Are there any good conservative novelists?

[zeke4ahs]

Heinlein had some creepy ideas that are hard to avoid in his work. I enjoyed Ender's Game, but I try not to know about Card's actual views. Similarly, everyone I know says I'd love The Poisonwood Bible, but Barbara Kingsolver gives me a pain.

Poisonwood is one of my favorites, but I love almost everything she has written.

 

[Rockfish1]

The Cornwell version is O'Brian who wrote the Lucky Jack Aubrey series (Master and Commander). They are hard to read though if not familiar with the era, but they teach the era.

I forget the book now, but I read it thinking I was learning a lot of history then spoke to an academic who let me know the author did almost no research and most was wrong. Those things are hard to know. I often heard how great McMurtry is, but how does one know if ordinary author's really know there stuff or present something completely wrong but sounds impressive?

If you're a discerning reader, the point isn't whether you're learning history, but whether you're learning. Contra Foote, history is not all that's important to learn. And as much as I like and respect Foote's narrative history, the reader comes away knowing much about battles and generals, but knowing little about why the war was fought. That's because Foote was a quintessential Southerner, who couldn't bring himself to grapple with the ugliness of the Southern cause. So for him all were equally noble in battle, and while that is a stirring tale, it isn't reality, even though it's history.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

You don't. But that's no different than nonfiction. You don't just assume someone is telling the truth because they slap "nonfiction" on the jacket, do you?

Did you ever read

Harlot's Ghost?* Mailer called it fiction; but I dunno. There are lots of real people, places, and events in the book. Hard to tell where nonfiction ends and fiction begins. The main character is based on a real CIA guy. The same guy is the inspiration for Matt Damon's character in the movie The Good Shepard.

*one of my favorite books.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Did you ever read

Harlot's Ghost?* Mailer called it fiction; but I dunno. There are lots of real people, places, and events in the book. Hard to tell where nonfiction ends and fiction begins. The main character is based on a real CIA guy. The same guy is the inspiration for Matt Damon's character in the movie The Good Shepard.

*one of my favorite books.

I don't think so. Hyperrealism isn't my style, so I haven't read a lot of his work.

In getting ready for this thread, I refreshed myself with the debate that was carried out in essays by Wolfe and Franzen about the state of literature in Harper's. I clearly side with Franzen on the question. It's not that I think realism has no merit. It's just that I don't think it has as lasting effect as time passes.

 

[IU-Curmudgeon]

I've read a few stories that fit the bill, however I never thought to attribute the story to the writer's own political outlook. Well less likely to do that in science fiction at least.

William R. Forstchen: "One Second After" Dystopian of sorts, all human, all earth, contemporary in nature. I really enjoyed it.

Maybe Hugh Howey's Silo series.

 

[Univee2]

I've read a few stories that fit the bill, however I never thought to attribute the story to the writer's own political outlook. Well less likely to do that in science fiction at least.

William R. Forstchen: "One Second After" Dystopian of sorts, all human, all earth, contemporary in nature. I really enjoyed it.

Maybe Hugh Howey's Silo series.

Then you should read One Year After, the follow-up.

We are so unprepared for an EMP attack ..... I blame everybody.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

You don't. But that's no different than nonfiction. You don't just assume someone is telling the truth because they slap "nonfiction" on the jacket, do you?

True, but that is what the footnotes are for.

I would love to write a novel set in august 1914. It is my favorite moment in history thanks to Tuchman. But I don't have the right attitude to write, I am scared of mistakes.

 

[IU-Curmudgeon]

Then you should read One Year After, the follow-up.

We are so unprepared for an EMP attack ..... I blame everybody.

There's a data center in Ft Wayne being built that is EMP armored. Even the caulk they use has copper in it.

Thanks for the tip on the followup, I was unaware of it. Definitely will get on my reading list.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Speaking of Clancy, just starting Hunt for Red October on something called the "American Heroes Channel." Love this film. By far the best Jack Ryan film.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

????

I don't understand the point here. My "allies" probably believe a lot of things i don't know about, care about, or agree with. They also probably disagree with me about political philosophy too. I think you are confirming the point I tried to make in your well-stated exceptionalism thread. There I said we stove-pipe ourselves. Here you are stove-piping others.

Middle of the night bump to point out how ironic it is that you could post this critique shortly after reminding us with full arrogance that "William Jennings Bryan was a Democrat!"

This is what we need to get over, people. We need to stop slapping each other in the face and then complaining when we are slapped back.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Middle of the night bump to point out how ironic it is that you could post this critique shortly after reminding us with full arrogance that "William Jennings Bryan was a Democrat!"

This is what we need to get over, people. We need to stop slapping each other in the face and then complaining when we are slapped back.

I think you need a hobby

I have no idea what your point is here. My ??????? post was in response to Marv's post about what my "allies" believe. I simply noted that is a totally unreliable way to impute any beliefs to me or anybody else.

Apropos of several discussions we've had over the years.

I spent a day skiing recently with my good friend and scientific advisor. I took the opportunity to take his deposition about "models" and what scientific purpose they serve. His first reaction was that models serve very little purpose in advancing science, they are mostly used for engineering and predicting how various inputs relate and react. I asked him about atmospheric modeling; he said that is extremely difficult because of all the variables, for example, how and why heat moves through the atmosphere is difficult because as heat moves it changes the conditions (inputs) that cause heat to move. He explained that there are linear models and non-linear models. Linear models are ones that the modeling does not change the accuracy. The trick of a linear model use is to make sure your inputs are accurate and complete.* If your inputs have an accuracy of +/- 10% the output will have the same accuracy in a linear model. Most models are not linear. The art of non linear modeling is narrowing the inaccuracy levels at each step in the model as much as possible. If the input accuracy is, say, +/- 10%, and the ensuing steps have similar uncertainty levels, your output would be unreliable.

*This was the problem with a big construction defect case I worked on with his help. The model used to design the structure was essentially a linear model, but the inputs were all screwed up and we ended up with large buildings with roof load bearing capacities of about 55% of the design spec.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

I think you need a hobby

I have no idea what your point is here. My ??????? post was in response to Marv's post about what my "allies" believe. I simply noted that is a totally unreliable way to impute any beliefs to me or anybody else.

Apropos of several discussions we've had over the years.

I spent a day skiing recently with my good friend and scientific advisor. I took the opportunity to take his deposition about "models" and what scientific purpose they serve. His first reaction was that models serve very little purpose in advancing science, they are mostly used for engineering and predicting how various inputs relate and react. I asked him about atmospheric modeling; he said that is extremely difficult because of all the variables, for example, how and why heat moves through the atmosphere is difficult because as heat moves it changes the conditions (inputs) that cause heat to move. He explained that there are linear models and non-linear models. Linear models are ones that the modeling does not change the accuracy. The trick of a linear model use is to make sure your inputs are accurate and complete.* If your inputs have an accuracy of +/- 10% the output will have the same accuracy in a linear model. Most models are not linear. The art of non linear modeling is narrowing the inaccuracy levels at each step in the model as much as possible. If the input accuracy is, say, +/- 10%, and the ensuing steps have similar uncertainty levels, your output would be unreliable.

*This was the problem with a big construction defect case I worked on with his help. The model used to design the structure was essentially a linear model, but the inputs were all screwed up and we ended up with large buildings with roof load bearing capacities of about 55% of the design spec.

You really don't get it, do you? Your criticism of Marvin's post is well-taken. Your inability to understand that your comment about William Jennings Bryan was the exact same thing isn't. In fact, your comment was even sillier, since you couldn't even find a living Democrat to use for your broad brush.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

You really don't get it, do you? Your criticism of Marvin's post is well-taken. Your inability to understand that your comment about William Jennings Bryan was the exact same thing isn't. In fact, your comment was even sillier, since you couldn't even find a living Democrat to use for your broad brush.

Good grief. Stop taking yourself so seriously

I thought that mentioning William Jennings Bryan being a Democrat, especially in light of what a bumbling idiot Clarence Darrow made of him, was rather clever and amusing of me. Given all the claptrap about 6000 year old earth, pet dinosaurs, and the Genesis creation story thought I would insert a zinger. That is still permitted here isn't it?

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Good grief. Stop taking yourself so seriously

I thought that mentioning William Jennings Bryan being a Democrat, especially in light of what a bumbling idiot Clarence Darrow made of him, was rather clever and amusing of me. Given all the claptrap about 6000 year old earth, pet dinosaurs, and the Genesis creation story thought I would insert a zinger. That is still permitted here isn't it?

Revisionist history. You said:

Evolution vs. creationism? Go back and watch Inherit the Wind. William Jennings Brian was a democrat. No doubt many creationists are conservatives. But to reverse that and say that conservatives are creationists is just stupid. Using that standard of proof, I can easily establish that Democrats and Obama are Muslim. So let's knock off the the whole idea that conservatives are somehow knuckle-dragging creationists.​

And you were quite serious about it. And it might not have even been a bad point. But it was the exact same point Marv was making, which you took exception to.

Note I never had a problem with your Bryan comment before. I only took issue with your hypocrisy in calling out Marvin for doing the same thing. That's all. Just asking you to be consistent.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Revisionist history. You said:

Evolution vs. creationism? Go back and watch Inherit the Wind. William Jennings Brian was a democrat. No doubt many creationists are conservatives. But to reverse that and say that conservatives are creationists is just stupid. Using that standard of proof, I can easily establish that Democrats and Obama are Muslim. So let's knock off the the whole idea that conservatives are somehow knuckle-dragging creationists.​

And you were quite serious about it. And it might not have even been a bad point. But it was the exact same point Marv was making, which you took exception to.

Note I never had a problem with your Bryan comment before. I only took issue with your hypocrisy in calling out Marvin for doing the same thing. That's all. Just asking you to be consistent.

??????????

Still think you need a hobby. You are the one that described my William Jennings Bryan reference as "full arrogance." I responded. I have no idea what you are talking about; which I am sure you will label as a failure in self-awareness or something.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

??????????

Still think you need a hobby. You are the one that described my William Jennings Bryan reference as "full arrogance." I responded. I have no idea what you are talking about; which I am sure you will label as a failure in self-awareness or something.

I didn't even mention it until after I saw what you had said to Marvin when I was back going over old threads (that's my hobby).

You're a hypocrite. That's what I'm criticizing you for. You did something, and then criticized someone else for doing the same thing. I'm not making this hard to understand. You're just being purposefully obtuse.

 

[Rockfish1]

Leaving aside the shitty posting that plagues this board, my favorite author who happens to be a conservative is Mark Helprin, author of splendid books like A Soldier of the Great War and Memoir from Antproof Case. I loved both and never cared or noticed the author's politics, which I detest.

 

[Rockfish1]

Leaving aside the shitty posting that plagues this board, my favorite author who happens to be a conservative is Mark Helprin, author of splendid books like A Soldier of the Great War and Memoir from Antproof Case. I loved both and never cared or noticed the author's politics, which I detest.

I forgot Christopher Buckley, who wrote the aptly named Wry Martinis (which contains the best and most hilarious takedown of a Tom Clancy novel ever written) and the delightful Thank You for Smoking, which was made into a damn good movie.

I don't know that he's a conservative, but Richard Dooling's hilarious White Man's Grave is absolutely worth a look, by the way.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Leaving aside the shitty posting that plagues this board, my favorite author who happens to be a conservative is Mark Helprin, author of splendid books like A Soldier of the Great War and Memoir from Antproof Case. I loved both and never cared or noticed the author's politics, which I detest.

The only thing I know about Mark Helprin is that he got in a big hullaballoo over copyright extensions. I'll have to check some of his novels out.

 

[Rockfish1]

The only thing I know about Mark Helprin is that he got in a big hullaballoo over copyright extensions. I'll have to check some of his novels out.

The two novels I mentioned really are splendid. They're long and unruly, but full of awe, incandescent prose, and laugh out loud humor -- in the course of extraordinary narratives. Very highly recommended.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

The two novels I mentioned really are splendid. They're long and unruly, but full of awe, incandescent prose, and laugh out loud humor -- in the course of extraordinary narratives. Very highly recommended.

I'll definitely add him to the list.

It's amazing to me how many authors there are that I've never read. I just did some quick calculations, and I have at least 1,500 books in my library. If I gather all the random novels sitting around here and there, it's probably more like 2,000. And yet, that barely scratches the surface of available reading.

 

[Rockfish1]

I'll definitely add him to the list.

It's amazing to me how many authors there are that I've never read. I just did some quick calculations, and I have at least 1,500 books in my library. If I gather all the random novels sitting around here and there, it's probably more like 2,000. And yet, that barely scratches the surface of available reading.

The first thing to do is strike all the bad writers from your list. There's no excuse for reading bad fiction, because there's so much good fiction. In no particular order and excluding so many: Bernard Cornwell, Michael Dibdin, David Mitchell, Nicholas Christopher, Neal Stephenson, Larry McMurtry, Richard Russo, Iain Pears, Charlie Huston, and many others have written prodigiously, well, accessibly, and entertainingly. Any brief moment you devote to bad fiction is a moment you'll never get back.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

The first thing to do is strike all the bad writers from your list. There's no excuse for reading bad fiction, because there's so much good fiction. In no particular order and excluding so many: Bernard Cornwell, Michael Dibdin, David Mitchell, Nicholas Christopher, Neal Stephenson, Larry McMurtry, Richard Russo, Iain Pears, Charlie Huston, and many others have written prodigiously, well, accessibly, and entertainingly. Any brief moment you devote to bad fiction is a moment you'll never get back.

Iain Pears was a revelation for me. An Instance of the Fingerpost is one of the finest pieces of literature I've ever picked up.

As for bad fiction, well, I can tell you that the one book each I own from Brad Thor, Steve Berry and James Rollins will not be followed by a second. I've read a lot of bad fiction, but I make it a rule not to subject myself to it twice.

Edit: your list deserves to have Julian Barnes on it.