On one hand I liked it, creative, interesting, on the other I was uncomfortable with its portrayal of an ineffective God too absorbed in self-righteousness to care about anyone, and the way it portrayed the Devil as some sort of fallen hero. Though, For The Love Of Evil, was an interesting story about falling from grace, something the Star Wars prequals were supposed to be about but missed the mark on. The Incarnation Series was a guilty read that I would never repeat.

Heinlein's science/future oriented SF mostly stands the test of maturity, if it doesn't always stand up to the advance of science. His fantasy and socially oriented stories tend to lose their appeal quickly for the discerning reader, but they're still well written.

PA has a simple, engaging style of prose and is easy to read, but nothing about his stories, characterization, ideas, invention, etc. can really hold the attention of a fully developed mind.

Look, you're free to disagree, and even provide arguments. Don't play the defenseless crybaby (okay, not that I've never done the same thing, but I play that as my last card, not my first).

He's not human and has little patience for those of us who are. But he can give very insightful critiques of people's 13 lines, and he has very useful things to say about writing topics like point of view and so on.

He just takes a little getting used to, and it's easier if you don't take what he says personally (unless he's talking about the humanness of humans, and then you're supposed to take it personally).

I prefered Keith Laumer and Harry Harrison and people like that. I didn't like Heinlein. So shoot me.

Of course with Heinlein, I also got into the other two of the Big Three---Asimov and Clarke.

Asimov fascinated me for many years. He is, after all, generally considered a role model for geeks. His work rarely let me down, and his non-fiction (when I found out about it) played even better. Though of late, I've grown somewhat disillusioned with his science writing...seems it's less about science and more on the history of science. It seems an odd flaw for me to take note of, what with history being one of my mainstays.

(Also, I've come to a serious difference of opinion with him about politics---but that kind of strain is present in any reader / writer relationship I might have. The only person I know who shares my opinions precisely is myself---with anybody else, there's bound to be a disagreement.)

That leaves Clarke---by default, if nothing else, the world's greatest living science fiction writer. When I reread it, I still find his work stimulating, more so than Asimov's and possibly more than Heinlein's.

I never cared for Anthony in novel-length---but some of his short stories have stayed with me, and I found his memoirs (particularly the first, "Bio of an Ogre,") and occasional commentaries with his novels, incredibly fascinating. (A lot of his work, dragged out of his back drawer of rejected manuscripts and published at the height of his success, should have been left in the back drawer.)

Laumer never caught my attention the way some others did. Though I have strong affection for his short story, "The Last Command."

Those three each had very different strengths as SF icons. And as writers, of course. I think I'd score Heinlein first just on the writing aspect, but that's a complex decision of itself. Asimov's sense of fun and invention was always delightful, even when his writing was a bit stilted or didactic in tone. Clarke made SF matter as a literature of the profound, which opened the field to an entire generation of writers seeking to use the strange to explore the inner realities of the heart (or something like that).

I favor reading Heinlien's work, but perhaps because of that very fact, I have trouble seeing him as a seminal force in the genre the way Asimov and Clarke appear. Or perhaps I don't really appreciate him in what was arguably his most important role, the writer who connected SF to the baby boomers. I don't care about the boomers and I don't care about the stories he wrote for them.

I've not read much of Heinlein, but what I read I thought was fairly decent. Sci-fi is not my "thing"... I'm more a fantasy guy. And as far as Star Trek, I'd much rather watch it (fav is TNG) than read it...

As for Card, well...I read "Ender's Game" when it first came out in "Analog" many years ago...it didn't thrill me. Later, other interesting stories came out...and, eventually, I compulsively went through assorted back issues and reread what Card work I could find. Found some great stuff that way. But "Ender's Game," at least in that original version, still didn't thrill me.

How'd you hear of Hatrack?

I read PA's Incarnations way back when, and bought the last one "And Eternity" about ten years ago and promptly lost it in a move, never reading it.