Halfway through the first paragraph of The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress, I knew it was going to be fun to read. It was the line about Dr. Watson writing about Mycroft Holmes before he founded IBM - it's a great sort of a one-off one-liner affair of which I found the book to be full. In contrast to the fantastic, no-nonsense style of The Time Machine, Heinlein fills his work with the humor of the mundane, quotidian life of a smart Loonie. His writing style saves pages without losing any substance - I appreciated the marvel of the human brain to insert words where they make sense.
Of course, the course description insists that I delve deeper into the work than its fun literary aspects, and Heinlein gives ample material for analysis. Prof certainly has the mind for a revolution; its gestation period is written to perfection. The most ingenious part of Heinlein's revolution is obviously Mike. Things become a lot easier when you have an essentially omnipotent, omnipresent computer tied into every system of your entire world that happens to have taken a liking to you. The next time I plan a revolution, I have got to pick one of those up.
Heinlein certainly had a sense of how to manipulate the masses. Mike's manipulation of the communications infrastructure, right down to his poetic alter egos, is spot-on. The communication between the four key conspirators gives us all a perfect Machiavellian way to run a revolution. Provided, again, that you have one of those superconfusers sitting around somewhere.
Ultimately, I don't have too many problem's with Prof's methods. The Declaration of Independence bit especially stunk of genius. Ah, it's hardly democratic, but it gets the job done. It is an interesting point, though, that Prof seems to go against his own "rational anarchist" principles to achieve his goals. His ultimate failure to reshape society is perhaps a reflection of his top-down style. As Andrew and Mr. Townshend point out, there's nothing in the street looks any different to me (damn you, Andrew, for beating me to a good Who reference). In Pete's old age, though, I fear he ends up closer to the Professor's practice than his theories.
Posting this rather late, I have the advantage of reading other blogs and touching on a common thread I've seen. In my continued defense of The Time Machine, I remind everyone that this book was published in 1966, a year that should be close to any sci-fi fan's heart. By that time, Heinlein had some giants on whose shoulders he could stand. The back cover of ...Harsh Mistress fawns over Heinlein, claiming such an immense influence on later sci-fi writers. Apart from the most libertarian of authors, I see people standing on the shoulders of the likes of Asimov rather than Heinlein. Essentially, my defense of Wells boils down to context, as I wrote before. Wells wrote an excellent story in his idiom; Heinlein did the same in his. Though it's absolutely acceptable to choose favorites, I hope at least that we can give both authors credit where credit is due.
I wonder what Mike thought of The Time Machine.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I believe the Prof explains at one point that rational anarchy doesn't really work unless everybody does it.
For me, I was a little irritated by the coincidences present in the book. Need a supercomputer that's alive and your best friend? Check. Need an intellectual with expert knowledge of the world's political history and 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. And as soon as that need has been met, they might as well disappear. Mike may be the most ingenious creation here, but he's also the most wasted.
Well, we've sort of got to suspend disbelief to take any of it. The real revolutionary part (no pun intended) is Mike, of course. But without the series of coincidences, we wouldn't have book (or at least, we'd have a much longer one), so we've got to step back and sort of accept that one.
Post a Comment