I know what you mean, Mike, about the whole morality question being relevant. When I read the book I didn't even blink at Mike's actions (the computer, not our group member). Perhaps this says more about what I've read or studied but I didn't question the morality of it. Yes, crashing a ship that surrendered is bad but they don't seem to abide by any sort of rules of war. And Luna is full of convicts or their descendants so skirting a few Earth customs isn't that much of a stretch, they didn't exactly abide by them in the first place, did they?
Now that I've thought about it more I'm impressed by the rational thinking the Loonies display. Yes, they have their passions, but by and large they operate a pretty rational society. In a place where death is all to easy to occur, a credit system would pose problems especially when so many came with absolutely nothing. The resources that are absolutely essential, air, water, women, are protected and shared if someone else is in dire need, at least air is and women aren't hoarded either. Mike's actions were the prudent thing and the revolutionaries did what needed to be done.
Friday, February 1, 2008
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Reflection on 1/29 Class
Good morning everyone:
Let me just say that I spent some time going back through parts of the book, because some of the things we took as true in our discussion yesterday ended up not quite being accurate - I am going to go add those changes to the wiki after this post.
In class, I liked the fact that we were split into two groups that were able to manage our ideas better. I feel like the quality of the discussion overall was much better, since each subgroup had time to focus in its own direction. For the group I was in, I enjoyed the emphasis put on the fact that morality might not be the right term for a computer; perhaps ethics is more accurate? I am not sure I totally agreed with that line of thought, but its reasoning was well done.
I also enjoyed the comments made part of the way into our discussion that even if morality was the correct way to define the question of mike's actions, did it really matter in time of war/revolution (when morality is shifted across many people anyways)? Having thought about the discussion we had over that point, I have come to a conclusion of my own. In reality, if the morality prevailing over a system needs to be suspended to get rid of that system, then the morality was also flawed in the first place and needs to be educated out of the people (as we discussed in class). In terms of the book, the morality of Earth was strongly against capital punishment (as they say), yet they are perfectly willing to send convicts to the moon, where there is approximately a 50% survival rate in the first few weeks. This is fairly indicative of the morality being skewed, which seems to match the fact that the Loonies eventually prevailed. I am not sure if thats entirely fair, but it seems somewhat accurate to me.
-Mike
Let me just say that I spent some time going back through parts of the book, because some of the things we took as true in our discussion yesterday ended up not quite being accurate - I am going to go add those changes to the wiki after this post.
In class, I liked the fact that we were split into two groups that were able to manage our ideas better. I feel like the quality of the discussion overall was much better, since each subgroup had time to focus in its own direction. For the group I was in, I enjoyed the emphasis put on the fact that morality might not be the right term for a computer; perhaps ethics is more accurate? I am not sure I totally agreed with that line of thought, but its reasoning was well done.
I also enjoyed the comments made part of the way into our discussion that even if morality was the correct way to define the question of mike's actions, did it really matter in time of war/revolution (when morality is shifted across many people anyways)? Having thought about the discussion we had over that point, I have come to a conclusion of my own. In reality, if the morality prevailing over a system needs to be suspended to get rid of that system, then the morality was also flawed in the first place and needs to be educated out of the people (as we discussed in class). In terms of the book, the morality of Earth was strongly against capital punishment (as they say), yet they are perfectly willing to send convicts to the moon, where there is approximately a 50% survival rate in the first few weeks. This is fairly indicative of the morality being skewed, which seems to match the fact that the Loonies eventually prevailed. I am not sure if thats entirely fair, but it seems somewhat accurate to me.
-Mike
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Class 1/29
Well one thing is for sure, PTJ was right in that we did not have time to cover a huge number of the things in The Moon is a Harsh Mistress. But hey, what can you do?
This is a book that I would actually be quite interested to see somebody try to make a film version of. Clearly, the book would be far superior, but since there is no way you could make it all into a film it would be interesting to see the choices made as to what would be cut.
There is one thing about today's discussion that I am not really sure was properly done. We all went with the assumption that Mike chose to shut himself down, at least his "human" aspects. We essentially ignored the possibility that he may have actually "died" in the sense that he may have been damaged and unable to reproduce his humanesque elements anymore.
I'm also still a little ambiguous on what combinations of factors actually led to the situation presented in the book. Yes, we talked about it for quite some time, but our answers were by no means exhaustive.
Oh and my answer to the question: would men be valued if Luna had AU's population? Ah, no.
This is a book that I would actually be quite interested to see somebody try to make a film version of. Clearly, the book would be far superior, but since there is no way you could make it all into a film it would be interesting to see the choices made as to what would be cut.
There is one thing about today's discussion that I am not really sure was properly done. We all went with the assumption that Mike chose to shut himself down, at least his "human" aspects. We essentially ignored the possibility that he may have actually "died" in the sense that he may have been damaged and unable to reproduce his humanesque elements anymore.
I'm also still a little ambiguous on what combinations of factors actually led to the situation presented in the book. Yes, we talked about it for quite some time, but our answers were by no means exhaustive.
Oh and my answer to the question: would men be valued if Luna had AU's population? Ah, no.
The Moon is a Harsh Mistress: Pre-class reaction
Yea…too many things in this book to be able to address all of them in a blog. But I will mention some key issues that stood out the most to me. One of the main ones being that this whole incident to me was a big parallel to all many cases of colonization in human history. First the Europeans colonized North and South America and eventually the exploited colonies revolted. Later US and again European powers colonized Africa, India and South America. Again this led to exploitation and ultimately to many outcries for independence. And once again in this book we see the super powers of Earth exploiting yet another colony and then they are affronted by their desire for self rule and believe it to be a silly notion. Basically, it made me frustrated with humanity. Even considering modern neocolonialism it frustrates me how hypocritical US and other world powers be. Especially US who is “the champion” of freedom and rights. Not to mention US was exploited as a colony and claims to have all these grand principles and yet justifies exploiting many 3rd world counties with the excuse of “well it’s a free market.” This issue especially rang true for me in Chapter 27 when the people of Earth were outraged that the Loonies actually retaliated and were actually fighting for their freedom: how dare those “convicts” actually bomb us and kill thousands (who were idiots in the first place not to listen). It just made me frustrated with humanity because the reaction of the people of Earth seems very plausible to me: narrow minded and attached to old ways. “Well the moon has always been OUR colony and that has been convenient for us so how dare those lowly convicts with their disgusting ways (polygamy and lawless ways) try and claim that they deserve rights and ruin our monopoly on their resources.” I saw this attitude in the Earth peoples reaction to Lunar married life (Mannie’s arrest was organized by Stu and the Prof, but the peoples reaction was still genuine, some were understanding but many were typically narrow minded, but the fact that it could be made an issue is what upsets me). Also in Chapter 19 when the Authority claimed that they decided that they need to civilize the Lunar colonies, but of course in a very “fair and just way” and the citizens do “have the option” of returning to their original countries, and it is “for their own good”. The people of Earth weren’t the ones to disappoint I was also frustrated with how the Loonies were acting shortly post their revolt. In the second half of chapter 14 Heinlein describes what people of the moon do post revolution and many basically complain and demand but don’t want to do the work without pay. And many had suggestion and thought themselves to be perfect for a job of power, but few were actually willing to put in the labor, and had to be organized, coaxed, and manipulated into actually doing something. And what the Prof says on page 205 concerning how people always want to stop others “for their own good” is a very powerful point. Because that is what the people of Earth wanted to do to the Loonies, and what some of the Loonies wanted to do to other Loonies. And all of these issues can be seen in modern society.
The Time Machine: post-class response
My reflection for class is also a bit late. Although like Jen I still want more from the book, post class discussion I appreciate more how Wells conveyed his message concerning humanity. Although, like the professor said, our perception of science and where humanity is headed is greatly changed, for his time period I think Wells story was successful at least in the way it made people think about humanity and where it was headed. It made all of us think about it too, we just disagreed more with him.
One thing we didn’t talk about a lot is the remakes of the book into movies. Concerning the recent movie version I don’t remember most of it but I do remember that I liked one thing about it. In it the time traveler first goes into the not so distant future, there he goes to a museum where the tour guide is a hologram. Later in the movie when the time traveler is in the time of the Eloi and Morloks, he stumbles upon a place and the hologram again activates and talks to him. I don’t know why exactly but I really like that they did that because I like the idea that even though the people don’t remember creating it a technology they created still exists many years later and still functions, its kind of eerie if you think about it. But to go back to a point previously made I think that that part of the movie makes more sense with our time today. Because today humanity is inventing all sorts of technology that is mind blowing and if anything and the human race was to die out I can’t help but feel that some technology would continue functioning and performing its job even when no one is there to appreciate it.
One thing we didn’t talk about a lot is the remakes of the book into movies. Concerning the recent movie version I don’t remember most of it but I do remember that I liked one thing about it. In it the time traveler first goes into the not so distant future, there he goes to a museum where the tour guide is a hologram. Later in the movie when the time traveler is in the time of the Eloi and Morloks, he stumbles upon a place and the hologram again activates and talks to him. I don’t know why exactly but I really like that they did that because I like the idea that even though the people don’t remember creating it a technology they created still exists many years later and still functions, its kind of eerie if you think about it. But to go back to a point previously made I think that that part of the movie makes more sense with our time today. Because today humanity is inventing all sorts of technology that is mind blowing and if anything and the human race was to die out I can’t help but feel that some technology would continue functioning and performing its job even when no one is there to appreciate it.
Monday, January 28, 2008
The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress
Well where does one begin in a reflection on this work. I guess I must begin with a warning:
Danger Intrepid Blogger, Danger!
I am a historian, and thus I always tend to view sci-fi as a theoretical progression from the world the author is writing in. In this case, the height of the Cold War.
Heinlein is using this future situation as a example of what he feels is likely to happen if the world were to continue on its policies of the mid-1960s. There are several themes throughout the book that leads me to this claim.
First there is the colonization of the moon. Heinlein published this in 1966, that is a full three years before "One small step for man, one giant leap for mankind." Heinlein lived in a world where the two world superpowers, the USA and the USSR, in the midst of the Space Race whose ultimate goal was in controlling the moon. At the time that was not simply in being the first to land a man on the moon but also both nations thought that they could colonize the moon.
The next issue is that of the mingling cultures. In the '60s there were generally two powers with several others being influential. The Loonies are clearly pretty American as the Professor shows by constantly referencing American History. In addition, they are also quite Russian as their language suggests. If you are unclear about this read it with a Russian accent and you will see what I mean. Also the Hindus and the Chinese have a substantial role, these were the other two big groups that people believed would play a larger role in the future.
Another significant commentary is Mike. In the '60s computer technology was making leaps and bounds in development and many feared that one day technology would wind-up controlling the humans. The more practical fear at the time was that by entrusting Nuclear Missile Firing Control to computers an accidental apocalypse would ensue.
Finally, my favorite is that of the Federated Nations. This is obviously a reference to the United Nations with the Grand Assembly referring to the General Assembly. Several times their predecessors are mentioned meaning that the Federated Nations is some sort of a reincarnation of the United Nations. This makes sense when considering that the United Nations was not the first such organization but really just a new and improved League of Nations just as the Federated Nations is a new and improved United Nations. Also the fact that the soldiers sent to Luna are called the Peace Dragoons is clearly a commentary on the new concept of UN Peacekeepers.
There is one thing that bothers me about the military tactics of the Loonies. Why are catapults the most effective weapon? With all of the knowledge of missiles why is the most dangerous weapon one of history's oldest weapons?
In the end, there is really only one thing that can sum up Heinlein's work. They named a Martian Crater after him! How can you top that?!
Danger Intrepid Blogger, Danger!
I am a historian, and thus I always tend to view sci-fi as a theoretical progression from the world the author is writing in. In this case, the height of the Cold War.
Heinlein is using this future situation as a example of what he feels is likely to happen if the world were to continue on its policies of the mid-1960s. There are several themes throughout the book that leads me to this claim.
First there is the colonization of the moon. Heinlein published this in 1966, that is a full three years before "One small step for man, one giant leap for mankind." Heinlein lived in a world where the two world superpowers, the USA and the USSR, in the midst of the Space Race whose ultimate goal was in controlling the moon. At the time that was not simply in being the first to land a man on the moon but also both nations thought that they could colonize the moon.
The next issue is that of the mingling cultures. In the '60s there were generally two powers with several others being influential. The Loonies are clearly pretty American as the Professor shows by constantly referencing American History. In addition, they are also quite Russian as their language suggests. If you are unclear about this read it with a Russian accent and you will see what I mean. Also the Hindus and the Chinese have a substantial role, these were the other two big groups that people believed would play a larger role in the future.
Another significant commentary is Mike. In the '60s computer technology was making leaps and bounds in development and many feared that one day technology would wind-up controlling the humans. The more practical fear at the time was that by entrusting Nuclear Missile Firing Control to computers an accidental apocalypse would ensue.
Finally, my favorite is that of the Federated Nations. This is obviously a reference to the United Nations with the Grand Assembly referring to the General Assembly. Several times their predecessors are mentioned meaning that the Federated Nations is some sort of a reincarnation of the United Nations. This makes sense when considering that the United Nations was not the first such organization but really just a new and improved League of Nations just as the Federated Nations is a new and improved United Nations. Also the fact that the soldiers sent to Luna are called the Peace Dragoons is clearly a commentary on the new concept of UN Peacekeepers.
There is one thing that bothers me about the military tactics of the Loonies. Why are catapults the most effective weapon? With all of the knowledge of missiles why is the most dangerous weapon one of history's oldest weapons?
In the end, there is really only one thing that can sum up Heinlein's work. They named a Martian Crater after him! How can you top that?!
Substantive Post 2, on The Moon is a Harsh Mistress
I must say, I really enjoyed the book - my favorite part was the use of language. The fact that everything is interspersed with Russian makes me feel like this is a commentary on the Soviet Union, because of the obvious other factors - russian language and names, revolution against an unfair Authority, a professor (symbol of intelligence) who is basically as individualistic as humanly possible, and so forth. I am also amused that the person that is "opted" into the leadership position of the first cell of the Revolution has the moon's version of Skynet (ie Mike/Michelle) as his best friend, and that he is polygamus.... and stable. What an interesting character he is - I am curious about what people will make of him in class this week.
My other favorite excerpt from the book is when the Professor is describing his political views and says he is a rational anarchist. He goes on to say that it means he knows he is in an imperfect world, but wants to live a perfect life - by which he means he is trying to lie to himself that he is imperfect too. I don't know why, but something about his explanation struck a chord with me. I also enjoyed his discussion of the fact that if there are H-missiles (which there are), its still one person in control of whether to use them or not, reducing all concepts of blame and guilt to individual decisions. Now, what he would say to problems that are the cause of many people making the same poor choice collectively at the same time? Maybe he'd say chance, but I might be inclined to disagree...
-Mike
My other favorite excerpt from the book is when the Professor is describing his political views and says he is a rational anarchist. He goes on to say that it means he knows he is in an imperfect world, but wants to live a perfect life - by which he means he is trying to lie to himself that he is imperfect too. I don't know why, but something about his explanation struck a chord with me. I also enjoyed his discussion of the fact that if there are H-missiles (which there are), its still one person in control of whether to use them or not, reducing all concepts of blame and guilt to individual decisions. Now, what he would say to problems that are the cause of many people making the same poor choice collectively at the same time? Maybe he'd say chance, but I might be inclined to disagree...
-Mike
Reflection, Class 2
This is a bit late, but I do have something regarding the class discussion that stuck with me this whole week. In the midst of the conversation, when I brought up capitalism and communism as having roles in the book (incorrectly as it were), a whole bunch of people had a point to make all of a sudden. I then sat back and listened to where the conversation was going, and I was surprised by one of the eventual comments: "its like the perfect working class - people who only want to eat and work." While this was a joking comment about the apparent previous state of the Morlocks, I think I took something more from it. For most of history, the majority of the Earth's population has lived at a subsistence level - meaning they worked in order to survive, and then slept, and then repeated the process each and every day. Although not all of them enjoyed it, there is something to be said for manual labor as a wholly, lastingly satisfying endeavor. To use an outside source, as Morgan Freeman playing God put it in Bruce Almighty:
"
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0315327/
http://www.script-o-rama.com/movie_scripts/b/bruce-almighty-script-transcript-carrey.html
There is more to that quote than many people DO realize - I can attest to it personally. That said, the Morlocks have appeared to have moved beyond their supposed work/eat/smile phase, and this may be a moot point. I still wanted to say something about it, however.
"
Just like your father."
He didn’t mind rolling up his sleeves either, son.
People underestimate the benefits of
good old manual labor.
Just think a minute.
Some of the happiest people in the world,
go home smelling to high heaven at the end of the day.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0315327/
http://www.script-o-rama.com/movie_scripts/b/bruce-almighty-script-transcript-carrey.html
There is more to that quote than many people DO realize - I can attest to it personally. That said, the Morlocks have appeared to have moved beyond their supposed work/eat/smile phase, and this may be a moot point. I still wanted to say something about it, however.
Visions of the Future, Courtesy of Heinlein
It's hard to know what to talk about in The Moon is a Harsh Mistress because there's so much good stuff in it. From the organization of the resistance to TANSTAAFL the whole book is full of topics that could fill this blog, so I'll just touch on a few.
First, I was fascinated by the description of family life Heinlein provided. From Wyoming's triad to Mannie's line marriage. It made a lot of sense, I thought. In a place where women are scarce, naturally they'd be protected more than they would on Earth in this time or ours. Everyone is taught at a young age the value of everyone else so jealousies within the multiple couple groupings would be minimized. Women are valued so that rape isn't a problem, and only is an issue when the off-worlders, so to speak, don't abide by the rules of Luna. It is the rape and murder of a woman that sets the revolution in motion and unites the fractured people of Luna.
Second, how could I not touch on Mike? A super computer that achieves sentience and without whom the "Loonies" would have gotten nowhere. We never do figure out why Mike is willing to help out, perhaps due to loyalty to Mannie and to the people Mannie introduces to him. Perhaps he was interested to see how the Loonies would accomplish their goals, maybe it was just a joke to him, like inflating the check at the beginning of the book (13). It must have been fun for him, in any case. From creating the look of Adam Selene to participating in the resistance through managing the phones. I also wonder what happened to him at the end. Is he hiding somewhere within his programming? Or was the shock of the attack too much for his system, like he's in a coma?
Third, it wasn't until near the end that I truly understood that the book was written from Mannie's point of view in that he himself was writing it, as a proper history of the time before, during, and after the revolution. I had wondered at the narrative style, with the dropped words, at the beginning of the book but figured it was just to match up with Mannie's speaking style. But no, Mannie is the author of the book, which makes sense. So I suppose this comment is about Mannie's style. Words like "dinkum thinkum" (12) and in the inclusion of Russian words like "nyet" (171) and "gospazha" (111), blending like the cultures and ethnicities did on the moon after they were basically dropped there. It makes sense that the ethnic groups blended together until only a Loonie culture emerged, since they could never get back to Earth due to body changes there would be no reason to stick to loyalty to the mother country.
Lastly, for this post, I was very impressed by the skill of the Professor. Between coordination with Mike and his use of history to tailor their revolution to America's and using the American Revolution blueprint to win sympathy with North America he was as important as Mike in the revolution. Also having Mannie play different countries off against each other in constructing a catapult was diplomatic genius, in my opinion.
I did like this book better than last week's, perhaps because there was so much more to it, more of a world to explore. A more complete picture of a possibility than Wells could provide.
First, I was fascinated by the description of family life Heinlein provided. From Wyoming's triad to Mannie's line marriage. It made a lot of sense, I thought. In a place where women are scarce, naturally they'd be protected more than they would on Earth in this time or ours. Everyone is taught at a young age the value of everyone else so jealousies within the multiple couple groupings would be minimized. Women are valued so that rape isn't a problem, and only is an issue when the off-worlders, so to speak, don't abide by the rules of Luna. It is the rape and murder of a woman that sets the revolution in motion and unites the fractured people of Luna.
Second, how could I not touch on Mike? A super computer that achieves sentience and without whom the "Loonies" would have gotten nowhere. We never do figure out why Mike is willing to help out, perhaps due to loyalty to Mannie and to the people Mannie introduces to him. Perhaps he was interested to see how the Loonies would accomplish their goals, maybe it was just a joke to him, like inflating the check at the beginning of the book (13). It must have been fun for him, in any case. From creating the look of Adam Selene to participating in the resistance through managing the phones. I also wonder what happened to him at the end. Is he hiding somewhere within his programming? Or was the shock of the attack too much for his system, like he's in a coma?
Third, it wasn't until near the end that I truly understood that the book was written from Mannie's point of view in that he himself was writing it, as a proper history of the time before, during, and after the revolution. I had wondered at the narrative style, with the dropped words, at the beginning of the book but figured it was just to match up with Mannie's speaking style. But no, Mannie is the author of the book, which makes sense. So I suppose this comment is about Mannie's style. Words like "dinkum thinkum" (12) and in the inclusion of Russian words like "nyet" (171) and "gospazha" (111), blending like the cultures and ethnicities did on the moon after they were basically dropped there. It makes sense that the ethnic groups blended together until only a Loonie culture emerged, since they could never get back to Earth due to body changes there would be no reason to stick to loyalty to the mother country.
Lastly, for this post, I was very impressed by the skill of the Professor. Between coordination with Mike and his use of history to tailor their revolution to America's and using the American Revolution blueprint to win sympathy with North America he was as important as Mike in the revolution. Also having Mannie play different countries off against each other in constructing a catapult was diplomatic genius, in my opinion.
I did like this book better than last week's, perhaps because there was so much more to it, more of a world to explore. A more complete picture of a possibility than Wells could provide.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
