bookaneer's review against another edition
4.0
Update (2/8/20): If you watched the Hugo Award ceremony or paid attention to SFF Twitter, you might know that glorifying the name of Campbell should be taken seriously. The brave Jeannette Ng again delivered a beautiful speech and specifically mentioned Alec Nevala Lee since she was not the first one making a stand (though she did lit the fire) on Campbell. Go read this book, you'll get a comprehensive picture.
Original review (2019):
I ended up liking this book more than expected. This is a very useful reading for those who'd like to get a sense of how the science fiction world during those Golden Age and a little bit beyond. As I grow to read more short stories and zines it is great to know about Astounding and Analog and the people behind them.
Full review to come, but I just want to say that Hubbard and Campbell were absolutely vile.
Original review (2019):
I ended up liking this book more than expected. This is a very useful reading for those who'd like to get a sense of how the science fiction world during those Golden Age and a little bit beyond. As I grow to read more short stories and zines it is great to know about Astounding and Analog and the people behind them.
Full review to come, but I just want to say that Hubbard and Campbell were absolutely vile.
lbrex's review against another edition
funny
informative
lighthearted
fast-paced
5.0
This is a well-researched, intriguing, and popular account of the fates of three SF authors (Asimov, Hubbard, and Heinlein) as well as John W. Campbell, their editor at _Astounding Science Fiction_. Nevala-Lee shows us the fate of a pulp magazine and the way that it was intertwined with the lives of four men, all of who shaped the so-called golden age of SF. There are many intriguing details here, most notably in the ways that the men were aligned at some moments and then, as the decades passed, diverged so widely. Also, I was fascinated by how Scientology, obviously a huge part of Hubbard's life, was not far off from the interests of some of the other men, most notably Campbell, who really wanted to be a sort of psychic scientist at points. Philip K. Dick's _Ubik_, a favorite of mine, with its completely weird precogs, certainly became more interesting when one realizes how much Scientology-adjacent ideas were part of some of the dominant strains of SF in the 1960s.
Fans of any of the three main authors would find a lot of interest here, as would those who want to learn more about the history of SF, especially given the status as some of its "luminaries" as white, male, and militaristic during the Cold War. It's a breezy, intriguing history.
Fans of any of the three main authors would find a lot of interest here, as would those who want to learn more about the history of SF, especially given the status as some of its "luminaries" as white, male, and militaristic during the Cold War. It's a breezy, intriguing history.
markyon's review
4.0
It’s a well-known adage that you should never meet your heroes/heroines, presumably because you will be disappointed. I’m pleased to say, based on my own experiences, that generally in the Fantasy/SF/Horror genres (with some notable exceptions) it isn’t true.
However, after reading this book I might want to reconsider that view again. Indeed, if you see the early founders of the ‘golden age’ of SF of the 20th century as any sort of hero, this book may make you wonder why anyone would’ve wanted to meet any of them.
Astounding looks at the life of a number of key players in the early days of s-f, and in particular the unifying force of John W. Campbell, often seen as one of the most important people in science fiction in the 20th century for his work as editor in Astounding Magazine from 1937 – 1971. This meant that he had a huge influence on authors of the time also covered in this book, such as Isaac Asimov, Robert Heinlein and L. Ron Hubbard. Although other authors are mentioned (Frederik Pohl, Leigh Brackett, Jack Williamson, Sprague de Camp and others) this book concentrates on those three writers and the influence Campbell had upon them.
It is a little sobering to think that some of these details told here are nearly one hundred years old. Whilst researching such details is hardly similar to the search for the Ark of the Covenant (there are archives of their writing, after all), many of the early details have been obscured by time. There are few remaining people mentioned from this time still living, and that may be a good thing. It is clear from this book that Nevala-Lee has spent some time digging out nuggets of information, much of which from previously unquoted sources, to put together a picture of what it was like in those early days when most s-f was pulp, luridly illustrated and mainly written to attract a male teenage readership.
It also means that what he says cannot always be verified.
Some of the connections made by Nevala-Lee are revelatory, others less so. It is often claimed by readers of SF that without Campbell there would be no Foundation series, no Future History, even no Dianetics (which led to Scientology.) Nevala-Lee examines this and suggests that whilst Campbell’s influence may be overstated by others at times, it seems clear that without Campbell pushing, goading and questioning, these works would not be as well-regarded as they are, even now.
Slightly more revelatory is the point that many of those believed to be important in the creation of the genre, Campbell included, were gifted failures and misfits. For example, Campbell was asked to leave MIT without completing his junior year, Heinlein was invalided out from his lifetime ambition in the Navy due to ill-health, Asimov was a Russian immigrant whose ability was initially limited because his family could not afford the fees to the best universities, whilst Hubbard was a fantasist of the highest order, propped up by family money and then actively adjusting his past to fit whatever image he wished to put forward. Campbell’s skill was to recognise this and nurture the writers to produce better work than that written by them previously, even at the expense of his own writing.
The events in this book are, of course, of a very different time, when a female presence was often seen by some as a threat to their clearly defined worlds of fiction. Women were, on the whole, meant to support their men or be rescued. Whilst there are examples in this novel that showed that Campbell and others (such as Heinlein) were trying hard to change this, it is clear that it was a move not always welcomed by the reading clientele, who knew what they liked and were reluctant to change it.
Nevala-Lee also highlights as crucial the importance of women to these men. From their protective mother (especially Asimov) to their wives (especially Heinlein and Campbell) and even their co-workers (Campbell’s deputy at Astounding, Catherine Tennant, is shown to work in a long-lasting professional relationship, for example), the importance of women, admittedly in a supportive role, is given pleasing exposure. It is pleasing to read of Leslyn Heinlein, who as Heinlein’s first wife is given short thrift in Patterson’s biography (supervised by his second wife.) By comparison, Hubbard’s relationships with women are generally pretty dreadful, with affairs, forced abortions and sexually transmitted diseases common.
Of the three main authors, their characters are clearly different. I found myself most sympathetic to Isaac Asimov of the three. Younger than the others, and clearly socially inexperienced, for much of the book he is seen as the lesser talent, but given status because Campbell felt that he could mentor him into what he wanted. By comparison, Heinlein was much more grownup, and got on with Campbell and his family so well that he and Leslyn became godparents to his children. Heinlein was clearly a much more pragmatic writer, thinking in terms of sales and permissions more than the rest, and it was an issue over such matters that begins a rift between Campbell and RAH, leading to fewer sales to Astounding in the 1950’s.
In the return to ‘normality’ after the war, the effect on Campbell and the authors is clear. The last half of the book becomes fairly descriptive, as the authors gain experience and respect from their peers and return to writing. Convinced that Astounding magazine should lead the way in science fact as well as fiction, Campbell begins to pursue other personal interests outside science fiction. He becomes a key advocate of Dianetics (later known as Scientology) and is one of Hubbard’s key experimenters. Campbell’s intense passion for the idea spreads to the magazine, but also alienates him from many of the writers he has nurtured, including Asimov & Heinlein.
From the 1960’s it becomes clear that having being unable to fulfil what he sees as his destiny in practical sciences in WW2 – he offered his services, but was not accepted – Campbell seems to latch on to a variety of unusual projects to prove himself: not only Dianetics but also psionics and the reactionless Dean Drive, all of which were unsuccessful.
Although it can be argued that Campbell was perhaps the main reason for evolution in the science fiction genre in the 1940’s & ‘50’s, his influence by the 60’s on the whole genre is debatable. His grip on Astounding by this point was so strong that it became more of a mouthpiece for his ideas than cutting edge. The New Wave of the 1960’s went by pretty unnoticed by Campbell and the magazine, whilst he continued to push his idea in fiction of the so-called ‘competent man’ - the hero who, by intelligence, logic and science, solves the issue or the dilemma at hand.
It is notable that many of these writers who began their careers writing to such a template moved on from Campbell later in their writing career. Whether it was because they saw through the editor or outgrew him is a point that the author examines. Asimov, for example, despite unswerving loyalty to Campbell, moved on by writing a monthly science column for the new Magazine of Fantasy & SF where his talents were more appreciated. Heinlein broke out into the mainstream, writing for magazines like the Saturday Evening Post and being involved in the creation of the movie Destination Moon. Campbell’s hectoring of Heinlein on Dianetics seems to have soured things enormously as by the 1960’s Heinlein went from bosom buddy with Campbell to distant correspondent. Hubbard seems to float in and out of all of their lives, becoming increasingly paranoid and deluded over his own abilities and spending much of his time outside of the United states, often in seclusion and avoiding authorities.
Nevala-Lee writes in his Afterword that one of the reasons for writing this book is that he hopes that it generates discussion, and I think that it will. It is contentious, sometimes provocatively so. There are a number of points like this in the book that I found I agreed with and others that I disagreed with, even disliked.
One of the advantages of Astounding is that it is a book about key characters that is not restricted by being an authorised biography (see Robert Patterson’s two-volume biography of Robert Heinlein filtered by Virginia Heinlein), nor is it a hagiography or an autobiography written with deliberately selective memory. Instead, it falls somewhat in-between the spectrum, not only pointing out the importance of the authors under study but also not afraid of highlighting their failings.
Such an approach has its advantages and disadvantages. For those readers who are unaware of the historical background and the context in which such developments occurred it is useful. When pulp magazines began in the 1920’s, they were generally seen as enthusiastic but immature, silly and rather seedy, dealing with all matters in a superficial and simplistic manner, entertainment for minors or simple readers. By the time of Campbell’s death in the 1970’s, a mere 40 years, the genre had expanded, matured and become the inspiration for writers, readers and scientists all over the world.
With this in mind, it is perhaps slightly ironic, then, how much of this book is spent not on this aspect but instead on the immaturity, silliness and seediness of the lives of the main writers. Astounding is less of an analysis of their collective writings and more of a study of the personalities, for good or worse, written in a manner that suggests opinions as facts, rather than actual fact. It also didn’t help that, despite pages of notes at the back of the book, the lack of referencing through the main text was a major handicap for me, making verification of details quite difficult.
Perhaps more worryingly, unlike academic research, the book does not follow scientific method and the route of unemotional, reasoned impartiality, but instead deals in the grubby, gossipy details that may be more appropriate for celebrity culture and social media. For many readers, it will be these details that will be most memorable. None of our key characters come out particularly well from this – Asimov was a well-known bottom-pincher for most of his life, Heinlein was a control-freak who bullied people to get his own way, Hubbard was drummed out of the armed services for incompetence despite claiming to be a war hero to his peers and Campbell was a racist, for example.
Admittedly, their failings may be blamed on the fact that they were often young and socially inept young men themselves, and I guess it can be argued that their immaturity was reflected in the genre itself in its formative years, for good and bad. As they grew older their personal story is also the story of the genre’s evolution, and for that reason may be worth telling, even when its subjects are not always shown in a positive way.
In short, Astounding is an entertaining summary of how things may have been in the Golden Age of science fiction for some of the key players. It’s clear that it has taken time to write, and it effectively portrays a picture of a fledgling genre at a certain time, such as it was. Where it does occasionally lapse into simplification and over-generalisation, there is enough new perspective here for anyone who has in an interest in ‘the old days’ to find something they have not read before. It certainly creates possible reasons for those people’s motivations and assesses their importance at a formative time for the genre. It is not without its issues –and some of the points raised are troublesome – but for those interested in such matters, it is a book worth your time.
Sometimes heroes can be assessed and with hindsight be found to be less than we thought. It is perhaps the curse of the modern age that we put our inspirations under the spotlight and pick out the flaws and the weaknesses. We don’t always like what we see. For me, it is the case here, but that doesn’t mean to say that we shouldn’t accept their weaknesses and appreciate their contributions.
Despite all of the strange behaviours, the tantrums and the shortcomings on display here, Astounding affirms that the key players mentioned here were major influencers in their time to create what is (for me, anyway) an exciting and relevant genre today. Despite the human failings, the body of work created and guided by these people inspired and still guides writers, if only to show them how to move forward. We would not be here were it not for them, and Astounding does well to show this, warts and all.
However, after reading this book I might want to reconsider that view again. Indeed, if you see the early founders of the ‘golden age’ of SF of the 20th century as any sort of hero, this book may make you wonder why anyone would’ve wanted to meet any of them.
Astounding looks at the life of a number of key players in the early days of s-f, and in particular the unifying force of John W. Campbell, often seen as one of the most important people in science fiction in the 20th century for his work as editor in Astounding Magazine from 1937 – 1971. This meant that he had a huge influence on authors of the time also covered in this book, such as Isaac Asimov, Robert Heinlein and L. Ron Hubbard. Although other authors are mentioned (Frederik Pohl, Leigh Brackett, Jack Williamson, Sprague de Camp and others) this book concentrates on those three writers and the influence Campbell had upon them.
It is a little sobering to think that some of these details told here are nearly one hundred years old. Whilst researching such details is hardly similar to the search for the Ark of the Covenant (there are archives of their writing, after all), many of the early details have been obscured by time. There are few remaining people mentioned from this time still living, and that may be a good thing. It is clear from this book that Nevala-Lee has spent some time digging out nuggets of information, much of which from previously unquoted sources, to put together a picture of what it was like in those early days when most s-f was pulp, luridly illustrated and mainly written to attract a male teenage readership.
It also means that what he says cannot always be verified.
Some of the connections made by Nevala-Lee are revelatory, others less so. It is often claimed by readers of SF that without Campbell there would be no Foundation series, no Future History, even no Dianetics (which led to Scientology.) Nevala-Lee examines this and suggests that whilst Campbell’s influence may be overstated by others at times, it seems clear that without Campbell pushing, goading and questioning, these works would not be as well-regarded as they are, even now.
Slightly more revelatory is the point that many of those believed to be important in the creation of the genre, Campbell included, were gifted failures and misfits. For example, Campbell was asked to leave MIT without completing his junior year, Heinlein was invalided out from his lifetime ambition in the Navy due to ill-health, Asimov was a Russian immigrant whose ability was initially limited because his family could not afford the fees to the best universities, whilst Hubbard was a fantasist of the highest order, propped up by family money and then actively adjusting his past to fit whatever image he wished to put forward. Campbell’s skill was to recognise this and nurture the writers to produce better work than that written by them previously, even at the expense of his own writing.
The events in this book are, of course, of a very different time, when a female presence was often seen by some as a threat to their clearly defined worlds of fiction. Women were, on the whole, meant to support their men or be rescued. Whilst there are examples in this novel that showed that Campbell and others (such as Heinlein) were trying hard to change this, it is clear that it was a move not always welcomed by the reading clientele, who knew what they liked and were reluctant to change it.
Nevala-Lee also highlights as crucial the importance of women to these men. From their protective mother (especially Asimov) to their wives (especially Heinlein and Campbell) and even their co-workers (Campbell’s deputy at Astounding, Catherine Tennant, is shown to work in a long-lasting professional relationship, for example), the importance of women, admittedly in a supportive role, is given pleasing exposure. It is pleasing to read of Leslyn Heinlein, who as Heinlein’s first wife is given short thrift in Patterson’s biography (supervised by his second wife.) By comparison, Hubbard’s relationships with women are generally pretty dreadful, with affairs, forced abortions and sexually transmitted diseases common.
Of the three main authors, their characters are clearly different. I found myself most sympathetic to Isaac Asimov of the three. Younger than the others, and clearly socially inexperienced, for much of the book he is seen as the lesser talent, but given status because Campbell felt that he could mentor him into what he wanted. By comparison, Heinlein was much more grownup, and got on with Campbell and his family so well that he and Leslyn became godparents to his children. Heinlein was clearly a much more pragmatic writer, thinking in terms of sales and permissions more than the rest, and it was an issue over such matters that begins a rift between Campbell and RAH, leading to fewer sales to Astounding in the 1950’s.
In the return to ‘normality’ after the war, the effect on Campbell and the authors is clear. The last half of the book becomes fairly descriptive, as the authors gain experience and respect from their peers and return to writing. Convinced that Astounding magazine should lead the way in science fact as well as fiction, Campbell begins to pursue other personal interests outside science fiction. He becomes a key advocate of Dianetics (later known as Scientology) and is one of Hubbard’s key experimenters. Campbell’s intense passion for the idea spreads to the magazine, but also alienates him from many of the writers he has nurtured, including Asimov & Heinlein.
From the 1960’s it becomes clear that having being unable to fulfil what he sees as his destiny in practical sciences in WW2 – he offered his services, but was not accepted – Campbell seems to latch on to a variety of unusual projects to prove himself: not only Dianetics but also psionics and the reactionless Dean Drive, all of which were unsuccessful.
Although it can be argued that Campbell was perhaps the main reason for evolution in the science fiction genre in the 1940’s & ‘50’s, his influence by the 60’s on the whole genre is debatable. His grip on Astounding by this point was so strong that it became more of a mouthpiece for his ideas than cutting edge. The New Wave of the 1960’s went by pretty unnoticed by Campbell and the magazine, whilst he continued to push his idea in fiction of the so-called ‘competent man’ - the hero who, by intelligence, logic and science, solves the issue or the dilemma at hand.
It is notable that many of these writers who began their careers writing to such a template moved on from Campbell later in their writing career. Whether it was because they saw through the editor or outgrew him is a point that the author examines. Asimov, for example, despite unswerving loyalty to Campbell, moved on by writing a monthly science column for the new Magazine of Fantasy & SF where his talents were more appreciated. Heinlein broke out into the mainstream, writing for magazines like the Saturday Evening Post and being involved in the creation of the movie Destination Moon. Campbell’s hectoring of Heinlein on Dianetics seems to have soured things enormously as by the 1960’s Heinlein went from bosom buddy with Campbell to distant correspondent. Hubbard seems to float in and out of all of their lives, becoming increasingly paranoid and deluded over his own abilities and spending much of his time outside of the United states, often in seclusion and avoiding authorities.
Nevala-Lee writes in his Afterword that one of the reasons for writing this book is that he hopes that it generates discussion, and I think that it will. It is contentious, sometimes provocatively so. There are a number of points like this in the book that I found I agreed with and others that I disagreed with, even disliked.
One of the advantages of Astounding is that it is a book about key characters that is not restricted by being an authorised biography (see Robert Patterson’s two-volume biography of Robert Heinlein filtered by Virginia Heinlein), nor is it a hagiography or an autobiography written with deliberately selective memory. Instead, it falls somewhat in-between the spectrum, not only pointing out the importance of the authors under study but also not afraid of highlighting their failings.
Such an approach has its advantages and disadvantages. For those readers who are unaware of the historical background and the context in which such developments occurred it is useful. When pulp magazines began in the 1920’s, they were generally seen as enthusiastic but immature, silly and rather seedy, dealing with all matters in a superficial and simplistic manner, entertainment for minors or simple readers. By the time of Campbell’s death in the 1970’s, a mere 40 years, the genre had expanded, matured and become the inspiration for writers, readers and scientists all over the world.
With this in mind, it is perhaps slightly ironic, then, how much of this book is spent not on this aspect but instead on the immaturity, silliness and seediness of the lives of the main writers. Astounding is less of an analysis of their collective writings and more of a study of the personalities, for good or worse, written in a manner that suggests opinions as facts, rather than actual fact. It also didn’t help that, despite pages of notes at the back of the book, the lack of referencing through the main text was a major handicap for me, making verification of details quite difficult.
Perhaps more worryingly, unlike academic research, the book does not follow scientific method and the route of unemotional, reasoned impartiality, but instead deals in the grubby, gossipy details that may be more appropriate for celebrity culture and social media. For many readers, it will be these details that will be most memorable. None of our key characters come out particularly well from this – Asimov was a well-known bottom-pincher for most of his life, Heinlein was a control-freak who bullied people to get his own way, Hubbard was drummed out of the armed services for incompetence despite claiming to be a war hero to his peers and Campbell was a racist, for example.
Admittedly, their failings may be blamed on the fact that they were often young and socially inept young men themselves, and I guess it can be argued that their immaturity was reflected in the genre itself in its formative years, for good and bad. As they grew older their personal story is also the story of the genre’s evolution, and for that reason may be worth telling, even when its subjects are not always shown in a positive way.
In short, Astounding is an entertaining summary of how things may have been in the Golden Age of science fiction for some of the key players. It’s clear that it has taken time to write, and it effectively portrays a picture of a fledgling genre at a certain time, such as it was. Where it does occasionally lapse into simplification and over-generalisation, there is enough new perspective here for anyone who has in an interest in ‘the old days’ to find something they have not read before. It certainly creates possible reasons for those people’s motivations and assesses their importance at a formative time for the genre. It is not without its issues –and some of the points raised are troublesome – but for those interested in such matters, it is a book worth your time.
Sometimes heroes can be assessed and with hindsight be found to be less than we thought. It is perhaps the curse of the modern age that we put our inspirations under the spotlight and pick out the flaws and the weaknesses. We don’t always like what we see. For me, it is the case here, but that doesn’t mean to say that we shouldn’t accept their weaknesses and appreciate their contributions.
Despite all of the strange behaviours, the tantrums and the shortcomings on display here, Astounding affirms that the key players mentioned here were major influencers in their time to create what is (for me, anyway) an exciting and relevant genre today. Despite the human failings, the body of work created and guided by these people inspired and still guides writers, if only to show them how to move forward. We would not be here were it not for them, and Astounding does well to show this, warts and all.
renee_pompeii's review against another edition
4.0
I had put this book down, because I was frustrated by the -Sci Fi patriarchy- right from the get go, but I picked it back up as the topic was too important for me to gloss over. Overall, it bummed me out, but I was absolutely glued to the page.
And I just have to say, this book is insanely interesting and I can only really express myself thusly:
1. DAAAANG L. Ron Hubbard!!! I'm blown away most by you, and your descent into creephood. Dianetics, and then scientology - THAT WAS YOU? Holy crap.
2. Isaac Asimov, you are a favorite writer of mine and a treated women like crap despite being otherwise socially progressive, which officially broke my heart. *sob
3. Heinlein, another important but sad figure - at least he wasn't disappointing a human.
4. Campbell, I didn't know who you were and am embarrassed about that now, as you were kind of the man behind the curtain in science fiction for most of the 20th century. Too bad you were far too much a product of your time to view minorities and women as equals to white dudes.
And I just have to say, this book is insanely interesting and I can only really express myself thusly:
1. DAAAANG L. Ron Hubbard!!! I'm blown away most by you, and your descent into creephood. Dianetics, and then scientology - THAT WAS YOU? Holy crap.
2. Isaac Asimov, you are a favorite writer of mine and a treated women like crap despite being otherwise socially progressive, which officially broke my heart. *sob
3. Heinlein, another important but sad figure - at least he wasn't
4. Campbell, I didn't know who you were and am embarrassed about that now, as you were kind of the man behind the curtain in science fiction for most of the 20th century. Too bad you were far too much a product of your time to view minorities and women as equals to white dudes.
tartancrusader's review
2.0
Poor. Informative, yet ultimately flat and lifeless. It did itself untold damage with its unwarranted (and seemingly arbitrary) inclusion of Hubbard the liar, charlatan and fantasist. His presence within was unworthy of such company. I can't help but feel there were many more contemporaneous figures who would have been a better choice.
oleksandr's review
4.0
This is a non-fic about four Americans, which had the greatest impact on the development of science fiction during its golden age, from the 1930s to the 1960s, after which several major shifts changed the genre – from the rise of SF movies and TV series, to replacement of magazines with books as the major source for most fans. I read is as a Buddy Read in June 2021 at Non Fiction Book Club group.
This is a jointed biography of four men, mentioned in the title: the editor of Astounding Stories, who almost single handedly set rules about what SF should be like [a:John W. Campbell Jr.|5410853|John W. Campbell Jr.|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1547803774p2/5410853.jpg], the creator of Dianetics as a cure for everything including imminent nuclear war [a:L. Ron Hubbard|33503|L. Ron Hubbard|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1485578081p2/33503.jpg], and two prominent SF writers – [a:Robert A. Heinlein|205|Robert A. Heinlein|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1192826560p2/205.jpg] and [a:Isaac Asimov|16667|Isaac Asimov|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1341965730p2/16667.jpg]. The greater fandom is mentioned as well as other authors, like [a:Frederik Pohl|22996|Frederik Pohl|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1226540337p2/22996.jpg], [a:Ray Bradbury|1630|Ray Bradbury|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1445955959p2/1630.jpg], and [a:Theodore Sturgeon|12531|Theodore Sturgeon|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1211292667p2/12531.jpg].
There are three major parts – [1] pre WW2, when the magazine gets popular, the SF authors start creating their early works and the group gets to know each other; [2] the WW2 and the usage of nuclear weapons; [3] search for a solution to stop nuclear destruction of the mankind, which led Campbell and Hubbard to promote Dianetics. The book actually follows each of the characters to their deaths, but this is less important to the overall story I guess.
All characters, while being important to the genre, are deeply flawed persons, with a lot of even antisocial behavior, from beating or leaving their wives to lying to pinching behinds of women. After reading, I gave all characters nicknames, namely, Gadfly, Boaster, Patriot and Wunderkind.
This is a jointed biography of four men, mentioned in the title: the editor of Astounding Stories, who almost single handedly set rules about what SF should be like [a:John W. Campbell Jr.|5410853|John W. Campbell Jr.|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1547803774p2/5410853.jpg], the creator of Dianetics as a cure for everything including imminent nuclear war [a:L. Ron Hubbard|33503|L. Ron Hubbard|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1485578081p2/33503.jpg], and two prominent SF writers – [a:Robert A. Heinlein|205|Robert A. Heinlein|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1192826560p2/205.jpg] and [a:Isaac Asimov|16667|Isaac Asimov|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1341965730p2/16667.jpg]. The greater fandom is mentioned as well as other authors, like [a:Frederik Pohl|22996|Frederik Pohl|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1226540337p2/22996.jpg], [a:Ray Bradbury|1630|Ray Bradbury|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1445955959p2/1630.jpg], and [a:Theodore Sturgeon|12531|Theodore Sturgeon|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1211292667p2/12531.jpg].
There are three major parts – [1] pre WW2, when the magazine gets popular, the SF authors start creating their early works and the group gets to know each other; [2] the WW2 and the usage of nuclear weapons; [3] search for a solution to stop nuclear destruction of the mankind, which led Campbell and Hubbard to promote Dianetics. The book actually follows each of the characters to their deaths, but this is less important to the overall story I guess.
All characters, while being important to the genre, are deeply flawed persons, with a lot of even antisocial behavior, from beating or leaving their wives to lying to pinching behinds of women. After reading, I gave all characters nicknames, namely, Gadfly, Boaster, Patriot and Wunderkind.