The Ron Hubbard Thread

BAYLOR

There Are Always new Things to Learn.
Joined
Jun 29, 2014
Messages
23,864
I have read a few of his books and found them rather enjoyable . L. Ron Hubbard was a pretty good writer.(y)

Battlefield Earth
It's like reading one of those great old fashioned golden age science fiction stories, but on a epic scale and a fun read.

Typewriter in the Sky about a man trapped in an ever changing pulp novel landscape. Classic stuff

Fear a terrific horror /suspense novel one the best ever written. a man loses 8 hours of his life and hat. Things get ever more bizarre.

The Final Blackout terrific world war 3 novel

Slaves of Sleep alt world fantsy adventure .


Thoughts ? :)
 
Ah ,I just noticed there are several Hubbard related threads. :oops:
 
I personally thought that L. Ron Hubbard was an atrocious writer. I have read half of Battlefield Earth and thought that it was silly, even as a teenager. I did read his ten volume Mission Earth Series. I would be lying if I said I didn't enjoy it, but it seemed full of innuendo and wish fulfilment. I wouldn't recommend it.
 
I read some of his years ago. I wasn't impressed. Long before I knew about Scientology.

He cynically recycled his writing "skills" to invent a fake religion purely for financial gain, he even boasted to at least one other SF writer it would make more than SF writing. Which it does.
 
He's one of those few writers that his personal life has tainted all of his work. I can't get past who he was in order to give his fiction a try.

He's not one of literary greats , but he does tell a good entertaining story.

Have you looked closely at the lives and opinions of some of Literatures greats?


Then your missing some some pretty entertaining fiction.
I've never read Battlefield Earth, but I did read the Mission Earth series. Like @Rodders, I wouldn't recommend it.

I couldn't get into Mission Earth either, but I do recommend Battlefield Earth.
 
Last edited:
I read some of his years ago. I wasn't impressed. Long before I knew about Scientology.

He cynically recycled his writing "skills" to invent a fake religion purely for financial gain, he even boasted to at least one other SF writer it would make more than SF writing. Which it does.


He got very rich.
 
He's not one of literary greats , but he does tell a good entertaining story.

Have you looked closely at the lives and opinions of some of Literatures greats?


Then your missing some some pretty entertaining fiction.

There's a difference. Hubbard, from what I have read about him and his work, is like Ayn Rand in that his fiction is nothing more than metaphors for the cultish ideology. That is different than greats in history that were assholes or something else. Cheap fiction that is designed to be nothing more than a cheap metaphorical facade for your cult doesn't appeal to me. I have always heard from others that his fiction is terrible and nothing more than advertising for Scientology. No matter how bad the film Battlefield Earth was, even there the Scientology metaphor was clear.

If someone legendary like Asimov turned out to be a snake oil salesman and power-hungry madman, I would probably still read him. But in the case of Hubbard, I really have no interest in reading stories designed to be advertisements for his cult. Whereas with Ayn Rand, I did read her because of the political power her idiotic, evil ideology has. And she was a horrible writer.

Edit: And while we are on the topic of Hubbard, if anyone is curious how Scientology became so popular in Hollywood it is because they consciously coordinated Scientology teaching with acting schools and workshops. Once a converted actor was successful enough to teach at those sort of establishments, they would send them back as a recruiting tool.
 
Last edited:
There's a difference. Hubbard, from what I have read about him and his work, is like Ayn Rand in that his fiction is nothing more than metaphors for the cultish ideology. That is different than greats in history that were assholes or something else. Cheap fiction that is designed to be nothing more than a cheap metaphorical facade for your cult doesn't appeal to me. I have always heard from others that his fiction is terrible and nothing more than advertising for Scientology. No matter how bad the film Battlefield Earth was, even there the Scientology metaphor was clear.

If someone legendary like Asimov turned out to be a snake oil salesman and power-hungry madman, I would probably still read him. But in the case of Hubbard, I really have no interest in reading stories designed to be advertisements for his cult. Whereas with Ayn Rand, I did read her because of the political power her idiotic, evil ideology has. And she was a horrible writer.

Edit: And while we are on the topic of Hubbard, if anyone is curious how Scientology became so popular in Hollywood it is because they consciously coordinated Scientology teaching with acting schools and workshops. Once a converted actor was successful enough to teach at those sort of establishments, they would send them back as a recruiting tool.

On your first point with regard to Hubbard, fair enough. I like his fiction and that's all I like by him.

As for Ayn, Rand I don't care much her or her philosophy. She did write one book that I do like We The Living.
 
Last edited:
Sorry Baylor, I'm another one that only made it so far into Battlefield Earth before giving up. I can't remember much now about it other than it was a real struggle to read.

Can anyone confirm this story I'd heard that Hubbard began Scientology as a bet with Asimov. Asimov saying "Bet you can't." and Hubbard saying "Bet I can." Apparently for a ridiculously low amount of money. About a fiver. I would love it to be true but I suspect it isn't.
 
Sorry Baylor, I'm another one that only made it so far into Battlefield Earth before giving up. I can't remember much now about it other than it was a real struggle to read.

Can anyone confirm this story I'd heard that Hubbard began Scientology as a bet with Asimov. Asimov saying "Bet you can't." and Hubbard saying "Bet I can." Apparently for a ridiculously low amount of money. About a fiver. I would love it to be true but I suspect it isn't.


It took me about a week to read it. :)
 
Probably an urban legend type thing then. It did sound too good to be true.
 
I’m pretty certain that this is true, although I don’t think it was for a bet. Incidentally, those interested might like to know that Russell Miller’s very entertaining study of Hubbard, Bare-Faced Messiah, is available legally and for free on the internet. Oddly, the man on the cover looks a lot like Count Rabban from Dune, or at least how I imagine him.
 
The only Hubbard I ever read was Battlefield Earth. I think it is probably the fastest I've ever read a large novel - I think I read it in two days, whilst on summer vacation as a teenager. I recall thinking it was a bit of a pot-boiler, but it clearly sped along and held my interest for 48 hours at any rate. Whether I'd think much of it now, I've no idea, but I certainly liked it then. I never did read his Mission Earth decology that followed though. I think I started to hear about his mad invented religion after I read Battlefield Earth, and it probably put me off.
 
The only Hubbard I ever read was Battlefield Earth. I think it is probably the fastest I've ever read a large novel - I think I read it in two days, whilst on summer vacation as a teenager. I recall thinking it was a bit of a pot-boiler, but it clearly sped along and held my interest for 48 hours at any rate. Whether I'd think much of it now, I've no idea, but I certainly liked it then. I never did read his Mission Earth decology that followed though. I think I started to hear about his mad invented religion after I read Battlefield Earth, and it probably put me off.

Yes, If you don't devour it you'll never finish. The only way I can describe reading it is like saying it's the literary equivalent of drinking the froth off a soda. Tastes good for a minute but then evaporates, leaving nothing.
 
I also read Battlefield Earth, I thought it was really light, and the science was laughable even for a science fantasy. When I heard he was the founder of Scientology my little desire to read anything more of his completely evaporated. Interestingly I'm reading Timebound by Rysa Walker, and one of the chief conflicts in this science fantasy is that the "villain" who is a time traveler has started a fake religion. ---- I wonder where she got that idea?
 
The only Hubbard I ever read was Battlefield Earth. I think it is probably the fastest I've ever read a large novel - I think I read it in two days, whilst on summer vacation as a teenager. I recall thinking it was a bit of a pot-boiler, but it clearly sped along and held my interest for 48 hours at any rate. Whether I'd think much of it now, I've no idea, but I certainly liked it then. I never did read his Mission Earth decology that followed though. I think I started to hear about his mad invented religion after I read Battlefield Earth, and it probably put me off.

Its like reading an old fashion golden age science fiction . Hubbard could always spin a good yarn. I wish he's stayed with writing science fiction.
 

Similar threads


Back
Top