/lit/ - Literature

I bet less than 1% of /lit/ has read this but go ahead

What is the best sci-fi novel ever written and why is it Stranger on a Strange Land?

Discuss, comment, or just insult me or my mother.

is this any good?

dont know where else to post this as i never post on lit but i just want to say this book is garbage, havent finished it yet but i hate every page that jubal hershaw graces with his presence

Pedantic, banal, and frequently offensive. All the characters but one were flat. The one character with any actual character was a preachy asshole who looks a lot like a mouthpiece for the author. The plot was boring and completely squandered the premise. The prose was dull and the philosophy was cynical and tyrannical.

The story is transparently a playing out of the author's junior high, male power fantasies, while trying to be religiously subversive (emphasis on trying). Incessantly toxic and misogynistic, with smatterings of racism and homophobia for fun (and presented as such). The finale--the moment of supposed emotional culmination--was the hamfisted Jesus 2.0 martyrdom of the sex-cult ubermensch, who might as well have been conceived by Ayn Rand.

I wished to cease reading this continually, but persevered in order to say just how terrible it is. It is certifiable trash. If you're considering reading it, don't. I have read it to save you. It is no wonder people thought so little of fiction.

I just finished reading this yesterday, what are everyone's thoughts on it? It was not what I thought it was going to end up being but I found myself enjoying it by the end.

Whats the fucking rundown on this book do I pick it up to read right now or not

Pedantic, banal, and frequently offensive. All the characters but one were flat. The one character with any actual character was a preachy asshole who looks a lot like a mouthpiece for the author. The plot was boring and completely squandered the premise. The prose was dull and the philosophy was cynical and tyrannical.

The book is transparently a playing out of the author's junior high, male power fantasies, while trying to be religiously subversive (emphasis on trying). Incessantly toxic and misogynistic, with smatterings of racism and homophobia for fun (and presented as such). The finale--the moment of supposed emotional culmination--was the hamfisted Jesus 2.0 martyrdom of the sex-cult ubermensch, who might as well have been conceived by Ayn Rand.

I wished to cease reading this continually, but persevered in order to say just how terrible it is. It is certifiable trash. If you own this book, burn it. If you're considering reading it, don't. I have read this book to save you. It is no wonder people thought so little of science fiction.

What was Heinlein smoking? Is the moral of this book "Believe whatever the fuck you want and love each other?" Do I grok?

>>8640272
I like this one

What was the last book you gave up on and why? Pic related, I got a hundred pages in before I stopped. It's super boring and I really don't care about any of the characters.

ITT: Books you hate that everyone else loves

Discuss.

I've always liked this one.

So...when the hell did this novel go from charming and interesting to straight up insulting and over-the-top? The first half is extremely enjoyable to read, and the sexism and the racism are subtle enough to laugh off. About mid way through, however, the sexism is notched up to a whole new level. I find it really funny and rather presumptuous when male writers "speak through" their female characters; i.e. as long as it is Jill and not Jubal saying "nine out of ten times it is the girl's fault for getting raped," it is somehow "okay." The shift in this book from "innocent" sexuality to hippy-esque promiscuity just reeks of the whole [patriarchal] neo-liberal discourse surrounding the so-called "sexual liberation of women" in the 1960's. "Sexual liberation" is not - contrary to what Heinlein seems to think - self-exploitation and promiscuity. Funny how the image of sexual liberation we get here is entirely a product of male fantasies rather than a thoughtful interrogation into female sexual desire produced outside the sphere of the male gaze.
Another problem with this book - despite "queer" possibilities, Heinlein quickly re-entrenches a heterosexist discourse. Heaven forbid Mike kiss or f*ck a male water brother. Instead, he must be "warned" of the dangers of homosexuality and accept that his male water brothers are too "masculine" to accept such advances. Oh, and of course, the female water brothers are just "too female" to resist his advances. At several points in the book, lesbianism is dismissed as un-feminine (except, of course, when Mike - the big strong sexually virile man - acts as a conduit in the sexual exchange between women, for example, Patricia and Jill).
The sheer hypocrisy of the whole thing is tough - I feel like Heinlein wrote this thinking 'oh, how high-minded and sexually open I am' and what we're given instead is an Ayn Rand-esque moral banging-over-the-head that is thoroughly old-fashioned.

>>7400540

I must admit that I had to stop at around page 150 and that I could not read this book to the end, thing that I try hard to avoid doing.
Firstly, I could not stand the just-under-the-surface sexism and chauvinism of the text. This might be, to some extent, somewhat forgivable in a masterpiece like Asimov's Foundation series (IMO), but when appearing in a lesser book, and especially when compounded with other issues, it becomes a showstopper.
The characters are monochromatic shallow caricatures to which I could not even begin to relate, the plot is frankly boring, not in the least credible, and quite predictable.
At page 150 I was left wondering what the heck I was doing wasting my time on this cultural fossil out of the fortunately bygone period when, as it appears in the book, the greatest aspiration of women was to obtain the admiration of the available alpha male or, even better, get a marriage proposal.

DUDE, HUMANISM LMAO

well that was well that was strange.

Did you like this book?

I went into it expecting a fairly straight forward fiction and was surprised by the book, there was obviously that huge shift around halfway from a traditional fiction to that more pensive/reflective religious theme.

I read the Uncut version. Is the differences between the 2 (cut and uncut) quite noticeable?

>>6226370
I know most people would disagree with me but whatever