I read Heinlein a lot in my early teens. My dad was a big fan and I must have spent whole summers just reading Arthur C. Clarke’s space adventures and Heinlein more intellectual take on the future.
The Moon a Harsh Mistress (TMIAHM) is one of the few Heinlein I hadn’t read yet and it surprised me just how political it is. And how this grated on my nerves. The effect is similar to the one caused by The Chronicles of Narnia: I’m sure the religious metaphors would go over my head if I’d read them as a kid, but now they’re too obvious, there’s An Agenda behind it all.
This worries me. Although I’m assuming I wouldn’t notice the political and religious hints as a young reader, is that the same as not being influenced by them? Maybe this a non-question in the end. After all, books exist to mean something, to teach us about the world. Before I become a mother I have to figure how to deal with these issues…
TMIAHM is one of Heinlein’s most famous novels, the story of a revolution. Very much as the Heinlein I remembered, it’s not so much about battles and guns as it is about strategic decisions and planning. A sort of how-to guide.
In 2075 the moon is a mining colony of 3 million inhabitants called Luna. It’s tightly controlled by Earth through the Lunar Authority, that ensures the population remains poor, oppressed and under control. Most “Loonies” are criminals, exiles and their descendants. The colony has a horrible reputation on Earth, but because of the harsh conditions they live in, Loonies discovered they don’t really need a judicial system, or organized government for that matter. If you do harm, the community will shun you and more likely than not, you’ll be chucked in an air vent one night.
Luna is a hard place, where the “survival of the fittest” rules. Many newcomers don’t make it, either because they’re physically weak or because they don’t adjust to Luna’s unspoken rules, like women’s place at the top of the food chain (more on that later). Humans live in families or clans, that ensure the social protection a government would provide.
In TMIAHM, organized government is an evil only surpassed by (gasp!) taxes. Actually, the overall message of the book is: the freedom of the individual to direct his or her own life, no matter what. The lines below are spoken by the Professor, the “Rational Anarchist” of the small group who leads the revolution:
Mankind has not done well when saddling itself with governments.
I believe in capital punishment under some circumstances … with this difference. I would not ask a court; I would try, condemn, execute sentence myself, and accept full responsibility.
In terms of morals, there is no such thing as ‘state.’ Just men. Individuals. Each responsible for his own acts.
I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do” “You would not abide by a law that the majority felt was necessary?” “Tell me what law, dear lady, and I will tell you whether I will obey it.”
Comrades, I beg of you — do not resort to compulsory taxation. There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he does not want merely because you think it would be good for him.
Well, you get the point. Luna’s society works perfectly on its own, without a pesky central government. Everyone sticks by the rules because that’s how you survive, not because they’re written somewhere. If someone does wrong, it’s not society in general that gives out punishment, but the family and friends of the victim. Swiftly, with no trial. What happens to a victim that’s friendless? No idea.
So, to preserve this way of life, Lunar Authority must go. Loonies had been talkin’ ’bout a revolution for a while, but it’s the meeting of three contrasting figures that really gets things going. Mannie, a computer technician, Wyoh, an enthusiastic-yet-naïve young female agitator, and the Professor, an elderly academic, become the leaders of the rebel movement. To support them there’s Mike, the supercomputer owned by Earth who controls all activities on Luna. Without Earth’s knowledge, Mike begins to gain a personality and become “alive”. The only person to realize this is Mannie, who recruits Mike to help the revolution.
The revolution is “libertarian” and “democratic” and Heinlein makes everything it sound so easy, so simple, almost like a mental puzzle. There’s almost no blood-shed and there’s no deviation from the plan. There’s no need for coercion, concerns over funding, snitches and other nastiness. Mike, the supercomputer is there to help and become the plot device that avoids the inconsistencies in the authors’ ideas. Mike is able to finance the revolution through digital accountancy, he spies on Authority and any traitors of the revolution. He sets up a Luna-wide communications system that’s impossible to breach. He cannot be corrupted, bribed, threatened or tortured for information. He organizes a bombardment of Earth with accuracy to ensure that few human lives are lost. Revolution is fun! Democracy is easy!
The rebels win, although with Mike’s help that victory sounded lame. So what do the libertarians do right after they’re independent? They rig the first elections (with the use of Mike) and set up a “parliament” where they dump all those bothersome Loonies that question the power of the top cadres of the revolution.
So yes, I had a few problems with the political side of the book. Googling about Heinlein and remembering the stories I read as a kid, I realize he can be very heavy-handed when defending his “freedom of the individual” mantra, even more so in his later books.
Another of Heinlein’s favorite visions seems to be the benefits of polygamy over monogamy and how it makes adults happier and children safer. In Luna, the men to women ration is 2:1, which leads to polyandrous and polygamous marriage arrangements among the clans. From this Heinlein defends that in such a society, women are more valued.
Here we are, two million males, less than one million females. A physical fact, basic as rock or vacuum. Then add idea of tanstaafl [there is no such thing as a free lunch]. When thing is scarce, price goes up. Women are scarce; aren’t enough to go around – that makes them most valuable thing in Luna, more precious than ice or air, as men without women don’t care whether they stay alive or not. Except a Cyborg, if you regard him as a man, which I don’t.
His argument is that women are better treated in this scenario because they have the upper hand and the “right” to choose who to take home. It’s a miracle that under such circumstance, women don’t become sex slaves and breeding machines. Instead, men play fair and defer to women about their choices. To Heinlein, women are more valuable than ice or air, and for that they should be celebrated and protected – hurrah *confetti*.
Valued they may be, but in Luna women don’t should any power outside the home. Actually, in the only fight scene of the book, we know how bad things are because “even women” join the fight. In another scene someone asks our hero “Do you cook?” and he answers seriously “No, I’m married”. Wyoh, the one woman who’s part of the revolutionary leadership, although clearly smart and confident, is constantly being flirtatious and shown the naïvety of her believes.
I get it, it was the 60s. Heinlein is actually considered a feminist because, unlike other female sci-fi characters of the time, his women are part of events and influence them, they’re not technologically-challenged or afraid of a good fight. I just wished he had gone a little further and, for instance, made the Professor a woman.
I can appreciate what he did with Mannie. After all, it was the 60s and his hero was a disabled (one arm missing), mixed-race man who spoke like a Russian, with an unconventional marriage and with the power to bomb the US.
Just to end with a more positive note, here’s three things I did like (a lot!) about TMIAHM: 1) Mannie (for the reason above), 2) the discussions about the theory of compartmentalization and how to improve the traditional cell system in a revolution. How to make it as efficient and underground as possible, while still maintaining reliable communications. 3) every once in a while, Heinlein makes the reader stop and consider almost direct questions:
“Under what circumstances is it moral for a group to do that which is not moral for a member of that group to do alone?”
Uh… that’s a trick question.
It is the key question, dear Wyoming. A radical question that strikes to the root of the whole dilemma of government. Anyone who answers honestly and abides by all consequences knows where he stands – and what he will die for.”
***
Other thoughts: 50 Books Project, Becky’s Book Reviews, The Book Nest, unter randomonium, The Two Blessings, The Avid Reader, Dolce Belezza (yours?)
11 comments
Comments feed for this article
November 25, 2011 at 6:31 pm
nymeth
I highly recommend Laura Miller’s The Magician’s Book for a thoughtful consideration of all the questions you asked in your intro paragraphs. The book mainly focuses on Narnia, but Miller’s points go for literature in general.
I’ve never read Heinlein, but it’s always interesting (if sometimes frustrating) to read authors who go further than their contemporaries, but nowhere near as far as we readers from today would wish. I’m having that experience at the moment with Wilkie Collins.
November 26, 2011 at 12:03 am
CJ
(Full disclosure: I’m university faculty and my class starts the book next week.) Does it grate because you don’t like thinking about politics or because you don’t agree with the characters? There are big differences between Heinlein’s early young adult novels and his later work. ALL of his major adult stuff has political commentary. Heinlein didn’t stick the politics in TMIAHM and ruin a good story, the politics is the story, but you get the bonus of thoughtful science and interesting characterization. The work can be pretty subtle, and it’s as much satire as commentary. He does use Mike as a deus ex machina, but that’s the one real concession a reader has to buy into.
Luna is about the size of Chicago, so forms of government that would never work for 300 million or 1 billion might nevertheless work there. Much of the social setting is influenced by three important things: a harsh environment, a small community, and negligent government. The harsh environment makes having no collective efforts impossible — at the very least these people must pay for air and water! Since women are few, it makes sense to have them pass up dangerous jobs involving radiation. On Earth there are few female coal miners – why would lunar society encourage female drillers? On Earth, societies that practiced polyandry (as opposed to harems) often did so when conditions were harsh and land was scarce (see. e.g., Nepal). Heinlein’s line marriages make sense in that there would be almost no orphans or widows and family holdings would grow instead of being divided up between children.
As for the status of women, one consistent theme in Heinlein is a powerful woman shouldn’t have to downplay her femininity to be taken seriously. Can you say that women had no power when one of the ruling troika and many of the congress and signers of the declaration of independence were female? On Earth there have been societies where men can’t own property, but the women can; in general the men still ran day to day business but the women had veto power. (It also made for fairly free pre-marital sex; no illegitimacy – we always know who the mother is.) But again this was in smaller Micronesian communities. It may seem weird to you, but similarly in his book “Job” Heinlein had a character amazed that a society had no traffic cops and obeyed an inanimate light box! He thought it was a miracle people put up with tyranny of such machines. : )
The scenario that introduced Stu is consistent with a small self-governing community. Swift justice is often more effective as a deterrent even as it makes a casualty of fairness, and prisoners creating a “let’s keep government out of it” system is understandable. Since the government doesn’t provide a safety net, people have to rely on family, gangs, and churches to look out for each other. This has happened often in history, especially with immigrant sub-communities. In the US religious schools and hospitals were founded less as charity than to help an underserved population. The key is he didn’t posit 20th century Earth levels of politeness, isolation and government with this.
There is also a lot of the 60s in the book, including how a small agrarian can fight a superpower and win. Much of the 60s involved questioning of US government and its relationship to citizens. Today, there are a lot of themes that can be connected or contrasted with Tea Party and OWS talking points. You don’t have to agree with any of it to learn something about your own views.
November 27, 2011 at 4:01 pm
cbjamess
Fascinating review. Thank you. Though I’ve read a lot of science fiction, I don’t think I’ve ever read a novel by Heinlein. I know that this is one of his more famous ones, but I don’t think I’m going to read it. It sounds very Ayn Randian from your description of it. I’ve little patience for her.
CJ mentions the need for air and water as reasons for an over-arching government in his comment. He seems to put these down as fairly minor issues, reasons for a small government. But anyone who understands the American West, I live in California myself, can tell you that redistribution of water is what makes life here possible. Without a very large government, run by tax dollars collected throughout the country, there would be a very small handful of people living here. It’s only through massive government projects, water, roads, power grids, that we can have cities of 3 million and more in what is a desert very much like the moon.
Still, sounds like an interesting read.
November 27, 2011 at 5:48 pm
CJ
@cbjamess I agree. I actually meant the opposite: water and air mean that having no government is not an option for Luna. I know the map of America was shaped by water rights.
In the book, Luna is a prison where once your sentence is over you can’t leave. No one came voluntarily and the natives can’t emigrate. They have a dictatorial Warden, not a governor, and there is no voting whatsoever. Other than air and water, the Warden does absolutely nothing for the free population. No welfare, medical care, no infrastructure, nothing. So much material is being shipped to Earth that Luna is losing its natural resources. It’s unsustainable and the revolution ferments when the Warden arbitrarily raises the price of water, selling only grey water at fresh water prices. This is done because Earth’s government is trying to reduce it’s deficit.
My lengthy explanations above were primarily to show that, at least in this book, the starting scenario isn’t simply wish fulfillment but draws on the variety of human societies outside of western culture. Unlike Earth, you can actually start with a blank slate and design a government from scratch, so what do you do? You don’t have to agree with any of Heinlein’s beliefs to make it a meaningful story. And it’s definitely not Randian. Rand felt we have no obligations to our neighbors; Heinlein felt small communities ought to turn to civic organizations first since they are more flexible and less coercive.
November 28, 2011 at 3:29 pm
Alex
Sorry to be late to the conversation!
@Nymeth: *scribbles down “The Magician’s Book”* – thanks!
@CJ: Thanks for taking the time to post, I’d love to hear what your class has to say.
I have a problem with the political views as well, but this review (I hope) was dedicated with my problems with the book itself. I would have liked to see the story done a bit more subtly, or at least with more debate. One thing is to be read and discuss a political manifesto and another to do the same with a novel. In TMIAHM politics are central, but I’m afraid Heinlein did it at the expense of the quality of the story. For instance, Professor and Mannie make several statements on what would normally be very controversial (and easily debatable) topics, without ever being unchallenged. I was so surprised about this that I looked around a bit for other opinions, and the best description I found was by Alexei Panshin: “Instead of concerning himself with facts, he [Heinlein] has written about the morality of sex, religion, war and politics, but he has treated his opinions as though they were facts.” I wish he had created a character as intelligent as the Professor to have real debates with him, so that everything didn’t sound so much like a monologue. Mike would so easily be able to piece holes in his theories!
I agree that his form of politics would be almost impossible to apply to a larger population, but that is never address in the book. Earth’s problems are just a contrast that make Luna’s society look good. No one ever says “Hey Prof, that’s all very good herein Luna, but I don’t think no taxes and no government would solve the problem of the streets of Bombay.”
Regarding Mike, he’s “the one real concession”, but such a HUGE concession that without him TMIAHM would be a completely different novel, and Heinlein’s political views much harder (impossible?) to prove right. If he set out to write such a political manifesto-cum-novel, then he should have been more honest with readers and himself. It was a huge cop-out to have Mike be the Deus Ex Machina that conveniently goes back to a “Machina-only” status once the deed is done.
Women in Luna. The only type of lead woman that Heinlein seems to be able to write is the intelligent, beautiful and brave gal, sexually liberated but with a thing for scientists (humm… Mary Sue?). The other female characters with any lines in THIAHM are domestic beings. There is no variety of women in his novels. And why not have a couple of miners? Like you said, there are only so many people in Luna, I’m sure they could use all the hands they can get. The biggest problem, though, is that women in Luna don’t even seem to have that choice. What do you think would happen if a women really did want to mine? Line marriages replaces organized social security, true enough, but apart from safety, there’s doesn’t seem to be much benefits or choices for women at all. Luna is just like small-town living in the idyllic 60s. Maybe that’s the way to survive under harsh environments, but Heinlein is trying to break the status quo in so many ways and still falls short of complete gender equality (again, I wish the Professor had been a woman!).
I completely agree with you, I learned a lot from this book and it made me do a good amount of Googling about Heinlein and his positions in general. In that perspective, it was a great book. I guess my conclusion here is: I’d have forgiven it all, if it wasn’t such an blatantly and obvious vehicle to pass along a message. I like to believe that I’d think the same about any novel, even one supporting my own political views.
@cbjamess: Yes, I also thought of Ayn Randian as I read the book. It’s exactly along those lines, and just like Ayn Rand the book divides many people.
November 28, 2011 at 6:54 pm
Audra (Unabridged Chick)
Weirdly enough, I love this novel — weird for me, since I totally hate stuff that feels dated, political, and features less-than-nuanced female characters — all stuff you lift up in your review. Maybe because I read it at a formative time in my teens, and therefore all rereads are filtered through that, I’m still rather fond of this one. But you’ve got me hankering for another reread, to see if it still resonates!
November 30, 2011 at 5:33 pm
Melissa
I read this one earlier this year and had a similar reaction, as you saw. I was so disappointed that Wyoh started out as a strong woman, and then sort of faded out. I haven’t read anything else by Heinlein yet, but I hope to.
April 30, 2014 at 4:56 am
deer hunter 2014 telecharger
Either he’s being brutally honest and lacks some class, or he’s angry at
how things have turned out. Those with eye problems should definitely consult with their doctors first before indulging in any
kind of ED medication like Viagra. Be prepared though, because
he’ll probably want to get back together with you.
April 30, 2014 at 6:23 pm
niisaddn25.blogspot.com
When I initially commented I seem to have clicked on the -Notify me when new comments are added- checkbox
and from now on each time a comment is added I receive four emails with the
same comment. There has to be a way you are able to remove me from that
service? Many thanks!
May 1, 2014 at 3:43 am
best inversion table
Spot on with this write-up, I honestly think this site needs far more attention.
I’ll probably be returning to read more, thanks for the advice!
May 1, 2014 at 10:19 am
Avis
Hi there! Do you know if they make any plugins to assist with
Search Engine Optimization? I’m trying to get my blog to rank
for some targeted keywords but I’m not seeing very good success.
If you know of any please share. Kudos!