Conversation

Replying to
Hubbard picked up his shtick via disciple of Alesteir Crowley, english occultist. This is outside scope of the book, but clearly occult and SoCal new age religion scene was the other parent of Scientology if sci-fi was the first parent.
2
8
Heh, early Scientology is reminding me of current blogosphere interest in trauma. Question is who’s the Hubbard of this crowd? A charismatic older blogger with vaguely occult leanings and a line in technobabble-infused talk therapy and a self-improvement/perfection protocol? 🤔
5
14
So tldr of this subplot: Hubbard went back and forth on computer metaphor of mind, ultimately abandoning it, Campbell convinced himself there was a link via cybernetics. His influence just launched Scientology with cybernetics branding, which both sides disavowed later.
2
4
Lol. Asimov’s Thiotimoline parody had sparked a parody genre that made it hard to introduce Dianeyics as real 😆
Image
1
9
Okay will skip lightly over the rest of this bit. We’re now at the point where Heinlein and Asimov reject the hard sell initiation attempts into Dianetics and get on with their lives.
1
2
Replying to
Horace Gold gets both Heinlein and Asimov contributing to Galaxy. The Astounding monopoly ends. This feels like the PC entering the market Apple created. Action shifting to books and movies as well.
1
2
Lol, the casual use of denouncing people as communists to the FBI in the 1950s is an interesting footnote. Weapon of choice in institutional infighting of the decade it seems. Like revenge porn today.
2
6
Damn. Now I want to collect a few issues of Astounding. There’s an 8 volume anthology but I’d like originals. Found one for $5. Wonder if there are archives with complete collection anywhere.
3
1
Revised ranking of who I want to model my Act 2 after. Asimov Heinlein Campbell Hubbard I relate far less to Act 2 Campbell. He comes across as credulous, traumatized, and broken. Messianic obsessive.
2
6
Campbell’s slow descent into general crackpottery and insecurity, punctuated by a series of personal tragedies, is painful to read about. But all along he keeps trying to parley his science fiction social capital into a social movement he can control and fails.
1
5
General disclaimer: all 4 were terrible people in important ways. People who make history often are. But except for Hubbard, their worst traits didn’t end up defining and shaping the most significant aspects of their legacy. That’s all anyone can hope for.
1
5
Looks like at 39, in 1959, Asimov had invested his identity entirely into writing. He wanted to write 100 books. Not unreasonable. In my head it converts to 2000-3000 longform blogposts. At once a weirdly unimaginative and imaginative goal. Cf quantity has a quality all its own.
1
3
Campbell fumbles Herbert and Dune, it’s ~1969. Looks like he’s down for the count now. Too old to change, left behind. Also, an Ayn Rand fan, so minus 10 points there.
1
2
And now he’s turned into a rather sophomoric basic racist uncle at thanksgiving type with little left in him except residual prejudices. Sad how many interesting people from that era ended up there in the 60s.
1
4
And now we have Asimov the harasser trying to persuade Campbell the racist, by now a full blown reactionary, that he is on the wrong side on civil rights, race etc. Kinda funny. Both would be born canceled today 😂 Alright to bed. To be continued.
2
6
Okay the book sprints through the rest of their lives. They’re all dead within the next couple of chapters. Campbell dies in 1971, watching Mexican wrestling on TV. Hubbard, 1986, stroke Heinlein dies, 1988, at 80, old age Asimov 1992, transfusion-HIV
1
The last few chapters are unexpectedly poignant, and the last third of the book the strongest. Does a great job threading the needle between showcasing their contributions and honestly portraying their flaws, and not flinching from judging them
1
1
What struck me the most is the extreme degree to which severe physical and mental health issues shaped their lives and work, and the extent to which their flaws and failures seem like natural products of those struggles.
1
3
There’s a whole “everybody’s fighting a hidden battle” aspect to their stories. Only Hubbard comes across as irredeemable, turning into a true psycho sadist by the end. The other 3 are redeemable I think. Their reputations/legacies can be rehabilitated/salvaged, and deserve to be
2
4
But damn the blast radius of personal tragedy around their personal lives is non-trivial. Asimov’s estranged son ended up getting convicted of child pornography. Hubbard’s son committed suicide.
1
2
Final rankings: One Asimov survives the tale with a life worth emulating, modulo some editing of flaws. He’s the only one on the list. Campbell is a cautionary tale, grew himself into a cul de sac. Heinlein ended up pwned by his ideological leanings Hubbard beyond the pale.
2
3
So... Competent Man viewed through the lives of these 4 eigenauthors of the archetype? Campbell and Heinlein believed most fervently in the silly unreconstructed ideal, but in different ways. Hubbard rejected it in his fiction but aspired to it in his life and failed badly.
1
1
Asimov is the interesting one. He inherited and faithfully executed on the archetype but didn’t believe in it or aspire to it, proclaiming his own unworthiness etc in the beginning. Yet by the end he found he’d come closest to achieving a version of it with psyche intact.
1
6
Heinlein and Campbell present diffferent patterns of arrested development. Hubbard a degeneration into unrestrained deviancy. All 3 aspired to being Competent Men in life. None deserves the title Competent Man. All 3 realized it and it soured their last years, making them bitter.
1
3
They died with relationships to individuals, society and posterity in a troubled, unresolved state of failed self-actualization. Asimov though, kinda conquered life and seems to have died genuinely happy, having managed to grow old along with himself. Competent man.
1
2
A nice thought experiment: what combination of these 4, who bridged the worlds of campy Flash Gordon and complex Rick Deckard, would make the best Frankenstein Competent Man? What traits would you pick from each, what would you leave out?
1
1
Campbell: keep the confident authoritah, imagination and OG contrarianism, leave out the utter sloppiness when it came to rigorous thinking, the insecurity in relation to science. Heinlein: Keep the political and artistic courage, leave out the intolerant conviction in himself
1
1
Hubbard: keep the sociopath realism and spiritual daring, leave out the cartoon levels of 7 deadly sins and more Asimov: keep the energy, IQ, humility, loyalty, and general integrity. Leave out the odd conservatism, misogyny, and deep self-absorption/neglectful ness of relations
1
4