Posted by Tim Stretton on June 30, 1999 at 01:55:08:
In Reply to: Vance and Politics posted by Tim Stretton on June 29, 1999 at 03:24:56:
Russell Letson’s point about similarities between Vance and Heinlein is an interesting one. I agree that both seemed to start out in pretty much the same place, but it is the divergences in their later careers which I find really intriguing.
Although I would argue that Vance hasn’t written a truly excellent book since Madouc, the fact remains that his work has retained a freshness and vitality – as well as a balanced and humane viewpoint – throughout his career. Contrast Heinlein, who at his peak was a wonderful writer, whose decline as a writer from about 1970 is sad for fans of his work. I think both writers were roughly contemporary, but some of Vance’s best work come in the late 70s\early 80s (The Face, The Book of Dreams, the Lyonesse series). Heinlein’s descent into narcissistic rambling over this period makes a melancholy counterpoint.
The recent political debate over Vance’s writings, with both left and right trying to claim him as their own, illustrates the fluidity and subtlety of Vance’s thought. Can anyone imagine having a similar debate over Heinlein? His work is just not mature enough to allow this kind of ambiguity. And lest anyone accuses me of having a down on Heinlein, I still love Door Into Summer years after first reading it.
It just goes to show that there ain’t no justice as far as literary awards go. Heinlein had Hugos coming out of his ears while Vance has seen his best work go unrecognised (The Dragon Masters and The Last Castle notwithstanding). Further proof that true merit is never recognised at the time…