delphipsmith (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
delphipsmith) wrote2009-06-21 02:28 pm
delphipsmith) wrote2009-06-21 02:28 pm
Entry tags:
:: Duck and cover
Reread Alas Babylon yesterday. About halfway through I realized how naive it is, so checked the copyright date: my copy was published in the late 1970s but the book originally came out in 1959.
This explains a lot.
The attitude towards women ("She'll give you the same loyalty she gave me, if you let her. She's all woman, and it's what she's made for." -- eep!!), the assumption that a massive nuclear war is survivable, the otherwise-inexplicable failure of the main characters to stock up on guns in their rush for supplies, the relatively solid survival of law and order, the black/white relationships, etc. It's kind of endearing, in a way, all that optimism that even if the worst happens we'll not only survive but beat those pesky Commies to boot.
This explains a lot.
The attitude towards women ("She'll give you the same loyalty she gave me, if you let her. She's all woman, and it's what she's made for." -- eep!!), the assumption that a massive nuclear war is survivable, the otherwise-inexplicable failure of the main characters to stock up on guns in their rush for supplies, the relatively solid survival of law and order, the black/white relationships, etc. It's kind of endearing, in a way, all that optimism that even if the worst happens we'll not only survive but beat those pesky Commies to boot.
no subject
no subject