Skip to main content

The Moon is a Harsh Mistress (SF) - Robert Heinlein ****

Revisiting this 1966 classic, which despite a few issues is Heinlein’s best novel, showed that it holds up surprisingly well. Amongst the big names of science fiction's ‘golden age’, Asimov may have had the edge on ideas, but Heinlein was a far better writer and this shows from the very beginning when the narrator comments of a self-aware computer ‘I had nicknamed him for Mycroft Holmes, in a story written by Dr Watson before he founded IBM.’ 

It might come as quite a surprise to those familiar with Heinlein’s politics, but in this study of colonial revolution, the author doesn’t shrink from including some communist ideas and terminology, while coming relatively soon after the McCarthy era, arguably Heinlein was brave in scattering speech with Russian terms and a tendency to drop the definite article. He was also critical of the US for institutional racism.

The story itself plays out the transformation of a prison colony on the Moon into a self-determining republic. The reluctant central character (as is often the case, pretty much Heinlein himself in thin disguise) Mannie is aided by the newly conscious central computer, Mike, whose abilities enable the conspirators to take on the might of Earth. Heinlein has clearly thought through the difficulties of life in the Moon tunnels and adds in impressive detail on the mechanism of rebellion and political machinations without ever losing the momentum of the plot.

To get the negative issues out of the way, three things conspire to limit the way the book now comes across. While the writing is still extremely lively and readable, modern readers coming to the book for the first time are liable to be held back by the computer technology, the politics and particularly the approach to women.

Most trivial, though the conscious computer is incredibly capable, Heinlein's prediction of future IT is fairly weak. (Incidentally, the story is sent in 2076, but the Moon has been colonised since before 2000). Mike seems to have very limited use of video, relying mostly on audio. His speech work is handled by the antiquated concept of a voder/vocoder, with separate physical circuits for each conversation. And, in a throwaway remark, Heinlein shows how computer memory has far exceeded expectations: at one point, Mike sets apart a large amount of memory. It’s 100 megabits.

The politics of the Moon reflects a viewpoint that became stronger in Heinlein’s later novels: it’s not far from that of Ayn Rand, which many will find uncomfortable. Having said that, the importance of self-sufficiency is arguably justified by the harsh lunar environment. Sadly, the treatment of women reflects that Heinlein was an author of the Mad Men era. While women are treated with respect on the Moon as there are twice as many men, women are literally referred to as a scarce commodity, and it's quite clear from the allocation of roles that a woman’s place is considered the home and the kitchen. At one point, Adam Selene, the fake public persona adopted by Mike, is asked if he can cook. He replies ‘Certainly. But I don’t; I’m married.’ Because of the shortage of women, the Moon has complex marriage forms, mostly featuring polyandry, and marriage is often at around age 14, which feels more than a little creepy.

If, however, you can see past this (bearing in mind both that the book was written in a different era and that Heinlein was setting up the culture of a frontier colony under extreme conditions), this is still a great book that deserves its place as a classic of the genre and should still be read.

Hardback:   
Kindle 
Using these links earns us commission at no cost to you
Review by Brian Clegg

Comments

  1. I was so tempted by this book but something held me back. Not any more after reading your review. https://scottharral.com/

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Roger Highfield - Stephen Hawking: genius at work interview

Roger Highfield OBE is the Science Director of the Science Museum Group. Roger has visiting professorships at the Department of Chemistry, UCL, and at the Dunn School, University of Oxford, is a Fellow of the Academy of Medical Sciences, and a member of the Medical Research Council and Longitude Committee. He has written or co-authored ten popular science books, including two bestsellers. His latest title is Stephen Hawking: genius at work . Why science? There are three answers to this question, depending on context: Apollo; Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, along with the world’s worst nuclear accident at Chernobyl; and, finally, Nullius in verba . Growing up I enjoyed the sciencey side of TV programmes like Thunderbirds and The Avengers but became completely besotted when, in short trousers, I gazed up at the moon knowing that two astronauts had paid it a visit. As the Apollo programme unfolded, I became utterly obsessed. Today, more than half a century later, the moon landings are

Space Oddities - Harry Cliff *****

In this delightfully readable book, Harry Cliff takes us into the anomalies that are starting to make areas of physics seems to be nearing a paradigm shift, just as occurred in the past with relativity and quantum theory. We start with, we are introduced to some past anomalies linked to changes in viewpoint, such as the precession of Mercury (explained by general relativity, though originally blamed on an undiscovered planet near the Sun), and then move on to a few examples of apparent discoveries being wrong: the BICEP2 evidence for inflation (where the result was caused by dust, not the polarisation being studied),  the disappearance of an interesting blip in LHC results, and an apparent mistake in the manipulation of numbers that resulted in alleged discovery of dark matter particles. These are used to explain how statistics plays a part, and the significance of sigmas . We go on to explore a range of anomalies in particle physics and cosmology that may indicate either a breakdown i

Splinters of Infinity - Mark Wolverton ****

Many of us who read popular science regularly will be aware of the 'great debate' between American astronomers Harlow Shapley and Heber Curtis in 1920 over whether the universe was a single galaxy or many. Less familiar is the clash in the 1930s between American Nobel Prize winners Robert Millikan and Arthur Compton over the nature of cosmic rays. This not a book about the nature of cosmic rays as we now understand them, but rather explores this confrontation between heavyweight scientists. Millikan was the first in the fray, and often wrongly named in the press as discoverer of cosmic rays. He believed that this high energy radiation from above was made up of photons that ionised atoms in the atmosphere. One of the reasons he was determined that they should be photons was that this fitted with his thesis that the universe was in a constant state of creation: these photons, he thought, were produced in the birth of new atoms. This view seems to have been primarily driven by re