Battle of the Hard Sci-Fi Classics [100 Book Challenge #35-40]

[@OLJeffo]

RwR is a great example of how Clarke does not really write "novels" in the modern sense of long-form fiction with characters that develop meaningfully in response to dramatic conflicts. His books offer futuristic, often cosmic, happenings, wonderfully imagined to be sure, but the characters exist only to observe, react to, and comment upon those happenings.

[@Bookpilled]

Very well put.

[@dawnmoriarty9347]

I enjoyed RwR and found it absorbing many years ago. Ruined by the sequels though. I actually gave up on them. Sometimes a mystery is best left as a mystery. I think your point about the characters is what I was failing to communicate. The change of gear to more character conflicts didn't work for me

[@aajiv1748]

@@dawnmoriarty9347 Yeah the sequels have Arthur C. Clarke in Huge type face , so one does not notice they were written by Gentry Lee . It looks like Lee had only a cursory contact with Clarke, who I am sure cashed a large advance. I got through about 2 chapters of Rama II before throwing it into my give-away pile.

[@aajiv1748]

Curious thing, Denis Villeneuve has listed Rendezvous with Rama as the film he is doing after finishing Dune 2 and making Cleopatra (depending on Cleopatra actually getting greenlighted).

[@frankmorlock9134]

Clarke is one of the very few authors who are able to manage without interesting characters because his stories are so well conceived. If you compare him to Jules Verne for example, it's the other way around. Verne's characters are very lively if not terribly convincing, Verne started as a dramatist and his dramatic talent though not great is always present and occasionally helpful.

[@grene1955]

Firstly, as a 68 year old long time Sci-Fi fan with hundreds of books...I love your reviews! I don't always agree, but I love the thoughtful analysis you bring to the books. I think that to a point, you have to look at these like reading Jules Verne. They are a product of their time. Cold war, capitalism vs. communism, many authors raised with a misogynistic attitude, exploring new ways of thinking...they don't always get it right by "modern" standards. But as a young reader, they definitely expanded my mental horizons.

[@dawnmoriarty9347]

We also have to remember that authors including Heinlein complained vigorously to their editors about the censorship imposed in America. The editors frequently insisted on alterations that the authors felt were at odds with the intent of the story. John Campbell was known to get other authors to alter some writers. I suspect that even when attitudes changed some authors were canalized in their writing and by extension their attitudes

[@frankmorlock9134]

@@dawnmoriarty9347 Very interesting.

[@AwesomeTingle]

I read Rama last year and it blew me away. I couldn't tell you a single character's name, and I don't think they really matter in this story. They're just there to allow you to discover "Rama," and wow what an adventure. Probably my favorite "archaeology" book.

[@MG-bs5mr]

I'd agree, it gave me a sense of awe. Did you read the rest of the series?

[@AwesomeTingle]

@@MG-bs5mr No I haven't, at least not yet. I read online somewhere that Clarke's involvement in the rest of the series was minimal, and the answers you get aren't as exciting as the mystery was. But that could be wrong- did you enjoy them?

[@dawnmoriarty9347]

@@AwesomeTingle I didn't enjoy the rest of the series, at least in part because it was more character based

[@MG-bs5mr]

@@AwesomeTingle you've pretty much summed up the other three books to be fair. You get all the answers but I felt that the other books lost that sense of awe. They were a bit "meh."

[@MG-bs5mr]

@@dawnmoriarty9347 I didn't mind them being character based but yeah, I definitely think that the first book stands out above the others. By a mile. I'm glad I read them to get the answers. But they didn't feel like "Arthur C Clarke answers."

[@emsleywyatt3400]

Heinlein wrote at two levels. The ones written for an adult audience and his so-called juveniles. In the latter, the sexual innuendo was either non-existent or extremely muted, but they contained (but sadly without much elaborating) some pretty high concepts, suitable for any adult audience work today. "Double Star", "Tunnel in the Sky" and "Orphans of the Sky", which you touched on, are fine examples. It should also be remembered that Heinlein hit his stride as a writer when the "sexual revolution" was in full flower. Silverberg and Farmer are also examples of this. Oh, and maybe "The Puppet Masters" might be worth an examination.

[@JohnG225]

Read Rendezvous with Rama many many years ago and I'd list it in my top 5 favourites. That said, now you mention it, I can't remember a single character. Great video.

[@chrisw6164]

Clarke is still the ultimate gateway writer for science fiction. I think we will still be pointing new people to Childhood’s End, 2001, and Rendezvous with Rama long after I’m gone.

[@winsomehax]

Childhood's end has always seemed ageless to me. Which is quite an achievement for a 1953 SF novel.

[@beefymario88]

Mine was ‘Against the Fall of Night.’

[@Tetsujin-28]

Donuts in the sand, Laurel & Hardy ,broccoli and strawberry yogurt . I love this channel.

[@salty-walt]

Omg. You're right! You hit the high points! (As did Matt)

[@big_tasty1]

the water the world swims in... yeah, me too :D

[@shipraider333]

“Eating a donut that’s been dropped in sand” that was hilarious. Another great video, enjoyed it!

[@frankmorlock9134]

I loved it, too. Rather gritty image.

[@leannab3865]

You would be such an awesome teacher! I love how you break a book down and explain what you liked and didn’t like about it. This is the perfect channel for young people to spark that interest in reading.

[@psikeyhackr6914]

Reading what? SF varies significantly. Before the New Wave invasion of the 60s it was more about ideas and technology than literary quality as judged by literary intellectuals. I have read reviews of Orphans of the Sky where the reviewer obviously did not understand the pseudo-gravity created by the spinning cylinder. The Dispossessed by Ursula K Le Guin undoubtedly has better writing than Voyage from Yesteryear by James P Hogan but I would bet that Hogan knew more about technology and economics.

[@leannab3865]

@@psikeyhackr6914 the hamburger tasted like a waffle today.

[@psikeyhackr6914]

@@leannab3865 Like Freud said, "Sometimes a hamburger is just a waffle."

[@Warstub]

Starship Troopers is the only Heinlein book I've been able to finish. I feel the same about his writing. The End of Eternity is the Asimov book I enjoyed the most and still remember (... enjoying)

[@northof-62]

Good job getting through that without throwing any into your fireplace!

[@luiznogueira1579]

Totally agree with you on Heinlein. Don't remember any of his books as being particularly enjoyable. Your critique of Clarke and Asimov are spot on as well, imo, although I never found Clarke's 'nuts and bolts' descriptions boring(well, I was young...would probably have a harder time reading him now) Lentils, indeed...😂

[@donaldb1]

I grew up with these authors. My intro to SF was from my Dad's library, which had a lot of all three them (along with John Wyndhan, Frederick Pohl and Christopher Priest I particularly remember). So I have fond memories of these three "Masters of the Golden Age", but I think Clarke is probably the one who has aged the best. I can't go back to Asimov or Heinlein now for anything more than historical interest. Henlein I used to read voraciously, I must confess partly for all those things about him that were seemingly designed to make adolescent boys with limited life-experience feel mature and sophisticated and iconoclastic. But I got over it.

[@bookssongsandothermagic]

Lentils and strawberry yoghurt…amazing. Love how you review books in general and this was an awesome video.

[@rickkearn7100]

Great review, BP, your perspective is fresh and no-BS. Thanks for the shout out on SF Ultra, shall check it out. And your shout out to another SF-related YT channel, the good chap in the UK, was a fine gesture. Looking forward to your upcoming "3-book chunks" format and more frequent posts. Cheers.

[@Gary-zq3pz]

Heinlein was more into character development, Clarke was about building strong stories, and Asimov was a 'big picture' guy.

[@sleestack13]

I'm going to agree with you about Heinlein. I TRIED to read Moon, Stranger, and Starship Troopers, and DNF'd them all. And that is EXTREMELY rare for me. My buddy who is a big Heinlein fan implores that I should try his short stories, so maybe I will try a collection one day, but It may take me another 20 years to get to it.

[@rossh7186]

I think the best thing I've read by Heinlein is "The Unpleasant Profession of Jonathan Hoeg". It's a novella. It's not really like anything else I've read by him; I'd say it's more like Harlan Ellison or something. Very spooky and terse atmosphere. He's got some nice short stories, but not astronomically better than loads of other short story writers from around the same time, and some aren't so great, like "The Roads Must Roll". There's two interesting ones I'll mention - I'm not saying they're great stories, just to say. One is "The Green Hills of Earth", which contains the lyrics of a kind of future folk song of spacers and astronauts. He might have been the first writer to think of something like this - and quite nicely you see the song getting mentioned in other writers' stories for some years afterwards! The other is "The Man Who Sold The Moon", which I feel must have been the starting off point for the Elon Musk's and Jeff Bezos's of this world, with the protagonist channelling all his chicanery and sociopathic marketeering to "get humanity to space" no matter the human cost. I won't spoil how preposterously callous the way this unfolds in the story is - but I'm sure someone on the internet will if you can't be bothered reading it. I'm fairly sure I've heard they have both read this at a young age.

[@dawnmoriarty9347]

@@rossh7186 Job a Comedy of Justice is another non standard Heinlein. Maybe worth a read for those who dislike most Heinlein

[@rossh7186]

Cheers for that, I'll pick it up if I see it

[@BomageMinimart]

I don't agree with everything you say but I love watching you videos; it's the next best thing to actually having conversations about these books.

[@billbez7465]

Love the channel, but also love Issac Asmiov; he is favorite author. Thank you!!

[@davidaldinger3666]

I always give all the old writers a chance. They’re writing wasn’t always the best and they were still the products of their time but I read them for their ideas which even now can seem fresh. In most cases I definitely prefer their short stories and novellas to their novels. That extra 100 pages are fluff. Some people use the rule of Before Dune / After Dune or Before Star Trek / After Star Trek.

[@WordsinTime]

Of the 3 Clarke books I’ve read I would rank them: 1. Childhood’s End 2. 2001 3. Rama. But I thoroughly enjoyed all of them. I guess I like lentils.

[@Bookpilled]

I agree with those ranks. Nothing wrong with lentils.

[@frankmorlock9134]

I enjoy eating lentils, I mean relly.

[@steveg1961]

With Rendezvous With Rama, the main character is the ship itself. All of the human characters are secondary or tertiary characters. A lot of readers don't seem to realize this. I first read this novel when I was a teenager. I'm now 62 years old, and I've re-read the novel twice since the 1970s. It's a fantastic story. Still in my personal list of "Top 10" science fiction stories. Definitely better than 2001: A Space Odyssey or Childhood's End, in my opinion. I would love to get a chance to see this made into a movie (a movie that does justice to the story) before I die.

[@frans-jozefhendrickx2267]

Thank you for these opinions, I generally agree. This examination illustrates a notion that I have thought about for some months, the visual landscape verses literary “shorthand” used. In particular the references to 2001 and “I, Robot” with both a film (English ancestry) and book. This notion centers around the visual “language” the reader uses to complete a performance of literature. This notion of a visual “language” is not new but I think it has a greater effect than most consider. This aggregates context, education (mandatory and self), exposure and generational differences in one discordant conglomeration. Discordant because rather than neat generational (20 years or so) steps the generations are a continuum. Also the elements mentioned are so interdependent with each other. For any reader/viewer Context includes, social, personal and societal histories, knowledge and speculations. Education typically builds a set of agreed cultural and societal “facts” we share. Exposure to imagery, media and marketing along with trends and “new” concepts are specific to each reader. Generational differences are tradition/novelty, conformity/revolution and many other contradictory behaviours. All of which generates a specific, individual visual language. Prior to the rise of mass visual media (before “Quatermass”, “Doctor Who”, “The Invaders” and “Star Trek:TOS”) the average reader had a limited stock of visual cues (regularly) available so a “visual language” required a larger reliance on personal imagination. This identifies my particular visual context to the late 60’s TV and 70’s comics (Dan Dare, 2000AD and so on). Once enthused into SciFi I began to delve into past works as you do today but my visual “language” was much more limited or more specifically, less commonly shared (highly personal). Oh damn! Forgot the 50’s film serials (Rocketman, Flash Gordon, etc) shown Saturday mornings at all local (London) cinemas. The principle effect I now recognise today is that I am more interested in the conceptual framework than the visual representations. An argument I’ve had is that I am not enamoured with “Star Wars” because the concept was familiar to me, not new. I am more interested in the story telling techniques, plot and resolutions than the wonderful new visual techniques and technologies. The upshot of Star Wars for me was that I could concentrate more on the story than use my imagination to fill in production value faults. 2001: a space odyssey was my first exposure to a Kubrick film (distressingly high production values) thus I saw the film and never read the book. Unconsciously I recognised that my visual language or imagination could not compete with the visual splendour. Also Clark was and is a tough read for me. The discussions, debates and pontifications engendered satisfied my need to understand the story. Not so I, Robot, I read the serials, short stories and expanded or compiled books before exposure to the star vehicle I, Robot film. What I saw prior and since confirmed that the concept and story were compromised or “artistic licensed” to death. I did not imagine the slick organic modern style humanoid robots rather Asimov’s boxy stick figured robot limping across Venus, an ambulatory toaster lying to me or the stoic nursemaid (suitably robust and threatening) unconditionally loved by a child. I am taking too long, too many words but that is me. So in conclusion consider the context of both the author and reader, the shared visual language, what was known and speculated (flying cars) and the visual mediums each generation initially developed in. This could assist in the “suspension of disbelief” needed to appreciate the “classics” indeed I think this notion is not genre specific but required for any literature even modern media forms. Again thank you for your opinions they do inspire interesting cogitations.

[@dawnmoriarty9347]

I struggle with films because it's never my imagined story and visuals. If I've read a book and enjoyed it, the film doesn't live up to it but unfortunately spoils the book subsequently

[@frans-jozefhendrickx2267]

@@dawnmoriarty9347 I had and have a similar response but I changed my point of view. I changed my objective from the story and concept to the production. An example was David Brin's "The Postman", one of the worst butcherings of a complex concept into a star vehicle. So I make a game of those book -> films I choose to view, judging how effective or true to the story they are. It's rare I see a film before reading the book but when I do I "forget" the visuals and concentrate on the nuance a literary work offers ("Game of Thrones series" by R.R. Martin).

[@Jason_Quinn]

18:40 LOL I am a Heinlein fan and an Asimov fan but I never knew this. I'll be picking this one up, thank you!

[@Zackathor]

Within this video holds the most thoughtful description of why Robert Heinlein is a pervert on maybe the entire internet. A+ content.

[@adamconnor1898]

I don't see how anyone who read later Heinlein could doubt it. I remember trying to read some of it as a horny teenage boy and just being creeped out.

[@bimsbarkas]

I used to like heinlein, but even back then he was, at least in his books for adults, a raging pervert. With time and more reading, i have to concede most other points in this review. He is obnoxiously clever, and his politics are horrible, there are very few redeeming qualities.

[@joebrooks4448]

Good reviews, thank you. An honest assessment of Rendezvous With Rama. Not terrible, not memorable. I am still a major fan of RAH. Let me qualify that. I do not recall the illness he suffered about 1960, but that hurt his writing dramatically. Nothing after "Glory Road" seemed like RAH. Actually, only "The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress" out of all of them after 1962 is not an embarrassing abomination. I am not usually that blunt, as he deserves respect for his prior tremendous accomplishments. For RAH in his prime, read "The Past Through Tomorrow." Short stories, novelettes, wide variety. For a short novel, "The Unpleasant Profession of Jonathan Hoag*" is great. And you will see that influence right up thru today... I just reread both of these and a few others, "Have Spacesuit Will Travel" is fantastic SF in nearly every way, just my opinion. I have read it 20 times over 50 years... * Corrected, left out "of"

[@donaldb1]

Slight correction - in the 2001 movie the mission goes to Jupiter, but in the book it goes to Saturn, which allows Clarke to go into lots of detail about slingshot orbits and so on that Kubrick must have found uncinematic, not surprsingly. The book and movie are definitely worth looking at together because of the way they differ in telling the same story. But another interesting thing is that when Clarke came to write his sequel, it is definitely a sequel to the movie, not to his own novel.

[@chrisw6164]

Thank you, I had forgotten the “slingshot” aspect for the book being set around Saturn vs the movie being set around Jupiter. It’s been decades since I’ve read 2001.

[@theoldman2821]

Slight correction - Kubrick.

[@donaldb1]

@@theoldman2821 Ta - corrected.

[@patrickocallaghan3429]

The main reason the movie used Jupiter rather than Saturn is that Kubrick couldn't see how to show Saturn's rings in a realistic way.

[@BenjaminsBookclub]

Great Video as always! I love how similar I can find some books to you and how different others can be. Rendezvous with Rama hit me really hard, I read it on a couple plane trips for a work trip, with a great sci fi ambient track in my headphones and I just adored it. The ending was perfect I think. I haven't felt the same level of awe since. I read Starship Troopers and The Moon is a Harsh Mistress back to back, and while I don't share his politics either, I ended up enjoying Moon is a Harsh Mistress quite a bit, but it lacks a competent antagonist I believe. But Starship Troopers fell really really flat for me, so much so that I don't think I will be seeking out anymore Heinlein. Currently working my way through all of Asimov's robot books before getting to Foundation. I read the short stories in the collection "Complete robot" edition, I found about as many of them hit as missed. It does have introductions to each section by Asimov which goes a way to explaining what he was trying to say with that group of stories, which helped some and maybe harmed others.

[@s.t.5993]

Arthur c Clarke, Asimov and Herbert . Rama, foundation and dune, introduced me to this genre in high school. Nowadays they look simplistic but 100% they should be introductory for people to understand and appreciate the sci fi genre

[@jameswalker6168]

I cannot understand why but I really do enjoy your videos and find them quite relaxing. Keep it up.

[@darktower74]

It's interesting to hear your aversion to some of the big names in science fiction, and I was wondering how you felt about John Wyndham. Chocky, Day of the Triffids, etc. I found some of his stories to be quite enjoyable. Perhaps his ideas were greater than his prose (like an alien communicating with a boy from interstellar distances away, somehow teaching the boy how to swim in order to save his drowning sibling), but they were fairly short novels (novellas?) and I recommend some of them to my friends who are readers.

[@Verlopil]

Haha I picked up The Moon is a Harsh Mistress for the first time in about 15 years when I saw you were going to read it, and as soon as I started it I knew you were going to bounce hard off it. To my surprise, so did I. Mike always managed to pull me through it in the past, but I'll tell you, the whole thing with the female lead and the smarmy dialogue just turned me right off and I couldn't go on. I'm female and Heinlein always annoyed me to a degree, but my tastes have changed more than I'd realized and I just can't deal with that anymore. Luckily for me I am not reviewing it and could stop. I really love Big Dumb Object sf stories. I have a hard science/engineering background and just really enjoy the mystery and exploration angle. It's like comfort reading for me, so I do enjoy those sides of Clarke. I do agree with your assessment of Asimov's prose and especially dialogue. I have a lot of trouble reading him these days too.

[@zonkster909]

Heinlein definitely writes in a male ex-military voice… I can’t imagine women of any age enjoying him as much as men do. Very predictable.

[@noeditbookreviews]

I love how you use food analogies to help convey a richer understanding.

[@apriori_dasein]

It's high time you re-watched 2001, odds are that what we found boring in our youth would impress us by the time we come of age and go around the block once or twice. It's a masterpiece that trumps the novel by a mile, and I don't use that word lightly. Thanks for the content.

[@winsomehax]

I loved Asimov's robot stories as a teenager - setup the three laws and explore their failures. Great. I revisited some later and they didnt quite hold the same punch. His three original Foundation novels though... They were still extremely readable. I still get a kick from the failure of Seldon's crisis message and the panic as they realise their great sage's plan is off track.

[@sciencefictionreads]

I've always preferred Clarke over Asimov. Vanilla hard sf seems accurate. Its a very different form of the genre than what we have today, and when the mood strikes I absolutely love that stuff. And despite having probably 50 Heinlein books I haven't read anything of his. I've always felt I wont like his stuff and just not in any hurry to check it out.

[@Bookpilled]

Walk, don't run, to Starship Troopers maybe. I read it as a teenager and recall it not being painful to read, at least.

[@royalewithcheeze]

I almost fully agree with your Heinlein takes, but i keep finding myself reading his stuff, like i feel i'm supposed to read him to be a sci fi fan. but i'm having a really tough time getting through "Time enough for Love." It has to be his magnum opus of ick horn ball writing.

[@joebrooks4448]

In my opinion, RAH wrote only one novel worth reading after Glory Road. The rest are literally trash, and his agent should not have allowed publication. The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, and it is just OK.

[@PsychoholicSlag83]

It's so odd and funny that you mentioned Asimov winking at the reader, because that's exactly what happened crossed my mind while reading some of the plot twists in the Foundation Trilogy. I mean, I LITERALLY pictured Asimov sitting on a chair, against a library with a glass of whisky in one hand and a cigar in the other, narrating the story and winking at the camera when the plot twist came. A really vivid image that took me out of the story at times

[@richelliott9320]

Asimov didn't drink or smoke lol

[@emsleywyatt3400]

It needs to be remembered about Asimov that he wrote much of his most noted works as a very young man. Pick up "Robots of Dawn" to see how he matured as a writer.

[@barbararowley6077]

I remember loving Rendezvous, but read it first at 11 so that early experience makes it difficult to truly evaluate quality. Do enjoy quietly exploring deserted cities in a book though - one of the reasons I loved Lovecraft’s Mountains of Madness. Must admit I’ve not read any Heinlein I really clicked with. Mum didn’t mind his work, so I did try. Big Asimov fan, but with the same qualifier as Clarke. Books that you read as a child or young teenager become a part of you in a way that only the very best books you encounter as an adult can and that hugely impacts your view.

[@be-noble3393]

Your complaint about Hard Sci-fi is one I can relate with as sometimes it can come off as a technology dissertation with plot. (Also, Hard Sci-fi seems to age the worst.) Hard Sci-fi for me works best in a visual media (The Expanse TV series) as you can show the technology without info dumps.

[@stevezeidman7224]

Been a subscriber for a while, first time commenter. I’d like to say something about Asimov. I’m 70 hrs old and read them all before all for the first time before I was 20. Many of his early novels were actually serialized short stories or novellas. The Foundation trilogy falls into this category. The Robot Novels “The Caves of Steel”, and “The Naked Sun” were unique for their time. They were Scfi mysteries. The Earth suffers from overpopulation. The main protagonist is a sardonic detective that is terrified of being “declassified” and sent back to yeast mines. The stories were originated as novels vs short stories. I found them to be terrific. As far as short stories from him, give “The Last Question” and “Nightfall” a chance. For Clarke, a Novel called “Earthlight” is worth a read. Very short about a war between Earth, Mars, and The Moon. Kind of a prequel to “The Expanse”.

[@Bookpilled]

Thanks Steve. I do intend to read Caves of Steel at some point. I am also curious about the Nightfall novel he cowrote with Silverberg.

[@stevezeidman7224]

@@Bookpilled It’s an expanded version of the ss. Silverberg’s influence is obvious in the prose.

[@dawnmoriarty9347]

I do think your point about some books being unique in their time is a very valid one. Writers like Clarke and Heinlein defended E E Smith for the same reason despite acknowledging his datedness. Just like Tolkien, now there's elves, hobbits and dwarves everywhere

[@MartiniBlankontherest]

Totally get your meaning. I'm new to reading and Rama was my first space epic series. It is VERY vanilla. Not a lot of fantastical elements. The prose is often flat and grey. I did cry at the end and i loved it for its own sake, but i totally agree. Vanilla.

[@josephnash2081]

Heinlein is at his best in the Juveniles he wrote in the 1950s. The editor Alice Dagliesh at Scribner and Sons kept all of the parts of Heinlein's ideology that you dislike turned down to one.

[@waltera13]

s'trooth.

[@zonkster909]

I’ve always thought that Lazarus Long was the most iconic character in all of sci-fi. Time Enough For Love literally transported me from pre-WW America to the far reaches of the galaxy. Nothing else came close.

[@paulallison6418]

I can understand why you are not blown away by Rendezvous with Rama, this is one of my all time favourites but I read this about 40 years ago. I guess 2001 is less "dated", 4o years ago Rendezvous was higher for me but now 2001 is higher. I'm not keen on Heinlein either - of course the dated sexual approach was ignored when I was reading Heinlein (and other writers) 40 years ago. The Gods Themselves is excellent but again its a distant memory. Other Clarke books I love are City & The Stars & A fall of Moondust. Asimovs best books apart from FOUNDATION SERIES are the robot novels, CAVES OF STEEL, THE NAKED SUN are both great.

[@douglasdea637]

Mostly I'll just parrot what others have said here. I read Clarke and Asimov when I was growing up in the 70s and 80s. Loved them both, just about equally. I read sci-fi for the ideas and the mystery of it. I love books where something is discovered and humans have to investigate it to learn about their fate, about aliens, our place in the galaxy, etc. Thus books like Rama and 2001 really appeal to me. (Pohl's Gateway is another book I love.) That the characters are flat and dull I don't care. Scientists tend to be cerebral and non-dramatic anyway. I want to know about the thing, the mystery that could shape human civilization, not about the ups and downs of those studying it. Asimov is just amazing in the breadth of what he wrote, hundreds of books on every topic. Novels for children and novels for adults. There's really no other writer like him. I never read The Gods Themselves but I did enjoy I, Robot and Foundation including the later books that tie both of those threads together. Heinlein... I liked Starship Troopers when I was a teenager. Cool book. Years later I tried Job: A Comedy of Justice and found it dull. Today I can't remember a thing about it. There's a few other Heinlein books I want to check off someday, Moon is one, Friday is another. Who knows when I'll get to them.

[@r0kus]

Asimov's writing discipline is legendary. IIRC he had a period where he wrote 60 books in 11 years. A lot were not even science fiction. For example, he wrote long commentaries on the old and new testaments, and many "science explained for the common man" books. He thought of writing like a full time job. He would go to his typewriter each day, and spend like 8 hours there. I don't know if it were more than 5 days a week, but he was very disciplined. I say all this as it might explain something you noticed. You sensed lack of inspiration during some chunks of his books. That could well have derived from him sitting in front of his typewriter out of pure drive, not because his heart was in it.

[@Bookpilled]

Yes, very true. I got this sense while reading it.

[@dawnmoriarty9347]

I respect Asimov's discipline but personally I think it made him patchy. He did a great job making scientific principles accessible, however I found it wearisome how many titles were published as "Asimov's Amazing Whatever" which had slight actual connection to him

[@NatyFC]

your reviews are absolutely the best

[@felixfifeauthor]

'Clarke is lentils and Asimov is strawberry yogurt.' I laughed outloud, it's so witty and true. Thanks for your insightful and honest reviews

[@scottking4047]

you should try John Varley. He's a bit of all three, especially Heinlein, but with an emotional core the older ones could not approach. I like to think they walked so Varley could fly

[@markporter6933]

I have to say that I love all 3 authors; but you are correct concerning Rendezvous with Rama. It is a far cry from Childhood's End. My own opinion is that the Foundation trilogy, Childhood's End, and Frank Herbert's Dune series are amongst the best sci fi literature ever written, and I do put them in the category of real literature.

[@disconnected22]

I did my own version of this recently, after not having read any of the Big 3 in a long time. I decided to do it with short story collections. Clarke was “Tales Of Ten Worlds” - dry, optimistic spacefaring stuff. Not much staying power. Heinlein was “Menace From Earth” - great ideas in there, but the opening of the first story is literally a gal stripping on a street corner, being watched by two “transvestites”. Asimov was “Early Asimov 1”, his first published material. He was almost unbearably naive, bit what can you do, we was 20...

[@evalamont274]

Heinlein, i will fear no evil, was the first book that got me into reading sci-fi and I've enjoyed a lot of his books. 😂 i searched your channel specifically to see how you felt about him after watching your top 15. 😅

[@Jamikel351]

Interesting point about Asimov having the greater lineage, but Clarke being the more engaging read, which has definitely been my experience. Though I do think Clarke's legacy is a bit more apparent in cinema than in literature, thanks to the massive shadow the 2001 movie has cast over the sci-fi movie landscape. Just about every director interested in science fiction has made their own (usually vastly inferior) riff on 2001.

[@civoreb]

You put me on Silverberg and now hes the gold standard for old school SF for me. Struggling through The Moon is a Harsh Mistress atm 😅

[@DamnableReverend]

Asimov was my first favourite science fiction writer. I started reading him when I was really, really young, and within the time of about four or five years I read everything I could get my hands on by him. SInce then I guess he was supplanted by others, and I can't say I've revisited him much since those years. But, he hit me at the right time and I can't help but have a huge amount of respect for what he did. If i were to revisit anything, it'd be some of his hundreds and hundreds fo short stories. I actually really appreciate the, as you described it, "thought experiment" nature of many of his tales. They feel like puzzles, in a way. I used to really like someo f the FOundation stuff but even as a kid I felt the series was pretty inconsistent, with FOundation and Empire being the very obvious stand-out. I also remember really liking the standalone book End of Eternity a lot. I read The God Themselves during that time and, while I can't say I'd have the same feeling so many years later as I did when a child, I don't recall a damn thing about that third part, at all. The second part was very Silverberg-ish, you are right. Cool book but the third part just ground everything down. I guess that is a problem with "fixups" sometimes. The first part was great and the second maybe the weirdest thing to be found in an Asimov novel -- but then it's not over; you gotta read part III! yeah.

[@ianevans6909]

I read RWR as it came out. I was a literate teenager and reading a lot of science fiction at the time. It's hard now to convey how powerful it was since so much of science fiction that followed it ripped it off and took its ideas. But there had been nothing quite like it before and the air of mystery - awe, really - that Clarke conveyed in the novel has stayed with me my whole life. I agree with you about Heinlein, and also Asimov - both of whom I have always found to be over rated in their different ways. But Clarke is in a different league, imo, and his approach to science fiction - making the ideas the 'star' of the piece rather than complex or nuanced characterisation is a strength rather than a weakness. And few writers convey a sense of wonder in fiction, of any stripe, better than he.

[@friendlyone2706]

Clarke was a working scientist. Makes a difference.

[@svendtang5432]

RwR was an incredible plausible story… sometimes I get so tired with drama and characters navel watching. I just want to dive into the mystery.. and Rama has that quality

[@mikes4865]

Your reviews bring me back to my younger days when first read these books. Clarke was my favorite author back then. Now I much prefer more of character development.

[@alexp3462]

"I read horny people" - you had the perfect clickbait youtube thumbnail text right there. I made myself read the rest of the Asimov robots/Foundation "saga" for the sake of completion recently, and I would simply advise you never to do this. Kinda put me off ever getting round to The Gods Themselves tbh. Agree with you on Clarke's shortcomings but always enjoy being in the worlds he writes, remembering reading Rama when I was a teenager and feeling the wonder of that sense of discovery which I think other writers can struggle matching.

[@michaelsamerdyke108]

You are right. It is inconvenient to be a science fiction fan and not like Heinlein. Certainly 30 years ago. You summed up my experience very well.

[@davidgifford8112]

I was looking forward to this episode. All of these titles I had read decades ago as a teenager. Rama was my first hardback purchase (I so remember talking myself into buying a copy at that price) reading Rama then I felt it was fantastic. I read it again a few years ago and felt the shine had really worn off over the preceding decades. My youthful memory of The Gods themselves is very positive, perhaps I’m better off by not attending to re read it as well. As for The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, I never really enjoyed it, in fact found better things to do before I finished it.

[@Warstub]

24 years later I still have lingering images of Clarke's descriptions from the 3rd part of 2001. He was that good at bringing to life the seemingly unimaginable weirdness of space.

[@thedumbdog1964]

Been watching all your recent videos. Very glad you’ve uploaded. Agree that the computer was the only good thing in that book. Just a nice idea, teaching an AI humor

[@richelliott9320]

I agree with you on Heinlein on his later novels but not on the moon is a harsh mistress i really liked that one

[@frankmorlock9134]

I would not describe myself as a SciFi fan, although I've read some in the past. I read the first two Rama books which I liked. I agree that Clarke's books are not character driven, rather they are plot driven. They are memorable for the story which holds up pretty well. I can still recall how they had to improvise a plane to get from one end of the interior of Rama to the other. I never read any Asimov. He was still teaching at Boston University when I was an undergraduate there. But in those days I looked down on Sci Fi and wasn't interested. I like your reviews but I'm curious as to your metaphors with food, specifically this thing you have about lentils. You seem to find them edible and nutritious but not delicious. Frankly, I love them, and would still eat them even if they had no food value. But that's just me. Keep up the good work. BTW have you ever heard of Frances Stevens ? I never had, but her works which were written between 1918 and 1923 have just been published as e-books by Delphi Classics. They include 5 novels and some short stories. Again, nice review.

[@thelawfus]

It’s interesting that you mention that the first person narrator from Moon is a Harsh Mistress as a negative. This book was the first time I ever enjoyed first person narration. This is my favorite book by far, but I think your review was fair. This book is definitely anachronistic and not for everyone.

[@zonkster909]

I’ve always seen his novels as movies, even as I read them. Glory Road would be timeless if done correctly, and I hate to admit it but CGI would be required. Oscar waking up to find that Star had remade square miles of back country vistas to please him…. overnight. Unimaginable then, but now you can see it happening with 3-D printing and self-replicating machines etc.

[@sethball2475]

Of that batch, my standout is Rendezvous with Rama, followed closely by 2001 - but Clarke, like Asimov, is unmemorable for style, or "pizzazz", just like you said. On that note, I never really thought of it before, so concretely, but once you just spelled it out: it is the Voice of an SF writer, the way they write, that got me to read many many books by author A, whereas author B seemed workmanlike, using uninteresting prose telling an interesting story. This ties to your teaser: it is exactly why I read every Bob Shaw book I could find after discovering Orbitsville, in 1984, when I was sixteen years old. It is why I don't feel obsessed to read all things by Clarke or Asimov. Extremes, in my case, where I love going to the author for style, even when I know that I will not necessarily understand the plot or will have trouble with structure, are: John Crowley, or A. A. Attanasio (maybe Jeter too). And this is rare for me, because I am not a "I didn't understand anything that was going on, but I loved it!!" kind of guy. I hated The Moon is a Harsh Mistress. I figured you would not be happy, but was not positive. My memories of the book suggested very strongly that I was not going to be in for a surprise, when it came to your reaction. I have had happy times with Asimov's stuff, but not mind-blowing times. I had to fight against a tainted opinion before reading much by him, because when I picked up David Pringle's reading guide, called Science Fiction: The 100 Best Novels, back in 1985, I saw that his 2-page essay on the Asimov book he chose for the list, The End of Eternity, started with something like "He is one of the most admired and best loved authors of SF, but I confess to little enthusiasm for his work...But I felt I had to include something...". So there. Pringle goes on to mainly savage the book, with a few bits of praise. I came out of the essay feeling Pringle should have stuck to his principles and, no matter Asimov's reputation, not wasted a "100 Best" list spot with a book he did not like. My problem is, I don't gravitate to fix-up novels. So I have never had the urge to read the bits and pieces that make I, Robot. The Gods Themselves is not tempting me, either. I did read Foundation, and felt it was something patched together. The End of Eternity remains my fave Asimov to date, followed by Second Foundation (I got that as a gift, and skipped right over Foundation and Empire, many years ago). Nemesis was pretty good, Prelude to Foundation bored the living everything out of me. But I would read Asimov again; one of his nonfiction/science books helped me understand something and pass an exam, so I kind of owe him. I think the "3 books per video" idea is great, for both sides. You always seem to come back about three days before I get antsy for the next video; now I suppose you will be back just before I think of you.

[@Bookpilled]

I would like to read End of Eternity and the novel-length version of Nightfall he cowrote with Silverberg. I think that Asimov stands up fine when approached on a level with any other author, divorced from his Mt Rushmore prestige. Fix-ups are rough when they aren't fixed up properly. But some of my favorite books are fix-ups.

[@dawnmoriarty9347]

I find Asimov and Clarke patchy. I would assume because they wrote SO MUCH. Sometimes less is more I recently tried to reread Foundation and wondered why I was doing so but have kept it on my shelf for decades

[@MrWeezer55]

That was a bit of a rant about Heinlein, but I get it. My fondness for him stems from finding a slew of his 'juvenile' novels in my tiny elementary school library. Clarke I love as a visionary. I read that he and Kubrick had an agreement to release the movie and the book simultaneously, but Kubrick jumped the gun, which was a good move. The book is good, but it doesn't leave you scratching your head saying 'What the eff was all THAT!?'

[@marcoscs2447]

I agree with incrediblejonas: love rama and the characters doesnt matter in the story, that good is the argument. And I've just bought that book from Shaw "other day other eyes" or something like that. Lets see if it is that good. Great channel by the way, really like the way u expose your books opinions

[@joelcarson9514]

The "I, Robot" I remember reading was a collection of SF magazine short stories about robots by Asimov. The stories might feature previously used characters but were pretty much standalone. This was sometime in the late 1960s. The movie bore absolutely no resemblance to the collection of short stories. Of course.

[@father_flair]

I read "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" last year and enjoyed it. I never picked up on the libtertarian angle (even though I listen to a lot of socialist commentary and debates with libertarians), so your review gives me something to think about.

[@alexbarber1566]

kinda weird seeing the Will Smith cover for I, Robot, feel sorry for people that thought it was a cool movie and thought they'd have their first dabble into scifi books they probably wouldn't pick one up again!

[@bookmeridian]

I really enjoyed Rama, mainly while I read it I was picturing how bad ass Denis Villeneuve will make it. I really gotta pick up Eon, it's been staring at me from my shelf forever.

[@craigexsted6530]

I love the Reasons You give why You dislike certain authors ! Bravo and at least you can see a sliver of some good and that’s saying something ! Keep up the Good Reads !

[@adamconnor1898]

I found this interesting, in part because Mistress is easily Heinlein's best book, and close to his only good novel. (Stranger in a Strange Land has moments, but too many boring lectures from Jubal.) I can't think of anything readable he published afterwards. And, as far as Heinlein being a dirty old man -- I didn't really feel it strongly in Mistress. The books that came later, yes -- it's part of what makes them unreadable -- and it shows up in Glory Road, too. (I think parents offer the "hero" a chance to sleep with their 12 year old daughter? Yeech.) Asimov wasn't, in my mind, all that great a writer -- his characters tend to be wooden and uninteresting -- but he had a lot of interesting ideas, and I think that's one of the reasons he's still relevant. Agree that Clarke was... kind of bland. I read a bunch of his books in my youth (40 years ago) and barely remember any of it.

[@GotterdammerungBaby]

"Like being called to the principal's office and inappropriately touched" = sublimely perfect description of Heinlein's randy-old-man-in-a-silk-robe-who-thinks-he's-hip prose. My reaction to him is precisely the same as yours, and I actually *agree* with libertarian ideas. I made it halfway through The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress last week and gave up. I finished Stranger in a Strange Land when I was 13 and (despite being a typically horny teenager) felt like I needed a shower. It took me 44 years to try him again -- for the last time.

[@stephennootens916]

See I like the horny old man stuff and less so his politics which is why I love Friday and Beyond The Sunset which is all about the honey stuff. Admittedly I have read books like Fanny Hill and Naked Lunch so to me Heinlein's works are positively PG.

[@GotterdammerungBaby]

@@stephennootens916 The sexual content doesn't bother me it all. It's the wanna-be hipster, pervy tone of the writing that makes me cringe. It's like an Austin Powers scene that doesn't know it's a joke.

[@stephennootens916]

@@GotterdammerungBaby I get your point. Personally his work for me feels so light and almost through away I feel the sexual contact to be sort of shallow and childish. But than again what little of the golden area science fiction he was apart of feels light compared to my favorite writer Philip K Dick. I know he is not a grand writer but his characters feel like real people just trying to get by which you never feel about any Heinlein's characters.

[@carlgranados7106]

I love Asimov but his dialog is dated even back then somewhat (but much more now) but I loved the stories at the time. I tried to recently read one of his books I had missed and the dialog was just too slow for me. However I can say the same about Ray Bradbury but to me his stories are also dated. Heinlein has a different writing style in each book it seems. He's one of those writers that I only really enjoy a few of his books and others (while they may be great) I just can't get into them. Clarke's books on Space Odyssey and Rendezvous were pretty boring generally although the concepts at the time, were amazing at the time. However most of Clarke's other books are really fun and expanded my way of looking at the possibilities of the future.

[@Jim33142]

Great review, I agree pretty much with you 100%. However, I don’t mean to deride the three classic authors reviewed here but I can think of many modern authors who are much better writers, IMHO.

[@davea136]

I like the Asimov Robot stories for the same reason I like Ted Ciang, the puzzle box nature of the stories. Heinlein reads like a virgin nerd trying too hard to sound sexually sophisticated. But I still like him, the same way I like Doc Smith or Geoff Johns. Adventure for adventure's sake. _The God Themselves_ was written to win a bet. Look it up.

[@DonRedmond-jk6hj]

What about Poul Anderson's Tau Zero or James Blish's Cities in Flight?

[@friendlyone2706]

Loved Tau Zero! And the Integral Trees

[@robertmalinowski6804]

It would be interesting if you did a video about all the sequels to one of these series. Or more precisely, whichever one you enjoyed the most, and reading the sequels to that book.

[@anderssandstrom545]

Reading I, Robot right now and so far I really like it. Read Foundation before this one and loved them also.

[@VMSelvaggio]

I think it's funny you compare it to Lentils, honestly the best lentils I have ever had were Red Lentils from a fantastic Middle Eastern Restaurant I used to frequent in Arizona.

[@BooksForever]

You and I are similarly aligned in our relationship with Heinlein, characterized as a slightly mystified slightly miffed, “Meh. Meh? Yeah… meh. Wtf? Amirite? I’m underwhelmed and I don’t want to be.”

[@rishrao2332]

100% agree about Heinlein! Have you read Nemesis by Asimov? I found that to be one of Asimov’s better works. Also, The Fall of Sirius by Wil McCarthy. It’s written in superior prose, explores some novel concepts, and one can easily see its influence on contemporary, big screen sci-fi. It struggles a bit with the plot though. But I like that McCarthy does not get lazy with his world building, everything has an explanation. No hand-waving technologies or over usage of deus ex machina devices. Really good first contact interactions!

[@salomonschabrowsky7218]

Hi, I really like your channel and your profound knowledge of science-fiction literature. Since you pointed out in one of your videos that Robert A. Heinlein is a rightwinged author I wanted to ask you if you could do a video in which you highlight this political or ideological influences in sci-fi little bit deeper. I would really appreciate your perspective concerning this topic. all the best S.

[@MRG9494]

I had subscribed to the channel because I often enjoyed your way of reviewing books. However I don’t think you’re being intellectually honest in your critique of the Moon Is a Harsh Mistress. First, the moon is a penal colony, not a company town, and this is important to the plot. The protagonist is not Russian. Perhaps Heineken did a poor job of clarifying it through his writing in your mind, but he does spend significant amounts of verbiage demonstrating the melting pot of the protagonists family as well as most of the citizens of his city. The use of languages other than English is one of the examples. This also is important to the plot. The “horniness” you describe so scathingly may have been put in the story for no other purpose (I can’t lay any more claim to knowing what was in Heinleins mind than you can), but it equally could have been put in there to flesh out the characters. Obviously one likes what one likes, and no amount of explanation or argument will change many peoples’ opinions. As someone watching your review, despite your claim of open-mindedness to the contrary, it felt as though you had an expectation and worked to reach that expectation.

[@kaleishiacann8129]

I agree for the most part (is horniness a good way to flesh out a character though?) in that his bias, while consciously subdued, may have subconsciously affected his perception of the plot/themes etc. However, he stated that his main problem was with the prose. While this is still subjective, and potentially also subject to biases against Heinlein (which could be evidenced when he describes it as pretentious, which I honestly think could be said of many authors' proses), I feel like he is consistently critical of prose across the board. But again, biases could have lended to a different interpretation/enjoyment of the prose. I think regardless of what you decide, to youtubers credit he seems to have tried and finished (and tried to enjoy) a number of heinleins, even giving one a second chance (orphans? Cant remember which one, could be wrong).

[@dawnmoriarty9347]

The language used by the protagonist is at some point described as a direct result of the melting pot of languages and cultures. Since it's Heinlein's best guess at how that might evolve, it's inevitably clunky as with all attempts to create a language

[@ForNoOne1981]

The robot series is connected to the foundation series. While separate series, they are in the same universe, just at a different point in time.

[@stephenmorton8017]

a random find at the thrift: Gregory Benford's Galactic Center Series. i'm being constantly amazed at the concepts he threw out in 1984. they are everywhere now in the literature. tidally locked planets around old red dwarfs, etc.. just excellent nerdout science fiction in context. he even had an inkling of the gas giant around Epsilon Eridani in '84! now confirmed.

[@thescrewfly]

You've probably heard this before, but Heinlein just seemed to get worse with time. When I started reading him I soon realised that the books of his I liked were all actually written in the 40s and 50s and little or nothing after that point was of much interest to me. His juvenile books, strangely enough, are among his best. By the 1970s his novels had become increasingly repetitive, far too long and usually quite repellent. To my mind there's nothing particularly contrarian in not counting him among the great SF writers, not even by the "of his time" yardstick.

[@shannonm.townsend1232]

Bookpilled you have a link to SF Ultra, i couldn't find it.

[@darklingeraeld-ridge7946]

So good to hear quality of prose (and authorial voice) being valued… should be whatever the genre.

[@ajaxplunkett5115]

DO YOU ever feel this way: Guilty a bit ( as i do ) judging older works up against , by default , modern high quality works that cover the same themes and ideas of the " classics " of the older period? I wonder sometimes if we would have judged poorly some of The Big Three's works IF born in an earlier time. Yes , I too was impressed by Foundation , and some of Heinlein , a bit of Clark but they do come off a wee bit dusty and bland. I think to myself : What If - I were to read science fiction only in the order of publishing chronology ( a near impossibility i realize ) then it would be more " fair " when judging the merits of the work. But- I guess good story telling is good storytelling regardless when written or what was read first. Still- The publishers / editors and the Readers the writers were writing for- had their own rules/ expectations and taboos( censorship ). I hate not liking " the old classics " . Makes me feel bad. Guilty in a way. I get over it.

[@gbeat7941]

I found Moon is a Harsh Mistress OK but The Door into Summer is the Heinlein book I really liked, read a couple of others that didn’t do much for me

[@kimadams2995]

Yeah, me, too: the Door into Summer I remember fondly. A lot of his juvenile fiction wasn’t bad, back when I was a juvenile. But the later stuff was yick, and sort of annoyingly preachy yick, as though he was trying to convert you to his philosophy of perversion.

[@zonkster909]

Door into Summer was awesome.

[@JackMyersPhotography]

SFULTRA is a great recommendation, btw, thanks!

[@aajiv1748]

In a historical context , John W Campbell changed the face of modern science fiction when he became editor of Astounding Science Fiction in 1940, he said , or so to speak, he wanted step up for the pulpy sort of comic book 'SF' of the 1920s and 1930s. Banish Brass Bras and Bug Eyed Monsters. Heinlein and Asimov were his 'discoveries' , tho not the only ones , L Sprague De Camp and Theodore Sturgeon also come to mind. In the 1940s Heinlein's short stories made a big impression , he was a natural story teller, but he had a knack for verisimilitude , lacking in , say, Doc Smith. Asimov too had a gift for domesticated 'super science' , both could build lived-in worlds , that in the 1940s that hit a sweet spot for SF readers. Many other SF writers , like Jack Williamson, for example , who had been writing 'pulp' figured out how to get on Campbell's wavelength. Clarke was different he was a bit of a disciple of Olaf Stapleton , but a better writer of Big Thinks SF than Stapleton. Don't think Clarke published much in Astounding. This didn't keep Campbell from finding some clunkers like A.E. van Vogt (tho van Vogt wrote some good short stories). Campbell lost his touch in the 1950s , rejecting writers like Phil Dick and Robert Sheckley just to name a couple, H L Gold at Galaxy became the pioneer in the 1950s. Gold even published some Heinlein and Asimov that , apparently, Campbell turned down. I think Heinlein was still a good (no great) writer in the 1950s, his YA novels still read well, and yeah Double Star and Door Into Summer are worth reading. Starting with Stranger in a Strange Land (which I consider crap) there is no Heinlein worth reading. I never liked Asimov's The God's Themselves , when he wrote that there were plenty of SF writers who were doing better work. I feel like Heinlein and Asimov are more important for their 1940s legacy , Theodore Sturgeon, Fred Brown, Fred Pohl, C M Kornbluth , others, did better work even in the 1940s. Ted Sturgeon, that name again, I still can't figure out if you have read him?

[@Bookpilled]

I have read one short story collection of Sturgeon's. It didn't quite dazzle me but I hear all the time that he's the greatest short story author in the genre so will give him another shot eventually. Kornbluth is my favorite Golden Age author.

[@aajiv1748]

@@Bookpilled I lord , Kornbluth is an unjustly unknown author. Frederick Brown is equally good and hard to find. A long time observation , don't hear it mentioned that much anymore. The science fiction short story is the great forte of the genre . One problem is the modern retail store just does not have that many short story collections anymore. Plus the science fiction sections , even in large stores (if you can find a retail store!) don't have most of the great SF from the 1950s , many , if not most of the fine authors are just not reprinted.

[@paultheroman6637]

"Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach". I would alter this quote to end in preach. Critic's who evaluate the works of successful authors through the prism of current cultural trends, fads, and phases, loose sight of the context and the landscape during which the work was created. This perspective, ultimately, renders most historically relevant figures as caricatures of their true personalities, accomplishments, and significance. It is not only factually dishonest, but deprives the uninitiated of the process of discovery that is possible. Thus, much of the genius that was Mozart is replaced by the image of a vulgar, young, upstart. Lincoln is transformed into a bully even a tyrant. Heinlein becomes a misogynist, Fascist, pervert. None of these depictions is even remotely relevant to the complex, multi-layered intellects that reductionist reviewers attempt to portray. Fair to state that not every piece of work by notable creators from the past will appeal to all consumers but the fact that throughout the years a significant number of those that have sampled the fruits of the greats have come away filled with appreciation even admiration. Consequently, the opinions of an individual, be they good or bad, positive or negative, matter more to that individual than they do to anyone else. I would submit that there are vanishingly few authors who are writing today that will accomplish as much as the ones under discussion in this video. The test of time will always be the measure by which success or failure is gauged.

[@Theatre_Of_Noise]

Great video as always. Totally agree with your assessment of Heinlein. Over the last few years, I have been completing his novels chronologically. Recently got about 150 pages into Time Enough For Love and DNF'd it. I thought Stranger In A Strange Land was his worst but TEFL topped it with terrible dialog and just dated and trite romantic and sexual trash. The novels I liked from him are Citizen Of The Galaxy and Tunnel In The Sky. But I'm done trying to read his latter novels.