Lovely

On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 20:11:05 +0100, Champ wrote:

As far as Heinlein goes, yes. I reckon it's too much trouble for a new
reader to filter out the decent books from the dross. And some of his
stuff is _very_ bad. Possibly even worse than L Ron Hubbard!

 

yebbut - surely some of us providing recommendations is doing s doing
exactly that?

 

I'm just scared that some poor soul will read one of his better books,
then decide that it's worth at least trying one of the other. Next thing
you know they're reading "Farnham's Freehold" or - gasp! - "Number of the
Beast"! Nothing is worth that.

 

Not one of my favourites, but I certainly wouldn't put Simak in the same
class as the worst of Heinlein or Hubbard.

 

Verdigris wrote

Heinlein? Better Books? What have I missed now? The bloke wrote
nothing but unmitigated crap and is one of the very small list of SF
authors I have vowed to read no more of and I have got badges on my
anorak.

 

I recall reading some of his stuff when I was a kiddie: big yellow
Gollancz hardbacks from the library, and lots of anthologies. Seemed OK
at the time, but I'll grant that I wasn't the most discerning reader. I'm
not quite sure if I own any books by him; must be one or two upstairs.

I would say that there's quite a difference between the sort of flat,
uninspired writing you describe and the inventively dreadful crap that RAH
came out with.

 

On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 22:28:08 +0000, Simian wrote:

<SNIP Pointless URL>

Why not just give me the title? Then, if I don't know it alread I can
look it up myself if I feel like it. As it is, I don't know the title or
author(s) because I read UKRM off-line.

Heinlein's "Number of the Beast" is still the worst book that I have ever
finished.[1]

[1] There are a few that I've started then given up on in disgust/despair,
but I'm pretty stubborn.[2]
[2] Or naively optimistic.

 

<sad>
Somehow, I always expected better of you.
</s>

 

Saved, for laterer admiration and possibubble warship.