Didn't read this one, but I did read his Ted Quantrill series a while back, which seems to kind of follow the same strain. It's about a teenage boy with excellent gun-fighting reflexes who survives a protracted nuclear WW4 in the near future and ends up as a government assassin. Its was kind of a wild read, involving among other things a mormon takeover of the US federal government, the Isrealis abandoning their country to go live on space stations, the Chinese developing star-trek style matter replicators and giant directional neutron bombs being employed.
Its also the only book i've read so far where a grotesquely overweight woman's desire for intercourse with a wild boar facilitates a major plot development.
BTW, WW3 in the books world seems to be the WW3 from Hackett's novel.
Wonderful irony in that cover image, given that the painter decided to use a slightly stylized version of the late '70s wunderkar known as the 'Dale', which in the end turned out to be as hokey and badly contrived as this book,....
It would be more realistic if like in Threads, they all suffocated. Saying that I always thought A boy and his dog was a way better book (even if the bunkers are more like the ones in Fallout). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Boy_and_His_Dog
You didn't like the book, or it rubbed you the wrong way. That doesn't make it "bad" for what it is, just bad for you. It's not literature, certainly, but it was rather gripping given the time in which it was released, which turned out to be the height of the Cold War. Other than that? I haven't read too many "potboilers" by Jerry Pournelle." At least, I wouldn't call _The Mote in God's Eye_ one.
When people offer up an opinion on literature they are offering it up as their opinion and not some kind of universal truth. We all know that. Right? No need to point it out.
But I'll say it again: it's a bad book! It doesn't work even on its own merits. Its characters are poorly developed. Its message is poorly communicated. Its story is completely predictable, minus the flying car stuff. Literally half of the book is dedicated to bad articles about nuclear war survival. The literary merits of this book are a weird hill to die on. But you're allowed to disagree with me, if you need me to say it explicitly! :-)
Jerry Pournelle wrote a _lot_ of books. _The Mote_ is not what I would call a potboiler, either. That one, I enjoyed! (The sequel to it, less so.)
Well, I can understand nuking Stockton, but take offense at blowing up Santa Cruz. Did Ing hate hippies? Or was the target
the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey?
Didn't read this one, but I did read his Ted Quantrill series a while back, which seems to kind of follow the same strain. It's about a teenage boy with excellent gun-fighting reflexes who survives a protracted nuclear WW4 in the near future and ends up as a government assassin. Its was kind of a wild read, involving among other things a mormon takeover of the US federal government, the Isrealis abandoning their country to go live on space stations, the Chinese developing star-trek style matter replicators and giant directional neutron bombs being employed.
Its also the only book i've read so far where a grotesquely overweight woman's desire for intercourse with a wild boar facilitates a major plot development.
BTW, WW3 in the books world seems to be the WW3 from Hackett's novel.
Wonderful irony in that cover image, given that the painter decided to use a slightly stylized version of the late '70s wunderkar known as the 'Dale', which in the end turned out to be as hokey and badly contrived as this book,....
I can imagine Ing sitting in front of his typewriter thinking, “What is the most testosterone laden name I can come up with?…HARVE RACKHAM.”
I like nuke doom stories so I read it. I won't read it again.
It would be more realistic if like in Threads, they all suffocated. Saying that I always thought A boy and his dog was a way better book (even if the bunkers are more like the ones in Fallout). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Boy_and_His_Dog
You didn't like the book, or it rubbed you the wrong way. That doesn't make it "bad" for what it is, just bad for you. It's not literature, certainly, but it was rather gripping given the time in which it was released, which turned out to be the height of the Cold War. Other than that? I haven't read too many "potboilers" by Jerry Pournelle." At least, I wouldn't call _The Mote in God's Eye_ one.
When people offer up an opinion on literature they are offering it up as their opinion and not some kind of universal truth. We all know that. Right? No need to point it out.
But I'll say it again: it's a bad book! It doesn't work even on its own merits. Its characters are poorly developed. Its message is poorly communicated. Its story is completely predictable, minus the flying car stuff. Literally half of the book is dedicated to bad articles about nuclear war survival. The literary merits of this book are a weird hill to die on. But you're allowed to disagree with me, if you need me to say it explicitly! :-)
Jerry Pournelle wrote a _lot_ of books. _The Mote_ is not what I would call a potboiler, either. That one, I enjoyed! (The sequel to it, less so.)