L. Ron Hubbard says that to be "pure," "credible," and "have a point," (all things he clearly values highly) science fiction must be plausible; limited in its possibilities; have to do with material-based sciences; be focused on people over machines; and not incorporate spiritualism, the supernatural, mythology, or similar non-materialistic phenomena or notions.

Does Battlefield Earth meet Hubbard's own criteria for science fiction which is not just "pure," but credible and pointed? The story seemed neither plausible nor limited to me, but it's been a very long time since I read the novel and I'm willing to be convinced otherwise by people more familiar with it than I.

  • 1
    Terrifyingly, by Hubbard's standards as a sci-fi writer, it's one of his better efforts. – Valorum Apr 13 '17 at 19:26
  • I would need to re-read entire Battlefield Earth again to answer this. I'll see all'y'all in about 2 years. – DVK Apr 16 '17 at 0:26
  • Is the question inclusive of post-Psychlo-blowing-up part? – DVK Apr 16 '17 at 3:14
  • @DVK Why wouldn't it be? This is lit.se, so the fact that the historic film only covers part of the novel wouldn't be a reason to ignore the rest of the novel. – BESW Apr 16 '17 at 3:19
  • @BESW - mostly because it would take far longer to re-read the whole thing :) – DVK Apr 16 '17 at 12:31

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.