Troll Kingdom
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
The Moon is a Harsh Mistress: Book One (Warning: Spoilers)
- Thread starter Number_6
- Start date
MikeH92467
New member
Note that in the very first pages we are introduced to a polot element that has become a staple of science fiction: the self aware computer. It's interesting that Heinlein came up with this idea in 1965. Two other books built around the same concept came out at about the same time: D.F. Jones' Colossus and Martin Caidin's The God Machine.
I wonder if this is just one of the coincidences where smart people made the same kind of extrapolation or if they stole from each other, or from someone else?
One thing, if you are put off by Mannie's Lunar dialect, stay with it. You'll find yourself picking it up quickly. Best I can figure it's a mish mosh of Australian dialect with a lot of Russian words thrown in...Cobber (Aussie term for a local person?) Tovarisch (Russian for friend) Gospodin (Russian for "sir" or "mister")
I wonder if this is just one of the coincidences where smart people made the same kind of extrapolation or if they stole from each other, or from someone else?
One thing, if you are put off by Mannie's Lunar dialect, stay with it. You'll find yourself picking it up quickly. Best I can figure it's a mish mosh of Australian dialect with a lot of Russian words thrown in...Cobber (Aussie term for a local person?) Tovarisch (Russian for friend) Gospodin (Russian for "sir" or "mister")
curiousa2z
Be patient till the last.
^sorta like the idea behind the dialogue in Serenity? - frontier American mixed with Chinese...
MikeH92467
New member
Number_6 said:
Burgess came up with a Russian influenced argo he called "Nadszat" (sp?) in a ClockWork Orange.
Note that when Mannie encounters a "stilyagi" (Russian for teenager perhaps?) he is dressed closely enough to our modern punks not to make any real difference.
You're going to come across more startlingly prescient elements as you go along.
MikeH92467
New member
^^^sad to say, he ran out of fresh material somewhere around Time Enough for Love. After that, you simply see the same kinds of phrasings and word usages over and over again. In this book, you simply see him at the peak of his game and the effect is a freshness that you simply don't see in most of his later work.
It doesn't take long to see that Mannie has innocently stumbled into a subversive situation, but it isn't until we start to have conversations with Prof that we begin to see the difference between a real revolution and a lot of noisy talk.
Number_6 raised an interesting point with me: what revolution can we compare this too? While the dates coincide with the American Revolution, too many of the elements simply don't fit.
Perhaps Cuba would be a better comparison? I'll throw that piece of meat out there and see if anyone wants to agree or disagree. I am willing to discuss why it might or might not be a fit if anyone else does. Obviously I have some ideas, but I'd rather see if anyone else is interested in that tack.
It doesn't take long to see that Mannie has innocently stumbled into a subversive situation, but it isn't until we start to have conversations with Prof that we begin to see the difference between a real revolution and a lot of noisy talk.
Number_6 raised an interesting point with me: what revolution can we compare this too? While the dates coincide with the American Revolution, too many of the elements simply don't fit.
Perhaps Cuba would be a better comparison? I'll throw that piece of meat out there and see if anyone wants to agree or disagree. I am willing to discuss why it might or might not be a fit if anyone else does. Obviously I have some ideas, but I'd rather see if anyone else is interested in that tack.
curiousa2z
Be patient till the last.
^actually I was reminded of the American Revolution as well - "the hewers of wood and drawers of water" fed up with sending their resources away only to have them returned as manufactured goods that they then have to purchase....
....am loving his self-deprecating insights on Loonies.
- R.H. has made them so alive and believable ...
....am loving his self-deprecating insights on Loonies.
- R.H. has made them so alive and believable ...
MikeH92467
New member
^^^Certainly that parallel exists, but keep in mind that the American revolutionaries were English Citizens, albeit second class ones by virtue of their lack of direct representation.
They also had sypmathasizers in Parliament. I believe it was William Pitt who made a speech in which he said that the colonists were "the sons, not the bastards" of England.
Living in a British colony does drive home, just how uncomfortable it can be to live under the crown. But for all the drawbacks, all anyone here has to do is look a few miles away at some of the alternatives, Jamaica which turned into an economic mess after getting independence in 1962.
The immediate comparison is Australia which started out as a penal colony, but it managed to win independence through evolution instead of revolution.
Basically, Fidel & co. won their independence using tactics that will remind you of what the Loonies use to win theirs.
They also had sypmathasizers in Parliament. I believe it was William Pitt who made a speech in which he said that the colonists were "the sons, not the bastards" of England.
Living in a British colony does drive home, just how uncomfortable it can be to live under the crown. But for all the drawbacks, all anyone here has to do is look a few miles away at some of the alternatives, Jamaica which turned into an economic mess after getting independence in 1962.
The immediate comparison is Australia which started out as a penal colony, but it managed to win independence through evolution instead of revolution.
Basically, Fidel & co. won their independence using tactics that will remind you of what the Loonies use to win theirs.
Number_6
beer, I want beer
Except that by the time Heinlein is writing this, Cuba has obviously become yet another dictatorship, albeit with a different ideology and different international allies. "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."
I don't see the by now pretty libertarian Heinlein as championing Castro's Cuba.
However, I won't really get into the novel until tomorrow. I tried to start tonight, but find that the beauty of my new copy is acting as a forcefield for the pencil with which I always read. Also, I've discovered a new cocktail that impairs my reading skills right now. God bless Welch's and their new passion fruit juice.
I don't see the by now pretty libertarian Heinlein as championing Castro's Cuba.
However, I won't really get into the novel until tomorrow. I tried to start tonight, but find that the beauty of my new copy is acting as a forcefield for the pencil with which I always read. Also, I've discovered a new cocktail that impairs my reading skills right now. God bless Welch's and their new passion fruit juice.
MikeH92467
New member
I certainly didn't mean to imply that Heinlein was in any way celebrating the Cuban revolution.
In outlining the knowledge a successful revolutionary needs Prof named Guevara as one of the basics. Certainly RAH would not celebrate a communist revolution, but he had characters trying to build a revolution so it's only natural that he would refer to revolutions that managed to overthrow their governments.
How a new government performs after it takes over is a different issue and one that is thoroughly addressed.
In outlining the knowledge a successful revolutionary needs Prof named Guevara as one of the basics. Certainly RAH would not celebrate a communist revolution, but he had characters trying to build a revolution so it's only natural that he would refer to revolutions that managed to overthrow their governments.
How a new government performs after it takes over is a different issue and one that is thoroughly addressed.
Number_6
beer, I want beer
The more I read Mannie's English, the more I think of the effects instant messaging is having on language. Mannie's language is stripped down--"unnecessary" words are eliminated.
I'm starting to see IM language popping up in student essays.
Yet I don't see this as progress. Their inability to think in complex sentences is part and parcel of their inability to think complex thoughts.
Let's see what I think about this as I continue on in the novel.
As for the Cuba thing, I'd be curious to know what was known of Guevara's actions in 1966. Despite all the t-shirts and the glorification in The Motorcycle Diaries, Guevara was a murdering bastard.
I'm starting to see IM language popping up in student essays.
Yet I don't see this as progress. Their inability to think in complex sentences is part and parcel of their inability to think complex thoughts.
Let's see what I think about this as I continue on in the novel.
As for the Cuba thing, I'd be curious to know what was known of Guevara's actions in 1966. Despite all the t-shirts and the glorification in The Motorcycle Diaries, Guevara was a murdering bastard.
MikeH92467
New member
On further reflection, perhaps RAH was prescient enough to foresee the looming fiasco in Vietnam. You figure he wrote this story probably in 63 or 64, just as things were heating up there. Look at the Vietnamese strategy and the Loonie strategy expressed in book 3 and you'll definitely see some similarities.
Prof mentions early on that the secret to winning a war with a superior opponent is to weaken his will to fight so that he never uses his full strength against you. That certainly happened in Vietnam.
As far as your assessment of Guevara, well even a cursory glance at the record backs up that assessment. He's no hero of mine, but as Prof says anyone who wants to know how to win a revolution better know something about his tactics and guerilla philosophy.
Prof mentions early on that the secret to winning a war with a superior opponent is to weaken his will to fight so that he never uses his full strength against you. That certainly happened in Vietnam.
As far as your assessment of Guevara, well even a cursory glance at the record backs up that assessment. He's no hero of mine, but as Prof says anyone who wants to know how to win a revolution better know something about his tactics and guerilla philosophy.
MikeH92467
New member
Interesting question. I quess it would depend on which side of his personality was stronger. Certainly as a staunch anti communist one would think he wouldn't have wanted Vietnam to go commie. However, as someone who might qualify as an expert on guerilla warfare and revolutionary history, you would also have to think he would at least have had an inkling that the U.S. was fighting a futile battle.
Just look at the conditions Prof laid out...divided public opinion that led to a loss of will to fight to win. Then add the shock value of military setbacks at the same time the superpower is proclaiming victory is at hand (Tet Offensive ring a bell?) and you have the ingredients necessary for a result that shouldn't happen on paper.
Bottom line, I would guess that he supported it in principle, but would have been disgusted at how the political bungling in Washington played right into the hands of the Viet Cong and Ho Chi Minh.
Just look at the conditions Prof laid out...divided public opinion that led to a loss of will to fight to win. Then add the shock value of military setbacks at the same time the superpower is proclaiming victory is at hand (Tet Offensive ring a bell?) and you have the ingredients necessary for a result that shouldn't happen on paper.
Bottom line, I would guess that he supported it in principle, but would have been disgusted at how the political bungling in Washington played right into the hands of the Viet Cong and Ho Chi Minh.
Number_6
beer, I want beer
So, who's up to speed, and who needs more time?
I've read, but not yet gotten my thoughts in order. We had a minor mishap at the house this morning, which through the whole day out of whack.
And I have not found the primary sources on why the evolutionary psychologists feel we'll never have the sort of polygamous society Heinlein foresees--I think I have some secondary stuff in a Steven Pinker book upstairs, but I have to flip through them. God, I really need another file cabinet . . . and several hours to organize what should go in it.
I've read, but not yet gotten my thoughts in order. We had a minor mishap at the house this morning, which through the whole day out of whack.
And I have not found the primary sources on why the evolutionary psychologists feel we'll never have the sort of polygamous society Heinlein foresees--I think I have some secondary stuff in a Steven Pinker book upstairs, but I have to flip through them. God, I really need another file cabinet . . . and several hours to organize what should go in it.
MikeH92467
New member
^^^really, Prof, we're not conducting a class here...how about if we do something unheard of on the net and take your word for what you say?
Seriously, I don't see the need to adhere to APA or Univ of Chicago style, just some hints about who's research to dig up and where to find it would suit me just as well.
Slightly off topic, I think I mentioned before in a TBBS thread that I really have doubts that Heinlein's political thinking is reflected down the lines in his writings. I have heard the word "preachy" to describe his style and I would agree with that, but I think there is also a degree of pedantry (in the positive sense) in that I think he would be more pleased if someone reached a different answer to some of the questions he poses through reasoned consideration than he would be by someone who slavishly adopted what they think he was advocating in any of his books.
I really think that in some questions RAH really was trying to stimulate thought and dialogue than in trying to persuade someone to a particular point of view.
One exception is the closing essay in the paperback edition of "Revolt in 2100" called "Of Stories Never Written". I really think that comes as close to defining his political philosophy as anything he put on paper. Some of the fears that he expresses about the possibility of a religious coup in the U.S. and how it might be done strike an eerily familiar chord with some of today's events.
Also when people start getting riled up over what he "really meant" I also like to go back to his phrase from that essay where he says of his own Future History series, they are just stories written to amuse and buy groceries.
I don't doubt that we know how RAH felt about a lot of things, but I also don't doubt that there was much more depth and complexity, along with a fair amount of contradictions than we will ever know about how he felt about everything
edited for clarity
Seriously, I don't see the need to adhere to APA or Univ of Chicago style, just some hints about who's research to dig up and where to find it would suit me just as well.
Slightly off topic, I think I mentioned before in a TBBS thread that I really have doubts that Heinlein's political thinking is reflected down the lines in his writings. I have heard the word "preachy" to describe his style and I would agree with that, but I think there is also a degree of pedantry (in the positive sense) in that I think he would be more pleased if someone reached a different answer to some of the questions he poses through reasoned consideration than he would be by someone who slavishly adopted what they think he was advocating in any of his books.
I really think that in some questions RAH really was trying to stimulate thought and dialogue than in trying to persuade someone to a particular point of view.
One exception is the closing essay in the paperback edition of "Revolt in 2100" called "Of Stories Never Written". I really think that comes as close to defining his political philosophy as anything he put on paper. Some of the fears that he expresses about the possibility of a religious coup in the U.S. and how it might be done strike an eerily familiar chord with some of today's events.
Also when people start getting riled up over what he "really meant" I also like to go back to his phrase from that essay where he says of his own Future History series, they are just stories written to amuse and buy groceries.
I don't doubt that we know how RAH felt about a lot of things, but I also don't doubt that there was much more depth and complexity, along with a fair amount of contradictions than we will ever know about how he felt about everything
edited for clarity
Number_6
beer, I want beer
I also find Heinlein preachy. He has a definite POV as to how things should be, and it really comes through after you've read all of Heinlein, something I did one summer when I was 19 or 20.
He's definitely anti-religious, or at least anti-Christian. Christianity takes a hit in a lot of Heinlein, starting with the stuff from Revolt in 2100--the Nehemiah Scudder stuff. I seem to recall that Islam gets more of a pass. Correct me if I'm wrong. I'm 36 now, so it's been awhile since I've read all of Heinlein.
He also has a rather radical attitude towards sexuality and sex/love relations. I'm not sure where this comes from, and there was a time when I thought that his POV was more enlightened than the prevailing one. But the more I read, the more I find that evolutionary psychology says "no way." There are a lot of human behaviors that may make no rational sense to some people, but they are there because they were necessary for survival. Given the nature of life in the prehistoric period, monogamy and the instinct towards monogamy were survival mechanisms, helping to insure the survival of the next generation. None of that matters in 2005, but our genes are slow to catch up.
This seems to be Heinlein's biggest problem--there is a branch of science, one which is currently moving ahead in leaps and bounds, that he never takes into account. I suppose that's understandable, given the hostility most liberal-minded people had towards certain branches of genetics in the wake of eugenics programs in the early twentieth century, culminating in Uncle Adolf. But it still makes his work terribly dated at times, and still constitutes an ideological blindspot, historically warranted or not.
As for my initial reaction to MIHM, I had forgotten the narrative style, with Mannie's dialect. I think that's a pretty bold move for Heinlein to make as a writer. Granted, by 1966 he was already a Grand Master, but it's still a bold move, and it could have backfired in a big way.
In terms of content, I'm still working on that. Yes, it's that professorial streak coming out. I fudged it in class today and did the "small group study questions" thing, (1) to avoid having to lecture and (2) to try and wean their overreliance on me to tell them "what it means." They've been a bit too passive lately, so I'm trying to break them of it.
More later, or early tomorrow. I'll also hit the boxes in the garage and find some primary sources. Not so much because I feel the need to prove my point, but because there's some interesting shit in there.
He's definitely anti-religious, or at least anti-Christian. Christianity takes a hit in a lot of Heinlein, starting with the stuff from Revolt in 2100--the Nehemiah Scudder stuff. I seem to recall that Islam gets more of a pass. Correct me if I'm wrong. I'm 36 now, so it's been awhile since I've read all of Heinlein.
He also has a rather radical attitude towards sexuality and sex/love relations. I'm not sure where this comes from, and there was a time when I thought that his POV was more enlightened than the prevailing one. But the more I read, the more I find that evolutionary psychology says "no way." There are a lot of human behaviors that may make no rational sense to some people, but they are there because they were necessary for survival. Given the nature of life in the prehistoric period, monogamy and the instinct towards monogamy were survival mechanisms, helping to insure the survival of the next generation. None of that matters in 2005, but our genes are slow to catch up.
This seems to be Heinlein's biggest problem--there is a branch of science, one which is currently moving ahead in leaps and bounds, that he never takes into account. I suppose that's understandable, given the hostility most liberal-minded people had towards certain branches of genetics in the wake of eugenics programs in the early twentieth century, culminating in Uncle Adolf. But it still makes his work terribly dated at times, and still constitutes an ideological blindspot, historically warranted or not.
As for my initial reaction to MIHM, I had forgotten the narrative style, with Mannie's dialect. I think that's a pretty bold move for Heinlein to make as a writer. Granted, by 1966 he was already a Grand Master, but it's still a bold move, and it could have backfired in a big way.
In terms of content, I'm still working on that. Yes, it's that professorial streak coming out. I fudged it in class today and did the "small group study questions" thing, (1) to avoid having to lecture and (2) to try and wean their overreliance on me to tell them "what it means." They've been a bit too passive lately, so I'm trying to break them of it.
More later, or early tomorrow. I'll also hit the boxes in the garage and find some primary sources. Not so much because I feel the need to prove my point, but because there's some interesting shit in there.
Morrhigan
Pussie
Well, I'm only on page 60 or so. I thought I'd read this one before, but none of it's familiar, so I must've confused it with some other Heinlein book.
The dialect appears be English language using Russian grammar and sentence construction, with Australian idioms and a few Russian words to spice things up. It's a bit distracting, mainly because I keep "hearing" it in a Russian accent, LOL.
As usual, Heinlein's portrayal of women is getting on my nerves. I wish I could pin down just what it is that irritates me. The women seem shallow, or perhaps I mean two-dimensional... maybe it's the way he seems to define women by their sexuality, as though that is the single most important part of their character. He doesn't treat men that way. Or machines, either.
I still find the partner relationships in Heinlein's books interesting. Maybe it's because I have pagan friends who have experimented with group commitments. I agree that it isn't as likely to work out as well as Heinlein portrays, but on the other hand, it isn't impossible. I wish he'd explore the conflicts inherent in a group marriage - or a "line marriage" or whatever he calls them - and show us how these conflicts are resolved. Come to think of it, that's a problem I have with Heinlein's portrayal of relationships in general: he does a lot of telling, but not much showing. And when he talks about feelings, it comes out sounding like Leave It to Beaver dialogue.
What I like most about this story so far is the friendship between Mannie and Mycroft. I'm also interested to see what effect Mannie's practical smarts will have on the revolutionaries. They certainly need someone to point out the flaws in their plans. Enthusiasm without good planning can make a big mess. :lol:
The dialect appears be English language using Russian grammar and sentence construction, with Australian idioms and a few Russian words to spice things up. It's a bit distracting, mainly because I keep "hearing" it in a Russian accent, LOL.
As usual, Heinlein's portrayal of women is getting on my nerves. I wish I could pin down just what it is that irritates me. The women seem shallow, or perhaps I mean two-dimensional... maybe it's the way he seems to define women by their sexuality, as though that is the single most important part of their character. He doesn't treat men that way. Or machines, either.
I still find the partner relationships in Heinlein's books interesting. Maybe it's because I have pagan friends who have experimented with group commitments. I agree that it isn't as likely to work out as well as Heinlein portrays, but on the other hand, it isn't impossible. I wish he'd explore the conflicts inherent in a group marriage - or a "line marriage" or whatever he calls them - and show us how these conflicts are resolved. Come to think of it, that's a problem I have with Heinlein's portrayal of relationships in general: he does a lot of telling, but not much showing. And when he talks about feelings, it comes out sounding like Leave It to Beaver dialogue.
What I like most about this story so far is the friendship between Mannie and Mycroft. I'm also interested to see what effect Mannie's practical smarts will have on the revolutionaries. They certainly need someone to point out the flaws in their plans. Enthusiasm without good planning can make a big mess. :lol: