Scan barcode
esfinkel's review against another edition
4.0
Poul Anderson has great ideas. It's a bit formulaic, to a cringy extent at times. Also, he doesn't know how to write female characters. Usually he just doesn't, and when he tries, they're caricatures. Very hit-or-miss, worth reading if you can stomach it.
badger2305's review against another edition
2.0
I've commented already on [b:The Trouble Twisters|638985|The Trouble Twisters|Poul Anderson|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1493641125s/638985.jpg|625203], so much of this will follow that same critique. Basically this is a collection of stories by Poul Anderson about one of his iconic characters, Nicholas van Rijn, CEO of Solar Spice and Liquors. van Rijn is a heavy-set, charismatic adventurer who is a major factor in the Polesotechnic League - the "Gilded Age" of Anderson's future history - and van Rijn is very much a robber baron who sometimes has a heart of gold. Never without various comforts of home, van Rijn spends most of his time decrying the unfairness of the universe, chasing after beautiful young women, and driving a very hard bargain. When I was a teenager, I though Nicky van Rijn was cool (but Anderson's 007, Dominic Flandry was even more cool or so I thought).
But times have changed and my critical faculties have improved. Now, van Rijn seems like a lecher and a cut-throat capitalist, using free market economics as a thin justification for his practices. Given that these stories were written during the Cold War, they are clearly a response to the leaden, often uninteresting "victory of socialism" themes seen elsewhere in literature (but rarely in American SF). Don't get me wrong; I'm not suggesting that socialism is somehow automatically better than capitalism, but it's rather convenient in Anderson's stories that everything turns out for the best in the end, after Nicky van Rijn gets his cut of the profits.
The one redeeming point of these stories is Anderson's attention to scientific detail and his use of that to drive the stories along and keep the reader's interest. Sure, some of what he describes has been corrected since the story was written, but he very rarely descends into "as we all know" info-dumping.
Again, if you can look past some of the social anachronisms as well as some of the deeper issues embedded in these stories, they can be fun bathtub reads.
But times have changed and my critical faculties have improved. Now, van Rijn seems like a lecher and a cut-throat capitalist, using free market economics as a thin justification for his practices. Given that these stories were written during the Cold War, they are clearly a response to the leaden, often uninteresting "victory of socialism" themes seen elsewhere in literature (but rarely in American SF). Don't get me wrong; I'm not suggesting that socialism is somehow automatically better than capitalism, but it's rather convenient in Anderson's stories that everything turns out for the best in the end, after Nicky van Rijn gets his cut of the profits.
The one redeeming point of these stories is Anderson's attention to scientific detail and his use of that to drive the stories along and keep the reader's interest. Sure, some of what he describes has been corrected since the story was written, but he very rarely descends into "as we all know" info-dumping.
Again, if you can look past some of the social anachronisms as well as some of the deeper issues embedded in these stories, they can be fun bathtub reads.
bookcrazylady45's review against another edition
3.0
Old Nicholas three stories. Hiding Place, Territory and The Master Key. I do not find him a charismatic character and the fact that the description is fat and greasy with mustaches makes me wonder why he always gets the girl.
frater's review
4.0
Instead of a regular review of Trader to the stars, i've decided to frame this as a response to an existing reader review that can be found here: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/2007228133?book_show_action=true&from_review_page=1
It was only in reading this review, and disagreeing with many of its main points, that my own understanding of what I liked about this book crystalised into something I could put into words, so it's worth linking to - even if I believe Andrew has managed to misinterpret the text itself.
If there is a single theme in this work it is that we view the world through perceptions filtered by our own situation - our environment, our upbringing, the way we live and think, all has a massive effect on how we see the world. Somewhat ironically, Andrew's rather low opinion of this work appears to be due to a similar effect.
To address the first concern - sexism. Two of the three stories include a main female character and they are roundly panned as sexist tropes in the above review. There even appears to be good reason. From the review: "The women are objects and ineffective, willing (like Kofoed above) to use their sexuality to get what they want, and hitching themselves to the strongest male around, either for protection or for future monetary rewards. "
This is an attack on both women, the first (Kofoed) for her sexuality, and the second for attaching herself to Van Rijn for protection.
So lets examine both characters. In the first story the main female character is indeed using her sexuality to get what she wants - she is with Van Rijn because he is rich and powerful, she flirts and offers herself to the handsome captain and is the cause of trouble between them.
However to write off this character as a sexist trope is not only a mistake, it does a massive disservice to the story. All you need to see this is to view the relationship between her and Van Rijn to see this.
First up, she makes no excuses for what she's doing. She's not ashamed that she is using her body to get ahead and, more importantly, no-one else in the story shames her for it either. Van Rijn in particular - despite being accused of toxic masculinity (and indeed showing some of the signs), has no illusions about what she is attracted to him for. He is a fat and unattractive man and knows full well that it is his money that is the attraction to her, not himself. She isn't lying to him, she's not an evil seducer.
The three-way relationship with Van Rijn and the captain is also misread and over simplified by the reviewer - The captain has little to offer Kofoed, he is married and cannot offer the same advancement or reward as Van Rijn has. The attraction she feels for him is just that, physical attraction, something she is not ashamed to act on and - again - something that no-one else shames her for. The fight between Van Rijn and the Captain is again illuminating, as it has nothing to do with "ownership" of the woman and everything to do with Van Rijn giving in to his own jealousy - something for which is is quite chagrin later on.
The relationship between the characters is summed up beautifull in the final scene, where she lingers over the captain, attracted as she has been all story.. and then runs back to Van Rijn when he starts talking about all the things he can offer her. All three characters are completely aware of what is driving each of them, each open with the others and no-one lying or cheating.
So what we have is a free woman, confident in her sexuality, feeling unashamed to both use (with van rijn) it to get what she wants and enjoy it (with the captain) for its own sake. At no point does anyone shame her for this, at no point is she punished for it, at no point is she forced into anything - all of her interactions are by her own choice. She is a three dimensional character with desires and a will to achieve them.
So what exactly is the "sexist" issue here? Is it that woman with desires don't exist? That woman _should_ feel ashamed of using their sexuality to get what they want? Or is it simply that we shouldn't be writing about women who do? I think claiming sexism here is both a serious misunderstanding and a sign of how far we've backslid in terms of viewing woman as equal to men since the 60's.
The second female character is closer to the pulp princess stereotype that the reviewer is assuming exists, but even here that view ignores the full story. The character in this case is from a utopian society running a project to save an alien world. She is idealistic and naive and absolutely in way over her head simply because the situation she finds herself in has no analogue in her home culture, which is completely non-violent. None of this is because she is a woman, it is because of her background and any men in her original party would (and were) be caught off guard exactly the same way - in fact, she is the leader of the party and no-one shows any sign that this is at all unusual. Van Rijn is condescending to her it's true, but this is more because of her attitude than her gender. As he says quite specifically he likes her philosophy, it's nice, but the universe isn't and not everyone will appreciate it.
This is where you see the main theme come back again - the whole issue is around how people look at the world. She cannot understand why the aliens would attack them when all they want to do is help - because she has no frame of reference to explain it. The aliens on the other hand cannot understand her or her people, because the way they act is so different from the norms for their culture.
This leads in to the final major misunderstanding of the reviewer - the classification of the aliens in the final story into "wild animals" and "domestic animals". This seems to have a left a bad taste in the reviewers mouth, as so: "And then he says that, opposed to the Lugals, the Yildivans are wild animals. Both animals. Both ruled by instinct and genetics rather than thought and logic.
So, you know, it’s okay to kill them or trick them or exploit them."
Except that this is contradicted by Van Rijn immediately after, when he refers to humanity in exactly the same terms... it wasn't that the aliens were "just animals" it was the fact that their culture was a symbiotic one that led them to view the world in terms of "those who obeyed orders" and "those who gave orders" that was the entire point.
Van Rijn isn't always a pleasant character, and he certainly isn't heroic in the traditional sense. He's brusque, irritating, sexist himself (he does say a lot of sexist things especially in the second story), and comes across very much as a dirty, leering old man at times, and i'm not about to defend a lot of the things he says. He is absolutely exploitative - though this isn't a colonial or racial thing as the reviewer suggests, he is quite open about his exploitative nature as a trader and it is focused on _everyone_. He views all the planets he visits, human or alien, in terms of how he can expand his business best on them, not in terms of altruistic plans - something that is more than just common in the real world, it tends to be the rule.
However taking that characterisation and attributing all of it's worst aspects to the author himself is a mistake that is demonstrably wrong from the text itself. The women are not cardboard cutouts, they are fully fledged characters with their own opinions and desires - the character in the second story herself hates Van Rijn for most of the story _precisely_ for the reasons mentioned. The story itself is self-aware enough to understand that Van Rijn is at times an awful person, and if she thaws towards him in the end to the point of actually considering his advances, it is due to a combination of admiration for the way he has gotten them out of an impossible situation, and a deeper appreciation for those aspects of his character that are more laudable. It's worth noting as well though that at no point does she swoon and allow him to do what he wants, she remains an independent character with her own opinions.
These stories have their faults, and show their age, but the criticisms laid against it in the review this responds to are not only unfair, they show a surface reading of the text that misses not only the key points of the characterisation, but all the themes and subtexts as well. Personally, I enjoyed Poul Anderson's keen eye for perceptual differences between cultures and his Sherlock-Holmsian or Nero Wolfian style character able to deduce where the issues exist. These are far more cerebral stories than the reviewer appears to realise, dressed in the clothing of pulp adventure.
It was only in reading this review, and disagreeing with many of its main points, that my own understanding of what I liked about this book crystalised into something I could put into words, so it's worth linking to - even if I believe Andrew has managed to misinterpret the text itself.
If there is a single theme in this work it is that we view the world through perceptions filtered by our own situation - our environment, our upbringing, the way we live and think, all has a massive effect on how we see the world. Somewhat ironically, Andrew's rather low opinion of this work appears to be due to a similar effect.
To address the first concern - sexism. Two of the three stories include a main female character and they are roundly panned as sexist tropes in the above review. There even appears to be good reason. From the review: "The women are objects and ineffective, willing (like Kofoed above) to use their sexuality to get what they want, and hitching themselves to the strongest male around, either for protection or for future monetary rewards. "
This is an attack on both women, the first (Kofoed) for her sexuality, and the second for attaching herself to Van Rijn for protection.
So lets examine both characters. In the first story the main female character is indeed using her sexuality to get what she wants - she is with Van Rijn because he is rich and powerful, she flirts and offers herself to the handsome captain and is the cause of trouble between them.
However to write off this character as a sexist trope is not only a mistake, it does a massive disservice to the story. All you need to see this is to view the relationship between her and Van Rijn to see this.
First up, she makes no excuses for what she's doing. She's not ashamed that she is using her body to get ahead and, more importantly, no-one else in the story shames her for it either. Van Rijn in particular - despite being accused of toxic masculinity (and indeed showing some of the signs), has no illusions about what she is attracted to him for. He is a fat and unattractive man and knows full well that it is his money that is the attraction to her, not himself. She isn't lying to him, she's not an evil seducer.
The three-way relationship with Van Rijn and the captain is also misread and over simplified by the reviewer - The captain has little to offer Kofoed, he is married and cannot offer the same advancement or reward as Van Rijn has. The attraction she feels for him is just that, physical attraction, something she is not ashamed to act on and - again - something that no-one else shames her for. The fight between Van Rijn and the Captain is again illuminating, as it has nothing to do with "ownership" of the woman and everything to do with Van Rijn giving in to his own jealousy - something for which is is quite chagrin later on.
The relationship between the characters is summed up beautifull in the final scene, where she lingers over the captain, attracted as she has been all story.. and then runs back to Van Rijn when he starts talking about all the things he can offer her. All three characters are completely aware of what is driving each of them, each open with the others and no-one lying or cheating.
So what we have is a free woman, confident in her sexuality, feeling unashamed to both use (with van rijn) it to get what she wants and enjoy it (with the captain) for its own sake. At no point does anyone shame her for this, at no point is she punished for it, at no point is she forced into anything - all of her interactions are by her own choice. She is a three dimensional character with desires and a will to achieve them.
So what exactly is the "sexist" issue here? Is it that woman with desires don't exist? That woman _should_ feel ashamed of using their sexuality to get what they want? Or is it simply that we shouldn't be writing about women who do? I think claiming sexism here is both a serious misunderstanding and a sign of how far we've backslid in terms of viewing woman as equal to men since the 60's.
The second female character is closer to the pulp princess stereotype that the reviewer is assuming exists, but even here that view ignores the full story. The character in this case is from a utopian society running a project to save an alien world. She is idealistic and naive and absolutely in way over her head simply because the situation she finds herself in has no analogue in her home culture, which is completely non-violent. None of this is because she is a woman, it is because of her background and any men in her original party would (and were) be caught off guard exactly the same way - in fact, she is the leader of the party and no-one shows any sign that this is at all unusual. Van Rijn is condescending to her it's true, but this is more because of her attitude than her gender. As he says quite specifically he likes her philosophy, it's nice, but the universe isn't and not everyone will appreciate it.
This is where you see the main theme come back again - the whole issue is around how people look at the world. She cannot understand why the aliens would attack them when all they want to do is help - because she has no frame of reference to explain it. The aliens on the other hand cannot understand her or her people, because the way they act is so different from the norms for their culture.
This leads in to the final major misunderstanding of the reviewer - the classification of the aliens in the final story into "wild animals" and "domestic animals". This seems to have a left a bad taste in the reviewers mouth, as so: "And then he says that, opposed to the Lugals, the Yildivans are wild animals. Both animals. Both ruled by instinct and genetics rather than thought and logic.
So, you know, it’s okay to kill them or trick them or exploit them."
Except that this is contradicted by Van Rijn immediately after, when he refers to humanity in exactly the same terms... it wasn't that the aliens were "just animals" it was the fact that their culture was a symbiotic one that led them to view the world in terms of "those who obeyed orders" and "those who gave orders" that was the entire point.
Van Rijn isn't always a pleasant character, and he certainly isn't heroic in the traditional sense. He's brusque, irritating, sexist himself (he does say a lot of sexist things especially in the second story), and comes across very much as a dirty, leering old man at times, and i'm not about to defend a lot of the things he says. He is absolutely exploitative - though this isn't a colonial or racial thing as the reviewer suggests, he is quite open about his exploitative nature as a trader and it is focused on _everyone_. He views all the planets he visits, human or alien, in terms of how he can expand his business best on them, not in terms of altruistic plans - something that is more than just common in the real world, it tends to be the rule.
However taking that characterisation and attributing all of it's worst aspects to the author himself is a mistake that is demonstrably wrong from the text itself. The women are not cardboard cutouts, they are fully fledged characters with their own opinions and desires - the character in the second story herself hates Van Rijn for most of the story _precisely_ for the reasons mentioned. The story itself is self-aware enough to understand that Van Rijn is at times an awful person, and if she thaws towards him in the end to the point of actually considering his advances, it is due to a combination of admiration for the way he has gotten them out of an impossible situation, and a deeper appreciation for those aspects of his character that are more laudable. It's worth noting as well though that at no point does she swoon and allow him to do what he wants, she remains an independent character with her own opinions.
These stories have their faults, and show their age, but the criticisms laid against it in the review this responds to are not only unfair, they show a surface reading of the text that misses not only the key points of the characterisation, but all the themes and subtexts as well. Personally, I enjoyed Poul Anderson's keen eye for perceptual differences between cultures and his Sherlock-Holmsian or Nero Wolfian style character able to deduce where the issues exist. These are far more cerebral stories than the reviewer appears to realise, dressed in the clothing of pulp adventure.
More...