I can't remember where I picked up this book, but I had reasonably enjoyed Heinlein's Stranger in a Strange Land---at least the sci-fi aspects---so I figured this might be a good read. Overall, it was alright, though rather pulpy. I was a bit annoyed with the main character: he was really rooted---values-wise---in the era the book was written (the early 1950s), though they did have a very capable female agent (who, of course, ended up marrying the main character).
The plot was similar to countless invasion stories, where a virus kills the aliens in the end. I did like the "puppet master" aspect where the "slugs" were controlling the bodies and minds of the humans. It was different than some of the other mind control methods I have read and seen. The funny part of that was the "masters" didn't know how to run the humans. It reminded me of how the Sims need to be taken to the bathroom, put to bed and made to eat.
Heinlein's writing was nothing to speak of. It reminded me of detective novels that I have read from the same time period, with a nonchalant though-guy attitude. It was a bit annoying at times, but moved the story along quickly.
6/10
Just a few of things in passing, and a conclusion:
ReplyDeletethat you (and Jason) rightfully seem to dare often trenchant critiques of the books you are reading, which I, among others, certainly appreciate; and
that Heinlein is KNOWN for being a person of conservative values applied to the the intrepid world of the (then and now) dimly viewed future seen through the biblically renowned "dark glass" - a kind of what might be errantly referred to as an example of 'Sir Knight'; AND
that we should not too readily condemn things as something from the dark and pre-enlightenment 1950s that a) are from the 1950s when b) so much was so light and so enlightened and so HOPE filled, compared with the present, which often seems depressed and filled with despair. If the values of that era tell us anything it might not be that folks were "so thick they could not understand how things ought to be done" but that folks were so freed from static semi-poverty that they were also free to pursue dreams anew, right down to the floor of the poverty-stricken (some of whom I knew and knew well, and remain, even today, in awe of for what they did with their otherwise hopeless lives) and lift themselves up to the level of their (albeit often modest) dreams for themselves, for their families -- quite a difference from the wealthy and sons and daughters of the wealthy being the only ones who, from the 1880s through the 1940s [I trust you have or will soon read "Winsburg, Ohio"] could embrace lighthearted hope instead of meagre hope.
If new age-ist enlightenments have gotten to us where we are now, in any part by pushing aside the values and 'long view' of Heinlein and others of his generation, then perhaps we haven't climbed up so high or out so far but hven fallen downward, backard upon our crumpled selves.
I, frankly, do not happen to think either extreme is the Truth, writ large, but that the truth of all these matters depends upon the individuals who live those moments and accomplish what it is they do; but I do think that whether an age conceives to live in hope and harmony and in striving for cohesiveness, OR to live in grumbling despair and discontinuity that engenders disintegration and social nightfall, matters.
Collectively stated, my point is that it helps to apply something like a realistic historical perspective when engaging literary criticism. In that regard, Heinlein comes off as 'Seer Knight.'
I agree that historical and cultural perspective must be taken into account and I do not begrudge Heinlein for merely reflecting and extrapolating his time to a future that is unlike our own in many ways. That part I appreciate and understand.
ReplyDeleteIn this book Heinlein does not push his characters in any way and, as such, the story comes across like so many Micheal Bay movies, where you know who will live, die and fall in love by the end of the second chapter and how each character will react to each situation. These stories have their place---they are good "beach reads"---and, as such, can't be blamed for their lack of social commentary.
"Stranger in a Strange Land" was much different in that regard. The characters were pushed to their limits of understanding and asked to evaluate an entirely different mode of thought and life. Heinlein had a character that was similarly a reflection of 1950s values as the main character in "Puppet Masters", but to see those values pushed a bit better defined the character, giving much more depth to the book.
Again, I am sure this is a reflection of the time---"Stranger" being from the 1970s, just as those 1950s values were really being given a run for their money. But, frankly, this conflict makes for better reading than a rehash of classic sci-fi themes.
To conclude, yes, historical perspective is important, but it shouldn't be used as an excuse for vapid writing.