Poul Anderson at Polcon, a 1985 science fiction convention held in Poland. Public domain photo via Wikipedia.
In the New Libertarian Notes interview, reprinted in A Non-Euclidian Perspective, Robert Anton Wilson offers his thoughts at the beginning on his favorite novels, TV shows, music, etc., including this bit on three science fiction authors, Poul Anderson, Ursula K. LeGuin and Robert Heinlein:
CRNLA: How about Anderson, LeGuin and Heinlein?
RAW: I haven't taken Anderson seriously since 1968, when he wrote an account of the police-riot at the Chicago Convention which was totally false, according to my observations on the scene. I decided Poul loved the Vietnam War so much, that he could actually watch a cop hit an old lady and remember it as a young communist hitting the cop. I haven't bothered keeping up with Anderson's hallucinations since then. LeGuin is great already, and getting better book by book. Heinlein has been an idol to me for more than 20 years. He can do no wrong, no matter how much he loves wars and hates pacifists. (I'm the kind of anarchist whose chief objection to the State is that it kills so many people. Government is the epitome of the deathist philosophy I reject.)
What I am struck by here is that RAW is honest enough to admit he isn't really being consistent when he separates Anderson from Heinlein, about which more below. But is that justified on literary grounds? Does Poul Anderson suck?
To be sure, the Vietnam War and the antiwar protests are a pretty bad issue to be wrong about, and that's not the only instance where Anderson ages badly. Dangerous Visions, edited by Harlan Ellison, was a landmark original anthology of SF stories with many really good contributions by famous SF authors. The Poul Anderson story isn't a story I cared for. The "shock ending" of "Eutopia" is that one of the characters turns out to be gay.
So, can we apply RAW's "Ezra Pound rule" to Anderson? Despite strong political disagreements with Pound, RAW famously saw Pound as a valuable writer. Anderson is a very different writer, but is he good enough that we have to disagree with RAW's dismissal?
Before we get into the rebuttal, here is a fascinating bit of science fiction history: When two groups of science fiction writers took sides over the Vietnam War.
The June 1968 issue of Galaxy magazine (at the time, when of the best science fiction magazines) ran dueling ads on the Vietnam War. One ad listed the signatures of science fiction writers who opposed the war. The other ad listed SF writers who wanted the U.S. to remain in Vietnam until U.S. objectives were met. A blog post includes the two ads, with background and commentary.
The blog post, by Alex Cox (a movie director) compares the two groups of writers. "Comparisons may be invidious, but the 'anti-war' group is by far the better group of writers," he writes.
"By far" seems an exaggeration to me. It is true that the antiwar group has more writers that I'm a fan of. I've read much of the work of Isaac Asimov, Ray Bradbury, Philip K. Dick, Harlan Ellison, Thomas Disch, Philip Jose Farmer and Ursula K. LeGuin, for example, and I know many of the other names.
But the pro-war faction also has some talent. Some of my favorite writers are there, too, e.g. R.A. Lafferty, Jack Vance and Robert Heinlein. I like some of the other writers, too. And as you might expect from RAW's comments, Poul Anderson is listed in the hawk advertisement.
I've read quite a bit of Anderson's short fiction, but only five of his novels. I remember particularly liking Tau Zero, a hard science fiction novel that got a rave review from James Blish in F&SF. I also liked The Winter of the World, The Boat of a Million Years and Orion Shall Rise. The last Anderson novel I've read, one that I just finished, is The Star Fox. I read it because it won the Prometheus Hall of Fame Award, but I didn't think it was that great.
When I did my recent "Ten by Ten" blog post, I noticed in the comments that Mark K. Brown, a big RAW fan who reads many of the same authors as I, had read at least ten Poul Anderson books. So I invited Mark to tell me what he's read and what he liked, and he obliged:
"I've read the complete Polesotechnic universe stories (which includes the van Rijn/Falkayn and Flandry stories), Tau Zero (my fave), Boat of a Million Years, The Avatar, Winners (strangely enough, this is a collection of award winners), and all of the fantasies. The Broken Sword is the one I had him autograph at ConFrancisco. I enjoyed all of them and will be reading more of his books in the near future." (The Polesotechnic series consists of seven novels, according to the Poul Anderson bibliography on Wikipedia, but it sounds like Mark is talking about more than that. "All the fantasies" would amount to 15 or so books. So Mark has read more than two dozen Anderson books).
The Broken Sword is a very well-regarded fantasy novel. Gregory Arnott, another reader I trust, read it a few years ago. He wrote (personal correspondence): "I enjoyed The Broken Sword. It is pretty intense and incestuous which impressed me, as someone who was fostered on George R.R. Martin. I really enjoyed the different, and I dares way more accurate, depiction of Norse beliefs in a fantasy novel. I'd recommend it and it makes quick reading."
Since Mark and I both liked Tau Zero, and it was nominated for a Hugo, I looked up what won that year, 1971. It was Ringworld by Larry Niven, which is considered a classic. Niven, by the way, also was one of the "Galaxy hawks," as was Jerry Pournelle, who co-wrote some of Niven's novels.
What the opinions of writers and critics?
In The Hugo Winners, Volume II, the editor, Isaac Asimov, paid tribute to science fiction writers who had been prominent in the field for many years; he mentioned Fritz Leiber, Jack Vance and Gordon Dickson, then added: "Still, for a combination of quantity and quality, I would like to nominate good old Poul Anderson."
John Clute would largely agree. He is prominent SF critic, from Canada, who I admire a lot. (He sat across from me once at a convention banquet. It was probably a bigger thrill for me than for him, but he patiently gave me a couple of hot takes when I posed questions). The SF Encyclopedia's entry on Anderson is written by Clute. Some sample quotes from Clute: "His generation's most prolific sf writer of any consistent quality," "Perhaps unique among the top rank of American sf writers of his generation in that his fantasy work – he wrote a large number of fantasy tales – is also of considerable significance," Brain Wave is great, and "Out of the welter of remaining book titles, four singletons and Anderson's final ambitious series can be mentioned as outstanding." (Tau Zero makes the singleton outstanding cut, while the "ambitious series" is the four book Guthrie Family series that begins with Harvest of Stars. The second book of the series, The Stars Are Also Fire, won a Prometheus Award.)
I should mention that Anderson (aside from a stack of Hugo awards, Nebula awards, SFWA "Grand Master" designation etc.) is much-honored by the Prometheus Award, which I've participated in for years, much as Robert Shea did: Six awards, plus a "lifetime achievement" award).
Applying the "Ezra Pound" rule, it seems that Poul Anderson may be a valuable writer.
Footnote: If you happen to be a fan of ebooks, watch for sales. At any given time, a couple of the novels are on sale for $2, so you can build up a classic library cheap if you keep an eye out. As I write this, the Last Viking Trilogy is $3 from Barnes and Noble, while Hrolf Kraki's Saga and The Corridors of Time are $2 apiece at Amazon.











