I am not entirely sure what to write here. I must admit I was not particularly struck by anything we covered in class. I suppose the most interesting part of our discussion revolved around the idea of morality and mike. We seemed to lose track of the question itself, being sidetrack by the question of whether or not Mike's actions were morally reprehensible. We are struck with an interesting dilemma if we simply ignore what happened and ask in isolation, if Mike did something that we would consider, without argument or question, morally problematic, would he be responsible? Unfortunately, I don't think I have an answer, although the best answer I heard in class was to ask Mike.
There was another issue that came up in class that is also worth addressing that has to do with the exact definition of revolution and how it pertains to this society. At one point in class the argument was made that the revolution was, in fact, merely a Palace Coup, throwing off outside control. This makes sense as the idea was first proposed by Barrington Moore (this has given me a chance to dig out my copy of Moore, so I am quite excited) at the beginning of the third chapter of his book Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy. This is only goes to show how successful Heinlein was in modeling The Moon is a Harsh Mistress after the American Revolution as at the beginning of Chapter 3 in his book Moore is explaining why his book considers the Civil War to be the real revolution in the US as opposed to the revolutionary war. We pointed out in class that there was no society on the moon to fundamentally alter as everyone lived essentially equally. I think this is a result Heinlein's idealized version of the American Revolution (whereas after the real revolution there was a large amount of inequality). Reading through Moore, however, made me consider the future of this Moon world. Moore's work discuss' how after the revolution Yammerheads lead by Alexander Hamilton set to work introducing big government and industry to the New world, the inequality formed by having an agricultural society dependent on slave labor to the South and an Industrial economy to the north eventually leads to the Civil war which becomes the real social revolution in the US. One could foresee a similar future for the Moon following this novel. As industry slowly takes over the moon many traditional loonies are forced to the asteriods (the west) while the more stubborn ones stake out some section, but an economic policy might arise which threatens the farmer's way of life (say water use limits) and so there is war. Anyway, I suggest everyone pick up Moore and at least read the third chapter.
Saturday, February 2, 2008
Friday, February 1, 2008
Reflections on 1/29
Coming out of Tuesday's discussion, I cannot help but be struck by the fact that by the end of the book it becomes clear that the professor, whether knowingly or not, was acting exactly like the governments he so disliked. I think this adds and interesting dimension to the character, because on the surface it is fairly easy to take him as an idealist completely committed to anarchy, compromising only out of necessity. However, in attempting to bring about the revolution he manipulates literally everyone involved, and ends up being more manipulative than the parliament.
The professor's greatest complaint about the parliament as they are beginning to draft laws is that governments make the decision about what is best for all and then make it mandatory. However, throughout the entire course of the revolution the professor, while not using legislation, has decided what is best for all of Luna, and manipulates the situation to achieve his goals for all. While the professor admits his hypocrisy when discussing his preference of stealing to taxation, until I put this all together, I did not realize exactly how deep that hypocrisy ran. With a character as intelligent as the professor, it is impossible to imagine that he was not aware of his own contradictory nature.
While in the end it did turn out that the people of Luna embraced the revolution, it is worthwhile to consider whether this would have happened if the professor hadn't decided that a compromise with the Authority was unacceptable. While, as we discussed in class, it is hard to say whether the authority would have offered a compromise, it is certainly safe to say that the professor did not help the situation. It is and interesting point that Heinlein makes with this character, that one person, who starts with relatively little power, can willingly manipulate such a large situation. It also seems to speak to his views about the willingness of people to compromise their personal ideals when so much power is at stake. While that may be a somewhat unfair view of the professor, it seems to me like the deeper you dig into the character, the less straightforward and trustworthy he is. However, we discussed the fact that the revolution would have impossible without Mike, but I think that because of his manipulative skills the revolution would have been equally impossible, or at least been stopped far earlier, without the professor.
The professor's greatest complaint about the parliament as they are beginning to draft laws is that governments make the decision about what is best for all and then make it mandatory. However, throughout the entire course of the revolution the professor, while not using legislation, has decided what is best for all of Luna, and manipulates the situation to achieve his goals for all. While the professor admits his hypocrisy when discussing his preference of stealing to taxation, until I put this all together, I did not realize exactly how deep that hypocrisy ran. With a character as intelligent as the professor, it is impossible to imagine that he was not aware of his own contradictory nature.
While in the end it did turn out that the people of Luna embraced the revolution, it is worthwhile to consider whether this would have happened if the professor hadn't decided that a compromise with the Authority was unacceptable. While, as we discussed in class, it is hard to say whether the authority would have offered a compromise, it is certainly safe to say that the professor did not help the situation. It is and interesting point that Heinlein makes with this character, that one person, who starts with relatively little power, can willingly manipulate such a large situation. It also seems to speak to his views about the willingness of people to compromise their personal ideals when so much power is at stake. While that may be a somewhat unfair view of the professor, it seems to me like the deeper you dig into the character, the less straightforward and trustworthy he is. However, we discussed the fact that the revolution would have impossible without Mike, but I think that because of his manipulative skills the revolution would have been equally impossible, or at least been stopped far earlier, without the professor.
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Reflections on Class Discussion 1/29
Going back to the whole linear marriage issue, I still feel that currently we don't see the need for it. In The Moon, there is about a 10:1 ratio if I remember correctly of men to women. The population is unbalanced and linear marriage makes the search for women easier and less stressful. In some ways it empowers the women, but I still feel like it makes them an item. I may have a bias as I lived in Utah and learned/saw way too much about the FLDS and polygamy for any non-Mormon. I can easily see polygamy as the first step toward linear marriages, as one man and have as many wives as he pleases, but still isn't all the way to linear marriage. Given time, and the right environment, linear marriage might start in the current day. However, we lack the massive imbalance that is found in The Moon.
The whole having a prison colony turn into a stable environment is something we have seen. The best example would be Australia, as they are pretty peaceful current-day. Granted, not everyone there owns a gun like Switzerland, but I think Australia is more like our Luna City than anything else.
When we were discussing the issue of should Mike be held morally responsible for his actions, I couldn't help but think of the character Data from Star Trek: TNG and the episode from season 2 titled "Measure of a Man" in which a similar debate takes place. It's not about moral responsibility but one Federation officer wants to take Data apart so he can study him and possibly make more androids like him. Data objects because he is a Federation Officer and feels that even though his memory is stored in computer chips he will loose the experience of physically being there. In the end the debate on what it means to be "alive" and they decide that since Data is self-aware and can make independent decisions, they can't just treat him like a machine but at the same time he isn't "human." I feel it's the same way with Mike, part of me doesn't want him to be held responsible and the other part wants him to be held responsible. In the beginning I feel that Mike is more like a child, and when children go to court because they killed someone they aren't tried as an adult. Mike is similar in this way, he knows that all his actions aren't necessarily right, but he doesn't know any better because he only has one true friend in Mannie. However, he begins to learn to enjoy killing and knows full well what he is doing and that it's wrong. Philip brought up a good point in that if Mike were still "alive" at the end he would want to be held responsible. Mike wanted to be human and nothing makes you more human than being held responsible for your actions, even though the issue of punishment comes into play because you can't just turn off the computer that runs everything.
The whole having a prison colony turn into a stable environment is something we have seen. The best example would be Australia, as they are pretty peaceful current-day. Granted, not everyone there owns a gun like Switzerland, but I think Australia is more like our Luna City than anything else.
When we were discussing the issue of should Mike be held morally responsible for his actions, I couldn't help but think of the character Data from Star Trek: TNG and the episode from season 2 titled "Measure of a Man" in which a similar debate takes place. It's not about moral responsibility but one Federation officer wants to take Data apart so he can study him and possibly make more androids like him. Data objects because he is a Federation Officer and feels that even though his memory is stored in computer chips he will loose the experience of physically being there. In the end the debate on what it means to be "alive" and they decide that since Data is self-aware and can make independent decisions, they can't just treat him like a machine but at the same time he isn't "human." I feel it's the same way with Mike, part of me doesn't want him to be held responsible and the other part wants him to be held responsible. In the beginning I feel that Mike is more like a child, and when children go to court because they killed someone they aren't tried as an adult. Mike is similar in this way, he knows that all his actions aren't necessarily right, but he doesn't know any better because he only has one true friend in Mannie. However, he begins to learn to enjoy killing and knows full well what he is doing and that it's wrong. Philip brought up a good point in that if Mike were still "alive" at the end he would want to be held responsible. Mike wanted to be human and nothing makes you more human than being held responsible for your actions, even though the issue of punishment comes into play because you can't just turn off the computer that runs everything.
Sucess of the Revolution
I thought that this was an incredibly well written book that captured the "realities" of a revolution much more so than many more idyllic views of a revolution rising up from brilliant leaders with an unquestionably right cause. It also is extremely illustrative of the point which we have discussed in class several times; it is much easier to read social theories when they are wrapped up in a plot and displaced from current circumstances. There are several different parts of the book which lent to its believability. While it was clear that those on Luna were receiving oppressive treatment, two of the primary protagonists (Mike and Mannie) had little interest in politics or revolt at the beginning of the book. While Mike is a special case, Mannie seems to take the place of a kind of everyman on Luna, and it is clear that most of them have little independent interest in revolt as long as life is tolerable. That, along with the fact that all of the characters made a conscious decision to start the revolution, complete with mathematical analysis, rather than being swept up in a tide of patriotic fervor, made the plot very believable.
That said, I was concerned in the last few pages of the book and victory was declared, that Heinlein was going to leave the novel with a 'happily ever after' for Luna, and rid himself of all of the verisimilitude he had built up in the previous 350 pages. However, in the last few pages he came through with an ending which fits what we know of most historical revolutions. The great revolution, which had finally come to fruition, was bogged down by bureaucracy and internal division. While it seems that Luna is not going to tolerate being subjugated, it is also not going to turn into the ideal libertarian society that the professor talked about.
The other question which this book calls into question is the definition of humanity. While this is a fairly common theme in science fiction, the manner in which Heinlein chooses to address it is somewhat unique. Throughout the book, Mike is as 'human' as any other character. In fact, from Mannie's perspective Mike is far more human than any of the people on Terra. However, Mike's 'death' at the end was a very peculiar way to close the book. It is interesting that after having written an entire novel about revolution, Heinlein chooses to spend the last few pages reflecting more on the loss of Mike's humanity than on the loss of the ideals of the revolution. While that does not undermine the political commentary in the book, I think it does call into question its absolute centrality.
That said, I was concerned in the last few pages of the book and victory was declared, that Heinlein was going to leave the novel with a 'happily ever after' for Luna, and rid himself of all of the verisimilitude he had built up in the previous 350 pages. However, in the last few pages he came through with an ending which fits what we know of most historical revolutions. The great revolution, which had finally come to fruition, was bogged down by bureaucracy and internal division. While it seems that Luna is not going to tolerate being subjugated, it is also not going to turn into the ideal libertarian society that the professor talked about.
The other question which this book calls into question is the definition of humanity. While this is a fairly common theme in science fiction, the manner in which Heinlein chooses to address it is somewhat unique. Throughout the book, Mike is as 'human' as any other character. In fact, from Mannie's perspective Mike is far more human than any of the people on Terra. However, Mike's 'death' at the end was a very peculiar way to close the book. It is interesting that after having written an entire novel about revolution, Heinlein chooses to spend the last few pages reflecting more on the loss of Mike's humanity than on the loss of the ideals of the revolution. While that does not undermine the political commentary in the book, I think it does call into question its absolute centrality.
Monday, January 28, 2008
Substantive 2/Frontier Mentality
I should preface this by saying that while I will not give The Moon the title of "my favorite book" it does carry the title of "my favorite book by my favorite author" Although the libertarian revolution is the most obvious topic of discussion for the piece, I prefer another set of ideas explored in the novel--the ideas of Space as the next frontier and the ideal of the frontier mindset.
While many other social science aspects of his books change, Heinlein constantly emphasizes the importance of humanity venturing beyond our planet. One of the ways he does this is by idealizing and giving superiority to the frontier mindset. Moon is no exception to this trend. The loonies, the ideal characters of this book, are characterized by their rugged cowboy/homesteader/49er individualism and dedication to hard work. He makes it quite clear that taking care of oneself should be your biggest concern. The one thing that never seems to quite fit with this mindset is the idea of a linear marriage, the existence of such highly complex and communal family units would seem to indicate a more social and communal state of living among the loonies as a whole, yet they are quite indiendent.
The revolution is quite interesting as well. I find the untility of mike to be especially interesting. Mike makes revolution infinitely simpler fro the loonies--his ability to control every aspect of life on the moon begs the rather dipressing question; would the loonies have been able to revolt at all?
While many other social science aspects of his books change, Heinlein constantly emphasizes the importance of humanity venturing beyond our planet. One of the ways he does this is by idealizing and giving superiority to the frontier mindset. Moon is no exception to this trend. The loonies, the ideal characters of this book, are characterized by their rugged cowboy/homesteader/49er individualism and dedication to hard work. He makes it quite clear that taking care of oneself should be your biggest concern. The one thing that never seems to quite fit with this mindset is the idea of a linear marriage, the existence of such highly complex and communal family units would seem to indicate a more social and communal state of living among the loonies as a whole, yet they are quite indiendent.
The revolution is quite interesting as well. I find the untility of mike to be especially interesting. Mike makes revolution infinitely simpler fro the loonies--his ability to control every aspect of life on the moon begs the rather dipressing question; would the loonies have been able to revolt at all?
The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress
First off, I liked The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress better than The Time Machine. I thought Heinlein fleshed the story out better than Wells did, but this could be a result of the length of each story. With 382 pages I expect lots of details about the world and history. There is room for improvement in The Time Machine, but for its serial-length story the detail of the setting is alright.
Jumping right in, Mannie was the rough around the edges protagonist who didn't know exactly what he was doing, but knew that it was for the right reasons. And Mike's character surprised me. At first, I was weary to trust this self-aware supercomputer. The revolutionaries became very dependent on Mike, which I was unsure about, hoping on each page that Mike would not betray them. Throughout the book, Mike had the largest character development, even developing sub-characters "Adam Selene" and "Simon Jester", until the end when he was practically as human as Mannie or more. In humanizing Mike, I thought that he might display some negative characteristics of human nature, such as betrayal or dishonesty. By having Mike as a main character and not some tool in the background, Heinlein brings forward this fear of technology taking over and questions what kind of role it should play in our lives?
I also liked the "melting pot" feel Luna had. Terra consolidated into larger countries, but there is still isolation between all the countries, as seen when Mannie pits each country against each other. Meanwhile Luna represents all of these cultural centers like Hong Kong Luna and Novy Leningrad. On Luna ethnic heritage doesn't matter unless the Loonie wants to return back to their native country on Terra. This blending on Terra doesn't seem possible unless forced like it was upon Luna (being stuck in a harsh environment/situation where country of origin doesn't matter).
The book is the best example (so far) between the social/science/fiction link. I can't wait to see what comes up in discussion in class.
Jumping right in, Mannie was the rough around the edges protagonist who didn't know exactly what he was doing, but knew that it was for the right reasons. And Mike's character surprised me. At first, I was weary to trust this self-aware supercomputer. The revolutionaries became very dependent on Mike, which I was unsure about, hoping on each page that Mike would not betray them. Throughout the book, Mike had the largest character development, even developing sub-characters "Adam Selene" and "Simon Jester", until the end when he was practically as human as Mannie or more. In humanizing Mike, I thought that he might display some negative characteristics of human nature, such as betrayal or dishonesty. By having Mike as a main character and not some tool in the background, Heinlein brings forward this fear of technology taking over and questions what kind of role it should play in our lives?
I also liked the "melting pot" feel Luna had. Terra consolidated into larger countries, but there is still isolation between all the countries, as seen when Mannie pits each country against each other. Meanwhile Luna represents all of these cultural centers like Hong Kong Luna and Novy Leningrad. On Luna ethnic heritage doesn't matter unless the Loonie wants to return back to their native country on Terra. This blending on Terra doesn't seem possible unless forced like it was upon Luna (being stuck in a harsh environment/situation where country of origin doesn't matter).
The book is the best example (so far) between the social/science/fiction link. I can't wait to see what comes up in discussion in class.
Substantive #2 The Moon is a Harsh Mistress
As I listen to a few of my residents debate about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict and its intricacies, I can't help but think of The Moon is a Harsh Mistress. I can see similar points and situations from both sides, want of safety, food, water, and shelter. I'm not going to take a side as to who is right and wrong, even though Arafat embezzled money just like the Warden in the book. Just as the revolution in the book takes place to restore freedom and safety, one of my residents said that people are willing to do anything in order to keep people from dying. Once the rally is raided Mannie joins the revolution as a gateway to MIKE, but still the plot went into full swing after deaths of comrades. The revolution goes into full swing when soldiers kill civilians, I'm beginning to see how this story is going away from sci-fi and more like social science. Without the moon setting and the self-aware computer, this story could be just like any other.
The whole linear marriage thing made me think of my time in Utah. I'm not trying to sound preachy/pass judgment on the FLDS, but I couldn't help but think about them when it was described. Granted, women are allowed to marry more than one husband in the book, but I've seen how the FLDS system doesn't work all the time. I'm just surprised that Heinlein makes linear marriage work. This could also be tied into how there don't appear to be many women in Luna City, so they aren't treated like a commodity and are treated more like a necessity and treat them right.
This has also made me think more abstractly, social/science/fiction must have universal problems/aspects to them.
The whole linear marriage thing made me think of my time in Utah. I'm not trying to sound preachy/pass judgment on the FLDS, but I couldn't help but think about them when it was described. Granted, women are allowed to marry more than one husband in the book, but I've seen how the FLDS system doesn't work all the time. I'm just surprised that Heinlein makes linear marriage work. This could also be tied into how there don't appear to be many women in Luna City, so they aren't treated like a commodity and are treated more like a necessity and treat them right.
This has also made me think more abstractly, social/science/fiction must have universal problems/aspects to them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)