I don't remember this one too well. Like a lot of Heinlein books I've read, the protagonist seems to be the same smarmy, self-assured guy that Heinlein likes to write about.

This is I think my 10th Heinlein novel, and one of the worst. The concept of the puppet masters, while intriguing, was poorly executed using a narrative that told you everything as it happened. I did this. I did that. You get the point. It was very boring. Hard to get through. So much so I just let text to speech read me the last 28 pages rather than physically reading it. I found a few bits of the story somewhat interesting, which is why this is a 2 star and not a 1. I almost didn't bother finishing this, as it was making me not want to read. So I have not been reading much on account of being bogged down in this.

Expect sexist stereotypes. Just accept it. This was Heinlein and it was published in 1951. So my main criticism is not actually the sexism (which you basically go in expecting with a lot of old SF). It's a product of its time. It's just that... it was a poorly executed story, with a plot that feels like it was pulled out of someones rear end at times. All due respect to Heinlein, but this was just a not a great book.

I had read in many places this was one of the better earlier novels, maybe this is because of some concepts portrayed. I must disagree with the sentiment that this even on the spectrum of good. Firmly. Nothing makes any sense. The novel jumps around. The language is very colloquial, aka lots of slang, so at time this got to be bothersome.

And let me be frank. I have an English degree, with honours. I've read a lot of old literature and took two different science fiction courses. I've also been reading SF since I was a budding teenager. So I have a lot of exposure to "old" or "dated" SF.

This story does not age well because of the language. The dialogue in particular is just atrocious. The narrative style follows the tell you everything, show you virtually nothing, model.

Loved Stranger in a Strange Land. But this just wasn't my cup of tea, and I've read things from far earlier. We had to study Chaucer in its original form from the 1300s to get our honours. There isn't a century I haven't read a lot of material from, then onward.

As an aside, these reviews aren't meant to be scholarly, just my random rants on my loves, likes, and dislikes. I simply outline my education background to highlight my vast exposure to what many would call "dated" works of fiction.

not bad but not fantastic

No digo que no este bien escrito o que sea malo, pero lo cierto es que la idea que predomina es que no me ha gustado. Hay una pelicula de serie B con Donald Sutherland que cuenta la historia con mucha mas eficacia, su recuerdo quizá ha empañado la experiencia. La novela ha envejecido muy mal, y el machismo implicito y explicito rechina. No se trata de ese fascismo hipotético que cabalga a lomos de la magnifica Tropas de Espacio, es un machismo real en el que hasta cuando intenta un personaje femenino fuerte la caspa fluye y ahoga al lector. Es como un capítulo de Archer sin ironía. La acción languidece y la interesante premisa se disipa.

Read this in high school. All I remember about it is I was afraid to go outside and feed the dog after dark afterwards. How many stars does that make it? I have no idea.

This was a very well written, exciting book. Although, it gets knocked because of the pretty horrible sexism. I've read a lot of Asimov and Clarke. My impression of them is they couldn't really be bothered with female characters, let alone characters in general. Heinlein was a much better author, populating his stories with interesting characters. Which is all great and good, until he deals with women. In The Puppet Masters it's even more startling than his other books or compared to contemporary SF.

That being said, if you think you can stomach that, I would recommend this book. If it was just quality of story and writing it would easily be a 5 star book. So it was hard for me to rate.

This was a well-written, exciting story that fully realized it's theme. As I said above, I think Heinlein is a much better writer that Asimov and Clarke (at least in the 50s and before.) It shows in the Puppet Masters. He populates the story with interesting characters and relationships that are much better realized than many of his contemporaries (except maybe Sturgeon and Bester.)

The Puppet Masters is brimming with ideas. Heinlein manages to flesh them out in his story and fully incorporate them into his world/plot in such a way that they seem natural. You almost don't notice how well he's thought out how such an alien invasion would play out. The reactions of the puppet masters and freemen are completely believable. Heinlein doesn't even shy away from some of the more unsavory aspects you might expect. While he's not explicit, it's completely clear what he's describing.

Now to the sexism (this part contains spoilers): The main character Sam is clearly a womanizer, with little respect for women. In and of itself that's not such a problem. However, some of the opinions espoused by characters other than Sam about women (and taken at face value in the book) are pretty abhorrent.

Mary is the major female character. She's dealt with very poorly. At the beginning she was fine, a little too much of a "perfect woman" of the fan-boy variety. Although, she has opinions and can take care of herself. As soon as she gets with Sam, she pretty much subsumes to all of his impulses and more-or-less becomes his servant. She has no personality outside of being a 50s housewife. It was pretty grating.

Meh. Heinlein is a great writer and there are lots of good ideas here (if you remember that it was written in 1951) but it's still mostly pretty goofy. I wouldn't have bothered if I had realized that it was this outdated and the central premise was so silly.