RAH Reading Group - Puppet Masters

[TTBRAHWTMG]

Thanks for posting the interviews - they were great! The more I get to know Heinlein personally, the more I like and respect him.

I should mention that those divisions are my own and not in the book. The Interview is transcribed from audio tape, and reads as one long discussion between Heinlein and Schulman. I believe it was almost 4 hours, but I don't have it in front of me again...atleast over three, because I remember the pauses to flip the cassette.

I highly recommend it to anyone who has ANY interest in Heinlein...I believe it is the longest published discussion with Heinlein, and you really get a feel that you are sitting across from him as you read it...the only problem is that you go to ask him a question before you remember that you are stuck with only Schulman's. Schulman does a good job though, and has him covering subject matter all across the board. What Heinlein chooses not to talk about, and some of his reasons why, say almost as much about the man as the things that he actually does say.

 

[j d worthington]

I've heard this before, but I want to understand where you saw it Puppet Masters...with the Senator?...with Sam?...I'm a bit confused here.

With the Senator. The point had been raised about how the Senator didn't seem all that affected afterward, where it had wrung Sam out both physically and emotionally. My response is that the Senator is Heinlein's "competent man" in this particular instance, and is able to surpass Sam at this point in Sam's development (later on, Sam himself grows to be the "competent man", capable of near-superhuman behavior). Now, this is partly, I think, because of Heinlein's tendency (in his fiction at least -- I really do want to land a copy of that interview, it's the sort of thing I'd find fascinating) to have figures in such positions exceed the norm; they're a bit exaggerated to help make some of his philosophical points about those who have accepted responsibility, I'd say... set forth in high relief, as it were.

"Get back into the car," I said. She continued to look west along the road. "I thought I might get in a shot or two," she answered, her eyes bright. "She's safe here," the youngster assured me. "We're holding them, well down the road." I ignored him. "Listen, you bloodthirsty little hellion," I snapped, "get back in that car before I break every bone in your body!" "Yes, Sam." She turned and did so.
Do you think that pause...that bright eyed look down the road and short protest of wanting to get a shot or two in, WAS her momentary flash? That it was after Sam reinforced his statement that she did the logic jump? I'm not sure on this one, but it seems to fit both your sentiment and Mollygurl's.

No, not quite. From both my experience with people, my studies in psychology, and the fact that I've known and discussed such things as behavioral patterns and their signifiers with more counselors, psychologists, psychiatrists and such than I care to count... I'd say that does not fit what I'm getting at, really. Such a "flash" as I'm speaking of would not be a dreamy look... it would be an almost imperceptible flash of anger at her natural inclination (based on long experience and training) being curtailed and overridden. Once again, I stress that this is still a fairly short time after the dynamics have changed, and a lifetime of habits isn't changed that quickly. Even with the rapid jump posited for Mary (or such women in general), the immediate, unconscious, and learned response of a lifetime is not set aside so easily or quickly. It's a long, slow process, with lots of struggle to it. Basically, it's a reflexive action, below the conscious level ... that surge one gets before much beyond the R-complex has kicked in. It may be incredibly momentary, but it would be noticeable, especially for someone who is as wrapped up in the other person as Sam is with Mary.

On the other points, about the "four-dimensional worm" and so on... he mentions that this is something he addresses in much of his writing, and that's the point I was raising; this is a theme he goes back to throughout his career, presenting it from different angles but with, I'd say, an underlying uniform idea of the parameters of the concept, which I for one find fascinating. He addresses this in Red Planet with his Martians, with their lifecycle, of course, and carries that over into Stranger. He also addresses it strongly in Beyond This Horizon, in ways that tie that novel also to Stranger (especially the passage about "the only game in town" in Horizon). I disagree with him, however, that faith is not involved; I'd say that it is very much a question of faith to believe in any such thing -- it's a predisposition to an answer without evidence (or data) to go on. Some of the things we're finding out (or have found out) about this since his death, of course, puts it much closer to something that may be a scientifically answerable question; but the belief in any kind of continuance beyond death (at least, as the individual is concerned, rather than the biological energy which may be generated from the breakdown of the physical organism) is a faith.

However, it's an aspect of Heinlein's writing that I find particularly fascinating, so it's by no means a criticism. I just threw out that link because I think it might be interesting to, at some point, discuss this aspect of Heinlein's writing....

 

[TTBRAHWTMG]

Thank you for expanding regarding the Senator...I have a better understanding of what you meant now...and I do see it as a recurring element of Heinlein's work.

Once again, I stress that this is still a fairly short time after the dynamics have changed, and a lifetime of habits isn't changed that quickly.

I see your point, and will just add that Mary wasn't supposed to be an 'average' woman. She was a highly trained agent, and was also very 'young' in many ways due to her ordeal with the slugs. I believe Heinlein even had a passage regarding her unique past and her developmental age versus her chronological age, etc.

but the belief in any kind of continuance beyond death (at least, as the individual is concerned, rather than the biological energy which may be generated from the breakdown of the physical organism) is a faith.

I believe that is part of his point though. You can't KNOW anything regarding this type of stuff...it is 'Noumena' and therefore by definition not subject to rational debate, rather is better left to his fiction. He muses with his own personal ideas and ideas contrary to his own personal 'beliefs' through fiction. He avoids rational debate regarding it, and believes it falls to personal taste. "Not enough data".

 

[Finnien]

I have to support J.D. on this one. I'm not sure strong, independent people can swing that submissive that quickly. At least, I've never met one. For the most part, the relationship was pretty reasonable to me, but that particular scene did stand out a bit as a touch unrealistic. It's hard to tell what kind of tone Sam was using, but from the comments the young officer makes, it's pretty apparent it's not light, joking, or subtle - it's outright demanding. I think the scene could have either used something to show that she was humoring him, or showed some sort of pause after such a direct command, considering the ramifications of argument and the merits of it.

But then again, relationships in Heinlein's books have often been set to rather great extremes, much like the superhuman behavior of Sam's that J.D. referenced... probably for much the same reason.

 

[TTBRAHWTMG]

To be honest, when I read it myself the first few times, I would have agreed with what you say. I felt that Heinlein fared really poorly with Mary and her role in the book. I attributed it to his times, and gave him credit in general for being progressive with his female characters if still falling a little short on realism.

It’s not until this reading that I have started thinking, in light of other people’s insights into Mary, that maybe Heinlein had a better insight into women than I gave him credit for. Maybe Virginia had more influence or at least input on his female characters than I realized.

Thought that was pretty funny actually. Didn't offend me personally - he didn't say that this phenomenon happend with all women; just Mary. It makes sense I think, given how she was described. I don't think it was 'the male doesn't have a physical response, ergo he's an alien'. I felt that the way it was written, it wasn't an overt response that others noticed, but something that only Mary sensed.

put together with this…

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 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.

Together they made the “testing” more believable to me than I ever gave him credit for previously. And then regarding the scene at the saucer battle sequence, when I read this…

The thing that initially jumped out at me was not Sam's comment but Mary's reaction. I thought "What? No argument?" and I thought to myself that Heinlein must have believed that women were pretty meek and submissive that they'd go along with whatever their husband/boss said. After more reflection, I realized that it was quite the opposite. Mary reacted the way she did because she was so intelligent and decisive. She simply realized that Sam was right and that there was nothing to argue. It would not swing the battle in any significant way if she did go. Plus it would only draw Sam after her and she'd be risking his life as well. I don't think she wanted to do that after everything he'd already been through up to that point, including saving her from being hag-ridden twice. Besides, I have no doubt that if Mary had felt differently than Sam on the issue; nothing would have swayed her in her purpose.

and then I put it together with this…

Most of the intelligent women I know seem to have the diverse sides more integrated, especially that between intellect and instinct. So much so that they may not even understand themselves their reasons for their reactions. It isn't just instinct, it's reasoning done so unconsciously -- and with amazing speed -- that it appears an instinctual reaction. However, if you can probe enough, you'll usually find there's a lot of thought below the surface aspect of the mind, but it's so integrated with the emotions and instincts that it appears to be almost without thought. That's when they "feel" this or that way about something -- they've actually calculated the factors, but in a way quite different from men, which is usually more deliberative and conscious. Because of this integration, there's no division allowed in the mind when they take action -- certainly not in a crisis situation.

When I combine those with the fact that she was a highly trained agent and had a unique absence of long term habits, for the first time I’m giving him more credit for Mary’s believability...for that scene's believability, even.

 

[j d worthington]

I still find that particular scene sticks. It just doesn't play properly, given Mary's reaction in other instances up to that point. It just doesn't ring true for her character as presented so far, nor does anything that comes after make it believable that there wouldn't be that momentary flash of anger -- almost subliminal, but there. That's simply a normal mammalian reaction, period. It lies far, far below the conscious levels, down in the very basic structure of the brain, and is most likely tied to the "fight-or-flight" response -- a survival mechanism, in other words; and Mary was most definitely a survivor-type. I just think this is one instance where Heinlein goofed, period. I can much more easily buy what a similar instance of a man-woman confrontation in The Cat Who Walks Through Walls; that one rings honestly on both sides. This one clunked; it was artificial. It is also a case where it would have taken nothing more than a very brief indication of such a response -- a single line or even phrase -- to have made it much more believable. Again, I would simply say that this is an instance of Heinlein letting his agenda override his good sense as a writer. Her other instances of "submission", on the other hand, make sense given the way the dynamics have changed as time passes; it gives a chance for a new response (based on different emotional dynamics, so that the "fight-or-flight" doesn't kick in where Sam's concerned -- barring an act of brutality on his part) to become "second nature". It's a subtle point, but it leaps out at me as flatly wrong to the writer in me; it breaks verisimilitude completely and draws attention to itself, so that it has to be justified and explained... and that is generally an indication that it was a bad move (unless the writer is normally given to such tactics, to deliberately draw attention to them and make the reader pause frequently to ponder a character's actions -- which interferes with the flow of narrative; Heinlein tended to be exactly the opposite, always having a good narrative flow, even in his more didactic work).

As for whether we can "know" about the other matters ... well, we can't "know" anything. That's getting caught up in semantics. But, as far as we can know anything at all, the indications are that these things, too, are moving into the realm of the explicable, with the data piling up to give as much of a definitive answer on them as we can have on much of anything. We're in the early stages of that, but our growing understanding of genetics plus our understanding of the developmental stages of the brain and mental activities indicates strongly that, within the next century, this question is likely to be resolved into the "phenomena" category, rather than "noumena"... and will be taken out of the realm of philosophy into physics and biology. However, during Heinlein's lifetime, we were only seeing the first glimmers of that, and even there it was somewhat debatable ground (though without the predisposition to that belief, the indications were entirely against any sort of life-after-death).

 

[Razorback]

I was wondering how many have seen the movie and what you thought about it. I think I saw it on the Sci-Fi channel within the last couple of years or so. I believe Donald Sutherland played the Old Man. I recall thinking the movie was cheesy and below what I expect of Southerland. Now that I’ve read the book, I’d like to watch it again whenever it comes around.

 

[j d worthington]

I have seen the film, though it was quite a long time back. I'd have to agree. Some nice moments, but overall... a dud.

On Donald Sutherland... I'm reminded of a story he told in an interview once, on the subject of how he ended up in so many bad films. He began by saying that, of course, one couldn't tell what a film would be like while it's being made... at the time it may seem to be a wonderful piece of work; but on the screen it may look awful, even without bad editing, etc. Add in the factors of bad editing, special effects done poorly, off-center direction, etc., and it can be entirely different than what an actor perceives during the filming. His solution: he said he never went to any of his movies; he'd send his girlfriend. If she came home wearing a paper bag over her head.....

 

[Finnien]

The movie has our city hall in it. =) Not a redeeming quality by any means, but at least a point of interest. When the movie was coming out, the rumor around town was that they were using the city hall in the movie as a spaceship, not a building. It isn't exactly the most conservative building ever designed...

 

[TTBRAHWTMG]

I thought the film was "okay" if you did the best you could to divorce it from Heinlein's book and look at it on its own. As a Heinlein though, putting it lightly...pretty damn rough. By the way, here is an article written by one of the guys that convinced them to make it, and his own thoughts on how and why it turned out so rough even though he started with the best of intentions.

site: Robert A. Heinlein - Archives - Terry Rossio Essay

 

[Liz Pf]

It looks like this thread has died out while I was swamped with other things ... but I do want to post about Mary's missing "flash of anger".

I also am uncomfortable with the scene as written. Mary could have become quite submissive, though, given her background. Let me explain ...

First, Mary had a rough childhood (understatement). She was forced to be strong and independent long before she would normally become so. So we have the psychological pattern of a child, forced to be strong and adult, but a child underneath. This pattern continues to adulthood -- Mary is strong not because she is a mature woman, but because Mary the child has to be that way, because the world is such a dangerous place.

Enter Sam. Despite his other shortcomings, he is a mature man, and has his strength and independence due to his maturity. When Mary falls in love with him, her subconscious sees him as her adult strength, so she can go back to childhood. So she submits, fully, in all situations, and becomes the child-Mary again. Sam is "the wise father" she doesn't question, as well as husband.

If this was real life instead of fiction, I would hope Mary would begin maturing again, and be able to disagree with Sam again. Or he'd get might tired of her

My beef with the written scene -- we don't know whether RAH meant for Mary to have the issues I stated, or if he just didn't write well.

--Liz

 

[JimC]

An old thread, but this attracted my attention....

"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.""

Which is why we placed Ginny's ashes in the Pacific, to be with his.