Discussion:
[tor dot com] Heinlein's Juveniles vs. Andre Norton's Young Adult Novels
Add Reply
James Nicoll
2019-07-11 14:14:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Heinlein's Juveniles vs. Andre Norton's Young Adult Novels

https://www.tor.com/2019/07/11/heinlein-juveniles-vs-andre-norton-young-adult-novels/
--
My reviews can be found at http://jamesdavisnicoll.com/
My tor pieces at https://www.tor.com/author/james-davis-nicoll/
My Dreamwidth at https://james-davis-nicoll.dreamwidth.org/
My patreon is at https://www.patreon.com/jamesdnicoll
Quadibloc
2019-07-11 14:38:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by James Nicoll
Heinlein's Juveniles vs. Andre Norton's Young Adult Novels
https://www.tor.com/2019/07/11/heinlein-juveniles-vs-andre-norton-young-adult-novels/
Norton and Heinlein sound like opposites, rather than Norton influencing
Heinlein. Norton sought to entertain... and maybe enlighten a little along the
way, when she could get away with it. Heinlein, though, sought to educate, and
was often heavy-handed about it.

Comparing Norton to Heinlein on the one hand, or comparing Norton to Burroughs
on the other, makes one wonder why either Heinlein or Burroughs are remembered
as "greats", given their obvious flaws, brought into sharp relief by the
comparison.

For some reason, however, I don't feel the slightest inclination to proclaim
that Andre Norton ought to be recognized as one of the greats on the strength of
her oeuvre. She wrote many very good books, but all ultimately forgettable, it
seems, compared to what Burroughs achieved. As for Heinlein, though, "If This
Goes On..." is the _only_ work by him I would feel inclined to recommend to
anyone else as worth reading: not that he doesn't deserve his reputation, but I
tend to see his potential as largely wasted.

John Savard
Lynn McGuire
2019-07-11 18:33:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by James Nicoll
Heinlein's Juveniles vs. Andre Norton's Young Adult Novels
https://www.tor.com/2019/07/11/heinlein-juveniles-vs-andre-norton-young-adult-novels/
Norton and Heinlein sound like opposites, rather than Norton influencing
Heinlein. Norton sought to entertain... and maybe enlighten a little along the
way, when she could get away with it. Heinlein, though, sought to educate, and
was often heavy-handed about it.
Comparing Norton to Heinlein on the one hand, or comparing Norton to Burroughs
on the other, makes one wonder why either Heinlein or Burroughs are remembered
as "greats", given their obvious flaws, brought into sharp relief by the
comparison.
For some reason, however, I don't feel the slightest inclination to proclaim
that Andre Norton ought to be recognized as one of the greats on the strength of
her oeuvre. She wrote many very good books, but all ultimately forgettable, it
seems, compared to what Burroughs achieved. As for Heinlein, though, "If This
Goes On..." is the _only_ work by him I would feel inclined to recommend to
anyone else as worth reading: not that he doesn't deserve his reputation, but I
tend to see his potential as largely wasted.
John Savard
Wow. Not even _Citizen of the Galaxy_, _The Starbeast_, or _The Moon is
a Harsh Mistress_ ? Or Heinlein's awesome short story, _The Long Watch_ ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Long_Watch

_The Long Watch_ story is here:
https://www.baen.com/Chapters/1439133417/1439133417___4.htm

Lynn
Scott Lurndal
2019-07-11 19:09:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Quadibloc
Post by James Nicoll
Heinlein's Juveniles vs. Andre Norton's Young Adult Novels
https://www.tor.com/2019/07/11/heinlein-juveniles-vs-andre-norton-young-adult-novels/
Norton and Heinlein sound like opposites, rather than Norton influencing
Heinlein. Norton sought to entertain... and maybe enlighten a little along the
way, when she could get away with it. Heinlein, though, sought to educate, and
was often heavy-handed about it.
Comparing Norton to Heinlein on the one hand, or comparing Norton to Burroughs
on the other, makes one wonder why either Heinlein or Burroughs are remembered
as "greats", given their obvious flaws, brought into sharp relief by the
comparison.
For some reason, however, I don't feel the slightest inclination to proclaim
that Andre Norton ought to be recognized as one of the greats on the strength of
her oeuvre. She wrote many very good books, but all ultimately forgettable, it
seems, compared to what Burroughs achieved. As for Heinlein, though, "If This
Goes On..." is the _only_ work by him I would feel inclined to recommend to
anyone else as worth reading: not that he doesn't deserve his reputation, but I
tend to see his potential as largely wasted.
John Savard
Wow. Not even _Citizen of the Galaxy_, _The Starbeast_, or _The Moon is
a Harsh Mistress_ ? Or Heinlein's awesome short story, _The Long Watch_ ?
I think many would recommend _The Tale of the Adopted Daughter_ as
representative of his best work.

It's certainly one of my favorites (From _Time Enough for Love_).
Dorothy J Heydt
2019-07-11 20:12:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by James Nicoll
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Quadibloc
Post by James Nicoll
Heinlein's Juveniles vs. Andre Norton's Young Adult Novels
https://www.tor.com/2019/07/11/heinlein-juveniles-vs-andre-norton-young-adult-novels/
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Quadibloc
Norton and Heinlein sound like opposites, rather than Norton influencing
Heinlein. Norton sought to entertain... and maybe enlighten a little
along the
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Quadibloc
way, when she could get away with it. Heinlein, though, sought to
educate, and
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Quadibloc
was often heavy-handed about it.
Comparing Norton to Heinlein on the one hand, or comparing Norton to
Burroughs
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Quadibloc
on the other, makes one wonder why either Heinlein or Burroughs are
remembered
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Quadibloc
as "greats", given their obvious flaws, brought into sharp relief by the
comparison.
For some reason, however, I don't feel the slightest inclination to proclaim
that Andre Norton ought to be recognized as one of the greats on the
strength of
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Quadibloc
her oeuvre. She wrote many very good books, but all ultimately
forgettable, it
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Quadibloc
seems, compared to what Burroughs achieved. As for Heinlein, though, "If This
Goes On..." is the _only_ work by him I would feel inclined to recommend to
anyone else as worth reading: not that he doesn't deserve his
reputation, but I
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Quadibloc
tend to see his potential as largely wasted.
John Savard
Wow. Not even _Citizen of the Galaxy_, _The Starbeast_, or _The Moon is
a Harsh Mistress_ ? Or Heinlein's awesome short story, _The Long Watch_ ?
I think many would recommend _The Tale of the Adopted Daughter_ as
representative of his best work.
It's certainly one of my favorites (From _Time Enough for Love_).
Another datum for whoever's keeping score: I know I've read
several of Norton's stories, but I can remember a thing about any
of them. I've read all the Heinlein juveniles and keep several
of them on the shelves for occasional re-reading. Ditto some of
his early adult work (_The Door Into Summer_, e.g.). I stopped
reading Heinlein's late work after _Farnham's Freehold._
--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
www.kithrup.com/~djheydt/
William Hyde
2019-07-12 01:43:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by James Nicoll
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Quadibloc
Post by James Nicoll
Heinlein's Juveniles vs. Andre Norton's Young Adult Novels
https://www.tor.com/2019/07/11/heinlein-juveniles-vs-andre-norton-young-adult-novels/
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Quadibloc
Norton and Heinlein sound like opposites, rather than Norton influencing
Heinlein. Norton sought to entertain... and maybe enlighten a little
along the
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Quadibloc
way, when she could get away with it. Heinlein, though, sought to
educate, and
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Quadibloc
was often heavy-handed about it.
Comparing Norton to Heinlein on the one hand, or comparing Norton to
Burroughs
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Quadibloc
on the other, makes one wonder why either Heinlein or Burroughs are
remembered
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Quadibloc
as "greats", given their obvious flaws, brought into sharp relief by the
comparison.
For some reason, however, I don't feel the slightest inclination to proclaim
that Andre Norton ought to be recognized as one of the greats on the
strength of
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Quadibloc
her oeuvre. She wrote many very good books, but all ultimately
forgettable, it
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Quadibloc
seems, compared to what Burroughs achieved. As for Heinlein, though, "If This
Goes On..." is the _only_ work by him I would feel inclined to recommend to
anyone else as worth reading: not that he doesn't deserve his
reputation, but I
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Quadibloc
tend to see his potential as largely wasted.
John Savard
Wow. Not even _Citizen of the Galaxy_, _The Starbeast_, or _The Moon is
a Harsh Mistress_ ? Or Heinlein's awesome short story, _The Long Watch_ ?
I think many would recommend _The Tale of the Adopted Daughter_ as
representative of his best work.
It's certainly one of my favorites (From _Time Enough for Love_).
Another datum for whoever's keeping score: I know I've read
several of Norton's stories, but I can remember a thing about any
of them.
I haven't read these since I was a teenager, but I remember then fairly well. I could probably write a plot summary for the Judgment/Victory on Janus duology. Though oddly, the brief opening chapter set in the city full of displaced people - without any real SF or fantasy elements - is the part I remember best.

Norton had a very fine sense of the alien, which of course Heinlein had too, exhibiting it best, for me, in "Red Planet".
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
I've read all the Heinlein juveniles and keep several
of them on the shelves for occasional re-reading.
Most of the juveniles I read only in school libraries, and hence stopped reading at age 16 or so. The exception is "Citizen of the Galaxy" which for some odd reason no library stocked. So I actually own a copy of that.

I remember them all quite well, except "Space Cadet" which I read but once and have worked hard to forget.

William Hyde
D B Davis
2019-07-13 05:32:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Quadibloc
Post by James Nicoll
Heinlein's Juveniles vs. Andre Norton's Young Adult Novels
https://www.tor.com/2019/07/11/heinlein-juveniles-vs-andre-norton-young-adult-novels/
Norton and Heinlein sound like opposites, rather than Norton influencing
Heinlein. Norton sought to entertain... and maybe enlighten a little along the
way, when she could get away with it. Heinlein, though, sought to educate, and
was often heavy-handed about it.
Comparing Norton to Heinlein on the one hand, or comparing Norton to Burroughs
on the other, makes one wonder why either Heinlein or Burroughs are remembered
as "greats", given their obvious flaws, brought into sharp relief by the
comparison.
For some reason, however, I don't feel the slightest inclination to proclaim
that Andre Norton ought to be recognized as one of the greats on the strength of
her oeuvre. She wrote many very good books, but all ultimately forgettable, it
seems, compared to what Burroughs achieved. As for Heinlein, though, "If This
Goes On..." is the _only_ work by him I would feel inclined to recommend to
anyone else as worth reading: not that he doesn't deserve his reputation, but I
tend to see his potential as largely wasted.
Wow. Not even _Citizen of the Galaxy_, _The Starbeast_, or _The Moon is
a Harsh Mistress_ ? Or Heinlein's awesome short story, _The Long Watch_ ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Long_Watch
https://www.baen.com/Chapters/1439133417/1439133417___4.htm
I think many would recommend _The Tale of the Adopted Daughter_ as
representative of his best work.
It's certainly one of my favorites (From _Time Enough for Love_).
Another datum for whoever's keeping score: I know I've read
several of Norton's stories, but I can remember a thing about any
of them. I've read all the Heinlein juveniles and keep several
of them on the shelves for occasional re-reading. Ditto some of
his early adult work (_The Door Into Summer_, e.g.). I stopped
reading Heinlein's late work after _Farnham's Freehold._
Peter mentions _The Forerunner_ (Norton), which sounds rather like a
non-prison version of "Hawksville Station" (Silverberg). Vinge's bobbles
may also left people stranded in time.
My nom de plume comes from a character in _The Door Into Summer_,
which is my all time favorite sfnal story. "The Long Watch" denouement
makes me regret that Dahlquist, a typical Heinlein hero, didn't wait a
little longer. Nonetheless, it works for me Lynn.
Although some authors apparently believe a million ad-libbed words
will make them a master, it's my understanding that a young Heinlein
became a better writer by studying subjects such as time binding. Did
Norton study her craft in order to improve?



Thank you,
--
Don
D B Davis
2019-07-14 18:55:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by D B Davis
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Quadibloc
Post by James Nicoll
Heinlein's Juveniles vs. Andre Norton's Young Adult Novels
https://www.tor.com/2019/07/11/heinlein-juveniles-vs-andre-norton-young-adult-novels/
Norton and Heinlein sound like opposites, rather than Norton influencing
Heinlein. Norton sought to entertain... and maybe enlighten a little along the
way, when she could get away with it. Heinlein, though, sought to educate, and
was often heavy-handed about it.
Comparing Norton to Heinlein on the one hand, or comparing Norton to Burroughs
on the other, makes one wonder why either Heinlein or Burroughs are remembered
as "greats", given their obvious flaws, brought into sharp relief by the
comparison.
For some reason, however, I don't feel the slightest inclination to proclaim
that Andre Norton ought to be recognized as one of the greats on the strength of
her oeuvre. She wrote many very good books, but all ultimately forgettable, it
seems, compared to what Burroughs achieved. As for Heinlein, though, "If This
Goes On..." is the _only_ work by him I would feel inclined to recommend to
anyone else as worth reading: not that he doesn't deserve his reputation, but I
tend to see his potential as largely wasted.
Wow. Not even _Citizen of the Galaxy_, _The Starbeast_, or _The Moon is
a Harsh Mistress_ ? Or Heinlein's awesome short story, _The Long Watch_ ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Long_Watch
https://www.baen.com/Chapters/1439133417/1439133417___4.htm
I think many would recommend _The Tale of the Adopted Daughter_ as
representative of his best work.
It's certainly one of my favorites (From _Time Enough for Love_).
Another datum for whoever's keeping score: I know I've read
several of Norton's stories, but I can remember a thing about any
of them. I've read all the Heinlein juveniles and keep several
of them on the shelves for occasional re-reading. Ditto some of
his early adult work (_The Door Into Summer_, e.g.). I stopped
reading Heinlein's late work after _Farnham's Freehold._
Peter mentions _The Forerunner_ (Norton), which sounds rather like a
It was my intention to read "The Tale of the Adopted Daughter" before
posting my first followup to this thread. That didn't happen. Since thne
story's been read and this second followup captures my impressions of
it.
Ted convinced me that _Time Enough For Love_ was worth a second look
after my first bounce off of it. So, this story accomplishes two
mandates. First, it allows me to make a contribution to this thread.
Second, it allows me to make some forward progress on _Time Enough_.

"Adopted Daughter" begins at a new colony on a planet circling a distant
star. A libertarian long-lived banker protagonist makes an appearance
and is shortly followed by a talking mule. (Inspired by Mr Ed the
talking horse?)
So far, so good. A most auspicious Heinleinian beginning. Perhaps
even Bradburian in a _Martian Chronicles_ type of way.
The banker saves a baby girl from an inferno and before long he
straps a small girl saddle in front of his on the talking mule. Oh oh.
The story turns late Heinleinian before you can say "squicky."
Regardless, the story works for me even if it may not be to everyone's
taste.



Thank you,
--
Don
Quadibloc
2019-07-14 19:30:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by D B Davis
A libertarian long-lived banker protagonist makes an appearance
and is shortly followed by a talking mule. (Inspired by Mr Ed the
talking horse?)
While that might be possible, it must be noted that Mr. Ed of the television
series was actually inspired by Francis, the talking mule, from a comedy movie of
1950.

John Savard
J. Clarke
2019-07-14 20:27:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sun, 14 Jul 2019 12:30:57 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by D B Davis
A libertarian long-lived banker protagonist makes an appearance
and is shortly followed by a talking mule. (Inspired by Mr Ed the
talking horse?)
While that might be possible, it must be noted that Mr. Ed of the television
series was actually inspired by Francis, the talking mule, from a comedy movie of
1950.
And Buck was not Heinlein's first talking animal. The K-9 corps in
Starship Troopers used "Calebs" which were talking dogs. I don't
recall offhand if there were any earlier.
p***@hotmail.com
2019-07-15 01:37:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
On Sun, 14 Jul 2019 12:30:57 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by D B Davis
A libertarian long-lived banker protagonist makes an appearance
and is shortly followed by a talking mule. (Inspired by Mr Ed the
talking horse?)
While that might be possible, it must be noted that Mr. Ed of the television
series was actually inspired by Francis, the talking mule, from a comedy movie of
1950.
And Buck was not Heinlein's first talking animal. The K-9 corps in
Starship Troopers used "Calebs" which were talking dogs. I don't
recall offhand if there were any earlier.
In _Starman Jones_, Ellie's "spider puppy" (Pseudocanis hexapoda hesperae)
is legally a pet but is quite intelligent and has a substantial command
of English.

Peter Wezeman
anti-social Darwinist
Quadibloc
2019-07-16 00:30:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by p***@hotmail.com
In _Starman Jones_, Ellie's "spider puppy" (Pseudocanis hexapoda hesperae)
is legally a pet but is quite intelligent and has a substantial command
of English.
Since it's an intelligent member of an alien species, instead of a talking animal
of a normally unintelligent Earth species, it's probably best considered to be an
example of a different category. Like Honor Harrington's treecat.

John Savard
D B Davis
2019-07-18 05:43:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by p***@hotmail.com
Post by J. Clarke
On Sun, 14 Jul 2019 12:30:57 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by D B Davis
A libertarian long-lived banker protagonist makes an appearance
and is shortly followed by a talking mule. (Inspired by Mr Ed the
talking horse?)
While that might be possible, it must be noted that Mr. Ed of the television
series was actually inspired by Francis, the talking mule, from a comedy movie of
1950.
And Buck was not Heinlein's first talking animal. The K-9 corps in
Starship Troopers used "Calebs" which were talking dogs. I don't
recall offhand if there were any earlier.
In _Starman Jones_, Ellie's "spider puppy" (Pseudocanis hexapoda hesperae)
is legally a pet but is quite intelligent and has a substantial command
of English.
Mr Chips, Ellie's six-legged spider puppy, is one pair short of the
eight legs found on my pet spider Charlene.

http://crcomp.net/biology/charlenescobweb/index.php



Thank you,
--
Don
)\._.,--....,'``.
/, _.. \ _\ (`._ ,.
`._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
My cat's tail tells tales.
Lynn McGuire
2019-07-15 20:44:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
On Sun, 14 Jul 2019 12:30:57 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by D B Davis
A libertarian long-lived banker protagonist makes an appearance
and is shortly followed by a talking mule. (Inspired by Mr Ed the
talking horse?)
While that might be possible, it must be noted that Mr. Ed of the television
series was actually inspired by Francis, the talking mule, from a comedy movie of
1950.
And Buck was not Heinlein's first talking animal. The K-9 corps in
Starship Troopers used "Calebs" which were talking dogs. I don't
recall offhand if there were any earlier.
Isn't _The Starbeast_ the first incidence of a talking "animal" by
Heinlein ?

Lynn
Peter Trei
2019-07-15 21:10:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by J. Clarke
On Sun, 14 Jul 2019 12:30:57 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by D B Davis
A libertarian long-lived banker protagonist makes an appearance
and is shortly followed by a talking mule. (Inspired by Mr Ed the
talking horse?)
While that might be possible, it must be noted that Mr. Ed of the television
series was actually inspired by Francis, the talking mule, from a comedy movie of
1950.
And Buck was not Heinlein's first talking animal. The K-9 corps in
Starship Troopers used "Calebs" which were talking dogs. I don't
recall offhand if there were any earlier.
Isn't _The Starbeast_ the first incidence of a talking "animal" by
Heinlein ?
Are we talking about the princess, or her pets?

pt
Lynn McGuire
2019-07-15 22:04:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Trei
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by J. Clarke
On Sun, 14 Jul 2019 12:30:57 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by D B Davis
A libertarian long-lived banker protagonist makes an appearance
and is shortly followed by a talking mule. (Inspired by Mr Ed the
talking horse?)
While that might be possible, it must be noted that Mr. Ed of the television
series was actually inspired by Francis, the talking mule, from a comedy movie of
1950.
And Buck was not Heinlein's first talking animal. The K-9 corps in
Starship Troopers used "Calebs" which were talking dogs. I don't
recall offhand if there were any earlier.
Isn't _The Starbeast_ the first incidence of a talking "animal" by
Heinlein ?
Are we talking about the princess, or her pets?
pt
The crown princess, yes. She was ruled an animal and to be put down by
the local county judge. The bazooka and the dynamite did not work IIRC.
Or maybe that was just John Thomas's musings.

Lynn
Scott Lurndal
2019-07-14 21:19:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by D B Davis
Post by D B Davis
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Quadibloc
Post by James Nicoll
Heinlein's Juveniles vs. Andre Norton's Young Adult Novels
https://www.tor.com/2019/07/11/heinlein-juveniles-vs-andre-norton-young-adult-novels/
Norton and Heinlein sound like opposites, rather than Norton influencing
Heinlein. Norton sought to entertain... and maybe enlighten a little along the
way, when she could get away with it. Heinlein, though, sought to educate, and
was often heavy-handed about it.
Comparing Norton to Heinlein on the one hand, or comparing Norton to Burroughs
on the other, makes one wonder why either Heinlein or Burroughs are remembered
as "greats", given their obvious flaws, brought into sharp relief by the
comparison.
For some reason, however, I don't feel the slightest inclination to proclaim
that Andre Norton ought to be recognized as one of the greats on the strength of
her oeuvre. She wrote many very good books, but all ultimately forgettable, it
seems, compared to what Burroughs achieved. As for Heinlein, though, "If This
Goes On..." is the _only_ work by him I would feel inclined to recommend to
anyone else as worth reading: not that he doesn't deserve his reputation, but I
tend to see his potential as largely wasted.
Wow. Not even _Citizen of the Galaxy_, _The Starbeast_, or _The Moon is
a Harsh Mistress_ ? Or Heinlein's awesome short story, _The Long Watch_ ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Long_Watch
https://www.baen.com/Chapters/1439133417/1439133417___4.htm
I think many would recommend _The Tale of the Adopted Daughter_ as
representative of his best work.
It's certainly one of my favorites (From _Time Enough for Love_).
Another datum for whoever's keeping score: I know I've read
several of Norton's stories, but I can remember a thing about any
of them. I've read all the Heinlein juveniles and keep several
of them on the shelves for occasional re-reading. Ditto some of
his early adult work (_The Door Into Summer_, e.g.). I stopped
reading Heinlein's late work after _Farnham's Freehold._
Peter mentions _The Forerunner_ (Norton), which sounds rather like a
It was my intention to read "The Tale of the Adopted Daughter" before
posting my first followup to this thread. That didn't happen. Since thne
story's been read and this second followup captures my impressions of
it.
Ted convinced me that _Time Enough For Love_ was worth a second look
after my first bounce off of it. So, this story accomplishes two
mandates. First, it allows me to make a contribution to this thread.
Second, it allows me to make some forward progress on _Time Enough_.
"Adopted Daughter" begins at a new colony on a planet circling a distant
star. A libertarian long-lived banker protagonist makes an appearance
and is shortly followed by a talking mule. (Inspired by Mr Ed the
talking horse?)
So far, so good. A most auspicious Heinleinian beginning. Perhaps
even Bradburian in a _Martian Chronicles_ type of way.
The banker saves a baby girl from an inferno and before long he
straps a small girl saddle in front of his on the talking mule. Oh oh.
The story turns late Heinleinian before you can say "squicky."
Regardless, the story works for me even if it may not be to everyone's
taste.
Woody is a couple of thousand years old at that point. How is it squicky for him to
marry a woman younger than he?

The story is about loss.
David Johnston
2019-07-16 03:55:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by D B Davis
Post by D B Davis
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Quadibloc
Post by James Nicoll
Heinlein's Juveniles vs. Andre Norton's Young Adult Novels
https://www.tor.com/2019/07/11/heinlein-juveniles-vs-andre-norton-young-adult-novels/
Norton and Heinlein sound like opposites, rather than Norton influencing
Heinlein. Norton sought to entertain... and maybe enlighten a little along the
way, when she could get away with it. Heinlein, though, sought to educate, and
was often heavy-handed about it.
Comparing Norton to Heinlein on the one hand, or comparing Norton to Burroughs
on the other, makes one wonder why either Heinlein or Burroughs are remembered
as "greats", given their obvious flaws, brought into sharp relief by the
comparison.
For some reason, however, I don't feel the slightest inclination to proclaim
that Andre Norton ought to be recognized as one of the greats on the strength of
her oeuvre. She wrote many very good books, but all ultimately forgettable, it
seems, compared to what Burroughs achieved. As for Heinlein, though, "If This
Goes On..." is the _only_ work by him I would feel inclined to recommend to
anyone else as worth reading: not that he doesn't deserve his reputation, but I
tend to see his potential as largely wasted.
Wow. Not even _Citizen of the Galaxy_, _The Starbeast_, or _The Moon is
a Harsh Mistress_ ? Or Heinlein's awesome short story, _The Long Watch_ ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Long_Watch
https://www.baen.com/Chapters/1439133417/1439133417___4.htm
I think many would recommend _The Tale of the Adopted Daughter_ as
representative of his best work.
It's certainly one of my favorites (From _Time Enough for Love_).
Another datum for whoever's keeping score: I know I've read
several of Norton's stories, but I can remember a thing about any
of them. I've read all the Heinlein juveniles and keep several
of them on the shelves for occasional re-reading. Ditto some of
his early adult work (_The Door Into Summer_, e.g.). I stopped
reading Heinlein's late work after _Farnham's Freehold._
Peter mentions _The Forerunner_ (Norton), which sounds rather like a
It was my intention to read "The Tale of the Adopted Daughter" before
posting my first followup to this thread. That didn't happen. Since thne
story's been read and this second followup captures my impressions of
it.
Ted convinced me that _Time Enough For Love_ was worth a second look
after my first bounce off of it. So, this story accomplishes two
mandates. First, it allows me to make a contribution to this thread.
Second, it allows me to make some forward progress on _Time Enough_.
"Adopted Daughter" begins at a new colony on a planet circling a distant
star. A libertarian long-lived banker protagonist makes an appearance
and is shortly followed by a talking mule. (Inspired by Mr Ed the
talking horse?)
So far, so good. A most auspicious Heinleinian beginning. Perhaps
even Bradburian in a _Martian Chronicles_ type of way.
The banker saves a baby girl from an inferno and before long he
straps a small girl saddle in front of his on the talking mule. Oh oh.
The story turns late Heinleinian before you can say "squicky."
Regardless, the story works for me even if it may not be to everyone's
taste.
Woody is a couple of thousand years old at that point. How is it squicky for him to
marry a woman younger than he?
The story is about loss.
It's squicky to marry anyone you raised from a baby.
Scott Lurndal
2019-07-16 13:58:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by David Johnston
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by D B Davis
"Adopted Daughter" begins at a new colony on a planet circling a distant
star. A libertarian long-lived banker protagonist makes an appearance
and is shortly followed by a talking mule. (Inspired by Mr Ed the
talking horse?)
So far, so good. A most auspicious Heinleinian beginning. Perhaps
even Bradburian in a _Martian Chronicles_ type of way.
The banker saves a baby girl from an inferno and before long he
straps a small girl saddle in front of his on the talking mule. Oh oh.
The story turns late Heinleinian before you can say "squicky."
Regardless, the story works for me even if it may not be to everyone's
taste.
Woody is a couple of thousand years old at that point. How is it squicky for him to
marry a woman younger than he?
The story is about loss.
It's squicky to marry anyone you raised from a baby.
Ah, Woody didn't raise Dora, the schoolmarm did.
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
2019-07-16 17:31:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by David Johnston
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by D B Davis
"Adopted Daughter" begins at a new colony on a planet circling a distant
star. A libertarian long-lived banker protagonist makes an appearance
and is shortly followed by a talking mule. (Inspired by Mr Ed the
talking horse?)
So far, so good. A most auspicious Heinleinian beginning. Perhaps
even Bradburian in a _Martian Chronicles_ type of way.
The banker saves a baby girl from an inferno and before long he
straps a small girl saddle in front of his on the talking mule. Oh oh.
The story turns late Heinleinian before you can say "squicky."
Regardless, the story works for me even if it may not be to everyone's
taste.
Woody is a couple of thousand years old at that point. How is it
squicky for him to
Post by David Johnston
Post by Scott Lurndal
marry a woman younger than he?
The story is about loss.
It's squicky to marry anyone you raised from a baby.
Ah, Woody didn't raise Dora, the schoolmarm did.
Seeing the name 'Woody' there tripped an incompletely different scenario
switch..
--
------
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..
Lynn McGuire
2019-07-11 20:31:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Quadibloc
Post by James Nicoll
Heinlein's Juveniles vs. Andre Norton's Young Adult Novels
https://www.tor.com/2019/07/11/heinlein-juveniles-vs-andre-norton-young-adult-novels/
Norton and Heinlein sound like opposites, rather than Norton influencing
Heinlein. Norton sought to entertain... and maybe enlighten a little along the
way, when she could get away with it. Heinlein, though, sought to educate, and
was often heavy-handed about it.
Comparing Norton to Heinlein on the one hand, or comparing Norton to Burroughs
on the other, makes one wonder why either Heinlein or Burroughs are remembered
as "greats", given their obvious flaws, brought into sharp relief by the
comparison.
For some reason, however, I don't feel the slightest inclination to proclaim
that Andre Norton ought to be recognized as one of the greats on the strength of
her oeuvre. She wrote many very good books, but all ultimately forgettable, it
seems, compared to what Burroughs achieved. As for Heinlein, though, "If This
Goes On..." is the _only_ work by him I would feel inclined to recommend to
anyone else as worth reading: not that he doesn't deserve his reputation, but I
tend to see his potential as largely wasted.
John Savard
Wow. Not even _Citizen of the Galaxy_, _The Starbeast_, or _The Moon is
a Harsh Mistress_ ? Or Heinlein's awesome short story, _The Long Watch_ ?
I think many would recommend _The Tale of the Adopted Daughter_ as
representative of his best work.
It's certainly one of my favorites (From _Time Enough for Love_).
I need to reread TEFL as I do not remember that story. I do remember
being freaked out by TEFL.

Lynn
Johnny1A
2019-07-16 03:57:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Quadibloc
Post by James Nicoll
Heinlein's Juveniles vs. Andre Norton's Young Adult Novels
https://www.tor.com/2019/07/11/heinlein-juveniles-vs-andre-norton-young-adult-novels/
Norton and Heinlein sound like opposites, rather than Norton influencing
Heinlein. Norton sought to entertain... and maybe enlighten a little along the
way, when she could get away with it. Heinlein, though, sought to educate, and
was often heavy-handed about it.
Comparing Norton to Heinlein on the one hand, or comparing Norton to Burroughs
on the other, makes one wonder why either Heinlein or Burroughs are remembered
as "greats", given their obvious flaws, brought into sharp relief by the
comparison.
For some reason, however, I don't feel the slightest inclination to proclaim
that Andre Norton ought to be recognized as one of the greats on the strength of
her oeuvre. She wrote many very good books, but all ultimately forgettable, it
seems, compared to what Burroughs achieved. As for Heinlein, though, "If This
Goes On..." is the _only_ work by him I would feel inclined to recommend to
anyone else as worth reading: not that he doesn't deserve his reputation, but I
tend to see his potential as largely wasted.
John Savard
Wow. Not even _Citizen of the Galaxy_, _The Starbeast_, or _The Moon is
a Harsh Mistress_ ? Or Heinlein's awesome short story, _The Long Watch_ ?
I think many would recommend _The Tale of the Adopted Daughter_ as
representative of his best work.
It's certainly one of my favorites (From _Time Enough for Love_).
I need to reread TEFL as I do not remember that story. I do remember
being freaked out by TEFL.
Lynn
RAH is a classic example of why writers and creative types often benefit from limits. The social mores and customs that he had write under in his younger days restrained him from overindulging his personal tropes, to his great benefit as a writer.

TEFL is one of the transition works, parts of it are good, parts of it are very bad, and parts of it are just plain _weird_.

To this day, I can't think of many parallels in fiction for sheer surreality to the combination incestuous orgy/political-historical panel discussion scene.
Quadibloc
2019-07-11 22:54:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Quadibloc
Post by James Nicoll
Heinlein's Juveniles vs. Andre Norton's Young Adult Novels
https://www.tor.com/2019/07/11/heinlein-juveniles-vs-andre-norton-young-adult-novels/
Norton and Heinlein sound like opposites, rather than Norton influencing
Heinlein. Norton sought to entertain... and maybe enlighten a little along the
way, when she could get away with it. Heinlein, though, sought to educate, and
was often heavy-handed about it.
Comparing Norton to Heinlein on the one hand, or comparing Norton to Burroughs
on the other, makes one wonder why either Heinlein or Burroughs are remembered
as "greats", given their obvious flaws, brought into sharp relief by the
comparison.
For some reason, however, I don't feel the slightest inclination to proclaim
that Andre Norton ought to be recognized as one of the greats on the strength of
her oeuvre. She wrote many very good books, but all ultimately forgettable, it
seems, compared to what Burroughs achieved. As for Heinlein, though, "If This
Goes On..." is the _only_ work by him I would feel inclined to recommend to
anyone else as worth reading: not that he doesn't deserve his reputation, but I
tend to see his potential as largely wasted.
Wow. Not even _Citizen of the Galaxy_, _The Starbeast_, or _The Moon is
a Harsh Mistress_ ? Or Heinlein's awesome short story, _The Long Watch_ ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Long_Watch
After I posted that, on reflection, I thought that perhaps I should relent and
also include _The Moon is a Harsh Mistress_.

Also, to clarify: stuff I wouldn't be inclined to recommend to someone else as
worth reading... isn't necessarily stuff I don't feel is *any good*. I've
enjoyed nearly all of his works that I've read, and I think I've read almost
everything he wrote.

But "If This Goes On..." seemed to me to be the only work of his that I could
recommend to an acquaintance of whose tastes in literature I was not certain,
with some confidence that reading it would leave that acquaintance with a
positive impression of Heinlein, even if it wasn't that person's cup of tea.

John Savard
Lynn McGuire
2019-07-11 23:09:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Quadibloc
Post by James Nicoll
Heinlein's Juveniles vs. Andre Norton's Young Adult Novels
https://www.tor.com/2019/07/11/heinlein-juveniles-vs-andre-norton-young-adult-novels/
Norton and Heinlein sound like opposites, rather than Norton influencing
Heinlein. Norton sought to entertain... and maybe enlighten a little along the
way, when she could get away with it. Heinlein, though, sought to educate, and
was often heavy-handed about it.
Comparing Norton to Heinlein on the one hand, or comparing Norton to Burroughs
on the other, makes one wonder why either Heinlein or Burroughs are remembered
as "greats", given their obvious flaws, brought into sharp relief by the
comparison.
For some reason, however, I don't feel the slightest inclination to proclaim
that Andre Norton ought to be recognized as one of the greats on the strength of
her oeuvre. She wrote many very good books, but all ultimately forgettable, it
seems, compared to what Burroughs achieved. As for Heinlein, though, "If This
Goes On..." is the _only_ work by him I would feel inclined to recommend to
anyone else as worth reading: not that he doesn't deserve his reputation, but I
tend to see his potential as largely wasted.
Wow. Not even _Citizen of the Galaxy_, _The Starbeast_, or _The Moon is
a Harsh Mistress_ ? Or Heinlein's awesome short story, _The Long Watch_ ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Long_Watch
After I posted that, on reflection, I thought that perhaps I should relent and
also include _The Moon is a Harsh Mistress_.
Also, to clarify: stuff I wouldn't be inclined to recommend to someone else as
worth reading... isn't necessarily stuff I don't feel is *any good*. I've
enjoyed nearly all of his works that I've read, and I think I've read almost
everything he wrote.
But "If This Goes On..." seemed to me to be the only work of his that I could
recommend to an acquaintance of whose tastes in literature I was not certain,
with some confidence that reading it would leave that acquaintance with a
positive impression of Heinlein, even if it wasn't that person's cup of tea.
John Savard
I've always thought that _Citizen of the Galaxy_ was Heinlein's second
finest work because it went from one extreme to the other for Thorby.
And Heinlein built a complete world as Thorby transitioned to each
world, it was really a book in four parts. I have wondered several
times which country is the model for the first book with the live slave
auctions.

And I love the hook at the end of _The Starbeast_. You just do not see
that train coming at 90 mph when it is revealed that the crown princess
is raising her pets.

Lynn
Robert Carnegie
2019-07-14 07:18:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by James Nicoll
Heinlein's Juveniles vs. Andre Norton's Young Adult Novels
https://www.tor.com/2019/07/11/heinlein-juveniles-vs-andre-norton-young-adult-novels/
Norton and Heinlein sound like opposites, rather than Norton influencing
Heinlein. Norton sought to entertain... and maybe enlighten a little along the
way, when she could get away with it. Heinlein, though, sought to educate, and
was often heavy-handed about it.
Comparing Norton to Heinlein on the one hand, or comparing Norton to Burroughs
on the other, makes one wonder why either Heinlein or Burroughs are remembered
as "greats", given their obvious flaws, brought into sharp relief by the
comparison.
For some reason, however, I don't feel the slightest inclination to proclaim
that Andre Norton ought to be recognized as one of the greats on the strength of
her oeuvre. She wrote many very good books, but all ultimately forgettable, it
seems, compared to what Burroughs achieved. As for Heinlein, though, "If This
Goes On..." is the _only_ work by him I would feel inclined to recommend to
anyone else as worth reading: not that he doesn't deserve his reputation, but I
tend to see his potential as largely wasted.
John Savard
Writing many very good books must have been a consolation
to her. But if only she'd had the insight, or the least
inclination, to write about naked jungle men, naked
Martian women, naked men /and/ women on Venus and at
the Earth's core (it's hot you know!)... but no, it was
mostly cats. And spaceships. And telepaths.
And Space Patrol men with blaster guns, and shirts and
trousers and probably jackets. Where would a naked
Space Patrol man put his blaster gun? Don't bother
to ask, you'll hear about it pretty soon! They get
hot too!
Quadibloc
2019-07-14 08:24:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Robert Carnegie
Writing many very good books must have been a consolation
to her.
I don't think you've found the secret of Burroughs' success. After all, he wrote
books, mot movies or comic books.

Also, success similar to that of Edgar Rice Burroughs was enjoyed by Sir Arthur
Conan Doyle and J. K. Rowling, who did not share that attribute with him. (On
the other hand, another author in this rarefied category, Ian Fleming, went
rather beyond Burroughs.)

What do Burroughs, Doyle, Rowling, and Fleming have in common? I should think
it's obvious. They wrote a book centered around a single character of the
generic wish-fulfillment type, and then milked this character for all he was
worth.

Andre Norton didn't stoop to that.

These days, I think due to changing fashions, authors are trying to do the same,
but with female leading characters. So we have Kylara Vatta, Kris Longknife, and
Honor Harrington. The authors involved have enjoyed a degree of success, but
they have not yet joined the ranks of the immortals.

John Savard
Quadibloc
2019-07-14 08:33:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Also, success similar to that of Edgar Rice Burroughs was enjoyed by Sir Arthur
Conan Doyle and J. K. Rowling, who did not share that attribute with him. (On
the other hand, another author in this rarefied category, Ian Fleming, went
rather beyond Burroughs.)
What do Burroughs, Doyle, Rowling, and Fleming have in common? I should think
it's obvious. They wrote a book centered around a single character of the
generic wish-fulfillment type, and then milked this character for all he was
worth.
Andre Norton didn't stoop to that.
And she _also_ failed to be another Arthur C. Clarke.

For that matter, she failed to be another Ray Bradbury, but that's asking too
much.

Writing good and entertaining novels is enough to get a measure of recognition,
but for the higher levels of fame, something extra is required, such as a truly
massive level of success, either commercial or critical.

Now, it could possibly be that Andre Norton had the talent to achieve this, but
because she was a woman, she had to constrain what she wrote to get published in
ways that forestalled that. I don't know enough about her works, despite having
read and enjoyed a few, to address that question.

John Savard
Quadibloc
2019-07-14 08:36:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
For that matter, she failed to be another Ray Bradbury, but that's asking too
much.
Not of _her_ specifically, but of _any_ science-fiction writer, as Ray Bradbury
was a unique case. Well, almost unique: there are some other writers who have
written works that fall within the science fiction classification, but who resist
the appelation so as to avoid a taint on their serious literary efforts - which
include those works.

John Savard
Leif Roar Moldskred
2019-07-14 12:30:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
What do Burroughs, Doyle, Rowling, and Fleming have in common? I should think
it's obvious. They wrote a book centered around a single character of the
generic wish-fulfillment type, and then milked this character for all he was
worth.
I don't think you can really classify Sherlock Holmes as a wish-fullfillment
character. The reader's point of entry into the Sherlock Holmes stories is
through Watson, not Holmes, and Holmes not only never gets the girl, he is
not even _interested_ in getting the girl.

I also don't think I'd put Tarzan in the wish-fullfillment category either
-- for that his character is too much defined by his specific role.
Post by Quadibloc
Andre Norton didn't stoop to that.
"Stoop to"? You make it sound like writing a successful wish-fullfillment
character is cheap and easy. It demonstrably is not.
--
Leif Roar Moldskred
h***@gmail.com
2019-07-14 12:58:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Leif Roar Moldskred
"Stoop to"? You make it sound like writing a successful wish-fullfillment
character is cheap and easy. It demonstrably is not.
It's Quadi, any link to reality would be entirely coincidental.
Quadibloc
2019-07-14 19:32:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Leif Roar Moldskred
Post by Quadibloc
Andre Norton didn't stoop to that.
"Stoop to"? You make it sound like writing a successful wish-fullfillment
character is cheap and easy. It demonstrably is not.
Obviously not, given how much money there is in it, and how few authors
succeeded at it. But I was being slightly ironic... _and_ it demonstrably _is_
the case that writing a successful wish-fulfillment character fails to earn
kudos from literary critics.

John Savard
m***@sky.com
2019-07-14 15:34:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Robert Carnegie
Writing many very good books must have been a consolation
to her.
books, mot movies or comic books.
Also, success similar to that of Edgar Rice Burroughs was enjoyed by Sir Arthur
Conan Doyle and J. K. Rowling, who did not share that attribute with him. (On
the other hand, another author in this rarefied category, Ian Fleming, went
rather beyond Burroughs.)
What do Burroughs, Doyle, Rowling, and Fleming have in common? I should think
it's obvious. They wrote a book centered around a single character of the
generic wish-fulfillment type, and then milked this character for all he was
worth.
Andre Norton didn't stoop to that.
These days, I think due to changing fashions, authors are trying to do the same,
but with female leading characters. So we have Kylara Vatta, Kris Longknife, and
Honor Harrington. The authors involved have enjoyed a degree of success, but
they have not yet joined the ranks of the immortals.
John Savard
She didn't milk it anything as much as I'd have liked her to, but the Forerunners are a remarkable innovation, and if imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, Norton has been much flattered.
Johnny1A
2019-07-16 03:35:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by m***@sky.com
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Robert Carnegie
Writing many very good books must have been a consolation
to her.
books, mot movies or comic books.
Also, success similar to that of Edgar Rice Burroughs was enjoyed by Sir Arthur
Conan Doyle and J. K. Rowling, who did not share that attribute with him. (On
the other hand, another author in this rarefied category, Ian Fleming, went
rather beyond Burroughs.)
What do Burroughs, Doyle, Rowling, and Fleming have in common? I should think
it's obvious. They wrote a book centered around a single character of the
generic wish-fulfillment type, and then milked this character for all he was
worth.
Andre Norton didn't stoop to that.
These days, I think due to changing fashions, authors are trying to do the same,
but with female leading characters. So we have Kylara Vatta, Kris Longknife, and
Honor Harrington. The authors involved have enjoyed a degree of success, but
they have not yet joined the ranks of the immortals.
John Savard
She didn't milk it anything as much as I'd have liked her to, but the Forerunners are a remarkable innovation, and if imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, Norton has been much flattered.
The Norton stories I remember best are the _Solar Queen_ stories, and yeah, the Foreruuners stick in my mind, they were the first SF story I read that did much with the precursor concept.
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
2019-07-16 03:45:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by m***@sky.com
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Robert Carnegie
Writing many very good books must have been a consolation
to her.
I don't think you've found the secret of Burroughs' success. After
books, mot movies or comic books.
Also, success similar to that of Edgar Rice Burroughs was enjoyed by
Sir Arthur
Post by m***@sky.com
Post by Quadibloc
Conan Doyle and J. K. Rowling, who did not share that attribute with
him. (On
Post by m***@sky.com
Post by Quadibloc
the other hand, another author in this rarefied category, Ian Fleming, went
rather beyond Burroughs.)
What do Burroughs, Doyle, Rowling, and Fleming have in common? I
should think
Post by m***@sky.com
Post by Quadibloc
it's obvious. They wrote a book centered around a single character of the
generic wish-fulfillment type, and then milked this character for
all he was
Post by m***@sky.com
Post by Quadibloc
worth.
Andre Norton didn't stoop to that.
These days, I think due to changing fashions, authors are trying to
do the same,
Post by m***@sky.com
Post by Quadibloc
but with female leading characters. So we have Kylara Vatta, Kris
Longknife, and
Post by m***@sky.com
Post by Quadibloc
Honor Harrington. The authors involved have enjoyed a degree of
success, but
Post by m***@sky.com
Post by Quadibloc
they have not yet joined the ranks of the immortals.
John Savard
She didn't milk it anything as much as I'd have liked her to, but the
Forerunners are a remarkable innovation, and if imitation is the
sincerest form of flattery, Norton has been much flattered.
The Norton stories I remember best are the _Solar Queen_ stories, and
yeah, the Foreruuners stick in my mind, they were the first SF story I
read that did much with the precursor concept.
Interestingly the Liaden books lift both of those concepts. (And I would
say _Balance of Trade_ is a direct homage).
--
------
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..
David Johnston
2019-07-16 03:57:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Johnny1A
Post by m***@sky.com
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Robert Carnegie
Writing many very good books must have been a consolation
to her.
books, mot movies or comic books.
Also, success similar to that of Edgar Rice Burroughs was enjoyed by Sir Arthur
Conan Doyle and J. K. Rowling, who did not share that attribute with him. (On
the other hand, another author in this rarefied category, Ian Fleming, went
rather beyond Burroughs.)
What do Burroughs, Doyle, Rowling, and Fleming have in common? I should think
it's obvious. They wrote a book centered around a single character of the
generic wish-fulfillment type, and then milked this character for all he was
worth.
Andre Norton didn't stoop to that.
These days, I think due to changing fashions, authors are trying to do the same,
but with female leading characters. So we have Kylara Vatta, Kris Longknife, and
Honor Harrington. The authors involved have enjoyed a degree of success, but
they have not yet joined the ranks of the immortals.
John Savard
She didn't milk it anything as much as I'd have liked her to, but the Forerunners are a remarkable innovation, and if imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, Norton has been much flattered.
The Norton stories I remember best are the _Solar Queen_ stories, and yeah, the Foreruuners stick in my mind, they were the first SF story I read that did much with the precursor concept.
She did manage to make it onto the list of major influences for the
Traveler RPG,
Robert Carnegie
2019-07-15 03:17:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Robert Carnegie
Writing many very good books must have been a consolation
to her.
I don't think you've found the secret of Burroughs'
success [nudity]. After all, he wrote books, not movies
or comic books.
(1) Tarzan and John Carter appeared first in illustrated
magazines (followed by comics and films) and (2) a long
time ago (1912) this is about all you could get, or get
easily.

It's possible to make films where characters don't have
many clothes on without setting it on another planet,
but it's been done, and if it had been a requirement
then it would have been done a lot more. (As it is,
setting it somewhere hot on Earth was sufficient.)
Post by Quadibloc
Also, success similar to that of Edgar Rice Burroughs was enjoyed by Sir Arthur
Conan Doyle and J. K. Rowling, who did not share that attribute with him. (On
the other hand, another author in this rarefied category, Ian Fleming, went
rather beyond Burroughs.)
What do Burroughs, Doyle, Rowling, and Fleming have in common? I should think
it's obvious. They wrote a book centered around a single character of the
generic wish-fulfillment type, and then milked this character for all he was
worth.
Nah. Sex, violence, puzzles, and broomsticks.
If we're looking at Harry Potter, doing magic and being
a sports star is a plus, being orphaned and having an
adult arch-enemy from infancy is a big minus.
The romance is realistically clumsy, and who wants that?

Sir Arthur Conan Doyle wanted to ditch Sherlock Holmes
and write other things. So did Rowling...
D B Davis
2019-07-18 05:43:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Robert Carnegie
Writing many very good books must have been a consolation
to her.
I don't think you've found the secret of Burroughs'
success [nudity]. After all, he wrote books, not movies
or comic books.
(1) Tarzan and John Carter appeared first in illustrated
magazines (followed by comics and films) and (2) a long
time ago (1912) this is about all you could get, or get
easily.
It's possible to make films where characters don't have
many clothes on without setting it on another planet,
but it's been done, and if it had been a requirement
then it would have been done a lot more. (As it is,
setting it somewhere hot on Earth was sufficient.)
Post by Quadibloc
Also, success similar to that of Edgar Rice Burroughs was enjoyed by Sir Arthur
Conan Doyle and J. K. Rowling, who did not share that attribute with him. (On
the other hand, another author in this rarefied category, Ian Fleming, went
rather beyond Burroughs.)
What do Burroughs, Doyle, Rowling, and Fleming have in common? I should think
it's obvious. They wrote a book centered around a single character of the
generic wish-fulfillment type, and then milked this character for all he was
worth.
Nah. Sex, violence, puzzles, and broomsticks.
If we're looking at Harry Potter, doing magic and being
a sports star is a plus, being orphaned and having an
adult arch-enemy from infancy is a big minus.
The romance is realistically clumsy, and who wants that?
Sir Arthur Conan Doyle wanted to ditch Sherlock Holmes
and write other things. So did Rowling...
Many moons ago Lynn spoke of an apocalyptic story that featured a
shortage of breathable air. Someone mentioned "The Poison Belt" (Doyle)
in a followup. "The Moon Is Hell!" (Campbell) was recently read by me. A
lack of breathable oxygen on the moon is a central element in the
Campbell. It reminded me of "The Poison Belt," so the latter was then
purchased used and arrived a couple of days ago.
The book begins with a small introduction to Doyle. It turns out
that Doyle's an eye specialist. Doyle seems eerily similar to my
favorite medical mystery writer, an ophthalmologist named Robin Cook.
That makes two MD eye specialists who'd rather write mysteries than see
patients.
So, how does their style differ? Doyle puts himself into the story
as a first person narrator. Cook prefers third person narration.
Wikipedia claims that after Cook's first novel _Intern_ failed, he
studied bestsellers. He then came up with a list of techniques that
bestselling authors use to manipulate readers and Cook used every one of
them in his bestselling _Coma_ novel.
In the end, Doyle did attempt to ditch his most famous creation
early on by killing Holmes. But the ensuing public uproar caused Doyle
to step back and quickly resurrect Sherlock.



Thank you,
--
Don
)\._.,--....,'``.
/, _.. \ _\ (`._ ,.
`._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
My cat's tail tells tales.
Dimensional Traveler
2019-07-14 14:56:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Quadibloc
Post by James Nicoll
Heinlein's Juveniles vs. Andre Norton's Young Adult Novels
https://www.tor.com/2019/07/11/heinlein-juveniles-vs-andre-norton-young-adult-novels/
Norton and Heinlein sound like opposites, rather than Norton influencing
Heinlein. Norton sought to entertain... and maybe enlighten a little along the
way, when she could get away with it. Heinlein, though, sought to educate, and
was often heavy-handed about it.
Comparing Norton to Heinlein on the one hand, or comparing Norton to Burroughs
on the other, makes one wonder why either Heinlein or Burroughs are remembered
as "greats", given their obvious flaws, brought into sharp relief by the
comparison.
For some reason, however, I don't feel the slightest inclination to proclaim
that Andre Norton ought to be recognized as one of the greats on the strength of
her oeuvre. She wrote many very good books, but all ultimately forgettable, it
seems, compared to what Burroughs achieved. As for Heinlein, though, "If This
Goes On..." is the _only_ work by him I would feel inclined to recommend to
anyone else as worth reading: not that he doesn't deserve his reputation, but I
tend to see his potential as largely wasted.
John Savard
Writing many very good books must have been a consolation
to her. But if only she'd had the insight, or the least
inclination, to write about naked jungle men, naked
Martian women, naked men /and/ women on Venus and at
the Earth's core (it's hot you know!)... but no, it was
mostly cats. And spaceships. And telepaths.
And Space Patrol men with blaster guns, and shirts and
trousers and probably jackets. Where would a naked
Space Patrol man put his blaster gun? Don't bother
to ask, you'll hear about it pretty soon! They get
hot too!
For some reason that reminds me of John Barrowman in the Doctor Who
episode 'Bad Wolf', where he ends up in a twisted future reality show.
His clothes get disintegrated and the two robot hosts are about to start
removing limbs when he pulls a concealed weapon on them. One of the
robots asks where he hid that and he replies "You don't want to know."
--
Inquiring minds want to know while minds with a self-preservation
instinct are running screaming.
Johnny1A
2019-07-16 03:53:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by James Nicoll
Heinlein's Juveniles vs. Andre Norton's Young Adult Novels
https://www.tor.com/2019/07/11/heinlein-juveniles-vs-andre-norton-young-adult-novels/
Norton and Heinlein sound like opposites, rather than Norton influencing
Heinlein. Norton sought to entertain... and maybe enlighten a little along the
way, when she could get away with it. Heinlein, though, sought to educate, and
was often heavy-handed about it.
Comparing Norton to Heinlein on the one hand, or comparing Norton to Burroughs
on the other, makes one wonder why either Heinlein or Burroughs are remembered
as "greats", given their obvious flaws, brought into sharp relief by the
comparison.
For some reason, however, I don't feel the slightest inclination to proclaim
that Andre Norton ought to be recognized as one of the greats on the strength of
her oeuvre. She wrote many very good books, but all ultimately forgettable, it
seems, compared to what Burroughs achieved. As for Heinlein, though, "If This
Goes On..." is the _only_ work by him I would feel inclined to recommend to
anyone else as worth reading: not that he doesn't deserve his reputation, but I
tend to see his potential as largely wasted.
John Savard
RAH could do subtle characterization, when he wanted to do it. My favorite example of this last (and one of his finest stories) is _The Man Who Sold the Moon_. D.D. Harriman is different from most of RAH's protagonists, on several levels. I enjoyed the story when I read it as a teen, but when I went back to reread it in my 20s and again in my 30s I found new levels. The story is best looked at as the large first installment of a single story with _Requiem_, it's direct sequel.

I won't bother with spoilers warnings.

When I read it as a teen, I enjoyed watching Harriman outmaneuver everyone else to accomplish his life-long dream of reaching the Moon. At that level, he reads like a classic RAH 'smart hero' out-clevering the muggles around him. In a way, he is. BUT...there are deeper levels I missed as a teen.

Likewise, I was duly annoyed with his business partners for trapping him on the ground through various subterfuges until he was too old to go, medically speaking. My teenage self saw betrayal in Strong and effrontery and power abuse in Dixon.

The funny thing is that Harriman and his predicament reads a little differently when you're a little older. Harriman, after all, screwed over a bunch of people himself in the process of achieving his goal. He lied, he implied things that weren't true, he played fast and loose with the books. Further, Dixon and Strong and the others had some right on their side, after all, it was their fiduciary _duty_ to look after the interests of their investors.

I also passed to the realization that from their POV, keeping Delos trapped on Earth might even look like doing him a favor, keeping him from chasing after a pointless dream when he had obligations and duties on the ground. If the space business is going to be established solidly, he's the man who needs to do it, after all, and the best place to do that is on Earth.

And then I read it again a bit later, with yet more life perspective, and realized that Delos' business partners might very well have been _right_ about doing him a favor.

Delos has gotten super rich with his prescient hunches about 'the next big thing', yes, but he did that in partnership with boring George Strong, the detail man to Harriman's 'big idea' man. The big idea types pretty much invariably need someone to be that detail man, and to sometimes be the one who has to say 'no'. Occasionally someone can be both, but usually not.

At the end of the day, Harriman needs Strong more than Strong needs Harriman. Strong has the skills, personality, and mindset to be a successful businessman, even without Harriman. Absent Harriman, Strong might only be a multi-millionaire instead of a billionaire, he might only be the richest guy in the State rather than one of the richest men in the world...but still.

Without Strong, or someone like him...Delos D. Harriman is likely to be broke. Or if he's lucky, a middle-class employee with big, big dreams and ideas and no prospect whatever of making them happen. We've all known that guy.

So it's not like Harriman is did what he did all by himself, and it is like he owns some people some things.

But suppose, just suppose, D.D. Harriman had gotten to live his fantasy and be on that second Lunar mission, become the Mayor of Luna City, etc. Then what?

For a little while, he'd probably have been happy as a clam, and for a while after that, the challenges of setting up the Lunar base and the companies and so on would be fulfilling...but Harriman is a Big Dreamer, and they need a Dream. Once he was on the Moon for a while, it would be just another _place_, and the void left by his fulfilled former Dream would eat at him.

Since he didn't get to go, D.D. got to keep his Dream alive, and the funny thing is I suspect he was happier that way than he would have been if he'd fulfilled it.

RAH could write with considerable depth of characterization, quite subtly, when he wanted to do it.
David Johnston
2019-07-11 15:20:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by James Nicoll
Heinlein's Juveniles vs. Andre Norton's Young Adult Novels
https://www.tor.com/2019/07/11/heinlein-juveniles-vs-andre-norton-young-adult-novels/
One difference between Norton and Heinlein is that Norton didn't do
utopia or attempts at it. Her characters wasted no time on thinking
about how things should be and instead concentrated on things as they
actually were and how to get along in that reality. They would evade
the unfairness of the world instead of trying to impose fairness on it.

And when someone did try to create utopia, in the form of an oligarchy
of social scientists trying to pull a 2nd Foundation, she doesn't show
us their rise to power (the Foundation Trilogy) or depict life within
their putative utopia (Starship Troopers). She just shows us some of
the wreckage and human costs of their social experimentation after the
fact in Ice Crown and mentions how once they fell

Not playing the utopia game may contribute to her lack of respect. She
didn't do Big Ideas. But for all that, I thought she was better at
writing believable people than either Heinlein or Asimov.
Moriarty
2019-07-11 22:29:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Friday, July 12, 2019 at 1:20:14 AM UTC+10, David Johnston wrote:

<snip>

(On Andre Norton)
Post by David Johnston
Not playing the utopia game may contribute to her lack of respect. She
didn't do Big Ideas. But for all that, I thought she was better at
writing believable people than either Heinlein or Asimov.
In Asimov's case, that's a low bar. As much as I love the good Doctor's work, his robots had more depth. There are exceptions of course; for example, the nanny in "The Ugly Little Boy" was a great character.

-Moriarty
Jerry Brown
2019-07-12 07:08:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thu, 11 Jul 2019 09:20:10 -0600, David Johnston
Post by David Johnston
One difference between Norton and Heinlein is that Norton didn't do
utopia or attempts at it. Her characters wasted no time on thinking
about how things should be and instead concentrated on things as they
actually were and how to get along in that reality. They would evade
the unfairness of the world instead of trying to impose fairness on it.
My first Heinlein, Starman Jones, met that criteria. The
over-unionised world was clearly not right, but Max and Sam find ways
to get round it and Max ultimately joins the astrogators without
seeking to bring its "closed shop" to an end.
--
Jerry Brown

A cat may look at a king
(but probably won't bother)
Peter Trei
2019-07-12 14:19:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jerry Brown
On Thu, 11 Jul 2019 09:20:10 -0600, David Johnston
Post by David Johnston
One difference between Norton and Heinlein is that Norton didn't do
utopia or attempts at it. Her characters wasted no time on thinking
about how things should be and instead concentrated on things as they
actually were and how to get along in that reality. They would evade
the unfairness of the world instead of trying to impose fairness on it.
My first Heinlein, Starman Jones, met that criteria. The
over-unionised world was clearly not right, but Max and Sam find ways
to get round it and Max ultimately joins the astrogators without
seeking to bring its "closed shop" to an end.
Starman Jones was my first Heinlein too! It was one small part of a huge
'Stories for Boys' type omnibus (almost certainly British) I had around 1967.
I'd have been 9 or 10.

I later glommed onto Norton, and read many, many of her books. Most are
forgotten, but The Beastmaster (my first Norton), The Zero Stone,
The Last Planet, and Forerunner Foray made an impression.

The Forerunner (mysterious ancient race lost in deep time) idea really
appealed to me, probably because it was novel to me then.

pt
Quadibloc
2019-07-12 15:47:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jerry Brown
On Thu, 11 Jul 2019 09:20:10 -0600, David Johnston
Post by David Johnston
One difference between Norton and Heinlein is that Norton didn't do
utopia or attempts at it. Her characters wasted no time on thinking
about how things should be and instead concentrated on things as they
actually were and how to get along in that reality. They would evade
the unfairness of the world instead of trying to impose fairness on it.
My first Heinlein, Starman Jones, met that criteria. The
over-unionised world was clearly not right, but Max and Sam find ways
to get round it and Max ultimately joins the astrogators without
seeking to bring its "closed shop" to an end.
Accepting the unfairness of the world is actually a big thing in the Heinlein
juveniles. In them, however, as opposed to the works of Andre Norton, it is
usually visible and obtrusive - or blatantly didactic, if you prefer.

John Savard
Kevrob
2019-07-12 17:27:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Jerry Brown
On Thu, 11 Jul 2019 09:20:10 -0600, David Johnston
Post by David Johnston
One difference between Norton and Heinlein is that Norton didn't do
utopia or attempts at it. Her characters wasted no time on thinking
about how things should be and instead concentrated on things as they
actually were and how to get along in that reality. They would evade
the unfairness of the world instead of trying to impose fairness on it.
My first Heinlein, Starman Jones, met that criteria. The
over-unionised world was clearly not right, but Max and Sam find ways
to get round it and Max ultimately joins the astrogators without
seeking to bring its "closed shop" to an end.
Accepting the unfairness of the world is actually a big thing in the Heinlein
juveniles. In them, however, as opposed to the works of Andre Norton, it is
usually visible and obtrusive - or blatantly didactic, if you prefer.
Norton could be didactic when she wanted to be. Consider
"Daybreak 2250 A.D/Starman's Son." Judith Tarr did

https://www.tor.com/2018/01/22/after-the-apocalypse-andre-nortons-daybreak-2250-a-d/

I picked that up and read it before my teens, as I thought Starman in the
Justice Society of America was very cool. No relation, it turned out.

Kevin R
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
2019-07-12 17:37:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Kevrob
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Jerry Brown
On Thu, 11 Jul 2019 09:20:10 -0600, David Johnston
Post by David Johnston
One difference between Norton and Heinlein is that Norton didn't do
utopia or attempts at it. Her characters wasted no time on thinking
about how things should be and instead concentrated on things as they
actually were and how to get along in that reality. They would evade
the unfairness of the world instead of trying to impose fairness on it.
My first Heinlein, Starman Jones, met that criteria. The
over-unionised world was clearly not right, but Max and Sam find ways
to get round it and Max ultimately joins the astrogators without
seeking to bring its "closed shop" to an end.
Accepting the unfairness of the world is actually a big thing in the Heinlein
juveniles. In them, however, as opposed to the works of Andre Norton, it is
usually visible and obtrusive - or blatantly didactic, if you prefer.
Norton could be didactic when she wanted to be. Consider
"Daybreak 2250 A.D/Starman's Son." Judith Tarr did
https://www.tor.com/2018/01/22/after-the-apocalypse-andre-nortons-daybreak-2250-a-d/
I picked that up and read it before my teens, as I thought Starman in the
Justice Society of America was very cool. No relation, it turned out.
Kevin R
He's back, btw, though in the Justice League now. A 'Starman' anyway.

Norton was one of the 'big 3' of my childhood based on school and public
library holdings: Heinlein, Norton & Nourse.

The Norton's I read most were _The Zero Stone_/_Uncharted Stars_ duology
which I probably read 20 times or more. This was followed by _The Stars
Are Ours_/_Star Born_ duology which I always found a little weird and
anti-science, but read anyway. Then, _The Last Planet_ which I found
unspeakably cool.

I never really warmed to the "Solar Queen" books, though I did read them,
and didn't really care for the Time Travel/Baldies books. Then she kind of
wandered into fantasy, and I lost track.
--
------
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..
Scott Lurndal
2019-07-12 18:01:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Post by Kevrob
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Jerry Brown
On Thu, 11 Jul 2019 09:20:10 -0600, David Johnston
Post by David Johnston
One difference between Norton and Heinlein is that Norton didn't do
utopia or attempts at it. Her characters wasted no time on thinking
about how things should be and instead concentrated on things as they
actually were and how to get along in that reality. They would evade
the unfairness of the world instead of trying to impose fairness on it.
My first Heinlein, Starman Jones, met that criteria. The
over-unionised world was clearly not right, but Max and Sam find ways
to get round it and Max ultimately joins the astrogators without
seeking to bring its "closed shop" to an end.
Accepting the unfairness of the world is actually a big thing in the Heinlein
juveniles. In them, however, as opposed to the works of Andre Norton, it is
usually visible and obtrusive - or blatantly didactic, if you prefer.
Norton could be didactic when she wanted to be. Consider
"Daybreak 2250 A.D/Starman's Son." Judith Tarr did
https://www.tor.com/2018/01/22/after-the-apocalypse-andre-nortons-daybreak-2250-a-d/
I picked that up and read it before my teens, as I thought Starman in the
Justice Society of America was very cool. No relation, it turned out.
Kevin R
He's back, btw, though in the Justice League now. A 'Starman' anyway.
Norton was one of the 'big 3' of my childhood based on school and public
library holdings: Heinlein, Norton & Nourse.
The Norton's I read most were _The Zero Stone_/_Uncharted Stars_ duology
which I probably read 20 times or more. This was followed by _The Stars
Are Ours_/_Star Born_ duology which I always found a little weird and
anti-science, but read anyway. Then, _The Last Planet_ which I found
unspeakably cool.
I never really warmed to the "Solar Queen" books, though I did read them,
and didn't really care for the Time Travel/Baldies books. Then she kind of
wandered into fantasy, and I lost track.
For me, Galactic Patrol and the Time Traders stand out in memory. I also
quite liked the first three Witch World books, particularly
_Sorceress of the Witch World_.

The collection includes:
Norton, Andre Breed To Come soft BOX A012
Norton, Andre Dragon Magic soft BOX A012
Norton, Andre Flight Of Vengeance hard BOX A012
Norton, Andre Galactic Derelict soft BOX A012
Norton, Andre High Sorcery soft BOX A012
Norton, Andre Horn Crown soft BOX A012
Norton, Andre Iron Cage soft BOX A012
Norton, Andre Key out of Time soft BOX A012
Norton, Andre Lord of Thunder soft BOX A012
Norton, Andre Merlin's Mirror soft A018
Norton, Andre No Night without Stars soft BOX A012
Norton, Andre Perilous Dreams soft BOX A012
Norton, Andre Plague Ship soft BOX A012
Norton, Andre Postmarked the Stars soft BOX A012
Norton, Andre Sorceress of the Witch World soft BOX A012
Norton, Andre The Last Planet soft BOX A012
Norton, Andre The Magestone Soft BOX A011
Norton, Andre The Stars are Ours soft BOX A012
Norton, Andre The Time Traders soft BOX A012
Norton, Andre The Warding of the Witch World soft BOX A012
Norton, Andre Three Against the Witch World soft BOX A012
Norton, Andre Trey of Swords soft BOX A012
Norton, Andre Warlock of the Witch World soft BOX A012
Norton, Andre Web of the WItch World soft BOX A012
Norton, Andre Witch World soft BOX A012
Norton, Andre Year of the Unicorn soft BOX A012
Norton, Andre Zarsthor's Bane soft A018
Norton, Andre and Schaub, Mary The Magestone soft BOX A011
Norton, Andre; McConchie, Lyn The Key of the Keplian Soft BOX A011
David Johnston
2019-07-12 16:16:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jerry Brown
On Thu, 11 Jul 2019 09:20:10 -0600, David Johnston
Post by David Johnston
One difference between Norton and Heinlein is that Norton didn't do
utopia or attempts at it. Her characters wasted no time on thinking
about how things should be and instead concentrated on things as they
actually were and how to get along in that reality. They would evade
the unfairness of the world instead of trying to impose fairness on it.
My first Heinlein, Starman Jones, met that criteria. The
over-unionised world was clearly not right, but Max and Sam find ways
to get round it and Max ultimately joins the astrogators without
seeking to bring its "closed shop" to an end.
But Starman Jones isn't one of the books that makes Heinlein rep as one
of the greats. Andre Norton never wrote a The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress,
Stranger in a Strange Land or Starship Troopers
Gene Wirchenko
2019-07-14 23:18:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 12 Jul 2019 08:08:06 +0100, Jerry Brown
Post by Jerry Brown
On Thu, 11 Jul 2019 09:20:10 -0600, David Johnston
Post by David Johnston
One difference between Norton and Heinlein is that Norton didn't do
utopia or attempts at it. Her characters wasted no time on thinking
about how things should be and instead concentrated on things as they
actually were and how to get along in that reality. They would evade
the unfairness of the world instead of trying to impose fairness on it.
My first Heinlein, Starman Jones, met that criteria. The
over-unionised world was clearly not right, but Max and Sam find ways
to get round it and Max ultimately joins the astrogators without
seeking to bring its "closed shop" to an end.
What could he do AT THAT POINT? Near the end of the story, he is
ruminating about the situation and that he will do something when he
has seniority.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko
p***@hotmail.com
2019-07-13 01:56:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by David Johnston
Post by James Nicoll
Heinlein's Juveniles vs. Andre Norton's Young Adult Novels
https://www.tor.com/2019/07/11/heinlein-juveniles-vs-andre-norton-young-adult-novels/
One difference between Norton and Heinlein is that Norton didn't do
utopia or attempts at it. Her characters wasted no time on thinking
about how things should be and instead concentrated on things as they
actually were and how to get along in that reality. They would evade
the unfairness of the world instead of trying to impose fairness on it.
And when someone did try to create utopia, in the form of an oligarchy
of social scientists trying to pull a 2nd Foundation, she doesn't show
us their rise to power (the Foundation Trilogy) or depict life within
their putative utopia (Starship Troopers). She just shows us some of
the wreckage and human costs of their social experimentation after the
fact in Ice Crown and mentions how once they fell
This paragraph is somewhat misleading. In _Starship Troopers_ the
Federation was not created by an oligarchy of social scientists. It was
stated quite specifically that the Federation arose unplanned in the
chaos following a nuclear war. It worked and kept on working after
the development of interstellar travel and colonization. The theory
of moral philosophy that explained why it worked came later.
Post by David Johnston
Not playing the utopia game may contribute to her lack of respect. She
didn't do Big Ideas. But for all that, I thought she was better at
writing believable people than either Heinlein or Asimov.
Peter Wezeman
anti-social Darwinist
David Johnston
2019-07-15 03:06:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by p***@hotmail.com
Post by David Johnston
Post by James Nicoll
Heinlein's Juveniles vs. Andre Norton's Young Adult Novels
https://www.tor.com/2019/07/11/heinlein-juveniles-vs-andre-norton-young-adult-novels/
One difference between Norton and Heinlein is that Norton didn't do
utopia or attempts at it. Her characters wasted no time on thinking
about how things should be and instead concentrated on things as they
actually were and how to get along in that reality. They would evade
the unfairness of the world instead of trying to impose fairness on it.
And when someone did try to create utopia, in the form of an oligarchy
of social scientists trying to pull a 2nd Foundation, she doesn't show
us their rise to power (the Foundation Trilogy) or depict life within
their putative utopia (Starship Troopers). She just shows us some of
the wreckage and human costs of their social experimentation after the
fact in Ice Crown and mentions how once they fell
This paragraph is somewhat misleading. In _Starship Troopers_ the
Federation was not created by an oligarchy of social scientists.
\

Not the point which is that Heinlein actually showed us his utopia in
full flower, totally successful while Norton just showed up some of the
mess left by a failed attempt.
Johnny1A
2019-07-16 03:54:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by David Johnston
Post by James Nicoll
Heinlein's Juveniles vs. Andre Norton's Young Adult Novels
https://www.tor.com/2019/07/11/heinlein-juveniles-vs-andre-norton-young-adult-novels/
One difference between Norton and Heinlein is that Norton didn't do
utopia or attempts at it. Her characters wasted no time on thinking
about how things should be and instead concentrated on things as they
actually were and how to get along in that reality. They would evade
the unfairness of the world instead of trying to impose fairness on it.
Interestingly, she has some parallels with Anne MacCaffrey on that.
m***@sky.com
2019-07-12 04:13:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by James Nicoll
Heinlein's Juveniles vs. Andre Norton's Young Adult Novels
https://www.tor.com/2019/07/11/heinlein-juveniles-vs-andre-norton-young-adult-novels/
--
My reviews can be found at http://jamesdavisnicoll.com/
My tor pieces at https://www.tor.com/author/james-davis-nicoll/
My Dreamwidth at https://james-davis-nicoll.dreamwidth.org/
My patreon is at https://www.patreon.com/jamesdnicoll
I liked the free trader Nortons, but a lot of the other books left me feeling short changed. I wanted a book about the future, and a lot of the Nortons were a thin wrapper round historical fantasy or or people wandering around the outback. Heinlein really did write stories about the future.
Lynn McGuire
2019-07-13 19:20:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by m***@sky.com
Post by James Nicoll
Heinlein's Juveniles vs. Andre Norton's Young Adult Novels
https://www.tor.com/2019/07/11/heinlein-juveniles-vs-andre-norton-young-adult-novels/
--
My reviews can be found at http://jamesdavisnicoll.com/
My tor pieces at https://www.tor.com/author/james-davis-nicoll/
My Dreamwidth at https://james-davis-nicoll.dreamwidth.org/
My patreon is at https://www.patreon.com/jamesdnicoll
I liked the free trader Nortons, but a lot of the other books left me feeling short changed. I wanted a book about the future, and a lot of the Nortons were a thin wrapper round historical fantasy or or people wandering around the outback. Heinlein really did write stories about the future.
Are you talking about _The Zero Stone_ and _Uncharted Stars_ ?
https://www.amazon.com/Zero-Stone-Murdoc-Jern-Book-ebook/dp/B016LP32PM/

Lynn
Loading...