Alternate Realities: A Scifi Book Club discussion

What are everyones thought about Mike, plural marriage, and revolution?

Mike – cheesy;
Line marriage – implausible;
Revolution – quite fun, actually.

While the book clearly hasn't aged well (Mike is really just an elaborate version of this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sdLEQ... i.e. a very clumsy and uninsightful representation of what it could actually be like), it's still a huge improvement over 'Starship Troopers'.

I probably shouldn't comment till I'm actually finished, but I'm finding the plural marriage a bit eye-roll thus far. This is the fourth Heinlein book I've read and I'm a bit over his weird & creepy alternative relationships now, as well as his kind of conflicted sexism. On the one hand he will have strong female characters and it seems like he values them as individuals, but on the other hand he still never misses a chance to sexualise them or make patronising comments belittling them in some way. I'm still reading for Mike & the revolution. And Emperador, I was still looking forward to reading Starship Troopers & you're telling me it's worse! I think Starship Troopers may be the last Heinlein I endure in that case.

It's not the women having their own sexuality that bothered me and I have read several of his books and intend to read more, but he has a way of giving his female characters strength with one hand and taking it away with the other. I'm certainly not the first person to have found aspects of his writing sexist either and I don't think he consciously was, that's why I called it 'conflicted sexism'. Way to go with personal attack too Vlad.

Where do I say women can't or shouldn't enjoy sex or have a sexual identity? I doubt I would be reading books like The Windup Girl or Loaded if I were puritanical or regressive. If you think I'm unjustified in finding any aspects of sexism in Heinlein's work you can always Google the topic to see there is plenty of discussion on this out there. Basically, you read a whole lot of things into my initial comment that aren't there and based a personal attack on your misunderstanding.

Heinlein was "sexist" is one of the most ignorant, foolish things I have read in a long time. It's funny because Larissa even admits he has strong female characters, but then derides him as sexist anyways because he dares to write women with their own sexuality

1) You're shifting the goalposts. It's not sexist, because the female characters have sexuality (not at all what Larissa said). It's sexist, because they are sexualised (i.e. made sexy) by the author in particular ways clearly to introduce a little wank material for some of his male readership.

2) And, oh, bogey, is it still sexist without the above. The key female characters are bleeding stereotypes: Wyoh – the generic scientist blonde, who is supposed to be super clever and resourceful, but really does nothing at all to advance the plot, and ends up being there just for the titillation and passing sammiches.

Mom – the standard bossy old gramma. Stupid, but way charming. 'Oh, isn't it cute, she's trying to be the leader of something. From her kitchen! Ahhh!' The author sort of implies several times that her reins of power run deep and far, but never shows anything to prove it.

And don't get me started on the whole '[sex with] women as a resource' business that's sold throughout the book. Heinlein seems to try to create a new viewpoint there, but ends up regurgitating the same old patriarchal shite, which is sexist to both men and women.

And Emperador, I was still looking forward to reading Starship Troopers & you're telling me it's worse!

There are some nice parts in ST, but brace yourself for being told – for about a third of the book overall – of how wonderful a reactionary utopia (a military junta, really) would be. It's persistent, intrusive and half-brained.

The author clearly learned from his mistakes, and 'The Moon is a Harsh Mistress' isn't as annoyingly obsessive about his social political 'ideas'.

Emperador wrote: There are some nice parts in ST, but brace yourself for being told – for about a third of the book overall – of how wonderful a reactionary utopia (a military junta, really) would be. It's persistent, intrusive and half-brained.

Thanks, I'll brace myself, it's the next Heinlein on my to-read-list.

Emperador wrote: 1) You're shifting the goalposts. It's not sexist, because the female characters have sexuality (not at all what Larissa said). It's sexist, because they are sexualised (i.e. made sexy) by the author in particular ways clearly to introduce a little wank material for some of his male readership.

At least someone understands the difference here.

2) And, oh, bogey, is it still sexist without the above. The key female characters are bleeding stereotypes: Wyoh – the generic scientist blonde, who is supposed to be super clever and resourceful, but really does nothing at all to advance the plot, and ends up being there just for the titillation and passing sammiches.

Mom – the standard bossy old gramma. Stupid, but way charming. 'Oh, isn't it cute, she's trying to be the leader of something. From her kitchen! Ahhh!'

Exactly!

I read this book a little while ago and must have liked it as I gave it four stars. All I remember about it is the people of the moon firing loads down upon the earth, so it apparently wasn't that memorable, at least to me. It was better than Starship Troopers, which I wasn't even able to finish. Is this the book where they go in search of another energy source to bring back to the moon, or am I confused?

Thinking of "Stranger In A Strange Land" as my first attempt at Heinlein... thoughts??

Stranger is the only Heinlein book that I haven't liked. It is also very long. Friday or Moon is a Harsh Mistress are better jumping on points, but I am not a Heinlein expert.

I read most of my Heinlein back in my teens (mid-70s). At the time, I failed to grasp the meanings of the author's works beyond the superficial story lines. As I've aged and re-read some of his works (The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress, etc.), I read much deeper into them than I did as a youth.

Oddly enough, I never really thought of the progression of his political philosophy from the right to center to left (approaching Anarchism). Maybe my own transition from far right to liberal left has aided me in recognizing this.

Well, anyway... this isn't the place to be discussing politics or philosophy, but I just wanted to comment on Vlad's keen observation regarding Heinlein's evolution through time. Interesting stuff.

Regards,

~Eric

It was late. I evidently was not completely awake when I posted that. Thanks for elaborating, Vlad. :)