|
|
|
Heinlein in Dimension, a Critical Analysis.
by Alexei Panshin
Product Group: Book
Publisher: Advent Publishers (1968-06)
ISBN: 0911682120
EAN: 9780911682120
Dewy Decimal #: 813.54
Paperback: 214 pages
Edition: Revised
SKU: 05286
Condition: Collectible: Good
Comments: SIGNED by author along with small drawing of bird. 1974 reprint, paperback. Foxing on edge of pages.
|
Customer Reviews
|
If you hate Heinlein, read this book. You'll love every page.
Rating  (1)
Date: 2008-07-10
2 out of 2 customers found this reveiw helpful
I have wanted to read this book for a long time. I have heard about it from the various Heinlein reviews and web sites. It is usually panned by people who are Heinlein fans, and I thought that I should read it. I think Heinlein is a great author, but not without his flaws. It would be interesting to see what a structured review that was generally thought to be critical of Heinlein would have to say.
Panshin is a writer of some talent, I don't think that he's as good as Heinlein, but he has some talent, he writes as if he had a degree in English while Heinlein is not so polished. Panshin would probably have something meaningful to say.
My first impression was that Panshin was one of those adults blind to social skills, inadvertently saying insulting things when he means to be positive. He would actually say that he really enjoyed this story or that one, but that it was really very badly flawed. After reading this comment over and over you begin to believe that he saying he enjoyed the story so that he isn't constantly negative, that his positive comments are just to keep you from putting the book down in disgust with the constant negative drone.
Panshin will praise Heinlein for some facet he says Heinlein does well, such as his technical knowledge, since, after all, Heinlein was an engineer. Panshin however, will then slowly denigrate such skill as being unimportant in writing, not really something a good story needs. By the time you are near the end, it is obvious that none of Heinlein's writing is good enough for Panshin, everything that was good, such as his ability to construct a good story plot, really is one of his weaknesses!
The last 10% of the book is really wearying, a trial to read. I skimmed much it, but there really wasn't much there except more shoveling of dirt onto the supposed grave.
You really have to wonder what Heinlein ever did to Panshin. Since Panshin is really disparaging of Heinlein's libertarian heroes and philosophy, it could be that Panshin is just a statist and is angered by Heinlein's success with libertarian themes, or maybe he just is angered that he will never be remembered as an important writer as Heinlein will be. Whatever the reason, it is clear that Panshin doesn't like Heinlein.
|
|
Panshin, Heinlein, and Beethoven :-)
Rating  (3)
Date: 2006-09-04
5 out of 5 customers found this reveiw helpful
Panshin is a problematic character in the history of Heinlein fandom and scholarship because although this work was the first book-length Heinlein study, as many have observed here, much of the book is simply a personal attack on Heinlein rather than objective literary criticism. That having been said, the book did contain some insights into Heinlein's work that I found valuable, and I basically ignored the other biased criticisms. I give the work three stars for a pioneering effort and for providing at least some useful insights on Heinlein and his works. But it could have been so much better if Panshin had been able to control his obvious personal dislike of Heinlein.
Panshin and I corresponded briefly some years ago on several topics related to Heinlein's work (mostly on his ideas relating to the Renshawing concepts in Citizen of the Galaxy). I was very critical of his ideas there, but I have to give credit to Panshin who accepted them without ire and the correspondence remained civil throughout.
Around that time, we got into another debate on the Heinlein SIG on the subject of Heinlein's first story, Lifeline, and I thought I would post that here in case people find it interesting, since Panshin has expended a great deal of effort criticizing Heinlein for his supposed faults. So I offer a perspective on that here for Heinlein, and artists in general.
During the discussion, several people commented that Panshin's criticism of Lifeline was nothing more than nitpicking and pettiness. It might be, but I can't disagree with his statement that a later, more mature Heinlein might have written the story better. But it's impossible to disagree with that statement for most artists--it could probably be said of any and all artists--no matter how great.
That having been said, I wanted to make a few more comments about this. I'm no literary critic, and since I am much more knowledgeable about music and art history than literary criticism, I'll use my background there to make my point, since I come at it from a somewhat different perspective.
At least in music and art, it is not the case that even the greatest masters of an art form or genre demonstrate their superiority at every turn. Take Beethoven, for example, arguably the greatest composer who ever lived. He often had technical problems with his musical transitions, those parts of a symphony that tie the other sections together and act as bridge elements.
On the other hand, Schubert and Mendelsohn composed transitions that were smooth as silk, and although they were great composers themselves, I wouldn't put either of them in the same league with Beethoven.
On the other hand, Schubert (arguably the second greatest composer, after his mentor, Beethoven), harmonically wanders around the circle of fifths as if he doesn't understand intermediate harmony at times. However, he is probably the greatest example of the "artesian well" stereotype of a composer. His melodies seem to "well up" from nowhere and he had no problem coming up with thousands of them.
In contrast, Beethoven often struggled with his melodic material. And yet he could create an entire movement in the 5th symphony from a musical phrase that doesn't even qualify as a melody (actually, it's only four notes), being more of small snippet or "idee fixe," as one historian has written. In other words, Beethoven could create a work of genius starting with source material that was quite modest and almost hum-drum, perhaps even minimalist, in a way no other composer could.
This is important, because although there are composers who could more easily come up with melodic material than Beethoven, they still didn't know how to develop it like he could. They might start out with better material, but the "finished product" wasn't as good because they lacked Beethoven's genius at thematic development and exposition.
There are other problems with Beethoven, but I'll leave it at that. If he was a times a little rough around the edges, as in his transitions, he can be forgiven for this relatively minor problem because his contributions in the most important areas were so amazing. To mention just two of these, he greatly increased the complexity and sophistication of harmonic and symphonic structure more than any other composer before or since.
Another way of thinking about it is that Beethoven, like Heinlein, was a pioneer and trail-blazer who revolutionized our thinking about music (or science fiction). If they're both a little rough around the edges at times, I don't mind that--as the refinement of a field can be left to the lesser artists and those who follow after (which is essentially what happened). And the same goes for the subsequent development of science fiction.
I'm sure this idea applies to great literary figures as well, and so I suspect the same thing could be said about Heinlein as about Beethoven. As I said, like Beethoven, Heinlein wasn't just another competent artist who just "upped the ante" a bit; he was a revolutionary who blazed new trails in SF writing, going where no man had gone before.
No artist or writer is perfect. Even if Heinlein had a few minor faults, as Panshin has maintained in this book, they pale into insignificance in contrast to the greatness of his overall contributions, just as Beethoven's do.
|
|
The good, the bad, and .. you decide
Rating (3)
Date: 2000-04-09
16 out of 16 customers found this reveiw helpful
I waited a long time before deciding to to buy and read this book. Heinlein was the author of the first SF I ever read; I didn't read anything by Panshin until twenty years later. However, I like them both, in different ways and for different reasons. While I cannot say I agree with all of the observations, criticisms, and conclusions Panshin has made about Heinlein -- I don't -- "Heinlein in Dimension" *did* make me think a bit more about the Heinlein I've read. Seeing how Panshin viewed him and his work has made me consider my own opinions on the matter. If you're looking for an RAH cheerleading book, this isn't it. If you're looking for a completely objective and unbiased book about Heinlein and his work, I don't think this is it either. If, however, you're familiar with Heinlein (even a fan), are looking for someone *trying* to be objective about the subject, and can read it with the continual remembrance that you're reading someone's *opinion*, then you might find "Heinlein in Dimension" worthwhile -- in viewpoint-stretching ways if not as pure analysis.
|
|
How not to study an author
Rating  (2)
Date: 2000-02-23
6 out of 15 customers found this reveiw helpful
Alexei Panshin started off on the wrong foot with this book: he read some of Mr. Heinlein's mail without first getting Heinlein's permission. This in turn led Heinlein to refuse to cooperate with him, or even speak with him when they met at a public event (Heinlein said: "You have read my mail. GOOD DAY, SIR!" and he turned his back on him). Panshin demonstrates at length in this book that he doesn't like Heinlein, doesn't approve of his ideas, doesn't understand him, and thinks that Heinlein isn't a very good writer. How much of this opinion is personal animus, how much left-wing disapproval of a right-winger, and how much plain stupidity I wouldn't venture to guess, but to paraphrase the author of a review below, entitled "Panshin in Dimension" , it contributes very little of value to the study of Heinlein or his work. I realize it is hard to be objective and insightful about someone you don't like, and it does have the occasional interesting insight into Heinlein's fiction, but mostly, it stinks. Not recommended, unless you read it first at the library and decide you want it.
|
|
Panshin isn't fit to lick Heinlein's boots
Rating (2)
Date: 2000-02-20
8 out of 18 customers found this reveiw helpful
This book pretends to be objective about Heinlein, but I suspect that this is mostly a technique to try to draw Heinlein's fans away from him. RAH's most important works, such as _Stranger in a Strange Land_, _Starship Troopers_, or "Gulf," are invariably trashed by Panshin. To give one really glaring example of Panshin's bias, when the hero of _Glory Road_ states that he dislikes Vietnamese women because they are small, Panshin takes this as bigotry. Panshin himself notes that the hero here is markedly different from the hero of _The Door Into Summer_, who goes back in time to tell a young girl to meet him in the future and marry him. Somehow, he fails to make the connection--Heinlein, contrary to what Panshin and other critics say, IS capable of creating DIFFERENT characters whose life views do NOT necessarily represent his own. And of course, Panshin's review of "Gulf" is one of the worst examples of literary criticism I have ever seen.
|
|
|
|
|