Jo Walton, the Heinlein apologist, says that "To Sail beyond the Sunset"
is Heinlein's worst novel. I disagree.
https://reactormag.com/heinleins-worst-novel/
In article <[email protected]>,
-dsr- <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2024-04-29, Lynn McGuire <[email protected]> wrote:
Jo Walton, the Heinlein apologist, says that "To Sail beyond the Sunset" >>> is Heinlein's worst novel. I disagree.
https://reactormag.com/heinleins-worst-novel/
What would you nominate as Heinlein's worst novel, then?
Farnham's Freehold.
--scott
On 2024-04-29, Lynn McGuire <[email protected]> wrote:
Jo Walton, the Heinlein apologist, says that "To Sail beyond the Sunset"
is Heinlein's worst novel. I disagree.
https://reactormag.com/heinleins-worst-novel/
What would you nominate as Heinlein's worst novel, then?
On 4/29/2024 4:29 PM, -dsr- wrote:
On 2024-04-29, Lynn McGuire <[email protected]> wrote:
Jo Walton, the Heinlein apologist, says that "To Sail beyond the Sunset" >>> is Heinlein's worst novel. I disagree.
https://reactormag.com/heinleins-worst-novel/
What would you nominate as Heinlein's worst novel, then?
-dsr-
There is no such NUMBER OF THE BEAST.
The book is also an in depth examination on how society in the USA
changed from 1880 to 1980. Technology changed radically in that time
and so did societal morals about sex and drugs, not for the better.
In article <v0p8j7$hg7$[email protected]>,
Scott Dorsey <[email protected]> wrote:
In article <[email protected]>,
-dsr- <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2024-04-29, Lynn McGuire <[email protected]> wrote:
Jo Walton, the Heinlein apologist, says that "To Sail beyond the Sunset" >>>> is Heinlein's worst novel. I disagree.
https://reactormag.com/heinleins-worst-novel/
What would you nominate as Heinlein's worst novel, then?
Farnham's Freehold.
--scott
That one usually gets called out. I thought it was, enh, ok.
I have yet to read it, but the trunk novel, _For Us The Living_
gets a lot of votes as well though that may not be fair.
The other one usually listed is _Sixth Column_.
On 4/30/2024 8:54 AM, Christian Weisgerber wrote:
On 2024-04-29, Lynn McGuire <[email protected]> wrote:
The book is also an in depth examination on how society in the USA
changed from 1880 to 1980. Technology changed radically in that time
and so did societal morals about sex and drugs, not for the better.
So you are in favor of criminalizing sex and liberalizing drugs?
I did not comment on laws, I commented on societal morals.
In article <v0p8j7$hg7$[email protected]>,
Scott Dorsey <[email protected]> wrote:
In article <[email protected]>,
-dsr- <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2024-04-29, Lynn McGuire <[email protected]> wrote:
Jo Walton, the Heinlein apologist, says that "To Sail beyond the Sunset" >>>> is Heinlein's worst novel. I disagree.
https://reactormag.com/heinleins-worst-novel/
What would you nominate as Heinlein's worst novel, then?
Farnham's Freehold.
--scott
That one usually gets called out. I thought it was, enh, ok.
I have yet to read it, but the trunk novel, _For Us The Living_
gets a lot of votes as well though that may not be fair.
The other one usually listed is _Sixth Column_.
On 4/30/2024 5:15 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
On 4/30/2024 8:54 AM, Christian Weisgerber wrote:Which are generally what determine and drive laws.
On 2024-04-29, Lynn McGuire <[email protected]> wrote:
The book is also an in depth examination on how society in the USA
changed from 1880 to 1980.� Technology changed radically in that time
and so did societal morals about sex and drugs, not for the better.
So you are in favor of criminalizing sex and liberalizing drugs?
I did not comment on laws, I commented on societal morals.
On 29 Apr 2024 23:06:54 GMT, [email protected] (Ted Nolan
<tednolan>) wrote:
In article <v0p8j7$hg7$[email protected]>,
Scott Dorsey <[email protected]> wrote:
In article <[email protected]>,
-dsr- <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2024-04-29, Lynn McGuire <[email protected]> wrote:
Jo Walton, the Heinlein apologist, says that "To Sail beyond the Sunset" >>>>> is Heinlein's worst novel. I disagree.
https://reactormag.com/heinleins-worst-novel/
What would you nominate as Heinlein's worst novel, then?
Farnham's Freehold.
--scott
That one usually gets called out. I thought it was, enh, ok.
I have yet to read it, but the trunk novel, _For Us The Living_
gets a lot of votes as well though that may not be fair.
The other one usually listed is _Sixth Column_.
Farnham's Freehold and Sixth Column, with Starship Troopers a distant
third, are indeed Heinlein's most controversial or unacceptable works.
That wouldn't necessarily make them his most badly written works.
That a "Heinlein apologist" might find it easier to make excuses for
Number of the Beast than To Sail Beyond the Sunset... well, I've
forgotten too much about those works, though I think I enjoyed them
both when I rad them, to have a useful comment.
Incidentally, it has been argued that Farnham's Freehold wasn't
_really_ racist. It's true that it didn't depict cannibalism as a
natural tendency, for genetic reasons, of America's black people, just >something imported by foreign black people who were also converted to
Islam. I don't think that, though, is quite enough to qualify it as
"not racist", since saying false bad things about foreign people of
other races still qualifies, not just American people of other races.
John Savard
In article <[email protected]>,
John Savard <[email protected]d> wrote:
On 29 Apr 2024 23:06:54 GMT, [email protected] (Ted Nolan
<tednolan>) wrote:
In article <v0p8j7$hg7$[email protected]>,
Scott Dorsey <[email protected]> wrote:
In article <[email protected]>,
-dsr- <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2024-04-29, Lynn McGuire <[email protected]> wrote:
Jo Walton, the Heinlein apologist, says that "To Sail beyond the Sunset" >>>>>> is Heinlein's worst novel. I disagree.
https://reactormag.com/heinleins-worst-novel/
What would you nominate as Heinlein's worst novel, then?
Farnham's Freehold.
--scott
That one usually gets called out. I thought it was, enh, ok.
I have yet to read it, but the trunk novel, _For Us The Living_
gets a lot of votes as well though that may not be fair.
The other one usually listed is _Sixth Column_.
Farnham's Freehold and Sixth Column, with Starship Troopers a distant
third, are indeed Heinlein's most controversial or unacceptable works.
That wouldn't necessarily make them his most badly written works.
That a "Heinlein apologist" might find it easier to make excuses for
Number of the Beast than To Sail Beyond the Sunset... well, I've
forgotten too much about those works, though I think I enjoyed them
both when I rad them, to have a useful comment.
Incidentally, it has been argued that Farnham's Freehold wasn't
_really_ racist. It's true that it didn't depict cannibalism as a
natural tendency, for genetic reasons, of America's black people, just
something imported by foreign black people who were also converted to
Islam. I don't think that, though, is quite enough to qualify it as
"not racist", since saying false bad things about foreign people of
other races still qualifies, not just American people of other races.
John Savard
I think the main argument for calling FF not racist is that it is
a depiction of the "The shoe is on the other foot and how do you
like them apples?" like Harry Belefonte's "White Man's Burden".
On 4/30/2024 8:54 AM, Christian Weisgerber wrote:
On 2024-04-29, Lynn McGuire <[email protected]> wrote:
The book is also an in depth examination on how society in the USA
changed from 1880 to 1980. Technology changed radically in that time
and so did societal morals about sex and drugs, not for the better.
So you are in favor of criminalizing sex and liberalizing drugs?
I did not comment on laws, I commented on societal morals.
On 5/1/2024 5:18 AM, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
In article <[email protected]>,
John Savard <[email protected]d> wrote:
On 29 Apr 2024 23:06:54 GMT, [email protected] (Ted Nolan
<tednolan>) wrote:
In article <v0p8j7$hg7$[email protected]>,
Scott Dorsey <[email protected]> wrote:
In article <[email protected]>,
-dsr- <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2024-04-29, Lynn McGuire <[email protected]> wrote:
Jo Walton, the Heinlein apologist, says that "To Sail beyond the Sunset"
is Heinlein's worst novel. I disagree.
https://reactormag.com/heinleins-worst-novel/
What would you nominate as Heinlein's worst novel, then?
Farnham's Freehold.
--scott
That one usually gets called out. I thought it was, enh, ok.
I have yet to read it, but the trunk novel, _For Us The Living_
gets a lot of votes as well though that may not be fair.
The other one usually listed is _Sixth Column_.
Farnham's Freehold and Sixth Column, with Starship Troopers a distant
third, are indeed Heinlein's most controversial or unacceptable works.
That wouldn't necessarily make them his most badly written works.
That a "Heinlein apologist" might find it easier to make excuses for
Number of the Beast than To Sail Beyond the Sunset... well, I've
forgotten too much about those works, though I think I enjoyed them
both when I rad them, to have a useful comment.
Incidentally, it has been argued that Farnham's Freehold wasn't
_really_ racist. It's true that it didn't depict cannibalism as a
natural tendency, for genetic reasons, of America's black people, just
something imported by foreign black people who were also converted to
Islam. I don't think that, though, is quite enough to qualify it as
"not racist", since saying false bad things about foreign people of
other races still qualifies, not just American people of other races.
John Savard
I think the main argument for calling FF not racist is that it is
a depiction of the "The shoe is on the other foot and how do you
like them apples?" like Harry Belefonte's "White Man's Burden".
So its not racism once you call attention to it?
Lynn McGuire <[email protected]> writes:
On 4/30/2024 8:54 AM, Christian Weisgerber wrote:
On 2024-04-29, Lynn McGuire <[email protected]> wrote:
The book is also an in depth examination on how society in the USA
changed from 1880 to 1980. Technology changed radically in that time
and so did societal morals about sex and drugs, not for the better.
So you are in favor of criminalizing sex and liberalizing drugs?
I did not comment on laws, I commented on societal morals.
That would be societal mores.
Which are arbitrary. Yours are informed by your religion.
Others are informed by their religion. Some are informed
by no religion.
On Wed, 01 May 2024 14:13:23 GMT, [email protected] (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:
Lynn McGuire <[email protected]> writes:time
On 4/30/2024 8:54 AM, Christian Weisgerber wrote:
On 2024-04-29, Lynn McGuire <[email protected]> wrote:
=20
The book is also an in depth examination on how society in the USA
changed from 1880 to 1980. Technology changed radically in that =
and so did societal morals about sex and drugs, not for the better. >>>>=20So you are in favor of criminalizing sex and liberalizing drugs?
I did not comment on laws, I commented on societal morals.
That would be societal mores.
Which are arbitrary. Yours are informed by your religion.
Others are informed by their religion. Some are informed
by no religion.
No acknowledged or no recognized religion, that is.
On Wed, 01 May 2024 14:13:23 GMT, [email protected] (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:
Lynn McGuire <[email protected]> writes:
On 4/30/2024 8:54 AM, Christian Weisgerber wrote:
On 2024-04-29, Lynn McGuire <[email protected]> wrote:
The book is also an in depth examination on how society in the USA
changed from 1880 to 1980. Technology changed radically in that time >>>>> and so did societal morals about sex and drugs, not for the better.
So you are in favor of criminalizing sex and liberalizing drugs?
I did not comment on laws, I commented on societal morals.
That would be societal mores.
Which are arbitrary. Yours are informed by your religion.
Others are informed by their religion. Some are informed
by no religion.
No acknowledged or no recognized religion, that is.
Indeed, it could be argued that societal mores /are/ the true religion
of the society holding to them.
On 1 May 2024 at 16:40:59 BST, "Paul S Person"
<[email protected]d> wrote:
On Wed, 01 May 2024 14:13:23 GMT, [email protected] (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:
Lynn McGuire <[email protected]> writes:
On 4/30/2024 8:54 AM, Christian Weisgerber wrote:
On 2024-04-29, Lynn McGuire <[email protected]> wrote:
The book is also an in depth examination on how society in the USA >>>>>> changed from 1880 to 1980. Technology changed radically in that time >>>>>> and so did societal morals about sex and drugs, not for the better. >>>>>So you are in favor of criminalizing sex and liberalizing drugs?
I did not comment on laws, I commented on societal morals.
That would be societal mores.
Which are arbitrary. Yours are informed by your religion.
Others are informed by their religion. Some are informed
by no religion.
No acknowledged or no recognized religion, that is.
Indeed, it could be argued that societal mores /are/ the true religion
of the society holding to them.
It could, but it would be a terrible argument that misuses and confuses
the term religion.
On 1 May 2024 17:50:19 GMT, Jaimie Vandenbergh
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 1 May 2024 at 16:40:59 BST, "Paul S Person"
<[email protected]d> wrote:
On Wed, 01 May 2024 14:13:23 GMT, [email protected] (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:
Lynn McGuire <[email protected]> writes:
On 4/30/2024 8:54 AM, Christian Weisgerber wrote:
On 2024-04-29, Lynn McGuire <[email protected]> wrote:
The book is also an in depth examination on how society in the USA >>>>>>> changed from 1880 to 1980. Technology changed radically in that time >>>>>>> and so did societal morals about sex and drugs, not for the better. >>>>>>So you are in favor of criminalizing sex and liberalizing drugs?
I did not comment on laws, I commented on societal morals.
That would be societal mores.
Which are arbitrary. Yours are informed by your religion.
Others are informed by their religion. Some are informed
by no religion.
No acknowledged or no recognized religion, that is.
Indeed, it could be argued that societal mores /are/ the true religion
of the society holding to them.
It could, but it would be a terrible argument that misuses and confuses
the term religion.
Don't see why.
Well, unless you are restricting "religion" to "organized religion",
of course.
On 5/2/2024 8:50 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
On 1 May 2024 17:50:19 GMT, Jaimie Vandenbergh
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 1 May 2024 at 16:40:59 BST, "Paul S Person"
<[email protected]d> wrote:
On Wed, 01 May 2024 14:13:23 GMT, [email protected] (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:
Lynn McGuire <[email protected]> writes:
On 4/30/2024 8:54 AM, Christian Weisgerber wrote:
On 2024-04-29, Lynn McGuire <[email protected]> wrote:
The book is also an in depth examination on how society in the USA >>>>>>>> changed from 1880 to 1980. Technology changed radically in that time >>>>>>>> and so did societal morals about sex and drugs, not for the better. >>>>>>>So you are in favor of criminalizing sex and liberalizing drugs?
I did not comment on laws, I commented on societal morals.
That would be societal mores.
Which are arbitrary. Yours are informed by your religion.
Others are informed by their religion. Some are informed
by no religion.
No acknowledged or no recognized religion, that is.
Indeed, it could be argued that societal mores /are/ the true religion >>>> of the society holding to them.
It could, but it would be a terrible argument that misuses and confuses
the term religion.
Don't see why.
Well, unless you are restricting "religion" to "organized religion",
of course.
Religion: Thou shalt not kill because someone you can't see or hear said so!
Social Mores: Don't kill because it takes away the benefits to our
society of the one killed, harms others emotionally and causes a
degradation of the social network that benefits all of us.
On Thu, 2 May 2024 21:17:10 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 5/2/2024 8:50 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
On 1 May 2024 17:50:19 GMT, Jaimie Vandenbergh
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 1 May 2024 at 16:40:59 BST, "Paul S Person"
<[email protected]d> wrote:
On Wed, 01 May 2024 14:13:23 GMT, [email protected] (Scott Lurndal) >>>>> wrote:
Lynn McGuire <[email protected]> writes:
On 4/30/2024 8:54 AM, Christian Weisgerber wrote:
On 2024-04-29, Lynn McGuire <[email protected]> wrote:I did not comment on laws, I commented on societal morals.
The book is also an in depth examination on how society in the USA >>>>>>>>> changed from 1880 to 1980. Technology changed radically in that time >>>>>>>>> and so did societal morals about sex and drugs, not for the better. >>>>>>>>So you are in favor of criminalizing sex and liberalizing drugs? >>>>>>>
That would be societal mores.
Which are arbitrary. Yours are informed by your religion.
Others are informed by their religion. Some are informed
by no religion.
No acknowledged or no recognized religion, that is.
Indeed, it could be argued that societal mores /are/ the true religion >>>>> of the society holding to them.
It could, but it would be a terrible argument that misuses and confuses >>>> the term religion.
Don't see why.
Well, unless you are restricting "religion" to "organized religion",
of course.
Religion: Thou shalt not kill because someone you can't see or hear said so! >>
Social Mores: Don't kill because it takes away the benefits to our
society of the one killed, harms others emotionally and causes a
degradation of the social network that benefits all of us.
Social mores aren't thought out, never mind intellectuallized. There
is no "because". Other than "because that is how we behave".
Incidentally, it has been argued that Farnham's Freehold wasn't
_really_ racist. It's true that it didn't depict cannibalism as a
natural tendency, for genetic reasons, of America's black people, just >something imported by foreign black people who were also converted to
Islam. I don't think that, though, is quite enough to qualify it as
"not racist", since saying false bad things about foreign people of
other races still qualifies, not just American people of other races.
In article <[email protected]>,
John Savard <[email protected]d> wrote:
Incidentally, it has been argued that Farnham's Freehold wasn't
_really_ racist. It's true that it didn't depict cannibalism as a
natural tendency, for genetic reasons, of America's black people, just
something imported by foreign black people who were also converted to
Islam. I don't think that, though, is quite enough to qualify it as
"not racist", since saying false bad things about foreign people of
other races still qualifies, not just American people of other races.
It's been decades since I've read it, but I recall the cannibalism
in "Farnham's Freehold" came about because the total collapse of
civilization resulted in mass starvation, people resorted to
cannibalism to survive, and it got incorporated into the culture.
The dominant culture was black because the USA/USSR/Europe/China
nuclear war just about completely destroyed those nations, and
Africa was all that was left.
The out-of-story explanation for having cannibalism in there
was made pretty dang clear: Heinlein saying that on the scale
of evils, cannibalism is less of an evil than slavery.
On 01/05/2024 08:04, John Savard wrote:
On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 21:51:45 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 4/30/2024 5:15 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
On 4/30/2024 8:54 AM, Christian Weisgerber wrote:Which are generally what determine and drive laws.
On 2024-04-29, Lynn McGuire <[email protected]> wrote:
The book is also an in depth examination on how society in the USA >>>>>> changed from 1880 to 1980. Technology changed radically in that time >>>>>> and so did societal morals about sex and drugs, not for the better. >>>>>So you are in favor of criminalizing sex and liberalizing drugs?
I did not comment on laws, I commented on societal morals.
True, but it is an entirely possible position to take, for example,
that a society ought to _practice_ chastity, as that would be better
for it, without trying to impose it by law, by criminalizing
homosexuality, adultery, and so on.
I'm not sure what you'd like to prevent,
if not teenage pregnancy and overpopulation
in general. Or sexually transmitted diseases.
But we don't need /chastity/ to avoid all that.
On 03/05/2024 17:04, Paul S Person wrote:
On Thu, 2 May 2024 21:17:10 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 5/2/2024 8:50 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
On 1 May 2024 17:50:19 GMT, Jaimie Vandenbergh
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 1 May 2024 at 16:40:59 BST, "Paul S Person"
<[email protected]d> wrote:
On Wed, 01 May 2024 14:13:23 GMT, [email protected] (Scott Lurndal) >>>>>> wrote:
Lynn McGuire <[email protected]> writes:
On 4/30/2024 8:54 AM, Christian Weisgerber wrote:
On 2024-04-29, Lynn McGuire <[email protected]> wrote:I did not comment on laws, I commented on societal morals.
The book is also an in depth examination on how society in the USA >>>>>>>>>> changed from 1880 to 1980. Technology changed radically in that timeSo you are in favor of criminalizing sex and liberalizing drugs? >>>>>>>>
and so did societal morals about sex and drugs, not for the better. >>>>>>>>>
That would be societal mores.
Which are arbitrary. Yours are informed by your religion.
Others are informed by their religion. Some are informed
by no religion.
No acknowledged or no recognized religion, that is.
Indeed, it could be argued that societal mores /are/ the true religion >>>>>> of the society holding to them.
It could, but it would be a terrible argument that misuses and confuses >>>>> the term religion.
Don't see why.
Well, unless you are restricting "religion" to "organized religion",
of course.
Religion: Thou shalt not kill because someone you can't see or hear said so!
Social Mores: Don't kill because it takes away the benefits to our
society of the one killed, harms others emotionally and causes a
degradation of the social network that benefits all of us.
Social mores aren't thought out, never mind intellectuallized. There
is no "because". Other than "because that is how we behave".
Folk religion -- what people actually believe, which may or may not
correspond any organized religion they may adhere to.
Intellectualization -- a truly pointless exercise in futility.
I see a woman telling her young daughter not to run -- because it's
not ladylike. Do you really think that not being ladylike is a
/reason/? I think it's simply something to say to control the child's
behavior -- a social more.
Isn't that what "ladylike" is?
Society works better if people behave with
consideration for each other. Going about
at a run is often inconsiderate.
You probably should run if you're in a race,
of course.
There are longer series. Terrance Dicks novelized
an extraordinary number of _Doctor Who_ television
episodes. This does include stories about the
third Doctor stranded on twentieth century Earth,
so those may not count. Some of that seems to
be made in the 1970s and set in the 1980s
On Fri, 17 May 2024 10:20:33 +0100, Robert Carnegie
<[email protected]> wrote:
<snip>
There are longer series. Terrance Dicks novelized
an extraordinary number of _Doctor Who_ television
episodes. This does include stories about the
third Doctor stranded on twentieth century Earth,
so those may not count. Some of that seems to
be made in the 1970s and set in the 1980s
This seemed to be a thing with some UK SF shows of the 70s, as Gerry >Anderson's UFO was also set 10 years after the actual broadcast date.
Substance abuse is popular - alcohol and tobacco
included. I do foresee successfully stopping
smoking of tobacco and probably other materials.
I wonder if tobacco would fall out of use if
smoking is eliminated and there isn't anything
else really satisfactory to do with it unless
you're addicted. Taken orally, hideous diseases
are risked. Some people commend smoking for
weight loss.
On Fri, 17 May 2024 10:33:02 +0100, Robert Carnegie
<[email protected]> wrote:
Substance abuse is popular - alcohol and tobacco
included. I do foresee successfully stopping
smoking of tobacco and probably other materials.
I wonder if tobacco would fall out of use if
smoking is eliminated and there isn't anything
else really satisfactory to do with it unless
you're addicted. Taken orally, hideous diseases
are risked. Some people commend smoking for
weight loss.
People in our city are "vaping" tobacco now - never saw the interest
frankly.
But then my paternal grandfather died of lung cancer when I was 14
(which I'm told is the usual age future smokers either start or think
about starting to smoke) which was kind of a deterrent for me.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 715 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 25:25:03 |
| Calls: | 12,106 |
| Calls today: | 6 |
| Files: | 15,006 |
| Messages: | 6,518,180 |