First Lensman E. E. Smith downloads; Triplanetary E. E. Smith downloads · The Skylark of Space E. E. Smith and Lee Hawkins Garby downloads. You’ll be fine to start with Galactic Patrol, and in fact if you start with Triplanetary ( as I did, many years ago) you’ll get confused when you get to. Book Series: Skylark (4) · Lensman (6). Edward Elmer Smith, also known as E.E. “Doc” Smith, was an early science fiction author who is sometimes referred to.
|Published (Last):||17 May 2010|
|PDF File Size:||20.23 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||9.1 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Goodreads helps you keep track of books you want to read. Want to Read saving…. Want to Read Currently Reading Read. Refresh and try again. Open Preview See a Problem? Thanks for telling us about the problem. Return to Book Page. Preview — Triplanetary by E. Triplanetary Lensman 1 by E. Cosmic Conflict In Triplanetary, battle is joined for the control of the universe.
The Arisians, benevolent humanoids who have declared themselves Guardians of Civilization, war with the Eddorians, shapeless, malevolent beings, hungry for power at any price. They fight on both physical and mental levels, wielding weaponry of inconceivable destructiveness.
And their battlegro Cosmic Conflict In Triplanetary, battle is joined for the control of the universe. And their battleground is a tiny planet in a remote galaxy: The swamping of Atlantis, the fall of Rome, the wars that rack the world and blaze through space – all lensma seem historical accidents elnsman the men involved, but each in reality is a move in a savage universe-wide power struggle Triplanetary is the first self-contained novel in E.
This Book is published by Historical Books Limited www. Paperbackpages. To see what your friends thought of this book, please sign up. To ask other readers questions about Triplanetaryplease sign up.
Lists with This Book. Nov 25, Forrest rated it it was ok. I’ve heard people rave about how Doc Smith’s work was one of the early space operas and that it influenced many later science fiction masterpieces.
This may be true, but I’m thinking that just because it was influential, doesn’t mean I have to like it. And I don’t much. It’s been pointed out by others that this book hasn’t aged well, and maybe that’s my problem with it. Then again, the Hardy Boys haven’t aged well, and I still guilty pleasure alert like some of the series. But I read those as I’ve heard people rave about how Doc Smith’s work was one of the early space operas and that it influenced many later science fiction masterpieces.
But I read those as a child, so there’s a bit of nostalgia that goes with my reading of the Hardy Boys. Not so with Smith’s novel, Triplanetary. Maybe seeing Flash Gordon reruns at about the same time that Star Wars came out back in the ’70s caused a rift in my mind, a gaping gulf between “then” and “now” or what was “now” at the time.
Pan Star Wars all you want, but the original movie is both derived from the old Flash Gordon serials and a reworking of the trappings in a beautiful and brilliant “new” again, speaking relatively of time packaging.
I loved it, and still do. Flash Gordon is laughable, and was laughable even when I was a child. And because it’s laughable, I kind of enjoy the campiness of it all.
But I don’t take it as seriously as it takes itself. And maybe that’s my problem.
Perhaps I went into this book ready to take it seriously, hence I was seriously disappointed. I can’t look back on it and glory in the unintentional silliness of it all – the chauvinism, the absolutely terrible dialogue, and the deus ex machina and here, I mean literally “machine” that jerks pensman plot in unlikely directions and destroys pacing.
All of this makes for an agitating read full of overstimulus, like overdosing on cocaine or deciding, against all eee judgement, that you should take the plunge off the 3 story tall water slide only to find that it wasn’t such a good idea just as your butt clears the drop.
Smith’s attempts in this vein seem like a way to buy off, rather than reward the reader for patience. And I know not everyone wrote like that back in that day and age, so don’t feed me the “His writing was a product of smitj time” line.
The xoc aspect of the book that I did enjoy didn’t involve the human characters at all. I actually quite liked the alien race, the Nevians. But the whole mess between Triplanetary the human alliance and these amphibian aliens could have been smity, had someone just stopped for a moment and talked about the abundance of iron resources available in the asteroid belt.
Why didn’t anyone think of that?
Books by Smith, E. E. (Edward Elmer) (sorted by popularity) – Project Gutenberg
Can’t we all just get along?!? So I finished the book. I can honestly say that. I won’t be reading any more of E. Too much, in fact. I can only be force-fed so many unlikely twists and perfect saves before declaring: At least they made sense. In fact, rather than destroying the galaxy, the aliens are saving a bit of the galaxy by keeping my rating of this book at two stars, rather than one.
View all 25 comments. If you’re into stuff like this, you can read the full review. Absolute hard core real physics with speculative aspects; 2. Realistic sounding If you’re into stuff like this, you can read the full review. Realistic sounding nonsense; 3.
I am personally a fan of approach 2. This gave us stuff like “Triplanetary”, “First Lensman”, etc. In response to those suggesting that dissecting the science in SF novels is redundant and possibly silly, I would argue for a dichotomy. The rest of this review can be found elsewhere. Don’t trust my rating of this book; it’s part of my childhood, when I read it over and over again, and I have no way of objectively rating it.
For reasons I no longer recall, I got rid of these books at some point, probably during a house move when I was trying to de-clutter.
I found all seven in the series in a second hand book shop a few years ago and, struck by nostalgia, I bought them all. Reading them again, I found that the clunky writing, the cardboard characters, the outdated social mores Don’t trust my rating of this book; it’s part of my childhood, when I read it over and over again, and I have no way of objectively rating it. Reading them again, I found that the clunky writing, the cardboard characters, the outdated social mores, the bad science – everything that should make me drop this book like a venomous snake – was just charming.
I was a kid again, thrilling to the adventures of Kim Kinninson and his spaceship crew. The golden glow of summer afternoons in the garden and dimly-lit late nights in bed I had a thing then for dozing off while reading by candlelight – luckily no fires! It’s just not possible for me, the adult, to betray me, the child, by giving this and the rest of the Lensman series anything less than 5 stars. Forgive me, you more discerning readers.
View all 4 comments. Doc Smith’s dreadful space opera series. Both authors, writing in the early 30s, are extremely concerned about current theories of planetary formation; this was the period when most scientists believed that the Solar System started when another star had a near miss with our own sun, dragging matter out of it by tidal forces.
I am kind of surprised that so many people took this t Reading Bishop Barnes’s rather interesting Scientific Theory and Religion earlier this evening, I was reminded of E. I am kind of surprised that so many people took this theory seriously, since Laplace had given good reasons for doubting it over a century earlier; but there were technical problems with Laplace’s theory, which meant that it was temporarily out of favor.
The “near-miss” theory turned out to be wrong in a variety of ways, but the one which most upset both Barnes and Smith was that stellar encounters would be extremely rare, so hardly any suns would end up with planets.
Barnes does a mathematical analysis and concludes that a new solar system would be formed in our galaxy only about once every five hundred million years. This offends his complex religious sensibilities, and arguably for the wrong reasonhe concludes that the “near-miss” theory is incorrect. But Smith has no time to think about the niceties of astrophysics; he’s got an SF epic to write, and he needs lots of planets for his cool aliens to live on!
He comes up with the ingenious idea of letting two galaxies collide with each other. If this happens, he says, you’ll get plenty of near misses and an adequate supply of solar systems.
The things SF writers feel they need to explain! Later on, we get faster-than-light travel by means of the “inertialess drive”, and Smith hardly even bothers to whitewash it. But somehow he was unhappy about a lack of planets. Nov 07, Shannon Haddock rated it it was amazing.
This review is of the shorter, original version, because I somehow grabbed that one instead of the other one from Project Gutenberg. If you are wanting something more cerebral or otherwise more suited to modern tastes, I suggest reading something else. The characters are pretty much archetypes, but such wonderful examples of them that I This review is of the shorter, original version, because I somehow grabbed that one instead of the other lensan from Project Gutenberg.
The characters are pretty much archetypes, but such wonderful examples of them that I found it hard to be annoyed. He was so amith heroic and devoted to Clio. I miss heroes who were just heroes. Why must they all be so tormented these days? That said, it did stress my suspension of disbelief that everything was so quickly reverse engineered all the time. Now, smmith my favorite thing about this book: Why, oh why, did descriptions like this go out of style?!
If you like your fiction a bit more serious, more carefully constructed and all that. Heinlein’s apology for Smith covers most of the usual criticisms: