RAH Reading Group - Puppet Masters

[TTBRAHWTMG]

This would be a good basis for a discussion regarding Barb versus Grace in Farnham's...but I'll leave that alone. I'll just say that I agree with his line, and with both JDs and your response. Part of me imagined a little more controversy in that line than there appears to be, I guess.

Oh, and as far as my earlier comment regarding Mary's "test" and your (Molly) comment "I'd say that he's insulting men more by suggesting that every non hag-ridden man that Mary comes in to contact with, responds to her physically" was the sexism I did recognize there. To simplify the interrelation of the genders to pure physicality is somewhat insulting, in my opinion. There is so much more to the interaction of gender. Besides, I feel bad for the homosexual man, or the guy that has an aversion to "A long, lean body, but unquestionably and pleasuringly mammalian" with "Flaming, wavy red hair and the real red-headed saurian bony structure to her skull" (I've heard those men do exist), or the guy that is a devout abstainer and believes it in his core being. It seems that Heinlein would have them shot on sight!

 

[Mollygurl]

This would be a good basis for a discussion regarding Barb versus Grace in Farnham's...

Absolutely! Let's remember that when we get to Farnham's (If that is what is proposed for our 3rd book...)

 

[Liz Pf]

I don't know what to comment on first ...

I scored 10 for 10, btw.

Flaws in PM ... the bit with the station manager coming back to life bothered me ... and did you notice the two kids in the book both were car fanatics with no sense of morals? One connived Sam into giving him a joyride, the other was playing with the controls while Sam was in the St. Louis house.

As far as women ... in 1951, women were in the middle of a revival in domesticity. During WW2, they broke through many sexist barriers (Rosie the Riveter), but after the war, they left the workforce in droves to become "simple housewives" again. [Me, I'm a complex housewife ] Women were acting foolish and childish then, because they had the societal freedom to do so.

But RAH had seen women pull through during the war. He knew we were capable of more than crying over fallen souffles and garden club politics, when we had to.

Still, it was a cultural assumption that once a woman got married, her husband would call the shots. Mary is an excellent example -- once she decided to marry Sam, she let him take the lead. Not when he was being a damned fool, but in all other things.

Now ... did RAH think marriage was a lifeboat situation? That there could be only one captain in a marriage?

Oh, the bit about the masters, sex and pregnancy wasn't in the edited version. I'll want to read that.

--Liz
http://www.printfection.com/cartesianbear

 

[TTBRAHWTMG]

Now ... did RAH think marriage was a lifeboat situation? That there could be only one captain in a marriage?

Ooh...intersting thought, that...I'm going to have to do some digging on this one. Going to see if I can find any of Leslyn's or Virginia's thoughts on their marriages to Heinlein. (There is virtually nothing out there about his first wife)

 

[Razorback]

I have to admit that I puzzled over the Aliens sudden discovery of sex and the fact that they threw themselves in to it with wild abandon. That seemed out of left field in a way. I chalked it up to Heinlein, being who he is, wanting to throw that in but I kept thinking... "what happens if a host gets pregnant?" LOL!!

I don’t recall that part. Did I overlook it or was it deleted in the edited version? It’s not normally something I would forget, but maybe I’m getting old.

 

[Mollygurl]

I don’t recall that part. Did I overlook it or was it deleted in the edited version? It’s not normally something I would forget, but maybe I’m getting old.

LOL! Yes, I believe that part was cut from the edited version.

 

[TTBRAHWTMG]

I don’t recall that part. Did I overlook it or was it deleted in the edited version? It’s not normally something I would forget, but maybe I’m getting old.

Heinlein does not go into great detail regarding the subject. He does describe the Titans discovering sex...and that when they do, for some reason they embrace it with great abandon. When he is describing the "sport" in the red zone, he refers to each event being finished off with a huge orgy. He also, in somewhat subdued language, implies that when the "blood sport" is done, the victor fornicates with the corpse of the loser before the bodies are dragged away.

The woman lost - and died, I am sure, for her left breast was almost torn away and she had bled so much that only immediate surgery and massive transfusions could have saved her. Which she did not get; the slugs were transferred to new hosts at the end of the match and the inert contenders were dragged out.
But the male slave had remained active a little longer than the female, slashed and damaged though he was, and he finished the match with a final act of triumph over her which I soon learned was customary. It seemed to be a signal to turn it into an "audience participation show", an orgy which would make a witches' Sabbat seem like a sewing circle.
Oh, the slugs had discovered sex, all right!

Nothing about pregnancy per se, I imagine this part was Molly wondering to herself (or did I miss something Molly). Personally, I don't know if pregnancy would result in anything other than another human baby, a potential resource or additional "ride" for future Titans. There is no mention, that I saw anyway, that being hag-ridden affected DNA in any way.

 

[Pyan]

That's in the uncut version? I'm not surprised that it was cut, the libraries and book clubs would never have accepted it in main-stream SF.
And Alice would have had a stroke!

 

[Finnien]

Ok, finally got around to hunting up my copy a couple days ago, and finished it this afternoon. Took the quiz, 10/10 due to it being so fresh in my mind. Next month I'd be ashamed to think of what I'd get.

That being said, addressing a few of the topics...

First, the To be fair, the Old Man (and probably Heinlein) felt that most PEOPLE, not just most women, are damn fools. It seems to go something along the lines of: people individually can be surprisingly intelligent and capable, people as a group are stupid, humanity as a race is tough and resilient. His views are positive on the individual and on the world-view, but get it tied into pack mentalities, bureaucracies, government, and herds of people, and he's as cynical as they come.

As far as Mary's 'test' for the hag-ridden men, I can understand it in theory, but disagree with its application as a general rule. First, while Mary was certainly attractive, we were never given the impression she was the kind of woman who caused traffic accidents in the street, caused men to drool helplessly on themselves, or provoked fistfights over the right to open a door for her - at least, for any man other than Sam. Certainly, her encounters with other men never had any of them reacting strongly to her in a physical sense. Therefore, she's not the kind of woman that could walk into a room and assume 80% of the red-blooded straight men in there would react to her. Additionally, as previous posts have commented, elderly politicians who aren't on a dose of Viagra might not react to her, nor would gay men... so, a little weak point. However, it was a reasonably convincing vehicle that avoided more gadgetry and scientific futuristic voodoo, which is what would have been the substitute. It made for a better story, if not a perfectly believeable one.

The Station Manager resurrection also jumped out at me, but it was probably the only place where an inconsistently actively jarred me. The rest I could explain away or ignore in the process of suspention of disbelief.

You know, on the 'obedience' topic, I often got the sense that Mary was humoring Sam. 'Yes, dear' as a response to an argument she didn't feel was worth having, or as a statement of 'I knew already, glad you came around and realized it.' It almost should have come with a little puppy-like pat on the head, and a doggie treat.

As for a life-boat situation, define it two ways: One captain, or 'women and children first'. Who gets in the lifeboat, or how you command it once you're there? I'd say he definitely saw marriage as the former life-boat situation - protect and provide for your wife and children at all costs, even if it means your life. As to the latter, there's enough of his quotes in other novels to make me question any kind of single captaincy, such as 'Never tell a man more than he needs to know - it'll trouble him unnecessarily' or something to that effect. I can't think of too many situations where women ever did something they didn't want to do - unless it was to prove to a man that they were right in the first place. And, come to think of it, I believe that's almost exactly what is said by the end of the Honeymoon section. So, marriage is definitely not a one-captain situation.

And finally, on the nudity topic... I think by far the most interesting conversation on the topic is towards the end, when Sam discusses the 'after-the-war' scenario with someone whose name I can't remember, who was in charge of security for the lab. The investigator clearly outlines a world where nudity becomes a permanent way of living, twenty years down the line. Basically, it seems like clothing is described as an adaption to our environment, and when the environment changes, so do our clothing rules. I found it perfectly believeable, and his entire treatment of the topic - from beginning to end - to be fairly believeable, even in today's society. Some people were very reluctant, some were perfectly willing to be brave, and people followed in varying stages of reluctance. Some didn't follow at all, and occasionally died for it. When the press conference had to strip down, one person made a break for the door - and he didn't have a rider. Overall, excellent treatment of clothing as an environmental factor disguised as a moral view, which fails to stand up to a direct assault. One of the better-done parts of the novel, I thought.

And that's enough typing for being at work! Will pop in with more later, I'm sure. Now, to track down TCWWTW...

 

[Razorback]

I agree...I think that he actually insults both men and women a little though with Mary's "testing". If a man doesn't have an immediate physical response to her...HE'S AN ALIEN! What did you guys think of his line "Most women are damn fools and children..."

I hadn’t really thought of it that way, but I guess Mary’s test does kind of insult both. You could also take it as showing conceit as Mary’s character flaw, but I doubt that’s what Heinlein intended.

I was startled when I first saw the fools quote in your post since it didn’t make that much of an impression when I read the book. Something like that normally would. When I saw the full context in your later post, I understood. The following lines largely mitigated or offset the nonsense of the first statement. I also agree with j.d.’s and Mollygurl’s comments on this point.

 

[Mollygurl]

...Nothing about pregnancy per se, I imagine this part was Molly wondering to herself (or did I miss something Molly)...

Nope, you were right! Just my little joke

I didn't mean to overstate the prominence of the Titan's discovery of sex in the book, but there was mention of it a bit more than just that one quote I think.
TT; didn't RAH use this to explain that Mary was no longer able to use her 'special testing' ability (i.e. judging if he was hag-ridden purely on his physical response to her). How was this explained in the edited version if they cut all references to the sex?

 

[Razorback]

TT; didn't RAH use this to explain that Mary was no longer able to use her 'special testing' ability (i.e. judging if he was hag-ridden purely on his physical response to her). How was this explained in the edited version if they cut all references to the sex?

I’m not sure that Mary’s loss of ability ever came up or was explained in the edited version. I may have missed it, but it may have just gone silent on the point.

 

[TTBRAHWTMG]

I didn't mean to overstate the prominence of the Titan's discovery of sex in the book, but there was mention of it a bit more than just that one quote I think.

Actually I believe, other than the section I just quoted, the only other direct reference to sex was the single line about Mary's powers no longer being applicable because the Titans had discovered sex. I believe this single line was to explain her return from her bodyguard service to the President...I think it was in both versions (someone help me here...I was two-fisting and the versions are blurring).

The one edited section did have powerful, shocking imagery and left the reader lingering a bit. That and the fact that sex is such a basic, primal need in all humans, is probably what left the feeling that it was more prevalent in the book.

Added: Nope, not in the edited version...actually forgot how big a piece of their honeymoon is chopped, which is where it was in the unedited...I never got the chance to pursue the subject; Mary did not like digging into the past. I asked her once about why the Old Man had relieved her as presidential guard. She said, "I stopped being useful at it," and would not elaborate. She knew eventually that I would learn the reason: that the slugs had found out about sex, thus rendering her no longer useful as a touchstone for possessed males. This skips the foreshadowing about her latent memories and her desire to not look into the past...it skips all the playfighting that explains her special fighting skills, her ability to hide weapons in "discreet" places...really cuts out alot and greatly contributes to the choppy feeling.

 

[TTBRAHWTMG]

I'd say he definitely saw marriage as the former life-boat situation - protect and provide for your wife and children at all costs, even if it means your life. As to the latter, there's enough of his quotes in other novels to make me question any kind of single captaincy, such as 'Never tell a man more than he needs to know - it'll trouble him unnecessarily' or something to that effect. I can't think of too many situations where women ever did something they didn't want to do - unless it was to prove to a man that they were right in the first place. And, come to think of it, I believe that's almost exactly what is said by the end of the Honeymoon section. So, marriage is definitely not a one-captain situation.

I was trying to do some homework on both Virginia and Leslyn based on Liz's comment earlier...to see if I could discover any references to his real life marriages. There isn't much concrete evidence of how his views played out in real life.

There is very little at all on Leslyn, other than it is generally accepted she was a bright, gifted woman...that they had an "open" marriage (actually eluded to acknowledged and accepted extramarital activities) and that she became an alcoholic and the marriage soured quickly, with Heinlein leaving when she applied for divorce. (Hmm...sounds a bit like Farnham's Grace here)

As far as Ginny is concerned, again there is not much detail on their personal relationship other than most that knew them found that they were deeply committed to each other. "They married in 1948 and shared what was considered by those who knew them to be an ideal marriage."..."Thereafter, the two were inseparable; those who knew them spoke often of their intense and abiding love for each other. She became his closest companion, aiding him in his writing, and traveling the world with him."

There is also significant talk of the role she played in his career...Many of Heinlein's books were dedicated to her. Virginia, or "Ginny" as she preferred to be called, was his sounding board and source of ideas; she originated the idea that became Stranger in a Strange Land. She was his first reader and trusted critic. Robert Heinlein once said she was "smarter, better, and more sensible than I am." In a 1961 letter, he said, "She is what I feel to be a good person in the word's simplest and plainest meaning. Which includes lashing out with her claws on some occasions when others may consider it improper. I don't give a damn whether Ginny is 'proper' or not; I like her. I like her values." At the end of one of his later books, Job: A Comedy of Justice, the final sentence has been read by many as Robert Heinlein's own tribute to his beloved wife: "Heaven is where Margrethe is."

There is also much talk of her amazing abilities...She went to the Packer Collegiate Institute, a college preparatory high school, where she finished in three-and-a-half years, always on the honor roll. She attended New York University, majoring in chemistry. She lettered in swimming, diving, basketball, and field hockey. She also reached national competitive levels in figure skating, the sport that became her lifelong passion. In the late 1950s, she served on the U.S. Olympic Committee for Skating. In time, she came to speak over seven languages, including French, Latin, Italian, and Russian.

She also was in the military and actually outranked Heinlein. She worked with him on the classified defense work..."She served as his assistant on several classified development projects as a chemist and aviation test engineer".

It is believed that most of his strong red headed women characters were modeled after her...Readers have often remarked on the strength, intelligence, and power of his female characters; his fictional women were often based on Virginia Heinlein. As science fiction writer Spider Robinson said, "several of Heinlein's women bear a striking resemblance to his wife Virginia."

While it doesn't explicity say anywhere how their marriage worked, I find it difficult to think that such a woman would be comfortable taking a back seat, or second fiddle in the marriage. In short, I'd have to agree that it doesn't appear that he believed in a "one captain" marriage.

PS...could find nothing on his first marriage other than he had one. During his divorce with Leslyn it states "Strangely the divorce papers show that Heinlein had already been married and divorced prior to the marriage to Leslyn; the identity and fate of the first Mrs. Heinlein have remained a closely guarded secret."

 

[Liz Pf]

On Mary's "special ability": I believe in it, completely.

I'm no bombshell -- and wasn't even when I was younger. But I can tell if a man is a "red blooded" man. No, it isn't automatic. But I can tell a joke, or look at him a certain way, and see if he responds, even a little.

This skill has a name -- flirting. Well, it's lighter than real flirting, since there's no promise of action in it, but it is of the same class.

I read those passages as Mary giving the man in question "the act", and seeing if there was a response. No response would imply the man was hag-ridden. And one of those "men" was a teenaged boy, who should have responded to any female under 65.

Not gay. The book was written in 1951. Homosexuality was not just in the closet, but wrapped in tissue, in a bag, in a box, buried under a pile of old clothes, in the closet.

This bit made perfect sense to me. And from what little is written about Mrs. V. Heinlein, she would have been a master (mistress?) at this act, and it would have been perfectly believable to her, too.

--Liz
http://www.printfection.com/cartesianbear

 

[TTBRAHWTMG]

And finally, on the nudity topic... I think by far the most interesting conversation on the topic is towards the end, when Sam discusses the 'after-the-war' scenario with someone whose name I can't remember, who was in charge of security for the lab. The investigator clearly outlines a world where nudity becomes a permanent way of living, twenty years down the line. Basically, it seems like clothing is described as an adaption to our environment, and when the environment changes, so do our clothing rules. I found it perfectly believeable, and his entire treatment of the topic - from beginning to end - to be fairly believeable, even in today's society. Some people were very reluctant, some were perfectly willing to be brave, and people followed in varying stages of reluctance. Some didn't follow at all, and occasionally died for it. When the press conference had to strip down, one person made a break for the door - and he didn't have a rider. Overall, excellent treatment of clothing as an environmental factor disguised as a moral view, which fails to stand up to a direct assault. One of the better-done parts of the novel, I thought.

I really like this section, and was kind of pushing along these lines when I brought up his use of nudity in the book. Too often Heinlein has been accused of putting issues like this in his books purely to titillate the reader, and that he is gratuitous. I personally think that he handles the subject in what appears to be a thoughtful and mature manner...and it is a logical consequence of this type of invasion...to ignore it would be insulting to the reader.

He shows no fear when attacking subject matter...remember this is 1951...and the fact that they cut so much of it out shows how uncomfortable the subject was at the time. The whole section when they return wounded from their honeymoon...once Mary is dropped off, Sam is wandering completely nude and reflecting on nudity in general. I think his discussion here, with himself, is quite interesting and lends some insights into Heinlein's thoughts on the nudity taboo.

For you edited versions:
I was tempted, too, to put my shorts back on. In the prowl car and during a quick march through a side door of the hotel, with police around us to keep Mary from being shot, I had not minded so much - but it took nerve to step out of the elevator and face the world without pants.
I need not have worried. The short distance I had to go was enough to show me that a fundamental custom had gone with last year's frost. Most men were wearing straps - codpieces, really - as the cops had been, but I was not the only man in New Brooklyn stark naked to his shoes. One in particular I remember; he was leaning against a street roof stanchion and searching with cold eys every passer-by. He was wearing nothing but slippers and a brassard letter with "VIG" - and he was carrying an Owens mob gun under his arm.
I saw three more like him before I reach Kay Five; I was glad that I was carrying my shorts.
Some women were naked, some were not - but those who were not might as well have been - string brassieres, translucent plastic trunks, nothing that could possibly hide a slug.
Most of the women, I decided, would have looked better in clothes, preferably togas. If this was what the preachers had been worrying about all these years, then they had been barking up the wrong tree; it was nothing to arouse the happy old beast in men. The total effect was depressing. That was my first impression - but before I got to my destination even that had worn off. Ugly bodies weren't any more noticeable than ugly taxicabs; the eye discounted them automatically. And so it appeared to be with everybody else, too; those on the streets seemed to have acquired utter indifference. Maybe Schedule Bare Back got them ready for it.
One thing I did not notice consciously until much later: after the first block I was unaware of my own nakedness. I notice other people long after I had forgotten my own bare skin. Somehow, some way, the American community had been all wrong about the modesty taboo and had been wrong for centuries.
When tackled firmly, it was an empty as the ghost that turns out to be a flapping window drape. It did not mean a thing, either pro or con, moral or immoral. Skin was skin and what of it?

 

[Mollygurl]

On Mary's "special ability": I believe in it, completely...

So do I Liz! Great post and I agree with everything you've said, so no need for me to re-state

 

[TTBRAHWTMG]

On Mary's "special ability": I believe in it, completely.

I'm no bombshell -- and wasn't even when I was younger. But I can tell if a man is a "red blooded" man. No, it isn't automatic. But I can tell a joke, or look at him a certain way, and see if he responds, even a little.

This skill has a name -- flirting. Well, it's lighter than real flirting, since there's no promise of action in it, but it is of the same class.

I read those passages as Mary giving the man in question "the act", and seeing if there was a response. No response would imply the man was hag-ridden. And one of those "men" was a teenaged boy, who should have responded to any female under 65.

This insight does compensate for my concerns, and maybe Virginia's contributions did help Heinlein with that part of the book. I still think that he could have done a bit better job of it...some of the cases where they used it was not in interaction but just a line of men walking on by. But atleast the premise seems a little more sound in light of your comments.

Not gay. The book was written in 1951. Homosexuality was not just in the closet, but wrapped in tissue, in a bag, in a box, buried under a pile of old clothes, in the closet.

I see your point, especially in light of what they cut out of the original as it is, but I don't think homosexuality was QUITE as in the box as you suggest (maybe just in the closet, wrapped in tissue, and in a bag...lol). In the Robert Heinlein Interview, Heinlein makes references how homosexuality was visible in New York in the 30s...
Schulman: And certainly the word "gay" has changed its meaning considerably. Heinlein: Well, it has changed in the public meaning. "Gay" had its idiomatic meaning in respect to homosexuality - "among the gay" - as far back as 1930. I know, for of course Greenwich Village even then had quite a lot of it, both men and women.
Having said that, Heinlein must have known that even if he was comfortable discussing it, there is NO WAY it would be publishable, or that enough people did have their heads buried in the sand regarding homosexuality that he could plausibly get away with ignoring it...so I can see that point too.

 

[TTBRAHWTMG]

I thought I'd put a couple other things out there to discuss...
1/ Even though this book is written in 1951, it is set in the early 21st century...actually ironically enough the book begins on July 12, 2007. What do you think of Heinlein's predictions of our current day versus the reality we live in? What aspect (technology, attitude, whatever) of his 2007 is most accurate when compared to today? Which is most off base? What do you think would have shocked Heinlein most about today when he sat there dreaming about it over 50 years ago?
2/ One of the most effective parts of the book (in my opinion) is how Heinlein depicts the Titans taking over control without the general population even being aware of it. Considering the times, do you think the Titans could have been representative of something other than aliens?

And for a general question...did anybody not enjoy the book? If not, what are your criticisms?

 

[Pyan]

What do you think would have shocked Heinlein most about today when he sat there dreaming about it over 50 years ago?

I don't know aboutshocked per se, because it is a recurring theme that he had strong views on anyway - but I don't think he would have expected the extent to which the disrespect/rudeness/lack of the concept of "duty"/ insistence on "rights"/dirty public conveniences/lack of integrity has pervaded life these days.
I do think though, if he were brought forward to 2007, he would be shocked by the all-pervading cult of worthless celebrity that so many people today regard as important. Can you imagine, for example, what he'd think of Paris Hilton?