The Ron Hubbard Thread

[Vince W]

I read Battlefield Earth this year. It was entertaining enough. It moved along briskly and had a pulpy feel. It wasn't the best science fiction I've ever read, but neither was it the worst. Pretty much fizzy pop for the brain, which can be fun once in a while.

 

[BAYLOR]

I read Battlefield Earth this year. It was entertaining enough. It moved along briskly and had a pulpy feel. It wasn't the best science fiction I've ever read, but neither was it the worst. Pretty much fizzy pop for the brain, which can be fun once in a while.

And that is what I like most about it. It was sheer fun to read.

 

[JJewel]

L Ron didnt really believe in the cult stuff and when he realised how far it went he walked away.

As for his books, fun to read but diff to take seriously.

 

[Bick]

I just re-read this thread, and there was a fair bit of negative comment that Hubbard's work was all just thinly veiled propaganda for his cult. I don't think this is right, and if anyone's interested in reading LRH, his older golden-age SF predates his scientology invention. He came up with 'dianetics' as a physiological tool very early in his career (believing in it as a holistic self-help methodology, along with others such as Campbell), but he made no link to religion or Scientology until 1951. His golden-age work is therefore untainted by his wish to increase any revenue from Scientology, as the cult didn't yet exist. He was undoubtedly one of the big names in golden-age SF, often taking the cover on magazines of the time. I've not read his earlier work myself much, apart from the occasional short story, but I'd happily do so.

For clarity - 'Dianetics' was first published by Hubbard in 1950, and his 'church' wasn't founded until 1952 (following bankruptcy in '51), but he published the majority of his SF between 1938 and 1949, and Typewriter in the Sky (perhaps his most famous novel) was published in 1940, twelve years before he conceived of the 'religion'.

For further clarity: I'm not a Scientology apologist, I think they're all nutters.

 

[BAYLOR]

I just re-read this thread, and there was a fair bit of negative comment that Hubbard's work was all just thinly veiled propaganda for his cult. I don't think this is right, and if anyone's interested in reading LRH, his older golden-age SF predates his scientology invention. He came up with 'dianetics' as a physiological tool very early in his career (believing in it as a holistic self-help methodology, along with others such as Campbell), but he made no link to religion or Scientology until 1951. His golden-age work is therefore untainted by his wish to increase any revenue from Scientology, as the cult didn't yet exist. He was undoubtedly one of the big names in golden-age SF, often taking the cover on magazines of the time. I've not read his earlier work myself much, apart from the occasional short story, but I'd happily do so.

For clarity - 'Dianetics' was first published by Hubbard in 1950, and his 'church' wasn't founded until 1952 (following bankruptcy in '51), but he published the majority of his SF between 1938 and 1949, and Typewriter in the Sky (perhaps his most famous novel) was published in 1940, twelve years before he conceived of the 'religion'.

For further clarity: I'm not a Scientology apologist, I think they're all nutters.

Typewriter in the Sky fun and comically funny book. Its very much worth reading .

He was a very good writer.

 

[Bick]

He was a very good writer.

'Very good' is perhaps debatable, but he was probably no worse than many of the golden-age greats, who in the main were professional artisans who wrote competently for the pulps, but who were certainly not artists. Was Hubbard worse than van Vogt or del Rey? None of them were exactly Chekhov.

 

[BAYLOR]

'Very good' is perhaps debatable, but he was probably no worse than many of the golden-age greats, who in the main were professional artisans who wrote competently for the pulps, but who were certainly not artists. Was Hubbard worse than van Vogt or del Rey? None of them were exactly Chekhov.

No, they were not Anton Chekhov's , but they entertained.

 

[BAYLOR]

L Ron didnt really believe in the cult stuff and when he realised how far it went he walked away.

As for his books, fun to read but diff to take seriously.

He become a very rich man.

 

[JJewel]

Nothing wrong with that surely?, money is never a hindrance in life and ultimately it is the quality of your life not the quantity of cash that completes you as a person.