Click on a book's image or title to order from Amazon.com

Stranger in a Strange Land

I read this classic science fiction novel last month for the first time (right after re-reading The Moon is a Harsh Mistress). I've never been much of a Heinlein fan, and this novel turned out to be no exception. In a word, it's dull.

Valentine Michael Smith is a human who was born on Mars and raised there after his parents - leaders of the first manned expedition to the red planet - died. Found by the second expedition, he's sent back to Earth by the humans - and by the Martians to be their emissary to gather information about the third planet. There he becomes a natural celebrity, but also turns out not to know much about human culture.

'Mike' is rescued by reporter Ben Caxton and nurse Jill Boardman, who take him to the estate of radical doctor/lawyer Jubal Harshaw. Harshaw runs a libertarian estate, and his three female aides and various male aides can do as they please as long as perform a few services for him. Mike is soon revealed to have strange powers beyond the means of normal men, as well as a decidedly peculiar outlook, and he and his brothers try to understand each other. Understanding is eventually achieved, leading to Mike becoming a sort of messianic figure among those who become his followers.

One story goes that Heinlein in this novel is writing the story which corresponds with L. Ron Hubbard's "church" of Scientology. I'm not familiar enough with Scientology to know if this is the case, but there are superficial similarities (especially if you see Scientology as a snake oil product): A religion based on the power of one's mind to overcome obstacles, and which is based partly on Mike's understanding that 'marks' (i.e., suckers) are more willing to accept an illusion if you make it look good and charge them a bunch of money for it.

The book focuses on Mike's attempts to understand humans in the context of his Martian upbringing, and his relationships with his "water brothers", the people around him whom he trusts most. Combine this with Harshaw's home, and several key Heinlein themes are present: The self-reliant man who lets others live their own lives and expects them to do the same to him, and the appearance of empowered women who nonetheless love the men (usually more than one of them) unconditionally and are all-too-happy to have sex with them whenever possible. As Heinlein's notion of economics seems unrealistically naive (see the review of The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, below), and the eroticism which permeates the novel quickly grows tiresome, the book's background seems at once unpalatable and implausible.

The story's plot has more basic problems, too: The early part of the novel is fairly exciting, as Mike is being kept closely guarded by the government for practical issues involving his rights and entitlements Ben and Jill must figure out what the government's up to and how to make him a free man. However, this takes up only about a third of the book, and afterwards these issues are left in the background. From there the book moves into Mike's grappling with the ideas in the world around him, and then with trying to leave a mark with his own ideas. It really needed more editing, to trim down the extraneous sections (basically, choosing one of the three stories I've just described) and focusing on it. The first one is the most engaging, but perhaps the least worthy of writing a book about. The other two seem to end before they've been fully explored, and perhaps more depth would have made them more interesting.

I can't say I was really disappointed in this novel, since my expectations were fairly low. But it's not a great book, nor even a particular good one, in my opinion. Certainly I don't think it's deserving of the reputation it's gained since publication.

The Moon is a Harsh Mistress

I first read The Moon is a Harsh Mistress back in high school, and was not particularly impressed with it. Heinlein has never been a favorite of mine, as he's always lacked some essential element (coolness of his science fictional ideas, maybe) which other traditional SF authors such as Asimov and Clarke possessed. My favorite (if you can call it that) Heinlein is probably Starship Troopers, which felt more honest than some of his other work.

Moon is about a colony on Luna in the 2070s. (The book is already dated; the colony was founded in the 1990s.) It's largely populated by convicts and (more importantly) their descendents. After living on Luna for a couple of months, your body adjusts so that you can no longer survive permanently on a higher-gravity planet such as Earth, meaning Luna's inhabitants are there permanently, convicts or not. Earth uses Luna's resources to grow grain which the overpopulated world needs, and Luna's meager resources are nearly dry; the world is facing starvation in a decade.

The protagonist, Mannie, is the local computer hotshot, and he converses with the colony's computer, Mike, who has become sentient (a secret known only to Mannie). After he attends a "Free Luna" meeting which is raided by the Warden's men, Mannie, a woman named Wyoming Knott, and an old professor ("Prof") form a more intricate conspiracy to throw out the Warden and declare Luna independent. Mike decides to aid them, having no love to the bureaucrats, and the revolution gets under way.

Moon is mainly a platform for Heinlein to expound on a handful of ideas: The first and best is how to organize a conspiracy, with a "cell" organization to minimize the damage done by betrayal, while preserving communication. The second is Heinlein's quasi-libertarian social organization, where everyone is responsible for their actions, does whatever he pleases, and laws are minimal, if any. The third is Heinlein's peculiar notions about marital innovations (mainly involving group marriages).

None of these ideas is really handled as fully as you'd like. The book has a major problem that critical details of the conspiracy are glossed over as Mannie (who narrates) describes how organizations were set up over the course of months without explaining exactly what was done, or the dangers involved in doing so. The implicit trust that Loonies have for others that they know seems unrealistic, and the presence of Mike, whose near-omniscience makes many things possible that would otherwise be difficult at best, removes a lot of plausibility from these ideas. And then the conspiracy is over in a short period of time as revolution breaks out. It was pretty disappointing not to really see the nuts-and-bolts of the conspiracy.

When I first read the book, I remember thinking that it became swiftly boring after the Warden was taken care of, and our heroes had to start dealing with Earth. This material holds up better for me today, as the political machinations of dealing with the Terrans is pretty amusing. A lot of what makes the book work is Mannie and his unusual speech patterns, which permeate the novel. He's got a lighthearted attitude and carries you along with him gladly. His interactions with the stuffed shirts on Earth is often a lot of fun.

On the other hand, the expounding of the degree of individual freedom on Luna is not very successful. Mannie glosses over this, but a big part of the reason it "works" is that individuals who don't get along with others tend to be kicked out an airlock or otherwise killed. It's a self-policing environment, but largely at the expense of the lives of people who don't fit in. This seems like a heinous approach, and it's pretty ridiculous that Heinlein doesn't address its ramifications, presenting it instead as a sort of utopian environment. (Sure it is, for those who survive it!)

Mostly, though, these philosophies just feel like standard naive libertarian outlooks: The free market takes care of things (sure, until someone controls enough of the market to impose his will on it), and the individuals in the system are assumed to be basically men of goodwill (after those other 70% have been killed) who will do the right thing when someone tries to violate the principles they live by. It's entertaining fiction, but certainly not to be taken seriously.

Actually, that's a good summary of the book: It's a fun little ride, but it's trying to be something more than that, and it fails pretty resoundingly. The characters are largely living in a fairy-tale land, and plenty of suspension of disbelief is required.

(Compare with Ken MacLeod's The Stone Canal, which deals with the brutal undercurrents of libertarianism in a more forthright manner.)