Status
Available
Call number
Genres
Publication
Dey Street Books (2018), Edition: Illustrated, 544 pages
Description
"Astounding is the landmark account of the extraordinary partnership between four controversial writers--John W. Campbell, Isaac Asimov, Robert A. Heinlein, and L. Ron Hubbard--who set off a revolution in science fiction and forever changed our world"--
User reviews
LibraryThing member Shrike58
In some ways much of what the author has to say with this book is not news. It's not news that John W. Campbell was a difficult man who descended into intellectual dottiness over time while never overcoming a bad racist streak. It's not news that Bob Heinlein's intellectual flexibility dwindled as
What is news is that Nevala-Lee, by taking these men as a unit, gives one some sense of how the Astounding "machine" functioned as a community, though maybe not quite as the "think tank" type organization that Campbell hoped it would become, and what were the lines of influence within the group. Regarding lines of influence outside the group the most important player might be Jack Parsons; joint founder of the famed Jet Propulsion Laboratory and a notorious occultist. Parsons was the conduit, due to his relationship with Hubbard, by which Dianetics ultimately became Scientology. The rest, as they say, is history.
Frankly, there are many sad aspects to this book in which men with genuine talent display an inability to rise above their worst tendencies, though Campbell might be the saddest in that he cultivated a distinct mentality of victimhood and frustrated ambition that could never be assuaged by his real achievements; one is reminded of some of our contemporary "edgelords" running rampant until their public acting out brings about their downfall. One also wonders why Campbell & Heinlein gave Hubbard so much benefit of the doubt for so long after it became clear that he was mad, bad and dangerous to know.
Be that as it may, if you're interested in the history of science fiction as a genre and don't want to read a whole stack of books you could do much worse than by reading this one.
Show More
his health deteriorated. It's not news that L. Ron Hubbard was a manipulative sociopath. It's also not news that Isaac Asimov's public behavior towards women would not cut it in regards to contemporary standards...and really didn't cut it back in the day.What is news is that Nevala-Lee, by taking these men as a unit, gives one some sense of how the Astounding "machine" functioned as a community, though maybe not quite as the "think tank" type organization that Campbell hoped it would become, and what were the lines of influence within the group. Regarding lines of influence outside the group the most important player might be Jack Parsons; joint founder of the famed Jet Propulsion Laboratory and a notorious occultist. Parsons was the conduit, due to his relationship with Hubbard, by which Dianetics ultimately became Scientology. The rest, as they say, is history.
Frankly, there are many sad aspects to this book in which men with genuine talent display an inability to rise above their worst tendencies, though Campbell might be the saddest in that he cultivated a distinct mentality of victimhood and frustrated ambition that could never be assuaged by his real achievements; one is reminded of some of our contemporary "edgelords" running rampant until their public acting out brings about their downfall. One also wonders why Campbell & Heinlein gave Hubbard so much benefit of the doubt for so long after it became clear that he was mad, bad and dangerous to know.
Be that as it may, if you're interested in the history of science fiction as a genre and don't want to read a whole stack of books you could do much worse than by reading this one.
Show Less
LibraryThing member waldhaus1
Having been a science fiction fan since before I was a teenager I found this to be a delightful book. It deals with the golden age of science fiction and some of the pillars of the science fiction author community. Revealing information about John W Campbell, Isaac Asimov, Robert Heinlein, L Ron
At times it did seem to drag. I was particularly struck by parallels between the fears of nuclear holocoust in the late forties and early fifties, and our current anxiety about artificial intelligence.
Perhaps we have learned to live with nuclear weapons - yet the doomsday clock periodically is moved a bit closer to the zero hour for a nuclear war.
Show More
Hubbard and many others. At times it did seem to drag. I was particularly struck by parallels between the fears of nuclear holocoust in the late forties and early fifties, and our current anxiety about artificial intelligence.
Perhaps we have learned to live with nuclear weapons - yet the doomsday clock periodically is moved a bit closer to the zero hour for a nuclear war.
Show Less
LibraryThing member magicians_nephew
This is a hard one Astounding by Alec Nevala-Lee is a new book - non-fiction about the early days of "pulp" science fiction and the magazine that really started it all off.
This book wisely focuses on John W. Campbell the editor and three of his superstar writers : Isaac Asimov, Robert Heinlein and
A lot of other writers of my childhood make cameo appearances and that can make me smile. It was a time of space travel and a time of scientific advancement. A lot of good writing is talked up here and some pleasant memories of Foundation, the early Future History stories and others are recalled . So some nice memories.
BUT then you have to deal with the fact that Campbell was a mystic and a racist, and Heinlein went rapidly from libertarian and master storyteller to curmudgeon who kept repeating himself endlessly and that L. Ron Hubbard was never better than a "C" level writer anyway (and that his creation of "Scientology" probably deserves to be the subject of a book all to itself).
And Isaac Asimov who was funny and chatty every kid fan's wish fulfillment (Hey he made it - maybe I can too) was so insecure about women and so obnoxious about it that he tended to pinch bottoms and "Accidentally" put his hands on breasts so that women who knew the score learned to avoid the part of the office or the part of the Sci-Fi convention where Isaac Asimov happened to be. Not pretty.
Confession to make: I was one of the geeky kids who liked to hang around Dr Asimov and I certainly was witness to some of the above. Did i call him out on it? Maybe I should have.
We have Foundation and we have the robot stories and the body of work is not the man. But It changes how I think of them - and him.
A good book and well researched. And yet. And yet.
This book wisely focuses on John W. Campbell the editor and three of his superstar writers : Isaac Asimov, Robert Heinlein and
Show More
(how did he get in here?) L. Ron Hubbard. A lot of other writers of my childhood make cameo appearances and that can make me smile. It was a time of space travel and a time of scientific advancement. A lot of good writing is talked up here and some pleasant memories of Foundation, the early Future History stories and others are recalled . So some nice memories.
BUT then you have to deal with the fact that Campbell was a mystic and a racist, and Heinlein went rapidly from libertarian and master storyteller to curmudgeon who kept repeating himself endlessly and that L. Ron Hubbard was never better than a "C" level writer anyway (and that his creation of "Scientology" probably deserves to be the subject of a book all to itself).
And Isaac Asimov who was funny and chatty every kid fan's wish fulfillment (Hey he made it - maybe I can too) was so insecure about women and so obnoxious about it that he tended to pinch bottoms and "Accidentally" put his hands on breasts so that women who knew the score learned to avoid the part of the office or the part of the Sci-Fi convention where Isaac Asimov happened to be. Not pretty.
Confession to make: I was one of the geeky kids who liked to hang around Dr Asimov and I certainly was witness to some of the above. Did i call him out on it? Maybe I should have.
We have Foundation and we have the robot stories and the body of work is not the man. But It changes how I think of them - and him.
A good book and well researched. And yet. And yet.
Show Less
LibraryThing member Stevil2001
This is essentially a biography of John W. Campbell, who as editor of Astounding/Analog from 1937 to 1971 reshaped the genre of science fiction, cultivating many great talents, and publishing many classics of the genre. But because editors do their work through their authors, it also weaves into
Show More
Campbell's story the stories of three key writers, as indicated in the subtitle. It's a great, fascinating book; I knew a little about Campbell from reading Asimov's autobiographies, but Nevala-Lee dives deeps, showing his transformation to mediocre writer to sterling editor to hateful crackpot across the course of a long life. I didn't know that, for example, he helped Hubbard write Dianetics, or that it was first published in the pages of Astounding (because, surprise, no medical journal would take it). It's well-researched and well-written. Show Less
LibraryThing member John_Warner
I was born during the tail end of the Golden Age of Science Fiction, a period between the late 1930s through the 1950s. It was doing this period that science fiction became respectable. Prior to this period, the majority of science fiction was distributed as "pulp fiction." As an young boy, I cut
The author provided biographies of four notables within his book: John Campbell, Isaac Asimov, Robert Heinlein, and L. Ron Hubbard. However, the characters of these science fiction luminaries had little to admire.
Campbell was interested in psychology and its potential to create a new man. Since Campbell was a racist, homophobic and anti-Semitic, I shudder at what he might have evolved if his philosophy had been accepted. This was why he was attracted to Hubbard, who shared a similar interest. Shortly after the two met, Hubbard began developing a new form of psychotherapy called Dianetics. Decades later his pseudoscience was repackaged as a new religion, Scientology. He firmly believed that if he had not given this religion to the world, there would have been "social and economic chaos." When Campbell broke with Hubbard, Asimov knew that this split was inevitable since "no movement can have two Messiahs." This statement fostered my opinion that Hubbard demonstrated paranoia and narcissism to the point of megalomania.
Although both Heinlein and Asimov were friend of the younger Hubbard, they distanced themselves from Dianetics and Scientology. However, each had their flaws. Asimov was a chronic philanderer, which resulted in divorce and estrangement from his son. Heinlein, referenced frequently as the "Dean of Science Fiction Writers," espoused militarism in many of his works.
As I said early, I read several authors from the Golden Age of Science Fiction, including Asimov (The Foundation Trilogy) and Heinlein (Stranger in a Strange Land). However, when one looks at the characters of the authors whose books I relished, there is little to be desired. Sometimes it is better to divorce the works from the men themselves.
Overall, I enjoyed peeking into the lives of the authors who made science fiction popular to the general public, which resulted in such classic literature as 2001: A Space Odyssey and the Star Wars film series. Many of the early astronauts chose their careers being inspired by the science fiction of their youth.
Show More
my teeth on science fiction from the Golden Age with such authors as Asimov, Heinlein, and Simak. The one man that did the most to foster in this age was John Campbell, the editor of such magazines as Astounding Science Fiction. He solicited novellas and short stories emphasizing the psychological development of the characters as well as technological advances.The author provided biographies of four notables within his book: John Campbell, Isaac Asimov, Robert Heinlein, and L. Ron Hubbard. However, the characters of these science fiction luminaries had little to admire.
Campbell was interested in psychology and its potential to create a new man. Since Campbell was a racist, homophobic and anti-Semitic, I shudder at what he might have evolved if his philosophy had been accepted. This was why he was attracted to Hubbard, who shared a similar interest. Shortly after the two met, Hubbard began developing a new form of psychotherapy called Dianetics. Decades later his pseudoscience was repackaged as a new religion, Scientology. He firmly believed that if he had not given this religion to the world, there would have been "social and economic chaos." When Campbell broke with Hubbard, Asimov knew that this split was inevitable since "no movement can have two Messiahs." This statement fostered my opinion that Hubbard demonstrated paranoia and narcissism to the point of megalomania.
Although both Heinlein and Asimov were friend of the younger Hubbard, they distanced themselves from Dianetics and Scientology. However, each had their flaws. Asimov was a chronic philanderer, which resulted in divorce and estrangement from his son. Heinlein, referenced frequently as the "Dean of Science Fiction Writers," espoused militarism in many of his works.
As I said early, I read several authors from the Golden Age of Science Fiction, including Asimov (The Foundation Trilogy) and Heinlein (Stranger in a Strange Land). However, when one looks at the characters of the authors whose books I relished, there is little to be desired. Sometimes it is better to divorce the works from the men themselves.
Overall, I enjoyed peeking into the lives of the authors who made science fiction popular to the general public, which resulted in such classic literature as 2001: A Space Odyssey and the Star Wars film series. Many of the early astronauts chose their careers being inspired by the science fiction of their youth.
Show Less
Awards
Hugo Award (Nominee — 2019)
Locus Award (Finalist — Non-Fiction — 2019)
Language
Original language
English
Original publication date
2018
Physical description
544 p.; 9 inches
ISBN
006257194X / 9780062571946