On Wed, 7 Aug 2002 21:54:15 -0400, "Android Cat"

<androidcat99@hotmail.com> wrote:

>"Android Cat" <androidcat99@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:V5c49.3865$M_6.1005950@news20.bellglobal.com...
>> The inside claims 15 million "adherents" to Scientology and Dianetics.
>> 1970 printing.
>
>Is it just me or is there a slight resemblance of the cover face to
>Hubbard (on a really bad day < 1970)? Even with good lighting, it's a
>shadowy cover. Oh yeah, the book was free from a friend who figured that
>I might want some Hubbard stuff. Uh, okay. It's a "read once" book.
>
>Ron of that ilk.

I picked up a copy of the 1996 (?) edition while I was in Canada last year. It is very hard to find in Europe. And I sort of 'accidentally bumped into it' somewhere on Vancouver Island. ;-)

I can't find any claim about 'adherents' in my copy, though...

Does your copy have an "Introduction" by Algis Budrys? My copy is filled with about 25% advertisements for other Hubbard books and false stories about Hubbard.

And of course the primitive fascism of the author of the story, along with the awfully bad writing style (plot development of a 10yo, complete lack of emotions or atmosphere, etc) does not make the other 75% of the book worthwhile.

I have the impression that in my copy any reference to Dianetics or $cientology has been purposefully stripped. Still, it gives some insight in the primitive mind that created evils like that. And that's why I wanted to read it... ;-)

In fact, I believe this story is largely a description of Hubbard's dreams and aspirations at the time he wrote it. There is no doubt in my mind that the main character (an anonymous person described as "The Lieutenant") is a projection of how Hubbard saw himself. And if you look at the story and superimpose Hubbard's life onto it, you'll find that on essential points there is an eerie convergance:

Both Hubbard and 'the Lieutenant' claim to have more 'rights' than other people, by virtue of their supposed heritage and accomplishments, though in both of their cases, no basis can be found for either.

Both Hubbard and 'the Lieutenant' base their 'superiority' on having achieved 'feats' that are nothing special to anyone else. 'The Lieutenant' uses 'tricks' that Hubbard stole outright from the books of Karl May and that were and are known to any boy-scout, and Hubbard himself wasn't a particularly good boy-scout or sailor. (Just to name a few false claims he made.)

Both Hubbard and 'the Lieutenant' considered it completely 'normal' for other people to follow them like sheep, and they apparently both would not hesisitate to use any means -including extreme violence- they could against anyone they would consider 'abnormal'....

Both Hubbard and 'the Lieutenant' demonstrate their total disregard, or even contempt for women. As far as I can remember, there are no blacks or homosexuals in the story, and if there are, I have no doubt that Hubbard would have demonstrated more of his hatred for anything and anyone that would not comply with his particular worldview there too. Anyone who doesn't fit in the entourage of 'the Lieutenant' is simply killed without anyone else raising an objection, as Hubbard would have liked for himself in real life...

Both Hubbard and 'the Lieutenant' are 'unjustly' attacked. Of course, the fact that this element shows up in this early story is a reflection of Hubbard's youth, rather than that it can be blamed on any 'unjust attack' on Dianetics or $cientology. That is one of the elements that makes early 'literature' like this valuable. This, along with some other materials gathered by other researchers, shows that indeed Hubbard refused to accept *any* responsibility for whatever he did ever since he stole his first cookies from his mothers' jar at the age of four...

Both Hubbard and 'the Lieutenant' end up as 'benevolent dictators'.

Consistent with his view that he was 'better' than anyone else (the basis of fascism) Hubbard never learned from what actually happened in WW2, but in stead chose to follow the path of Hitler, even long after he wrote this silly story about himself...

Both Hubbard and 'the Lieutenant' had loyal followers, that took over when they themselves 'perished in glory'. Or whatever they percieved as 'glory'...

Of course Hubbard would have rather *actually* taken over England as a dictator, like 'the Lieutenant' does in the story. Hubbard tried very hard, later on. And having failed there, he tried that in some other countries too.

And unlike 'the Lieutenant' in the story, Hubbard was *never* modest about his 'heritage' or 'accomplishments', no matter how he had to lie about them...

In conclusion, I would say that while the story in itself is not very interesting reading, it is valuable study material if you are interested in the mind of it's author...

Scans of the cover of my copy will be posted on ABS. ;-)

-- Groeten, Boudewijn.

Go Back