Hello new followers! I know that many of you found me because of the birthday posts and cover art. I have been writing religiously about the texts-- published primarily between 1945-1985 -- on my fanzine website for more than a decade: https://sciencefictionruminations.com/
I'm an obsessive reader and writer of whim. I've conducted review series on diverse topics from Native American SF authors to generation ships.
@onetrueceyton I have never collected a penny for my site for more than a decade. But thank you so much for the offer. Maybe when I eventually (I've been saying it for years) start a Patreon... :)
@onetrueceyton Yeah, I occasionally link various history books. I buy wherever to be honest. Amazon, various used book stores on my travels, Abebooks, ebay, etc.
Recent Rereads: Outward Bound. The Jupiter novels were a 1990's attempt to replicate the Heinlein juveniles, by a small group of hard SF writers. This is James Hogan's attempt, a coming-of-age story as a young criminal reaches for the stars. Libertarian space industry propaganda
In the surprisingly bleak “Masquerade” (1941), metamorphic aliens on Mercury’s radiation-blasted surface parrot human actions. Beneath their clownish behavior is a plot, a plot to takedown an Earth corporation. #scifi#sciencefiction
In “Tools” (1942), the unchecked capitalist vastation shifts from Mercury to Venus and a new form of power. Instead of harvesting the sun’s rays as in “Masquerade,” the monopoly Radium, Inc.—which “owns the Solar System, body and soul” (122)–exports shiploads of radium from the Venusian mines harvested by specialized robots with ‘radon brains.' #scifi#sciencefiction
Intriguing analysis of Asimov’s Foundation trilogy and its central flaw.
From M. Keith Booker’s Monsters, Mushroom Clouds, and the Cold War: American Science Fiction and the Roots of Postmodernism, 1946-1964 (2001) #scifi#sciencefiction#Marxism#history
@kiwi2002 As I explained to someone else, the scholar's argument is a bit different than the blurb represents -- he is partly responding to other scholars. He is trying to make an argument that Asimov departs from Marx in some substantial ways, and one way is to remove real historical change from the analysis of the future.