Journey to the Center of the Moon

The Moon is a Harsh Mistress is the second Heinlein book I've read, after Starship Troopers. I now realize that I can't decide whether Heinlein is a great sci-fi writer and a poor sociopoliticist or vice-versa. He introduces amazing sci-fi concepts which cut to the heart of the things we listed in class as being definitive of sci-fi, but then he dispenses with those elements as soon as they have served his narrative purpose. He then takes glorious stands on the side of libertarianism, offering a eudaimonic picture of what a free society should be. However, he is also very guilty of attacking conflicting political philosophies through straw man arguments, and (somewhat more importantly) how much of a utopia is a place that is essentially ruled through mob violence?!

The best way to express my frustration with Heinlein is by comparing him with Charles Dickens (bear with me). Dickens was a great writer; his words provided a gateway into the terrible conditions faced by the poor of his time, and a greater feeling of London in general. However, his chief failing is widely considered to be his dependence on coincidence in his stories; in a city of millions, you can always count on proximity to be proportional to dramatic effect in his placement of characters throughout the city. Similarly, Heinlein's story relies on a set of very specific circumstances that his narrative style encourages us to believe arrive through good luck. To paraphrase my comment on this blog's last post:

Need a supercomputer that's alive and your best friend? Check. Need an intellectual with expert knowledge of the world's political history, as well as psychology? Check. Need a woman for...well, don't get me started on Heinlein's treatment of women. Need a contact on Earth? Check. Pieces don't fall into place as much as they are forced there by Heinlein's need to create the perfect revolution.

So after demonstrating that a libertarian revolution on the Moon is is perfectly possible (provided, of course, that it is a libertarian revolution on the Moon directed by Heinlein), what's left for the book? I'm not very impressed by Heinlein's depiction of the political situation after the revolution, either. I get the sense that he knows two basic things about politics: he likes rational anarchy, and most people don't. Because of this, once it comes time to actually discuss the new political order, Heinlein (and, by extension, his narrator) completely loses interest. Heck, even his most interesting sci-fi element, Mike, is merely a tool to further the political goal of REVOLUTION! I was most interested in reading about Mike's growth as a person; I wanted to see the poetry he'd been writing, and test his ability to think and feel. If I had been Manny, I would have locked myself in a room with Mike and not come out. Heinlein being Manny, however, he merely brushes off Mike's attempts to further his own sensitivity. After Mike shuts down, Manny misses his friend, but it never occurs to him that humanity has lost an amazing opportunity to explore the field of creating new life, new forms of consciousness.

And now it's time to talk about Heinlein's view of women. I should have been ready for this from Starship Troopers, where he literally discusses women as though they are a completely different species. As far as I can tell, Heinlein just doesn't know how to write women, which is why the only ones he gives a real personality to here are an old woman and Wyoh, who he explicitly states is more like a man in many ways. If you thought Wells' Time Traveler was a sexual predator of sorts, then you should be prepared to recognize that Heinlein's writing basically molests women as a gender. In Heinlein, no mention of a woman is complete without discussion of her sexuality; his descriptions of pubescent girls are enough to make Nabokov blush, and even poor Ludmilla is described as being killed by an exploding bullet impacting between her breasts. Wyoh is presented as devastatingly beautiful for no other reason, it seems, than to provide Heinlein with the vicarious sexual thrill of 'bundling' with her through Manny.

So there you have it. The extent of sci-fi in Heinlein is merely a prop to provide an excuse for him to foment revolution where it would otherwise be impossible. His political arguments are unfair, giving only lip service to the idea of open discussion (except for the "Randists," who, he apparently believes, have some good ideas!). His views on women are neanderthal at best; what good is sexual liberation if it causes them to become nothing more than sex objects? He is an entertaining and engaging writer, true, but where many people see a visionary of the future, I see a political hack pushing his agenda with tools that give him the best excuse for it.