On 5/14/07, Robert G. Seeberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/05/13/pulp_affection/ > > > > True, the book isn't particularly well-written. I discovered it when I > was 15, and although I was an omnivorous reader, even then I > recognized that Hubbard was nowhere near as talented a stylist as > Edgar Rice Burroughs, Dashiell Hammett, Philip K. Dick, or certain > other pulp authors. That said, "Battlefield" is no worse than some of > the lesser works of, say, science-fiction giant Robert Heinlein (who > called it "a terrific story").
The first time I read this, I misread it as saying that _Battlefield_ is no worse than Heinlein. But then I reread and saw that he credited Heinlein as a "science-fiction giant" and said that _Battlefield_ was no worse than some of Heinlein's lesser stuff. And I found myself agreeing. Even though Heinlein wrote some of my very favorite books, he also wrote some that I really didn't enjoy much at all. And that got me thinking about other authors. I having trouble thinking of other authors who wrote some things as good as, say, _The Moon is a Harsh Mistress_ and _Starship Trooper_, and some as bad as _Farmer in the Sky_ -- and yes, I realize some people actually like that one, but I found it incredibly dull. Asimov doesn't seem to have as much range between his best and worst, nor does Clarke. Nor does Brin, Bear, or Benford -- hah, I managed to mention all three Killer B's in one post! Can anyone else thing of a prominent science fiction author with such a range between their best and their worst? -- Mauro Diotallevi "Hey, Harry, you haven't done anything useful for a while -- you be the god of jello now." -- Patricia Wrede, 8/16/2006 on rasfc _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
