affair. But even this is never expressley stated as being a goal in itself - rather, it's Humanity responding to a species which is determined to utterly destroy us.

uses violence and modern techniques of propaganda and censorship to forcibly suppress political opposition,
The armed services and the war are propagandised in the book (look at all the glamorous branches of the armed services the “hero” wants to enlist in before the grunts), then throughout the book the “hero” comes to realise that the “greater” truth that is served by the propaganda. (This also re-enforces point one fact the nation is more important then the individual.)

Sorry, wrong again. The book makes clear over and over that military service is in fact despised by most of the population. Rico's father describes Federal Service thus :

"parasitism, pure and simple. A functionless organ, utterly obsolete, living on the taxpayers... We've outgrown wars. This planet is now peaceful and happy and we enjoy good enough relations with other planets."

engages in severe economic and social regimentation.
Exemplified by voting rights in the book and the consequences of not being a “real” citizen.

There is no example of economic regimentation of any kind in the book. Certainly one does not have to serve to be successful in business, as Rico's father is a wealthy businessman without ever having served.

As for social issues, yes the franchise is limited to a fraction of the population, but is this severe regimentation? Any adult - literally anybody - can serve a term if they choose and are able to understand the oath. The franchise is open to any who want it and are prepared to show that they value it.

There is no universal suffrage in the book.

There is no universal sufferage anywhere. Are all nations fascist?

Again I would say the society that Heinlein describes can be accurately described using Mussolini’s definition as a “fascist society”.

I wouldn't. For instance, it is made clear in the quote I gave earlier that war is not common for the Federation - it's so rare that many consider it obsolete and think there will never be war again. How can the idea that war is essential to reaching adulthood be supported in light of this?

Also recall what the recruiting sergeat tells Rico :

"the facts are that we are getting hard pushed to find things for all the volunteers to do that aren't just glorified KP. You can't all be real military men; we don't need that many and most of the volunteers aren't number-one soldier material anyhow... we've had to think up a whole list of dirty, nasty, dangerous jobs that will...at the very least make them remember for the rest of their lives that their citizenship is valuable to them because they've paid a high price for it...A term of service is...either real military service, rough and dangerous even in peacetime...or a most unreasonable facsimile thereof."

Federal serivce is not all about rows of soldiers marching off to war. Quite the opposite, while it seems that some sort of military service is the norm, it's clear that many of the Federal Service roles are non-combatant.

 

[TriangleMan]

I didn't vote because I've only read one of his books Sail Beyond the Sunset. It certainly wasn't what I was expecting and I wasn't all that impressed. I haven't bothered reading any more of his stuff since then but obviously I should get around to reading his other books that people here liked more.

 

[asthmatic camel]

I didn't vote because I've only read one of his books Sail Beyond the Sunset. It certainly wasn't what I was expecting and I wasn't all that impressed. I haven't bothered reading any more of his stuff since then but obviously I should get around to reading his other books that people here liked more.

TriangleMan, I'd certainly advise against reading "Number of the Beast" unless you are in the habit of taking powerful hallucinogenic drugs and viagra. You'd need them.

I know I've mentioned this despicable novel before, but I feel it only correct to advise potential victims of its true nature.

It's AWFUL. Science Fiction meets the Wizard of Oz with gratuitous, tree-hugging, hippy sex thrown in as an afterthought.

I didn't weep when Heinlein shucked off his mortal coil; I was glad that I wouldn't be tempted, in a moment of weakness, to buy or borrow another of his novels.

Sorry for the rant, but it really is that bad. (Unlike Soapy Sam, I had the guts to finish it though )

 

[Cleopatra]

There must be something really wrong with me because I loved " The number of the beast"....

 

[corplinx]

I ran through most of his juvenile books since they were te only interesting looking books in the library at my junior high school.

I picked up a tome called "The Star Beast" and moved on to Will Travel, Tunnel Sky, and other books. His more adult books I could not get into, even as an adult. Job, Stranger, etc. His juvenile fiction captured the awe and wonder I felt about space at the time I read them.

Moon Mistress is one I picked up as an adult and enjoyed though I thought he was a bit hamfisted in his politics.

 

[brachet]

I've read through a fair bit of Heinlein's stuff, and enjoyed enough of it to bitterly regret his passing. Why do people who haven't read much of his work have such strong opinions about it? Is having an opinion and being loud about it really so bad? He wasn't picketing in the streets for crying out loud...he wrote consistently readable books that were entertaining and thought provoking. Yeah, he got preachy, but so what? If you don't like his views, don't spend your money on his books; but if you haven't read them, what are your conclusions based on?

 

[Darat]

That's what I hate most about it. They took a "straight" book and basically subverted and mocked it as much as possible.

Well I would say mocked its simplistic and brutal ideas about the military and society.

You’ve a certain advantage here since I’m relying on memory to back-up my opinion that the book sympathetically portrays a fascist society. (But that should make my job easier as I’m sure I can coerce my memory into agreeing with me whilst you’ll have to stick to facts.)

The book does not show this attitude at all. In fact, it specifically states that "destroying" the enemy is not the point of war at all. Consider what Rico's drill sergeant says when one of his recruits wonders why they don't just use atom bombs all the time :

"There can be circumstances when it's just as foolish to hit an enemy city with an H-bomb as it would be to spank a baby with an axe. War is not violence and killing, pure and simple; war is controlled violence, for a purpose. The purpose of war is to support your government's decisions by force. The purpose is never to kill the enemy just to be killing him...but to make him do what you want to do. Not killing...but controlled and purposeful violence. But it's not your business or mine to decide the purpose of the control. It's never a soldier's business to decide when or where or how -- or why -- he fights; that belongs to the statesmen and the generals."

To back this up in practice, the opening action sequence is a raid on a city designed to convince the government in question to switch sides, not to destroy them.

It's true that the war against the bugs seems to be an all-out affair. But even this is never expressley stated as being a goal in itself - rather, it's Humanity responding to a species which is determined to utterly destroy us.

This is certainly compatible with Mussolini’s view of fascism e.g.

“For Fascism, the growth of empire, that is to say the expansion of the nation, is an essential manifestation of vitality, and its opposite a sign of decadence. Peoples which are rising, or rising again after a period of decadence, are always imperialist; and renunciation is a sign of decay and of death.”

And how does a fascist state “grow the empire”? Well certainly not by peaceful means e.g.:

“ Fascism, the more it considers and observes the future and the development of humanity quite apart from political considerations of the moment, believes neither in the possibility nor the utility of perpetual peace. It thus repudiates the doctrine of Pacifism -- born of a renunciation of the struggle and an act of cowardice in the face of sacrifice. War alone brings up to its highest tension all human energy and puts the stamp of nobility upon the peoples who have courage to meet it.”

Sorry, wrong again. The book makes clear over and over that military service is in fact despised by most of the population. Rico's father describes Federal Service thus :

"parasitism, pure and simple. A functionless organ, utterly obsolete, living on the taxpayers... We've outgrown wars. This planet is now peaceful and happy and we enjoy good enough relations with other planets."

Which is precisely one of the key points of a fascist state e.g. the vast majority are not capable of understanding or meaningfully interact with the process of government. So one would expect this sort of attitude to prevail in the non-elite. And despite the character who is a successful business person holding these views he does not have the right to self-determination. The fact that there are characters in a book that speak out against the fascist message of the book is not evidence that the book is not describing a fascist state (and I would say putting forward that it is a “good” state). Especially considering it is the “hero’s” father, after all the book is also a typical Heinlein “coming of age” tale (with all the normal cumbersome and clumsy) Heinlein techniques. Plus factor in that later on in the book the father has realised that war is necessary and good (when he also joins up) and therefore it is shown his opinions earlier were “wrong”.

There is no example of economic regimentation of any kind in the book. Certainly one does not have to serve to be successful in business, as Rico's father is a wealthy businessman without ever having served.

Which again matches the fascism promoted by Mussolini – he did not nationalise all the industries, corporation is not necessarily precluded by fascism.

As for social issues, yes the franchise is limited to a fraction of the population, but is this severe regimentation? Any adult - literally anybody - can serve a term if they choose and are able to understand the oath. The franchise is open to any who want it and are prepared to show that they value it.

This is a very fascist idea e.g. that someone must serve the state to have the right to self-determination rather then being an “inalienable right”.

I wouldn't. For instance, it is made clear in the quote I gave earlier that war is not common for the Federation - it's so rare that many consider it obsolete and think there will never be war again. How can the idea that war is essential to reaching adulthood be supported in light of this?

Because the Federation has already overwhelmed all its enemies does not mean it that it has become a pacific state. At the moment it meets a new race we see a society that (again) is an embodiment of Mussolini’s ideas e.g. “ It thus repudiates the doctrine of Pacifism -- born of a renunciation of the struggle and an act of cowardice in the face of sacrifice. War alone brings up to its highest tension all human energy and puts the stamp of nobility upon the peoples who have courage to meet it. All other trials are substitutes, which never really put men into the position where they have to make the great decision -- the alternative of life or death....

Also recall what the recruiting sergeat tells Rico :

"the facts are that we are getting hard pushed to find things for all the volunteers to do that aren't just glorified KP. You can't all be real military men; we don't need that many and most of the volunteers aren't number-one soldier material anyhow... we've had to think up a whole list of dirty, nasty, dangerous jobs that will...at the very least make them remember for the rest of their lives that their citizenship is valuable to them because they've paid a high price for it...A term of service is...either real military service, rough and dangerous even in peacetime...or a most unreasonable facsimile thereof."

This supports the idea of an elite and the sergeant is saying quite clearly that (as Mussolini put it) “All other trials are substitutes, which never really put men into the position where they have to make the great decision -- the alternative of life or death....”

Federal serivce is not all about rows of soldiers marching off to war. Quite the opposite, while it seems that some sort of military service is the norm, it's clear that many of the Federal Service roles are non-combatant.

Yet this seems repudiated by the quote from the sergeant that you’ve reproduced above.

 

[Darat]

I've read through a fair bit of Heinlein's stuff, and enjoyed enough of it to bitterly regret his passing. Why do people who haven't read much of his work have such strong opinions about it? Is having an opinion and being loud about it really so bad? He wasn't picketing in the streets for crying out loud...he wrote consistently readable books that were entertaining and thought provoking. Yeah, he got preachy, but so what? If you don't like his views, don't spend your money on his books; but if you haven't read them, what are your conclusions based on?

Well I've read (probably) all his work that has been published in book form since the 1960s so I'm slightly aware of his work. I thought that most people in this thread had only passed comment on what they had read? I certainly wouldn’t criticise any author or books without reading them (except the Harry Potter books of course which I have never read but are totally mediocre and derivative. )

I think it is good to read discussions about an author and their work; after all how do you know where to invest your time and money if you don’t read reviews and so on? There are more books published today then any other time and no one person can read them all, well infomred and reasoned discussion and reviews are ways of helping you make your decision.

 

[asthmatic camel]

There must be something really wrong with me because I loved " The number of the beast"....

Stop winding me up Cleo, it's impossible to like "The number of the beast", it's dreadful.

Don't just take my word for it...

~snip~
Bad taste notwithstanding, this is the kind of excuse to which many long-term Heinlein fans would like to cling. To accept "The Number of the Beast --" as the logical endpoint of a writer's evolution is simply nightmarish. The book is an embarrassment; it is unremittingly awful; it is the first Heinlein novel I've found it a genuine effort to finish, very nearly the first since Rocketship Galileo (1947) that I've put down with a strong resolve not to read, the first I've wanted to shut in a lead-lined cupboard and forget lest it contaminate my liking of (say) The Moon is a Harsh Mistress. My (fairly) humble view is that the book says nothing and says it very badly. "In literature," Auden observed, "vulgarity is preferable to nullity, just as grocer's port is preferable to distilled water." "The Number of the Beast --" manages to combine vulgarity with nullity, giving us a species of denatured grocer's port which makes you thirst for some good honest gruel (E.C. Tubb) or even meths (Harlan Ellison).~snip~

Dave Langford
http://www.ansible.co.uk/writing/numbeast.html

 

[Skeptic]

As I see it, Heinlein has two problems--one real, one not.

Let's tackle the "false" problem first. Heinlein was at his best writing action-packed, "manly" science fiction where an (almost invariably, although not always) male protagonist hero fights against the odds and wins, usually also getting the girl (if applicable). While "getting the girl" is sometimes part of the story, sex never is (and was also usually unpublishable at the time he wrote the stories).

Starship Troopers and The Moon is a Harsh Mistress belong to this category, not to mention his juveniles. So do many of his "future history" short stories--The man who sold the moon, for instance, or Blowups happen, or what is perhaps the best time-travel story ever--no, not All you Zombies, which I find predictable once you "get" it, but By His Bootstraps.

That he is attacked for writing in this style--racist, not feminist enough, fascist, etc.--is, I think, completely besides the point. No, he wasn't a feminist or a civil-rights leaders, but that was typical of men of his time and place. What matters is, those stories work. They are good stories--some outstanding. And to call Heinlein--a navy officer, Annapolis graduate, and WWII veteran--a "fascist" is simply stupid.

But here comes Heinlein's real problem. Starting in the 60s, Heinlein changed he began to make his charaters much more engaged in a). sex; b). talking about their feelings and inner life and turmoils. This is what caused the sharp decline in the quality of his fiction, starting with Time Enough for Love. I don't know what caused him to do so--perhaps the desire to be a "real" novelist who creates "real" characters, a common enough desire with writers.

Sadly, Heinlein simply could not create the sexual or mental life of a character on the page if you pointed a gun to his head--especially not of female characters. He had no idea how to do so. The same is true for Asimov, but the difference is that Asimov knew this and simply did not write sex scenes or internal monologues, let alone make them central to the story or novel. The result is, more often than not, simply embarrasing. Reading Heinlein's sex scenes is like reading really bad porn, and reading his internal monologues (often political) is as boring as reading the latest "college activist group against whatever"'s pamphlet.

The final nail in the coffin came when, on top of all this, he fell in love with Lazarus Long, the libertarian immortal character, and made him the centerpiece of many of his novels, needed or not. "The Cat Who Walk Through Walls", for instance, simply disintegrates in the middle when, after getting the protagonist and his girlfriend into a unsolvable mess, Lazarus Long simply appears out of the blue--for no reason whatever--in a time machine to take them to an alternate universe. Really.

So when he was good, he was GOOD; but when he was bad, he was unreadable.

 

[Seismosaurus]

Well I would say mocked its simplistic and brutal ideas about the military and society.

Which really just means that if you hate the book then the film is good because it hates the book too. Personally I find it kinda surreal to make a movie of a much loved book only to insult it as much as possible. Kinda like making a holocaust-denial version of Schindler's List.

You’ve a certain advantage here since I’m relying on memory to back-up my opinion that the book sympathetically portrays a fascist society. (But that should make my job easier as I’m sure I can coerce my memory into agreeing with me whilst you’ll have to stick to facts.)

Always an advantage, making stuff up as you go along. Ask any creationist!

This is certainly compatible with Mussolini’s view of fascism e.g.

“For Fascism, the growth of empire, that is to say the expansion of the nation, is an essential manifestation of vitality, and its opposite a sign of decadence. Peoples which are rising, or rising again after a period of decadence, are always imperialist; and renunciation is a sign of decay and of death.”

And how does a fascist state “grow the empire”? Well certainly not by peaceful means e.g.:

“ Fascism, the more it considers and observes the future and the development of humanity quite apart from political considerations of the moment, believes neither in the possibility nor the utility of perpetual peace. It thus repudiates the doctrine of Pacifism -- born of a renunciation of the struggle and an act of cowardice in the face of sacrifice. War alone brings up to its highest tension all human energy and puts the stamp of nobility upon the peoples who have courage to meet it.”

But there's nothing in the book to indicate that there has been any violent expansion of the Terran "Empire" (Actually it's a Federation IIRC). There is not one mention of conquered lands, subjagated people. In fact only two alien species are mentioned in the book - the "Skinnies", who are ambivalent at the start and allies later on, and the Bugs who are enemies.

Which is precisely one of the key points of a fascist state e.g. the vast majority are not capable of understanding or meaningfully interact with the process of government. So one would expect this sort of attitude to prevail in the non-elite. And despite the character who is a successful business person holding these views he does not have the right to self-determination. The fact that there are characters in a book that speak out against the fascist message of the book is not evidence that the book is not describing a fascist state (and I would say putting forward that it is a “good” state).

But nowhere does it say that the vast majority are not capable of this. Under the system described nobody is forbidden from voting - every single citizen could achieve the franchise if they wish.

Especially considering it is the “hero’s” father, after all the book is also a typical Heinlein “coming of age” tale (with all the normal cumbersome and clumsy) Heinlein techniques. Plus factor in that later on in the book the father has realised that war is necessary and good (when he also joins up) and therefore it is shown his opinions earlier were “wrong”.

One individual character may change his opinion on this - and it's hardly unreaslistic to show people lining up behind the government during wartime - but it is made clear that the society as a whole despises the military. In no way could it be called a militaristic society.

Which again matches the fascism promoted by Mussolini – he did not nationalise all the industries, corporation is not necessarily precluded by fascism.

Perhaps so, but nor can it be called a defining aspect of fascism can it?

This is a very fascist idea e.g. that someone must serve the state to have the right to self-determination rather then being an “inalienable right”.

I would have said that in a fascist state self determination is unobtainable for the vast majority whether they serve or not.

Because the Federation has already overwhelmed all its enemies does not mean it that it has become a pacific state. At the moment it meets a new race we see a society that (again) is an embodiment of Mussolini’s ideas e.g. “ It thus repudiates the doctrine of Pacifism -- born of a renunciation of the struggle and an act of cowardice in the face of sacrifice. War alone brings up to its highest tension all human energy and puts the stamp of nobility upon the peoples who have courage to meet it. All other trials are substitutes, which never really put men into the position where they have to make the great decision -- the alternative of life or death....

I can't imagine where you get the idea that they have "overwhelmed" their enemies. The only reference to there having been any prior wars in the entire book is the reference that such wars are a distant memory and that peaceful relations are enjoyed with other planets. You assume this means that the other planets have been conquered and pacified, but there is nothing to suggest this in the book.

As for the Bugs, the book is ambiguous about who started the war but it certainly doesn't paint the Federation as encroaching on the Bugs. All it does is note that there was an escalating series of "police actions" and raids, culminating in the Bugs destroying Buenos Ares. There is not so much of a hint that this is a war of conquest by the Federation.

This supports the idea of an elite and the sergeant is saying quite clearly that (as Mussolini put it) “All other trials are substitutes, which never really put men into the position where they have to make the great decision -- the alternative of life or death....”

Yet this seems repudiated by the quote from the sergeant that you’ve reproduced above.

I don't see how. All he is saying is that the military's role is to apply the required force as dictated by the civilian government - whilst emphasising that overwhelming attack is not at all what war is about. This is a perfectly reasonable description of what the military forces of any present day democracy do. Certainly it's a far cry from the militarised governments typically associated with fascism.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I like it a lot better than Budweiser.

 

[voodoochile]

I voted 7 mostly for sentimental reasons. I read every Heinlein novel up to and including Number of the the Beast and The Cat who walks through Walls years ago. Some of it had a profound impact on me at an earlier age and I never really thought about all the incest stuff until much later on.

SIASL struck me as deep and I turned many people on to it, but now that I am older, I cannot see what I liked so much about it.

MIAHM was and remains a great novel, IMO.

He gets pretty preachy and I agree that his heros are too perfect and nothing that feels good is taboo under the right circumstances.

Looking back, I can see why I enjoyed it when I was younger, but I have no desire to re read any of his stuff and the collection of books has gone from my "display shelf" to "I read this stuff" shelf while others have taken his place (Gibson, Card, Simmons, Drake and the everpresent Zelazny who reamains the greates SF writer of all time, IMO).

 

[Ossai]

I gave him an 7. Probably more because he’s one of the few authors where I’ve read everything, including Number of the Beast and the collection of romantic short stories as well as Tramp Royale.

All You Zombies is one of my all time favorite short stories. Overall though, I tend to enjoy his juveniles more than his novels, with the exceptions of Stranger and Moon.


Darat/

I certainly wouldn’t criticise any author or books without reading them (except the Harry Potter books of course which I have never read but are totally mediocre and derivative ).

I certainly agree with your assessment of Harry Potter, but I’ve read every one of them so far – they’re just brain candy.

Ossai

 

[Matabiri]

I give him a 7, because I really enjoyed his earlier stuff, particularly the more whimsical things like Door Into Summer and And He Built A Crooked House, and also because The Moon is a Harsh Mistress actually made me think about setting up a new political system from scratch, when I was younger.

Plus, he invented the waterbed.

I agree with Darat about Starship Troopers (and conversely, love the film) and Harry Potter, which I have -tried- to read but cannot get more than a few pages into because of how mind-numbingly badly they written.

 

[Jeff Corey]

I never thought his internal dialogues of adolescent females were very true to life, but what would I know?
The novel that really turned me off was "Farnham's Freehold." I could buy it as a dystopia, but he loved it.
Don't me started on "Stranger..."
Grok this?