|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
Saturday 04-20-2002 5:00 P.M.
The Moon is a Harsh Mistress
Return to Index
Here Begin The A.F.H. postings
Theme: "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress"
Dates and times: Saturday, 20 Apr, 2002, 5 PM to 8 PM, EST (note the abbreviated time; also, no Thursday chat)
Chat Host: ?
Place: AIM chatroom "Heinlein Readers Group chat"
To attend our chats, and any reasonable person is welcome, you may receive instructions on how to download and use AIM freeware on the website located at
http://www.alltel.net/~dwrighsr/heinlein.html
Email David Silver, ag.plusone@verizon.net or agplusone@aol.com or Dave Wright, Sr, dwrighsr@alltel.net if you require further help getting the freeware or getting into the room.
Are there any Heinlein fans who haven't read "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress"? There are probably a few, so for their benefit - and the hypothetical man from Mars named Smith - here's a short summary:
The book is set in the mid-2070's, and follows the progress of a revolution in a future lunar colony. The story is told in flashback, from the viewpoint of one of the main conspirators - Manuel Garcia O'Kelly Davis.
His main co-conspirators are Wyoming Knott, a firebrand political activist who starts out trying to foment a popular uprising, before turning to a more covert form of revolution; Professor Bernardo de la Paz, a political exile and professional revolutionary; and Mycroft Holmes, a sentient supercomputer with a sense of humour.
TMiaHM is one of Heinlein's best known and most popular works - it won the Hugo award for best novel of 1966. It also coined the term TANSTAAFL - an acronym for "There ain't no such thing as a free lunch" - and introduced the use of kinetic energy weapons (large rocks thrown from orbit, impacting with the energy of small nuclear bombs), as seen more recently in works such as "Footfall", by Niven and Pournelle, and the TV series "Babylon 5".
On the other hand, Alexei Panshin thought its main interest was "as dramatized lecture" on running a revolution.
Some commentators have expressed the opinion that TMiaHM is one of the least complicated of Heinlein's later works, apparently based on its relatively straight-forward plot. In my opinion, it shows Heinlein at his best - it introduces a wide range of concepts so smoothly that the reader doesn't register the sheer volume of ideas being presented, but simply accepts them.
For example, Heinlein doesn't produce a long exposition on the variety of human marriage customs and the multiplicity of possible arrangements - instead, he shows them in practise.
He doesn't preach about the inefficiency of command economies and their potential for corruption - he demonstrates it.
At one point, he throws out nearly a dozen different ideas for different forms of representational government - as (IIRC) Spider Robinson has observed, any one of these could be the basis for a book in its own right.
I also think that the narrator is one of Heinlein's most interesting characters. Manuel doesn't fit into some critics' stereotype of a Heinlein character - he isn't a young, muscular supergenius, who knows how the universe works and why it works. Instead, he is a middle-aged, crippled, bloody-minded computer technician with no interest in politics. He is also compassionate enough to talk to a lonely, bored, self-aware computer, something noone else had done. This is what ensures the success of the revolution, as it had no chance for success without Mike. Without the revolution, the Lunar colonies would have devolved into food riots, cannibalism and mass starvation, as the Moon's very limited resources were exhausted by an uninterested Earth.
Ultimately, the lives of millions of people are saved by Mannie performing a small act of compassion.
These are just a few thoughts on a subtly complex book - further points for discussion would include:
What else could be seen in it? What strengths and weaknesses? How does it fit into the development of Heinlein's writing style? What does it say about Heinlein's politics, given overt approval of a near-anarchistic system, yet one which eventually turns into a more conventional form of government?
The floor is open for answers to these questions, or other questions of your own. As always, the more pre-meeting posts, the better the chats.
See you in a couple of weeks in the chat room.
[Simon Jester]
>Robert Heinlein Reading Group chat > >Theme: "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" [snip] > >The floor is open for answers to these questions, or other questions of your >own. As always, the more pre-meeting posts, the better the chats. >
I've always wondered why Heinlein picked May 13, 2075, for the date of the meeting where Manny meets Wyoh. Why make a point of a specific date if it alludes to nothing much?
Nothing in particular seems to have happened on May 13, 1775, in U.S. History.
As to other years:
May 13 -- from the Kiddies' Today in History website 1607:
English colonists led by John Rolfe land near the James River in Virginia. Disease, starvation, and attacks by Native Americans will continually threaten the colony's very existence, but it will survive and eventually thrive.
[That, of course, was the first successful English colony founded in what became the United States.]
1648: Margaret Jones of Plymouth Colony is found guilty of witchcraft and is sentenced to be hanged by the neck.
1846: The U.S. finally declares war on Mexico, some two months after the fighting began.
1821: Samuel Rust of New York City patents the first practical printing press to be built in the U.S.; up 'til now presses were imported from Great Britain, France, or Germany.
1888: Brazil becomes the last New World nation to abolish slavery.
1947: In a setback for the U.S. labor movement, the Senate approves the Taft-Hartley Act, which limits the power of unions.
1968: Peace talks between the U.S. and North Vietnam begin in Paris; they will drag on for years.
Otherwise, in 1864, the first soldier was buried at Arlington -- a Confederate who died a POW, btw; and in 1908, Teddy Roosevelt established a National Parks Act.
But nothing like the Boston Massacre, or anything else to equate to the Warden's goons attacking the political protest, seems to have occurred on that date in 1775. Or am I missing something critical, such as Lexington and Concord? "The shot fired heard 'round the world."
Anyone have any ideas?
-- David M. Silver http://www.heinleinsociety.org http://www.readinggroupsonline.com/groups/heinlein.htm "The Lieutenant expects your names to shine!" Robert Anson Heinlein, USNA '29 Lt (jg)., USN R'td (1907-1988)
>Simon Jester wrote: > >>Robert Heinlein Reading Group chat >> >>Theme: "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" >[snip] >> >>The floor is open for answers to these questions, or other questions of your >>own. As always, the more pre-meeting posts, the better the chats. >> > >I've always wondered why Heinlein picked May 13, 2075, for the date of >the meeting where Manny meets Wyoh. Why make a point of a specific date >if it alludes to nothing much? > >Nothing in particular seems to have happened on May 13, 1775, in U.S. >History. > >As to other years: > >May 13 -- from the Kiddies' Today in History website >1607: >English colonists led by John Rolfe land near the James River in >Virginia. Disease, starvation, and attacks by Native Americans will >continually threaten the colony's very existence, but it will survive >and eventually thrive. > >[That, of course, was the first successful English colony founded in >what became the United States.] > >1648: Margaret Jones of Plymouth Colony is found guilty of witchcraft >and is sentenced to be hanged by the neck. >1846: The U.S. finally declares war on Mexico, some two months after the >fighting began. >1821: Samuel Rust of New York City patents the first practical printing >press to be built in the U.S.; up 'til now presses were imported from >Great Britain, France, or Germany. >1888: Brazil becomes the last New World nation to abolish slavery. >1947: In a setback for the U.S. labor movement, the Senate approves the >Taft-Hartley Act, which limits the power of unions. >1968: Peace talks between the U.S. and North Vietnam begin in Paris; >they will drag on for years. > >Otherwise, in 1864, the first soldier was buried at Arlington -- a >Confederate who died a POW, btw; and in 1908, Teddy Roosevelt >established a National Parks Act. > >But nothing like the Boston Massacre, or anything else to equate to the >Warden's goons attacking the political protest, seems to have occurred >on that date in 1775. Or am I missing something critical, such as >Lexington and Concord? "The shot fired heard 'round the world." > >Anyone have any ideas? > >-- >David M. Silver >http://www.heinleinsociety.org >http://www.readinggroupsonline.com/groups/heinlein.htm >"The Lieutenant expects your names to shine!" >Robert Anson Heinlein, USNA '29 >Lt (jg)., USN R'td (1907-1988) >
I am as puzzled as you, David, but here is my historical list. Perhaps you can see something in it that i did not.
1373 - Author Julian of Norwich was miraculously healed after a series of visions. Her works explored the profound mysteries of the Christian faith and are considered, by some, among the most beautiful expressions of mysticism of the Middle Ages.
1501 - Merchant/Navigator Amerigo Vespucci sets sail on his second expedition to the New World.
1637 - The table knife was created by Cardinal Richelieu in France. Until this time, daggers were used to cut meat, as well as to pick one's teeth.
1779 - France abandons Goree, West Africa, to Britain.
1809 - French army under Napoleon Bonaparte takes Vienna.
1835 - Death of John Nash, British architect who developed London’s Regent’s Park and Regent Street.
1842 - Birth of Sir Arthur Sullivan (died 1900), English composer. He is best known for his collaboration with W.S Gilbert in light operas that include HMS Pinafore (1878); The Mikado (1885) and The Gondoliers(1889).
1864 - Battle of Newmarket. 247 cadets of the Virginia Military Academy marched forward and captured Federal artillery suffering 10 killed and 47 wounded.
1871 - The Law of Guarantees in Italy declares the Pope’s person inviolable and allows him possession of the Vatican.
1872 - Mother’s Day, begun by Julia Ward Howe. Originally called Mothers’ Peace Day.
1890 - Nikola Tesla was issued a patent for an electric generator (No. 428,057).
1908 - Navy Nurse Corps established.
1913 - The first four-engine airplane was first built and flown by Igor Sikorsky of Russia.
1917 - Three peasant children near Fatima, Portugal, reported seeing a vision of the Virgin Mary.
1932 - France and Japan sign an agreement on commerce in Indochina, in which some imported products of the two sides receive preferential duties.
1940 - In his first speech as prime minister of Britain, Winston Churchill told the House of Commons, "I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and sweat."
1943 - Bureau of Navigation renamed Bureau of Naval Personnel
1945 - Aircraft from fast carrier task force begin 2-day attack on Kyushu airfields, Japan
1955 - The Geneva Agreements on Indochina signed on July 20, 1954 following Viet Nam’s victory over the French in Dien Bien Phu, allows the French in North Viet Nam to re-group to Ben Nghieng Village of Do Son District, Hai Phong, in preparation for their final evacuation from Indochina.
Additionally, here is a large list of scientists' births and deaths - http://www.todayinsci.com/cgi-bin/indexpage.pl?http://todayinsci.tripod.com/5/5_13.htm
Steve eegle1@exis.net http://afhpics.mnsdesigns.com/ http://www.mnsdesigns.com/
>Robert Heinlein Reading Group chat > >Theme: "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" >Dates and times: Saturday, 20 Apr, 2002, 5 PM to 8 PM, EST (note the >abbreviated time; also, no Thursday chat) >Chat Host: ? >Place: AIM chatroom "Heinlein Readers Group chat" (snip) > >The floor is open for answers to these questions, or other questions of your >own. As always, the more pre-meeting posts, the better the chats. > >See you in a couple of weeks in the chat room. > >
For a work that is supposed to be as popular as TMIAHM, I am surprised at the lack of postings about it.
In any case, I'll throw out a couple of things.
I have always been somewhat surprised that libertarians considered this such an important work since the end result of the revolution was anything like what libertarians would like, (at least as far as I understand it).
I have always been surprised at the reaction against Prof's 'rational anarchist' philosophy. I wrote an essay on this subject at http://dwrighsr.tripod.com/heinlein/RatAnarch/
TMIAHM was a very important step in my finally understanding the fill-in-the blank technique that RAH used. This came about when I finally cleared up a 25 year old misconception about the use of the term 'tanstaafl'. This lead directly to the importance of 'unconscious assumptions' when reading him.
David Wright
>I've always wondered why Heinlein picked May 13, 2075, for the date of >the meeting where Manny meets Wyoh. Why make a point of a specific date >if it alludes to nothing much? > >Nothing in particular seems to have happened on May 13, 1775, in U.S. >History.
Given the context, I suspect a Tuckerism. When did RAH meet Ginny?
-- Peter Scott
>TMIAHM was a very important step in my finally understanding the fill-in-the >blank technique that RAH used. This came about when I finally cleared up a >25 year old misconception about the use of the term 'tanstaafl'. This lead >directly to the importance of 'unconscious assumptions' when reading him.
It's easy to misunderstand, just from the spell-out. I've noticed quite a few people who haven't ready RAH's works interpret TANSTAAFL as synonymous with "you get what you pay for". While the words alone may suggest the similarity, there's a much deeper meaning, an implication, of TANSTAAFL.
In my mind, YGWYPF is of limited scope -- you pay $100 for a car, don't
expect it to be in mint condition. TANSTAAFL suggests a deeper
understanding. YGWYPF is a special-case of TANSTAAFL. Some other aspects
of TANSTAAFL that aren't encompassed in YGWYPF:
- Even if you aren't physically paying for goods or services you're using,
someone is. And if it isn't cost-beneficial to them to continue to do
so, they won't pay for them forever. (dot-bomb, anyone?)
- If it is cost-beneficial for someone else to pay for goods or services
you're using, it's because you are paying indirectly. ("...or the
beer would be cheaper.")
- Recognition of an obligation, of personal responsibility, of
stewardship.
-- Debts must be repaid. If you can't repay the debt, don't take on
the debt. Debts need not be repaid monetarily. (Habitat for
Humanity comes to mind)
-- The benefits of society do not come at no cost. Some can be paid
for by governmental revenue. Some require a more personal
acceptance of stewardship. Sometimes as simple as encouraging
good manners by demonstrating them yourself (such as by offering
your seat on a bus to a lady). Sometimes with a commitment of
greater duration, such as the person who becomes a teacher because
an educated society requires teachers, or the person who becomes a
police officer because sometimes police officers are needed when
people forget their obligations to society, or the person who
becomes a public defender because even those who can't afford a
lawyer deserve legal representation in court, or the person who
recognizes that medics are needed even in townships that can't
afford full-time EMTs and so becomes a volunteer EMT.
(You may suspect from the preceding paragraph that I'm an advocate
of public service, and I am. I strongly encourage everyone to
pay something back to society, not necessarily as a profession,
but maybe for a couple years. I'm equally opposed to mandatory
public service, because a virtue isn't a virtue if it's
required, and it is no great demonstration of personal
responsibility to do something when you'll go to jail if you
don't do it.)
Hmm. Seemed to have gotten a bit long-winded there, but that's my interpretation of TANSTAAFL. Any other interpretations?
Take care,
cb
--
Christopher A. Bohn ____________|____________
http://www.cis.ohio-state.edu/~bohn/ ' ** ** " (o) " ** ** '
"Technology and air power are integrally and synergistically
related." - P Meilinger, "Ten Propositions Regarding Air Power"
>Simon Jester wrote: > >>Robert Heinlein Reading Group chat >> >>Theme: "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" >[snip] >> >>The floor is open for answers to these questions, or other questions of your >>own. As always, the more pre-meeting posts, the better the chats. >> > >I've always wondered why Heinlein picked May 13, 2075, for the date of >the meeting where Manny meets Wyoh. Why make a point of a specific date >if it alludes to nothing much?
The Second Continental Congress ran from May 10, 1775 to March 2, 1789.
For the proceedings of that day, go here.
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:@field(DOCID+@lit(jc0028))
Not sure if there is anything to this, have not read it all yet.
Jim
> >"David Silver" <ag.plusone@verizon.net>wrote in message >news:3CADBB0A.3090502@verizon.net... >>Simon Jester wrote: >> >>>Robert Heinlein Reading Group chat >>> >>>Theme: "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" >>[snip] >>> >>>The floor is open for answers to these questions, or other questions of your >>>own. As always, the more pre-meeting posts, the better the chats. >>> >> >>I've always wondered why Heinlein picked May 13, 2075, for the date of >>the meeting where Manny meets Wyoh. Why make a point of a specific date >>if it alludes to nothing much? > >The Second Continental Congress ran from May 10, 1775 to March 2, 1789. > >For the proceedings of that day, go here. > http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:@field(DOCID+@lit(jc0028)) >Not sure if there is anything to this, have not read it all yet. > >Jim >
It may be stretching it, but the minutes of that day deal with the admission of a Doctor Lyman Hall from the Parish of St. Johns in Savannah. It would appear that St. Johns and Dr. Hall were attending in spite of the fact that Savannah had refused to send delegates. Seems to fit somewhat Profs characteristics or am I looking too hard?
David W
[snip]
> >The book is set in the mid-2070's, and follows the progress of a revolution >in a future lunar colony. The story is told in flashback, from the >viewpoint of one of the main conspirators - Manuel Garcia O'Kelly Davis. > >His main co-conspirators are Wyoming Knott, a firebrand political activist >who starts out trying to foment a popular uprising, before turning to a more >covert form of revolution; Professor Bernardo de la Paz, a political exile >and professional revolutionary; and Mycroft Holmes, a sentient supercomputer >with a sense of humour. >
Simon's asked for "strengths and weaknesses." Try these:
I'm reading my copy of TMiaHM for the last time. It cost 95 cents 34 years ago, and it's flaking small pieces of yellow-brown acid-based paper this time. Time enough for a new one; and I'm reading it in a definitely contrarian mood this time: the "firebrand political activist" doesn't appeal to me as much as previously, her beauty and long sad tale of undeserved injury by Authority notwithstanding. Knott is a severely damaged piece of goods, mentally and emotionally. She's obsessed with a personal desire for revenge against the Lunar Authority whom she blames for a radiation-damaged child born her.
Why was the damaged child born? A pilot landed her emigrant's vessel shortly before a solar flare storm. The pilot was a cyborg, so she only blames him incidentally. He beat the storm, but evidently forgot or it didn't matter to sterilized him that a quarantine period was required on the ground -- four hours, and so emigrants were exposed to excess radiation. Her position is three million people should have been exposed to plague. Quarantines must again be one of those unjustifiable governmental placements of the individual over society she discusses with Manuel and de la Paz later in the room at Raffles. Years later her child was born a physical defective. The "monster" as she calls it, "had to be destroyed." In the decades before TMiaHM was written, thousands of children were born physically damaged as a result of the too-early certification of thalidimide. As Manuel quietly points out at first mention of this motivation, she might much more easily tried again for a child as the radiation damaged egg might easily be succeeded next time with a healtthy one. In a population of three million, assuming two males to one female there must have been hundreds of women incapable of conception whatever. Knott instead took the drastic step of having her tubes tied, divorcing both husbands, and sinking herself into a lifetime of plotting injury to Authority.
Knott doesn't particularly care whom she injures in her thirst for revenge either. Humans, except those few who have entered into the conspiracy with her, really aren't human to her -- as she's worried about is whether Manuel's 'friend,' the sentient computer, can feel pain. Assured he cannot, she's content to blow the central complex containing Michael Holmes to smithereens. To hell with how many 'finks' for authority she kills, disrupting Authority is what counts. Give this woman a bomb to strap to her chest, and she'd walk into a wedding if it would cause sufficient damange to Authority. She's a classic terrorist, safe as fulminate of mercury to be around, driven by her permanent bloodlust for revenge. Propose any damage against Authority and her answer to you would be the pun on her name, "Why not."
Bernardo de la Paz, plainly isn't simply a romatic figure. Forget the happy sparkle in his eyes, the dimples, the exquisite manners, He's not romantic at all, but simply an old murderer. Look what admittedly was among the cause of his exile: "in my younger or bomb-throwing days my experience was limited to something on the order of the one-kilogram chemical explosive of which you spoke, Manuel. But I assume you two know what you're talking about." In a disarmed society, who is the one person in that meeting who pulls out his own laser weapon, smuggled onto Luna at enormous cost? Who knows the "Istanbul twist"? Who first defines the revolution they will conduct as based on the historical principle of "terrorism?"Who set the tone? Call them "yellow jackets" all you wish. The simple fact is nine cops out of a police force of twenty-seven in a population of three million attempted to declare an unlawful assembly and arrest its participants, perhaps for sedition. They all died immediately except one, taken wounded. His was murdered, helpless. And their principal murderer -- he accounted for at least three himself -- directed their bodies be ground up and flushed down a sewer. ["Their mates went out on an easy mission. _Nothing_ came back."] No wonder they snatched him up and tossed him in a bag the one day he went for a stroll undisguised in Lima, Peru. He's lucky he wasn't hanged summarily.
Bernardo de la Paz: "Bernard," from Bernhart, Old High German ["bero" meaning bear + "hart" meaning bold or HARD]. Hard Bear of Peace. Peace is a truce. Deacon told Rod Walker to beware the Truce of the Bear, didn't he? This disarmingly named de la Paz has devoted his life to his first profession as devoutly as Yassir Arafat. Even Dub-yah has finally got his number.
This is a rather unsavory twosome Manuel falls in among, isn't it? I'm not sure I like these two characters, "the old murderer" and the "blonde bombshell bomber," even if food riots are to come in seven years, with cannibalism to come two years later, according to the bored computer Manuel is kind to.
What do you think?
-- David M. Silver http://www.heinleinsociety.org http://www.readinggroupsonline.com/groups/heinlein.htm "The Lieutenant expects your names to shine!" Robert Anson Heinlein, USNA '29 Lt (jg)., USN R'td (1907-1988)
Did I say this?
> >Quarantines must again be one of those unjustifiable >governmental placements of the *individual* over *society* she discusses >with Manuel and de la Paz later in the room at Raffles. >
Naw, impossible! It was some unidentified being (probably Mike Holmes) controlling input to this newsgroup that reversed the word "society" with "individual" to make me read like a contrarian idiot. Read it t'other way! Where's that proof reader's advertisement, James?
-- David M. Silver http://www.heinleinsociety.org http://www.readinggroupsonline.com/groups/heinlein.htm "The Lieutenant expects your names to shine!" Robert Anson Heinlein, USNA '29 Lt (jg)., USN R'td (1907-1988)
...
>This is a rather unsavory twosome Manuel falls in among, isn't it? I'm >not sure I like these two characters, "the old murderer" and the "blonde >bombshell bomber," even if food riots are to come in seven years, with >cannibalism to come two years later, according to the bored computer >Manuel is kind to. > >What do you think? > >-- >David M. Silver >http://www.heinleinsociety.org >http://www.readinggroupsonline.com/groups/heinlein.htm >"The Lieutenant expects your names to shine!" >Robert Anson Heinlein, USNA '29 >Lt (jg)., USN R'td (1907-1988) >
OTOH, is Mannie himself a particularly savoury character? At the start of the book, he describes his ancestry: pure convict, a combination of "armed violence", "subversive activity", "juvenile delinquency female type", etc, and adds that he was proud of his ancestry.
Mannie has no qualms about using the central computer - which controlled air, water, humidity, temperature and sewage for several cities - for his personal gain (initially, purely monetary). The computer was already sufficiently overloaded to have started behaving very erratically - having acquired a "sense of humour" - yet rather than try to "fix" it, Mannie encourages it to become still more erratic. He puts several million (?) people at risk purely to boost his consulting fees.
When Mannie attends his first revolution meeting, he is only allowed in because a convicted murderer describes him by saying "He's as mean as they come." The same murderer is last seen killing two cops by smacking their heads together so hard that they "popped like eggs."
Throughout the revolution, Mannie shows no compunction about using either small children or his own family as pawns in the struggle against the Authority.
At the end of the book, he quite cheerfully orders the use of weapons with the destructive power of nuclear weapons. The detonations on land wouldn't kill anyone who didn't go out of their way to stand under many tons of falling rock, but can the same be said of the "water shots"? I don't know about American cities, but London has long been prone to flooding; the tsunami from a kilotonne-scale detonation in the Thames Estuary would do more than make a few bridges wet.
In short, Mannie is a violent, vicious, ruthless, self-centred thug.
What a bunch for a decent aristocrat to fall in with...
;-)
Simon
-- tanstaafl
>OTOH, is Mannie himself a particularly savoury character? At the start of >the book, he describes his ancestry: pure convict, a combination of "armed >violence", "subversive activity", "juvenile delinquency female type", etc, >and adds that he was proud of his ancestry.
But lots of people romanticise ancestors they might not want to be in the same room with, so I don't think this counts as strongly as your other points.
snip >At the end of the book, he quite cheerfully orders the use of weapons with >the destructive power of nuclear weapons. The detonations on land wouldn't >kill anyone who didn't go out of their way to stand under many tons of >falling rock, but can the same be said of the "water shots"? I don't know >about American cities, but London has long been prone to flooding; the >tsunami from a kilotonne-scale detonation in the Thames Estuary would do >more than make a few bridges wet.
Hmmm. Impact physics is different from nuclear weapon physics (less energy goes into light and other EMR and more into kinetic energy so you get bigger holes and fewer fires). Luckily I don't have to guess using _The Effects of Nuclear Weapons_ because I have _Hazards Due to Comets & Asteroids_ handy.
Says here on page 787 that the depth of the body of water limits the size of the wave and that a larger fraction of the energy of the object ends up driving the tsunami in smaller impacts than in large ones. The Loonies used little ones, right, about Hiroshima sized?
The equation given for the full height h of the terminal wave for an impact Y at distance r in shallow water of depth d is given as
h = 1450 meter (d/r) (Y/gigaton)^0.25
So a 10 kt pop a km away in 10 meter water would result in a wave a bit under a meter tall. If they hit a deep part of the Thames (Well, after the first shot, that bit _will_ be deeper) the wave will be larger. Note that wave height drops linearly with distance from the impact spot (Which is why waves generated by a quake in Chile can kill people in Japan). Also, you can get standing waves which don't drop much with distance if the river/canal is shaped correctly, so although the numbers I get are small, they also may be wrong, under- estimating the damage.
They give a very rough rule of thumb for how far inland such a wave will run which is
X = 1.0 km (h/10 meters)^4/3
So assumimg that's right, the wave will go around 30 meters inland. Annoying but not all that bad, really. Wouldn't surprise me if the original catpult was designed with a maximum payload such that the worst side-effects of a bungle launch were tolerable unless it actually hit a city. Even in MisHM, most of the land surface would be unoccupied.
Of course, maybe the Loonies can pack more energy into the playload (More mass or a higher velocity) than they did. A 1 MT pop in 100 meter water (In the Channel, say) would give you a 25 meter wave a km away, which might run as far as 3.4 km inland. _That_ would be annoying. Focussed by running up a river bed might be worse. Landing it offshore of Bangladesh, where the average land height is low, the slopes shallow and the rule of thumb given above way round on the low side would be very bad. I can't recall, did they hit the subcontinent?
James Nicoll
-- "I think you mean 'Could libertarian slave-owning Confederates, led by SHWIers, have pulled off a transatlantic invasion of Britain, in revenge for the War of 1812, if they had nukes acquired from the Sea of Time?'" Alison Brooks (1959-2002)
>In article <1018182439.3591.0@eos.uk.clara.net>, >Simon Jester <simonjester@freeuk.com>wrote: > > >>OTOH, is Mannie himself a particularly savoury character? At the start of >>the book, he describes his ancestry: pure convict, a combination of "armed >>violence", "subversive activity", "juvenile delinquency female type", etc, >>and adds that he was proud of his ancestry. > >But lots of people romanticise ancestors they might not want >to be in the same room with, so I don't think this counts as strongly >as your other points. >
True - but the ancestors I was discussing were grandparents, not more distant ancestors. (Mannie did also mention more remote ancestors, such as an "ancestress hanged in Salem for witchcraft, a g'g'g'greatgrandfather broken on wheel for piracy, another ancestress in first shipload to Botany Bay".)
> >snip > >>At the end of the book, he quite cheerfully orders the use of weapons with >>the destructive power of nuclear weapons. The detonations on land wouldn't >>kill anyone who didn't go out of their way to stand under many tons of >>falling rock, but can the same be said of the "water shots"? I don't know >>about American cities, but London has long been prone to flooding; the >>tsunami from a kilotonne-scale detonation in the Thames Estuary would do >>more than make a few bridges wet. > >Hmmm. Impact physics is different from nuclear weapon physics >(less energy goes into light and other EMR and more into kinetic >energy so you get bigger holes and fewer fires). Luckily I don't >have to guess using _The Effects of Nuclear Weapons_ because I have >_Hazards Due to Comets & Asteroids_ handy. > >Says here on page 787 that the depth of the body of water >limits the size of the wave and that a larger fraction of the energy >of the object ends up driving the tsunami in smaller impacts than >in large ones. The Loonies used little ones, right, about Hiroshima >sized?
When the cabal initially start discussing "throwing rocks" (at the start of chapter 8), a mass of 100 tonnes is initially discussed, producing a yield approaching a two-kilotonne detonation. I can't find any other figures for the size of rocks used. IIRC, the Hiroshima bomb was circa 15 kilotonnes.
> >The equation given for the full height h of the terminal wave >for an impact Y at distance r in shallow water of depth d is given as > > >h = 1450 meter (d/r) (Y/gigaton)^0.25 > >So a 10 kt pop a km away in 10 meter water would result in >a wave a bit under a meter tall. If they hit a deep part of the Thames >(Well, after the first shot, that bit _will_ be deeper) the wave will >be larger.
Well, I feel silly.
There's no indication that London would get more than one shot. The only nations likely to receive multiple shots were the seven veto powers, of which Mitteleuropa is the only nation that England would seem likely to join. OTOH, Belgium and Holland are explicitly mentioned as independant nations, so it seems more likely that Britain (or England) is also independant.
The Loonie warnings for the Thames shot stated that the impact would be "north of Dover Straits opposite London Estuary". Looking at the map of England in my atlas, this makes an impact at roughly 1.5 degrees East by 51.5 degrees North seem most probable.
The depth of the water at this point is indicated no more precisely than between 0 and 50m. It is a long way from any deeper water, so probably not much more than 20m.
The closest town to the impact would be Margate, on the Kent coast, which would be roughly 15km away. (Central London would be roughly 110km away, as the pig flies.) The height of the waves at Margate would therefore be circa 7cm high (approx 3 inches), given a 2 kt impact.
OTOH, the Loonies warn that the impact "would cause disturbances far up Thames".
If the impact was significantly further west, it could produce much higher waves, as the shape of the river could "funnel" the disturbances.
>Note that wave height drops linearly with distance from >the impact spot (Which is why waves generated by a quake in Chile can >kill people in Japan). Also, you can get standing waves which don't >drop much with distance if the river/canal is shaped correctly, so >although the numbers I get are small, they also may be wrong, under- >estimating the damage. > >They give a very rough rule of thumb for how far inland such a >wave will run which is > >X = 1.0 km (h/10 meters)^4/3 > >So assumimg that's right, the wave will go around 30 meters >inland. Annoying but not all that bad, really. Wouldn't surprise me >if the original catpult was designed with a maximum payload such >that the worst side-effects of a bungle launch were tolerable unless >it actually hit a city. Even in MisHM, most of the land surface >would be unoccupied. > >Of course, maybe the Loonies can pack more energy into >the playload (More mass or a higher velocity) than they did. A >1 MT pop in 100 meter water (In the Channel, say) would give you >a 25 meter wave a km away, which might run as far as 3.4 km inland. >_That_ would be annoying. Focussed by running up a river bed might >be worse. Landing it offshore of Bangladesh, where the average >land height is low, the slopes shallow and the rule of thumb given >above way round on the low side would be very bad. I can't recall, >did they hit the subcontinent? >
Both land and sea targets - India was one of the veto powers. It isn't clear whether any of these would have been offshore of (what is currently) Bangladesh - it has a relatively short coastline, compared to India or even Pakistan.
The Indian government was furious over the fish killed.
Simon
>David Silver wrote: >... >>This is a rather unsavory twosome Manuel falls in among, isn't it? >>I'm not sure I like these two characters, "the old murderer" and the >>"blonde >>bombshell bomber," even if food riots are to come in seven years, >>with >>cannibalism to come two years later, according to the bored computer >>Manuel is kind to. >> >>What do you think? >> >>-- >>David M. Silver >>http://www.heinleinsociety.org >>http://www.readinggroupsonline.com/groups/heinlein.htm >>"The Lieutenant expects your names to shine!" >>Robert Anson Heinlein, USNA '29 >>Lt (jg)., USN R'td (1907-1988) >> > >OTOH, is Mannie himself a particularly savoury character? At the start >of the book, he describes his ancestry: pure convict, a combination of >"armed violence", "subversive activity", "juvenile delinquency female >type", etc, and adds that he was proud of his ancestry. > >Mannie has no qualms about using the central computer - which >controlled air, water, humidity, temperature and sewage for several >cities - for his personal gain (initially, purely monetary). The >computer was already sufficiently overloaded to have started behaving >very erratically - having acquired a "sense of humour" - yet rather >than try to "fix" it, Mannie encourages it to become still more >erratic. He puts several million (?) people at risk purely to boost >his consulting fees. > >When Mannie attends his first revolution meeting, he is only allowed >in because a convicted murderer describes him by saying "He's as mean >as they come." The same murderer is last seen killing two cops by >smacking their heads together so hard that they "popped like eggs." > >Throughout the revolution, Mannie shows no compunction about using >either small children or his own family as pawns in the struggle >against the Authority. > >At the end of the book, he quite cheerfully orders the use of weapons >with the destructive power of nuclear weapons. The detonations on land >wouldn't kill anyone who didn't go out of their way to stand under >many tons of falling rock, but can the same be said of the "water >shots"? I don't know about American cities, but London has long been >prone to flooding; the tsunami from a kilotonne-scale detonation in >the Thames Estuary would do more than make a few bridges wet. > >In short, Mannie is a violent, vicious, ruthless, self-centred thug. > Wow, he could come to earth and work for Andersen!! >What a bunch for a decent aristocrat to fall in with... >;-) > >Simon >--
Manny seemed to have 'practical' ethics. He looked after himself and his family, Helped out fellow lunies but expected payback. Had no qualms about shoving someone out an airlock if they wouldn't pay a debt.
His word was good enough for the stilyagi to select him as a judge, and to accept his ruling.
So in his environment, he was a well-respected citizen.
In LA or London or Sydney he'd be considered dangerous and unruly, unless he went into politics or corporate management.
"Simon Jester" <simonjester@freeuk.com>wrote in news:1018182439.3591.0@eos.uk.clara.net:
>David Silver wrote: >>[snip comments I wrote concerning "unsavoriness" of character >>of co-conspirators Knott and de la Paz] >[snip comments Simon Jester wrote of dishonesty and ruthless-ness of Manuel O'Kelley Davis] [snip comments of Dave Jennings concerning Davis' "'practical'" ethics and fact that "in his environment, he was a well-respected citizen."]
What's most surprising to me is notwithstanding all the vicious slurs we've used as juicy bait thus far characterizing Knott, de la Paz, and Davis, so few fish have risen from the depths of this newsgroup to defend them. These three portrayed by Heinlein don't sound very much like Benjamin Franklin, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, do they? Not even much like those more 'radical firebrands' Thomas Paine, Samuel Adams, Patrick Henry?
The winners write history but, surely, agents of agitprop such as Paine, Samuel Adams, and Henry cannot have been white-washed that much, can they? Or not? What exactly was it that "fiery" Samuel Adams did? He had a lot to do with mobs forming, including the one that provided the victims of the Boston Massacre that Prof de la Paz keeps looking to find.
What surprises me about the plot of TMiaHM is how so little detail is portrayed of the consequences of the agitprop employed between the time the conspiracy is formed between Knott, de la Paz, Davis and Adam Selene and the "rape-murder" of Marie Lyons, the stock control clerk living in the Authority Complex.
That's an odd name evocation, btw. Seems to me, iirc, the collaborating Vichy government permitted the Nazis to ship quite a few suspected marquis along with huge numbers of 'lesser' subhumans out of Lyons to the camps in the East for 'final solution' as resistance to the Nazis grew among the French during World War II.
All we're told in TMiaHM is it became popular to engage in derision further undermining Authority (vicious humor and counterfeiting of passports), and occasional murders of isolated F.N. occupation troops occurred. No bombs exploded in the Authority complex among the 'civil servants,' despite Knott's fiery inclinations and the Prof's youthful murderous bomb-thrower history. A bit of bribery of folk in high places and collection of petitions by the chronic petition signers occurs, but otherwise attempts to generate sympathy for the Loonies on Earth before the Lyons rape-murder seem scanty.
What's really odd is how Heinlein portrayed no immediate reprisals by Mort the Wart and Alvarez. When the French Marquis killed the odd soldier in occupied Vichy, in would wheel a battalion of S.S. and they'd pick one out of ten men from the nearest village and put them up against the wall, execute them along with the mayor, the city council, and leading citizens; and then they'd ship half of the rest of the town East to the "labor camps."
Look at the activities of the Spaniards under General Weyler against the insurgency set off by Marti in Cuba just before the Spanish-American War of 1898. Then take a look at the British under Kitchener against the Boers in Orange and Transvaal and the Americans under Bell against the Filipinos in the Visayas a scant year or four later. They all may not have executed one out of ten, but villages were put to the torch, fields and wealth was laid waste, the first "concentration camps" were employed, refugees starved, and the insurgent populations died in numbers far exceeding dead occupation troops.
Instead Heinlein portrays leadership on both sides as acting very nearly benignly, controlling natural bloody reactions. It simplifies things, of course; and it also evokes reader sympathy for the co-conspirators. There's not even a mild, nearly idealized Tea Party in Boston Harbor.
That's a fairly antiseptic viewpoint of steps leading up to rebellion. By comparison both _Sixth Column_ and _"If This Goes On ..."_ seem a bit more bloody and, possibly, far more a realistic portrayal of insurgency. Heinlein once wrote that his reluctance of writing the true facts necessary to sustain a rebellion was one reason why he never wrote "The Stone Pillow." It's pretty plain to me his reluctance to really portray a rebellion continued to this later effort.
Is this abbreviated reality a weakness of the novel? Or is a strength for the purposes to which Heinlein wrote? Simon noted that one putative critic seems to think TMiaHM is merely a manual on how to conduct a revolution. Is it? What major purposes, if any, other than that do you think Heinlein may have had?
-- David M. Silver http://www.heinleinsociety.org http://www.readinggroupsonline.com/groups/heinlein.htm "The Lieutenant expects your names to shine!" Robert Anson Heinlein, USNA '29 Lt (jg)., USN R'td (1907-1988)
>djinn wrote: > >"Simon Jester" <simonjester@freeuk.com>wrote in >news:1018182439.3591.0@eos.uk.clara.net: > >>David Silver wrote: > >>>[snip comments I wrote concerning "unsavoriness" of character >>>of co-conspirators Knott and de la Paz] > >>[snip comments Simon Jester wrote of dishonesty and ruthless- >>ness of Manuel O'Kelley Davis] > >[snip comments of Dave Jennings concerning Davis' "'practical'" ethics >and fact that "in his environment, he was a well-respected citizen."] > <snip rather detailed discussion of horrors of rebellion. - for brevity>
I know that history whitewashes quite a bit. I grew up in a part of the US that was mainly Loyalist during the Revolution. Local history is studied in schools there. There was a lot of terror, evening of grudges and uprooting going on. Augusta, Georgia changed hands several times, each change involved getting rid of 'collaborators' with the other side. Local history is quite bloody and not much of it is included in general histories of the Revolution.
And as for the other rebellion, Augusta was on Shermans' March to the Sea. the history books do describe that.
>Is it? What major purposes, if any, other than that do you >think Heinlein may have had? > >
David Friedman (the economist) pointed out that Heinlein had sketched in a working libertarian society. He gives Heinlein credit for his current interest in how limited government economy might work.
[snip] ><snip rather detailed discussion of horrors of rebellion. - for brevity>I know that history whitewashes quite a bit. I grew up in a part of the US >that was mainly Loyalist during the Revolution. Local history is >studied in schools there. There was a lot of terror, evening of grudges and >uprooting going on. Augusta, Georgia changed hands several times, each >change involved getting rid of 'collaborators' with the other side. Local >history is quite bloody and not much of it is included in general histories >of the Revolution. >
James Oglethorpe's Georgia colony may have been the closest of them all to what is described in TMiaHM. Large numbers of exiled convicts serving out involuntary indentures, most for economic crimes, of course, but a number of political exiles, including disposed Scots and Irish following the "troubles" involving the Stuarts.
[The funniest thing, to me (and I am weird), in TMiaHM is Wyoh Knott's knotheaded characterization of the complex 'civil servants' as "finks" for Authority. Most are as much convicts as any of Mannie's ancestors, selected for their skills and assigned 'fink' jobs, rather than to the labor camps where ninety percent will die before they learn to use their P-suits. She distinguishes 'contracting' with from direct slavery to the largest employer available. How kind of her! How knotheaded and simple-minded, also. The "crack" F.N. "peace-keeping" troops are also convicts. What's the difference between convicts? Which end of the gun pointed which way he's on? And the fact that one wears a yellow uniform or regimentals while the other wears a denim jumpsuit? The boy from Shropshire with white belts crossing his scarlet uniform on his chest shoots his Brown Bess at the boy from Concord wearing farming clothing who shoots his squirrel rifle back? Or vice-a-versa?]
>And as for the other rebellion, Augusta was on Shermans' March to the Sea. >the history books do describe that. >
Or as we beknighted children from the North used to sing gleefully in grammer school: "Tramp, tramp, tramp, the boys are marching . . . " ;-( Rebellion's a tough business to get into, and get out of. Took us more than a century, hasn't it? The reason there were few, if any families of Southern sympathies, in the part of Missouri in which Heinlein was born was the Union Army disposed and cleared the area of everyone during the war. Heinlein's family, just as Maureen Johnson's, moved down and settled it after the war from the Northern States and Union areas.
> >>Is it? What major purposes, if any, other than that do you >>think Heinlein may have had? >> >> >> >David Friedman (the economist) pointed out that Heinlein had sketched in a >working libertarian society. He gives Heinlein credit for his current >interest in how limited government economy might work. >
"Working?" Might it really work IRL? Howso and how long, Dave?
-- David M. Silver http://www.heinleinsociety.org http://www.readinggroupsonline.com/groups/heinlein.htm "The Lieutenant expects your names to shine!" Robert Anson Heinlein, USNA '29 Lt (jg)., USN R'td (1907-1988)
> > >James Oglethorpe's Georgia colony may have been the closest of them >all to what is described in TMiaHM. Large numbers of exiled convicts >serving out involuntary indentures, most for economic crimes, of >course, but a number of political exiles, including disposed Scots and >Irish following the "troubles" involving the Stuarts. > Yes, there were some resemblences. Religious dissenters, convicts, political prisoners. Oglethorpe made sure the colony was well-planned and supplied though, so there was a difference. The 'Authority' in Georgia was fairly well liked. HM government less so, partially because the British government had decided slavery was a Bad Thing.
>[The funniest thing, to me (and I am weird), in TMiaHM is Wyoh Knott's >knotheaded characterization of the complex 'civil servants' as "finks" >for Authority. Most are as much convicts as any of Mannie's ancestors, >selected for their skills and assigned 'fink' jobs, rather than to the >labor camps where ninety percent will die before they learn to use >their P-suits. She distinguishes 'contracting' with from direct >slavery to the largest employer available. How kind of her! How >knotheaded and simple-minded, also. The "crack" F.N. "peace-keeping" >troops are also convicts. What's the difference between convicts? >Which end of the gun pointed which way he's on? And the fact that one >wears a yellow uniform or regimentals while the other wears a denim >jumpsuit? The boy from Shropshire with white belts crossing his >scarlet uniform on his chest shoots his Brown Bess at the boy from >Concord wearing farming clothing who shoots his squirrel rifle back? >Or vice-a-versa?] >
She probably would have been at home on a Georgia plantation. Damn government might ban slavery! Revolt!. She would have been happy to hang the Militia, which remained loyalist in a large part, and supported the Patriot irregulars.
Mannie, it seems to me, probably woulndn't have gotten involved if he didn't think the starvation would come. He did seem to look at it as an interesting thing to do. That is, rather than a noble desire for freedom rather the urge to poke a hornets nest with a stick to see what happens.
The part I didn't see in Moon was the internecine conflict. Everyone hated the Authority. No-one hated other Lunies. Real revolts ususally involve a bit of back-stabbing and grudge resolving.
> >>And as for the other rebellion, Augusta was on Shermans' March to the >>Sea. the history books do describe that. >> > > Heinlein's family, just as Maureen Johnson's, >moved down and settled it after the war from the Northern States and >Union areas. >
It might be interesting to some here that apparently my family's farm wasn't burned in the MttS because Sherman used the farmhouse as HQ for a day or two. There was a Masonic emblem on the wall of the room, so he ordered that the house be left intact. Widows and orphans, you see... (The major farm animals were hidden in the swamp 'til he was gone - great- great grandma was a Heinlein Woman ).
> >> >>>Is it? What major purposes, if any, other than that do you >>>think Heinlein may have had? >>> >>> >>> >>David Friedman (the economist) pointed out that Heinlein had sketched >>in a working libertarian society. He gives Heinlein credit for his >>current interest in how limited government economy might work. >> > > >"Working?" Might it really work IRL? Howso and how long, Dave? > It worked in TMIAHM....
Beats me. From what I've read and heard of the early days in Georgia things were somewhat like the Lunar Colony. They haven't stayed that way, although I still know of people who resemble Mannie in some ways. They regarding laws, especially Federal laws, as inconveniences for instance. ( not that I know anything about this of course). Even in Moon, Mannie starts off regretting that things have changed since the early days.
I think the security of a more regulated society wins out over the opportunity of a 'free' society for most people. The conflict comes in how much regulation.
[djinn]
[snip] >Mannie, it seems to me, probably woulndn't have gotten involved if he >didn't think the starvation would come. He did seem to look at it as an >interesting thing to do. That is, rather than a noble desire for freedom >[he was motivated by] the urge to poke a hornets nest with a stick to see >what happens.
If Mike the artificial mind can be trusted, near imminent starvation is the only justification apparent. Other than the 'slavery' that all seem to 'labor' under -- of course Mannie's family doesn't seem to be doing too badly, except for the limited responsibility they evidence to anyone outside their immediate family. Some might call that a slave mentality. Cf. Mentok in Farnham's Freehold. He probably enjoys a fat choice cut from Ponce's table every once in a while too.
>The part I didn't see in Moon was the internecine conflict. Everyone hated >the Authority. No-one hated other Lunies. Real revolts ususally involve a >bit of back-stabbing and grudge resolving. >
None of the active loyalists survive in TMiaHM, not even the guy who lasted a few months by changing his name and habitat. No Halifax or Bermuda handy to flee to. I wonder if, after the war, there were any "cases on Hunter's Estate" in the Loonie Courts.
>It might be interesting to some here that apparently my family's farm >wasn't burned in the MttS because Sherman used the farmhouse as HQ for a >day or two. There was a Masonic emblem on the wall of the room, so he >ordered that the house be left intact. Widows and orphans, you see... >(The major farm animals were hidden in the swamp 'til he was gone - great- >great grandma was a Heinlein Woman ). >
I wonder how many folk notice the Square and Compass device "Turkey Creek Jack" whatever'snamewas wore around his neck in Kevin Costner's version of Wyatt Earp? That might have prevented someone from bayoneting or shooting him again in the belly after he'd been shot down during the Civil War, or even during the war between Earps and the Clantons. Or using the Istanbul Twist on him, as the old murderer de la Paz does to the wounded yellow jacket early on.
>>>David Friedman (the economist) pointed out that Heinlein had sketched >>>in a working libertarian society. He gives Heinlein credit for his >>>current interest in how limited government economy might work. >>> >>> >> >>"Working?" Might it really work IRL? Howso and how long, Dave? >> >> >It worked in TMIAHM.... > >Beats me. From what I've read and heard of the early days in Georgia things >were somewhat like the Lunar Colony. They haven't stayed that way, >although I still know of people who resemble Mannie in some ways. They >regarding laws, especially Federal laws, as inconveniences for instance. ( >not that I know anything about this of course). Even in Moon, Mannie starts >off regretting that things have changed since the early days. > >I think the security of a more regulated society wins out over the >opportunity of a 'free' society for most people. The conflict comes in how >much regulation. >
This, of course, is the 'sexy' issue in TMiaHM, today. More on it later. Let's see if we can entice someone else to weigh in here. :) There must be a big-L libertarian out there?
-- David M. Silver http://www.heinleinsociety.org http://www.readinggroupsonline.com/groups/heinlein.htm "The Lieutenant expects your names to shine!" Robert Anson Heinlein, USNA '29 Lt (jg)., USN R'td (1907-1988)
>djinn wrote: > >[snip] > > >>Mannie, it seems to me, probably woulndn't have gotten involved if he >>didn't think the starvation would come. He did seem to look at it as an >>interesting thing to do. That is, rather than a noble desire for freedom >>[he was motivated by] the urge to poke a hornets nest with a stick to see > >>what happens. > >If Mike the artificial mind can be trusted, near imminent starvation is >the only justification apparent.It just occurs to me that we only have Mannie's word that Mike existed at all. Consider what Mannie's job was. He had lots of opportunity to set up a simulated personality while working on the central computer. The Prof might have seen through it but gee, the Prof died right after the revolution succeeded.
If Mannie faked Mike, then maybe all the models through Mike were also faked. A successful revolution leaves Mannie's family a big fish in a small pond, rather than a tiny minnow in an ocean.
-- "I think you mean 'Could libertarian slave-owning Confederates, led by SHWIers, have pulled off a transatlantic invasion of Britain, in revenge for the War of 1812, if they had nukes acquired from the Sea of Time?'" Alison Brooks (1959-2002) [James Nicoll]
>In article <3CB10FF2.3020803@verizon.net>, >David Silver <ag.plusone@verizon.net>wrote: > >>djinn wrote: >> >>[snip] >> >> >> >>>Mannie, it seems to me, probably woulndn't have gotten involved if he >>>didn't think the starvation would come. He did seem to look at it as an >>>interesting thing to do. That is, rather than a noble desire for freedom >>>[he was motivated by] the urge to poke a hornets nest with a stick to see >>> >>>what happens. >>> >>If Mike the artificial mind can be trusted, near imminent starvation is >>the only justification apparent. >> > >It just occurs to me that we only have Mannie's word that >Mike existed at all. Consider what Mannie's job was. He had lots >of opportunity to set up a simulated personality while working on >the central computer. The Prof might have seen through it but gee, >the Prof died right after the revolution succeeded. > >If Mannie faked Mike, then maybe all the models through >Mike were also faked. A successful revolution leaves Mannie's >family a big fish in a small pond, rather than a tiny minnow >in an ocean. >
Hehehe! Revisionist history, the great joy of bored historians. Who
really did what to whom, eh? You did note Manuel winds up working with
Laz and gang in The Cat, didn't you? A measure of real importance!
That was quite an illuminating discussion of impact physics upthread, James. Thank you for it. :-)
-- David M. Silver http://www.heinleinsociety.org http://www.readinggroupsonline.com/groups/heinlein.htm "The Lieutenant expects your names to shine!" Robert Anson Heinlein, USNA '29 Lt (jg)., USN R'td (1907-1988)
> >>In article <3CB10FF2.3020803@verizon.net>, >>David Silver <ag.plusone@verizon.net>wrote: >> >>>djinn wrote: >>> >>>[snip] >>> >>> >>> >>>>Mannie, it seems to me, probably woulndn't have gotten involved if he >>>>didn't think the starvation would come. He did seem to look at it as an >>>>interesting thing to do. That is, rather than a noble desire for freedom >>>>[he was motivated by] the urge to poke a hornets nest with a stick to see >>>> >>>>what happens. >>>> >>>If Mike the artificial mind can be trusted, near imminent starvation is >>>the only justification apparent. >>> >> >>It just occurs to me that we only have Mannie's word that >>Mike existed at all. Consider what Mannie's job was. He had lots >>of opportunity to set up a simulated personality while working on >>the central computer. The Prof might have seen through it but gee, >>the Prof died right after the revolution succeeded. >> >>If Mannie faked Mike, then maybe all the models through >>Mike were also faked. A successful revolution leaves Mannie's >>family a big fish in a small pond, rather than a tiny minnow >>in an ocean. >> > >Hehehe! Revisionist history, the great joy of bored historians. Who >really did what to whom, eh? You did note Manuel winds up working with >Laz and gang in The Cat, didn't you? A measure of real importance!
And it explains why Mike became sentient when no other computer of a similar type ever sprouted intelligence. Answer: he didn't, it was all a dwarf in a box moving the chess pieces.
It suggests a terrible fate for poor deluded Wyoh, though. After all, she might someday realise she was had if she lives, which suggests she didn't live, at least not for long. The Moon is such a dangerous place and it is so easy for someone to stumble into an airlock, accidentally punch the eleven digit over-ride and get evacuated onto the surface...
Mannie seems displeased with how things evolved after the revolution but that is generally the base with revolutions. He's lucky he didn't end up a revered statesman like Lenin did, carefully preserved in a box.
>That was quite an illuminating discussion of impact physics upthread, >James. Thank you for it. :-)
No problem. I recommend all of the University of Arizona space series. Lots of crunchy numbers and eqns to play with.
-- "I think you mean 'Could libertarian slave-owning Confederates, led by SHWIers, have pulled off a transatlantic invasion of Britain, in revenge for the War of 1812, if they had nukes acquired from the Sea of Time?'" Alison Brooks (1959-2002) [James Nicoll]
>>>It just occurs to me that we only have Mannie's word that >>>Mike existed at all. Consider what Mannie's job was. He had lots >>>of opportunity to set up a simulated personality while working on >>>the central computer. The Prof might have seen through it but gee, >>>the Prof died right after the revolution succeeded. >>> >>>If Mannie faked Mike, then maybe all the models through >>>Mike were also faked. A successful revolution leaves Mannie's >>>family a big fish in a small pond, rather than a tiny minnow >>>in an ocean. >>> [David Silver:] >>Hehehe! Revisionist history, the great joy of bored historians. Who >>really did what to whom, eh? You did note Manuel winds up working with >>Laz and gang in The Cat, didn't you? A measure of real importance![James Nicoll:] >And it explains why Mike became sentient when no other computer >of a similar type ever sprouted intelligence. Answer: he didn't, it was >all a dwarf in a box moving the chess pieces.
Possibly - but I don't think Mannie could successfully have preprogrammed Mike for Mychelle's chats with Wyoh.
(I wish I could think of a pun involving Young Turk revolutionaries.)
>It suggests a terrible fate for poor deluded Wyoh, though. >After all, she might someday realise she was had if she lives, which >suggests she didn't live, at least not for long. The Moon is such a >dangerous place and it is so easy for someone to stumble into an airlock, >accidentally punch the eleven digit over-ride and get evacuated onto >the surface... ...
Even if Wyoh had figured it out, why should it matter? The revolution turned her into a hero and fulfilled her political aims; afterwards, it would not have been in her interest to reveal the deception.
Simon
>djinn wrote: ... >>David Friedman (the economist) pointed out that Heinlein had sketched in a >>working libertarian society. He gives Heinlein credit for his current >>interest in how limited government economy might work. >> > > >"Working?" Might it really work IRL? Howso and how long, Dave? > ...
This brings me to an aspect of TMiaHM I've been considering for a while. Most discussion of the book's real life inspiration has centred around the American revolution.
This may be true of some of the characters and the politics involved - but there are certain other aspects which seem quite different.
One aspect is that the Lunar colonies are portrayed as being on the very edge of sustainability, particularly with regards to water. By contrast, the American colonies were not just self-sustaining, but quite rich in resources.
Another aspect is size and position - Prof envisages Luna's future as being the gateway between a rich, much larger planet and the rest of the solar system. By the time of independence, the American colonies were much larger than the Old Country.
Is it just coincidence that one of the largest Lunar colonies is called Hong Kong Luna?
TMiaHM was written in the mid-1960's, pretty close to the historical high water-mark for socialist economics. At the time, Hong Kong had possibly the most limited government interference in its economy anywhere in the world.
Hong Kong also combined minimal government interference and free speech with minimal political power for the inhabitants - Britain imposed a governor and that was that.
I believe Hong Kong was also dependent on mainland China for its fresh water supplies.
Not only that, but the main reason for the colony's existence was to act as a deep water port - IIRC, the name Hong Kong means "Fragrant Harbour". Consequently, given its history and location, it was (and is) ideally placed to act as a gateway for trade between China and the West.
Any comments?
[Simon Jester]
... >I have always been surprised at the reaction against Prof's 'rational >anarchist' philosophy. I wrote an essay on this subject at >http://dwrighsr.tripod.com/heinlein/RatAnarch/ ...
As you observe in your essay, Prof describes his philosophy by saying: "My point is that one person is responsible. Always. If H-bombs exist-and they do-some man controls them. In terms of morals there is no such thing as a 'state.' Just men. Individuals. Each responsible for his own acts."
There is another Heinlein character who makes a similar statement: "Anything that it is right for a group to do is right for one person to do."
Clark Fries says this in _Podkayne of Mars_, in the context of using a small (1/2 kilotonne) nuclear device.
Clark is normally regarded as a clever but totally amoral individual. Elsewhere on this thread, David Silver has observed that Prof is "simply an old murderer". Does this mean that we are simply to regard Rational Anarchism as a piece of sophistry, to excuse any act of violence? Or is this a statement of a universal truth, no matter how dubious the source(s)?
Simon
-- "There is no such thing as 'Society'; there are only individuals, and their families."
... >I have always been surprised at the reaction against Prof's 'rational >anarchist' philosophy. I wrote an essay on this subject at >http://dwrighsr.tripod.com/heinlein/RatAnarch/ ...
As you observe in your essay, Prof describes his philosophy by saying: "My point is that one person is responsible. Always. If H-bombs exist-and they do-some man controls them. In terms of morals there is no such thing as a 'state.' Just men. Individuals. Each responsible for his own acts."
There is another Heinlein character who makes a similar statement: "Anything that it is right for a group to do is right for one person to do."
Clark Fries says this in _Podkayne of Mars_, in the context of using a small (1/2 kilotonne) nuclear device.
Clark is normally regarded as a clever but totally amoral individual. Elsewhere on this thread, David Silver has observed that Prof is "simply an old murderer". Does this mean that we are simply to regard Rational Anarchism as a piece of sophistry, to excuse any act of violence? Or is this a statement of a universal truth, no matter how dubious the source(s)?
Simon
-- "There is no such thing as 'Society'; there are only individuals, and their families."
> snip differences between Luna and the Thirteen Colonies >Another aspect is size and position - Prof envisages Luna's future as being >the gateway between a rich, much larger planet and the rest of the solar >system. By the time of independence, the American colonies were much larger >than the Old Country. > >Is it just coincidence that one of the largest Lunar colonies is called Hong >Kong Luna? > >TMiaHM was written in the mid-1960's, pretty close to the historical high >water-mark for socialist economics. At the time, Hong Kong had possibly the >most limited government interference in its economy anywhere in the world. > >Hong Kong also combined minimal government interference and free speech with >minimal political power for the inhabitants - Britain imposed a governor and >that was that. > >I believe Hong Kong was also dependent on mainland China for its fresh water >supplies. > >Not only that, but the main reason for the colony's existence was to act as >a deep water port - IIRC, the name Hong Kong means "Fragrant Harbour". >Consequently, given its history and location, it was (and is) ideally placed >to act as a gateway for trade between China and the West. > >Any comments?
If Earth is China, who do you see as the West? What offworld markets are there in MiaHM?
I don't think HK is the right analog. Maybe some historical asshole of the universe frontier town which is unpleasant but which is conveniently situated to send expeditionary missions out from.
Anyone watching _Shackleford_ on A&E? I'm thinking of the various sealing and whaling stations around the Antarctic circle. Nasty places to live but useful as expedition bases. Except there are no Antarctic colonies at present, so maybe not the best analogy.
One long term problem that the Loonies would face is that other places are easier to get to Earth from and can get to Earth easier than the Moon. Some bright fellow may get the idea of building facilities there, to take some of the business away from the Moon.
-- "I think you mean 'Could libertarian slave-owning Confederates, led by SHWIers, have pulled off a transatlantic invasion of Britain, in revenge for the War of 1812, if they had nukes acquired from the Sea of Time?'" Alison Brooks (1959-2002) [James Nicoll]
>djinn wrote: > >"Simon Jester" <simonjester@freeuk.com>wrote in >news:1018182439.3591.0@eos.uk.clara.net: > >>David Silver wrote: > >>>[snip comments I wrote concerning "unsavoriness" of character >>>of co-conspirators Knott and de la Paz] > >>[snip comments Simon Jester wrote of dishonesty and ruthless- >>ness of Manuel O'Kelley Davis] > >[snip comments of Dave Jennings concerning Davis' "'practical'" ethics >and fact that "in his environment, he was a well-respected citizen."] > >What's most surprising to me is notwithstanding all the vicious slurs >we've used as juicy bait thus far characterizing Knott, de la Paz, and >Davis, so few fish have risen from the depths of this newsgroup to >defend them.It's surprising to me, as well, since I figured I was the only one who felt that way about them. I read Moon with a touch of distaste, every time, because I can't imagine being like these people. Lately, it makes me think of the Middle East crisis, with one side claiming it's putting down terrorism (while at the same time practicing assassination) and the other side claiming it's fighting occupation (while extremists kill innocent people). Neither side has anything beneficial about what they're doing, in my eyes, but then again, I'm not there experiencing it, so who am I to even have an opinion on it???
In that light, thinking of Moon and the characters, I must say that I agree with the assessment of Mannie as greedy, uncaring of his fellow man (with exceptions, but a general uncaring), and pretty ruthless. His rationalization of how to get bigger consulting fees makes me very uncomfortable, and it gets worse from there. I just get caught up in the story, and try to ignore those things. Then comes Wyoh, who is so willing to just kill everyone, very vindictive, not likable at all. The cutesy way she acts with Mannie and Mike just make me want to be sick. Prof is the only one I can be comfortable with, he doesn't seem to make excuses for everything. I don't see him rationalizing his behavior, or his ideals, but I'm also writing from memory--the book is not right here with me! :-)
But I think it's one of those things that RAH did so well, getting us to identify with unsavory characters as "heroes". Think of Alex, how much we dislike his "beliefs", but it's a good story! (IMNSHO) Then there's Hugh, whom a few here dislike, but even so, it's a good story. (once again, IMNSHO)
Every revolution has death, treachery, vindictiveness, all that. At least, so far as I have heard... All stories have at least one more point of view than however many people "witnessed" it...
Okay, enough rambling for now, you know how I go with a tangent (or three) sometimes! :-)
-- ~teresa~ ^..^ "Never try to outstubborn a cat." Robert A. Heinlein ^..^ http://www.heinleinsociety.org/ & http://rahbooks.virtualave.net/ "Blert!!!" quoth Pixel, a small, yellow cat. email me at pixelmeow at aol dot com or yahoo dot com MSN messenger ID = pixelmeow@passport.com Yahoo Messenger ID = pixelmeow@yahoo.com AIM id = pixelmeow
>What's most surprising to me is notwithstanding all the vicious slurs >we've used as juicy bait thus far characterizing Knott, de la Paz, and >Davis, so few fish have risen from the depths of this newsgroup to >defend them.
Here Fishy,Fishy...:)
Actually I have taken your "vicious slurs" and am using that lens as I read the book over again. As yet I have not formed a complete and intelligent response. My 'knee-jerk' response a couple of days ago was to report on my own ancestors, (a horse thief, maternal great-uncle, and a hobo, paternal grandfather) and how I don't feel that just because they were unsavory types, the horse thief was hung in a public square in Kansas by vigilantes, that it makes me and mine "bad people." But, then I am doing what I just stated, looking at characters I have always had respect for and putting the "criminal" focus on them. I have just got to the part when Manny and Prof return to Luna...am off to finish the book (most likely fall asleep) and formulate some rational response.
Elizabeth
(make me think will ya!)
>David Silver <ag.plusone@verizon.net>wrote >>James Oglethorpe's Georgia colony may have been the closest of >>them all to what is described in TMiaHM. Large numbers of exiled >>convicts serving out involuntary indentures, most for economic >>crimes, of course, but a number of political exiles, including >>disposed Scots and Irish following the "troubles" involving the >>Stuarts. >Yes, there were some resemblences. Religious dissenters, convicts, >political prisoners. Oglethorpe made sure the colony was well- >planned and supplied though, so there was a difference. The >'Authority' in Georgia was fairly well liked. HM government >less so, partially because the British government had decided >slavery was a Bad Thing.
It's a funny thing, but the Technology guy at the top of the heap when I worked for AOL was a guy named Oglethorpe. The first time I mentioned him to my father, he wanted to know if that Oglethorpe was related to the Georgia Aristocracy from the Prison Colony days. I gave him a "how should I know?" type of response, which he found very insufficient. I'm still curious. It would be something if it turned out that burried in the corporate oligarchy is a batch of closet blue bloods....
>The part I didn't see in Moon was the internecine conflict. >Everyone hated the Authority. No-one hated other Lunies. >Real revolts ususally involve a bit of back-stabbing and >grudge resolving.That's what all the yammerheads were doing. Mannie avoided that stuff, so we didn't get to read about it.
>I think the security of a more regulated society wins out over the >opportunity of a 'free' society for most people. The conflict comes >in how much regulation.
Catch people in a feeding frenzy where the regulation was too minimal, and they scatter like cockroaches. Sometimes I think California culture is based on the idea "lets run away as soon as somebody says 'government'."
Tian Harter
-- http://tian.greens.org Saturday I saw the San Jose EarthQuakes beat the New England Revolution 2 to 1 at Spartan Stadium. Going in the gate, they gave everyone a #1 FAN ring comemorating their becoming 2001 MLS Champions on 10/21/01.
>>It suggests a terrible fate for poor deluded Wyoh, though. >>After all, she might someday realise she was had if she lives, which >>suggests she didn't live, at least not for long. The Moon is such a >>dangerous place and it is so easy for someone to stumble into an airlock, >>accidentally punch the eleven digit over-ride and get evacuated onto >>the surface...
Isn't there a mention, in one of the other, later books, by Mannie that Wyoh died years later (although early by Loonie standards) of cancer arising from her enforced stay on the surface when first brought to the Moon?
---Mac
>djinn wrote: > > >It's a funny thing, but the Technology guy at the top of the heap >when I worked for AOL was a guy named Oglethorpe. The first >time I mentioned him to my father, he wanted to know if that >Oglethorpe was related to the Georgia Aristocracy from the Prison >Colony days. I gave him a "how should I know?" type of response, >which he found very insufficient. I'm still curious. It would be >something if it turned out that burried in the corporate oligarchy >is a batch of closet blue bloods.... >
The General himself didn't stay in GA. Don't believe any of his descendents did.
Georgia was less a prison colony than an experiment by social reformers. Very few of the colonists were violent criminals. There were debtors, the 'homeless' of the day, Scots who were considered political problems back home, etc.
>>The part I didn't see in Moon was the internecine conflict. >>Everyone hated the Authority. No-one hated other Lunies. >>Real revolts ususally involve a bit of back-stabbing and >>grudge resolving. > >That's what all the yammerheads were doing. Mannie >avoided that stuff, so we didn't get to read about it. > >>I think the security of a more regulated society wins out over the >>opportunity of a 'free' society for most people. The conflict comes >>in how much regulation. > >Catch people in a feeding frenzy where the regulation was too >minimal, and they scatter like cockroaches. Sometimes I think >California culture is based on the idea "lets run away as soon as >somebody says 'government'." >
Interesting, my observation has been more like, "if there's not a government agency to regulate that, why don't we form one, and our relatives can work in it".
Really CA govn't is annoying to someone from another state.
Its not surprising the Libertarian party was formed here.
For a real-life 'Manny' kind of person, check
http://ngeorgia.com/people/musgrove.html
[djinn]
> >>>It suggests a terrible fate for poor deluded Wyoh, though. >>>After all, she might someday realise she was had if she lives, which >>>suggests she didn't live, at least not for long. The Moon is such a >>>dangerous place and it is so easy for someone to stumble into an airlock, >>>accidentally punch the eleven digit over-ride and get evacuated onto >>>the surface... >Isn't there a mention, in one of the other, later books, by >Mannie that Wyoh died years later (although early by Loonie >standards) of cancer arising from her enforced stay on the >surface when first brought to the Moon? >---Mac
Hazel told Colin about it in _Cat_.
Bryan
I'm reading my copy of TMiaHM for the last time. It cost 95 cents 34 years ago, and it's flaking small pieces of yellow-brown acid-based paper this time. Time enough for a new one; and I'm reading it in a definitely contrarian mood this time: the "firebrand political activist" doesn't appeal to me as much as previously, her beauty and long sad tale of undeserved injury by Authority notwithstanding. Knott is a severely damaged piece of goods, mentally and emotionally. She's obsessed with a personal desire for revenge against the Lunar Authority whom she blames for a radiation-damaged child born her. Why was the damaged child born? A pilot landed her emigrant's vessel shortly before a solar flare storm. The pilot was a cyborg, so she only blames him incidentally. He beat the storm, but evidently forgot or it didn't matter to sterilized him that a quarantine period was required on the ground -- four hours, and so emigrants were exposed to excess radiation. Her position is three million people should have been exposed to plague. Quarantines must again be one of those unjustifiable governmental placements of the individual over society she discusses with Manuel and de la Paz later in the room at Raffles.
REPLY:
If LunarAuthority is receiving shipments of convicts on a regular basis then why was no "Quarantine" constructed to house and shelter during this period of time rather than having everyone wait within a cramped ship, on Lunar soil, exposed to anything and everything in the way of radiation?
Perhaps the anger Wyoh has is quite justified. She must not have been the only young female so treated, so exposed.
On that vessel there must have been quite a few other females. If "Authority" is shipping people up, then why not prepare some cavern, divide it into male/female quarters, put in some bunks and while the New Chums are there, begin (via Screen) some orientation.
How long would "Quarantine" be?
Twelve hours? Three days? A week; a fortnight?
Authority, in this instance, might well have done more to "protect their investment". They chose not to do so.
*******
DAVID SILVER: Years later her child was born a physical defective. The "monster" as she calls it, "had to be destroyed." In the decades before TMiaHM was written, thousands of children were born physically damaged as a result of the too-early certification of thalidimide. As Manuel quietly points out at first mention of this motivation, she might much more easily tried again for a child as the radiation damaged egg might easily be succeeded next time with a healtthy one. In a population of three million, assuming two males to one female there must have been hundreds of women incapable of conception whatever. Knott instead took the drastic step of having her tubes tied, divorcing both husbands, and sinking herself into a lifetime of plotting injury to Authority.
REPLY:
Well, fortunately, there is not a description of the "monster". No idea of the exact damage that was done. And it is later that, with help from Mannie's co-wives, that Wyoh has the tubal ligation reversed. Depending exactly upon the extent of the genetic abnormality, can we really understand the position of Wyoh who is depicted as being a full-bodied woman and carrying such a terribly distorted child within her for all those months? From such outstanding beauty, to have a "monster" come forth?
Traumatizing?
At least, with the help of the women in Mannie's family, a beginning was made on that particular healing.
********* ********
Knott doesn't particularly care whom she injures in her thirst for revenge either. Humans, except those few who have entered into the conspiracy with her, really aren't human to her -- as she's worried about is whether Manuel's 'friend,' the sentient computer, can feel pain. Assured he cannot, she's content to blow the central complex containing Michael Holmes to smithereens. To hell with how many 'finks' for authority she kills, disrupting Authority is what counts. Give this woman a bomb to strap to her chest, and she'd walk into a wedding if it would cause sufficient damage to Authority. She's a classic terrorist, safe as fulminate of mercury to be around, driven by her permanent bloodlust for revenge. Propose any damage against Authority and her answer to you would be the pun on her name, "Why not."
REPLY: Yes, at the stage wherein she is introduced, Wyoh is definitely damaged goods and a danger to any and all --- including Mycroft!!
Slowly, strangely, within the parameters of the revolution, does she begin to become human once more.
*********** **********
Bernardo de la Paz, plainly isn't simply a romantic figure. Forget the happy sparkle in his eyes, the dimples, the exquisite manners, He's not romantic at all, but simply an old murderer. Look what admittedly was among the cause of his exile: "in my younger or bomb-throwing days my experience was limited to something on the order of the one-kilogram chemical explosive of which you spoke, Manuel. But I assume you two know what you're talking about." In a disarmed society, who is the one person in that meeting who pulls out his own laser weapon, smuggled onto Luna at enormous cost? Who knows the "Istanbul twist"? Who first defines the revolution they will conduct as based on the historical principle of "terrorism?"
REPLY:
Yes, I am having some trouble with this.
Some.
There is no indication that the Professor was an indiscriminate terrorist bombing women and children.
Is he a murderer?
Yes; here in Luna. And certainly against Authority.
Before that?
I don't know.
Yes, he states he used to throw bombs ------- what were the targets? Dictators? Repressive military? Babies in carriages.?
As for his actions on Luna it is Authority who has the weapons and imposes rule and dictates terms. A populace without redress, without arms, could not negotiate better terms; could not battle forthrightly. How the Professor got the weapon is amazing but will have to consider that he is resourceful. And is it a crime? Yes, to an Authority that does not want the serfs to be armed and able to resist whatever is dictated to them.
******** ********
Who set the tone? Call them "yellow jackets" all you wish. The simple fact is nine cops out of a police force of twenty-seven in a population of three million attempted to declare an unlawful assembly and arrest its participants, perhaps for sedition. They all died immediately except one, taken wounded. His was murdered, helpless. And their principal murderer -- he accounted for at least three himself -- directed their bodies be ground up and flushed down a sewer. ["Their mates went out on an easy mission. _Nothing_ came back."] No wonder they snatched him up and tossed him in a bag the one day he went for a stroll undisguised in Lima, Peru. He's lucky he wasn't hanged summarily.
REPLY:
Well, in that battle with maybe a handful of potential Revolutionaries against Authority, an Authority backed by weapons and a planet of resources, some action had to be taken to strike fear and ensure some degree of trepidation. Was it the correct action --------- what might have been reported back if they had been allowed to live? Whose lives would then have been in danger? Maybe a dozen or so in attendance, if not more. And, is it sedition to become aware of danger so overwhelming as to threaten a society? And discuss possibilities, especially if there is then no law banning Assembly?
And exactly when and where did these convicts and former convicts consent to be governed and by whom?
******** ********
This is a rather unsavory twosome Manuel falls in among, isn't it? I'm not sure I like these two characters, "the old murderer" and the "blonde bombshell bomber," even if food riots are to come in seven years, with cannibalism to come two years later, according to the bored computer Manuel is kind to. What do you think?
REPLY:
Well, I do not find them as unsavory as you do. And, as the novel progresses, they "grow into" their roles of aiding Luna be free.
And, once again, Mr. Heinlein begins with a character with flaws and advances them into the challenge and resolution.
-- David M. Silver
>Why was the damaged child born? A pilot landed her emigrant's >vessel shortly before a solar flare storm. The pilot was a >cyborg, so she only blames him incidentally. He beat the storm, >but evidently forgot or it didn't matter to sterilized him that a >quarantine period was required on the ground
How could he have avoided it? A solar flare is hardly less damaging in space. The only defense against it would be to hide in the shadow of Luna and I doubt that he had the reaction mass or the time. The ship should have been better shielded. Ship constructed by Authority. Blame lies with them.
--
Pete LaGrange
... >My 'knee-jerk' response a couple of days ago was to report on my >own ancestors, (a horse thief, maternal great-uncle, and a hobo, paternal >grandfather) and how I don't feel that just because they were unsavory >types, the horse thief was hung in a public square in Kansas by vigilantes, >that it makes me and mine "bad people." ...
Mannie wasn't necessarily a bad person for having unsavoury grandparents, but thinking well of them for *being* criminals does not reflect well on him, IMO. Also, grandparents seem to be a little recent to romanticise.
Simon
>In article <1018274058.19026.2@eurus.uk.clara.net>, >Simon Jester <simonjester@freeuk.com>wrote: .Snip contention that Luna is partially inspired by Hong Kong. > >If Earth is China, who do you see as the West? What offworld >markets are there in MiaHM? >
Potentially, the rest of the Solar System. In Prof's words: "Luna's future lies in her unique position at the top of a gravity well over a rich planet, and in her cheap power and plentiful real estate. If we Loonies have sense enough in the centuries ahead to remain a free port and to stay out of entangling alliances, we will become the crossroads for two planets, three planets, the entire Solar System."
>I don't think HK is the right analog. Maybe some historical asshole >of the universe frontier town which is unpleasant but which is conveniently >situated to send expeditionary missions out from. > >Anyone watching _Shackleford_ on A&E? I'm thinking of the various >sealing and whaling stations around the Antarctic circle. Nasty places >to live but useful as expedition bases. Except there are no Antarctic >colonies at present, so maybe not the best analogy. > >One long term problem that the Loonies would face is that >other places are easier to get to Earth from and can get to Earth >easier than the Moon. Some bright fellow may get the idea of building >facilities there, to take some of the business away from the Moon. > ...
- although those facilities have not been built at the time of TMiaHM. Using the Moon would be more convenient than going direct between the Earth and the rest of the Solar System. Building more convenient facilities (eg. at Lagrange points) might be more economical in the long term - but Lunar facilities already existed, and Loonies were experts in spacial logistics.
[Simon Jester]
>In article <3CADBB0A.3090502@verizon.net>, >David Silver <ag.plusone@verizon.net>writes: > >>I've always wondered why Heinlein picked May 13, 2075, for the date of >>the meeting where Manny meets Wyoh. Why make a point of a specific date >>if it alludes to nothing much? >> >>Nothing in particular seems to have happened on May 13, 1775, in U.S. >>History. >> > >Given the context, I suspect a Tuckerism. When did RAH meet Ginny? > >
Perhaps it is a Tuckerism. However, another significant date in TMiaHM turns out to be October 12 [2076], the date the F.N. forces attempt to land an invasion force, which is defeated and annilated. October 12, 1492, of course, is the date of Columbus' landfall in the West Indies, still a National Holiday in the United States, and one of those dates we memorized as children in Grammar School.
Perhaps the significance of May 13 is May 13, 1607, the date of landing of British colonists at Jamestown, Virginia, first permanent settlement of English-speaking colonists in what was "the New World." That was another of those dates we did memorize, although not ever a National Holiday.
-- David M. Silver http://www.heinleinsociety.org http://www.readinggroupsonline.com/groups/heinlein.htm "The Lieutenant expects your names to shine!" Robert Anson Heinlein, USNA '29 Lt (jg)., USN R'td (1907-1988)
>TreetopAngel wrote: >... >>My 'knee-jerk' response a couple of days ago was to report on my >>own ancestors, (a horse thief, maternal great-uncle, and a hobo, paternal >>grandfather) and how I don't feel that just because they were unsavory >>types, the horse thief was hung in a public square in Kansas by vigilantes, >>that it makes me and mine "bad people." >... > >Mannie wasn't necessarily a bad person for having unsavoury grandparents, >but thinking well of them for *being* criminals does not reflect well on >him, IMO. Also, grandparents seem to be a little recent to romanticise. > >Simon >
But, I only know about my nefarious Grandparents and their generation. Who knows what lies and schemes THEIR ancestors used to get into the US. I assume, since there are no anecdotes, that they were just as bad or maybe worse than Mannie's ancestors. OR maybe they were all hard-working, good people who never did anything of import and thus never had stories told about them. One whole side of my family (paternal grandfather) has no history, because my Grandfather never spoke of it and would tell anyone who asked, it was none of their business. My Dad even suspects his name is false, the man had no history, that we can find before he met my Grandmother.
Elizabeth
>TreetopAngel wrote: >... >>My 'knee-jerk' response a couple of days ago was to report on my >>own ancestors, (a horse thief, maternal great-uncle, and a hobo, paternal >>grandfather) and how I don't feel that just because they were unsavory >>types, the horse thief was hung in a public square in Kansas by vigilantes, >>that it makes me and mine "bad people." >... > >Mannie wasn't necessarily a bad person for having unsavoury grandparents, >but thinking well of them for *being* criminals does not reflect well on >him, IMO. Also, grandparents seem to be a little recent to romanticise.
Sort of like Americans being proud of criminal ancestors who revolted against their rightful English government for insufficient reasons?
NW
>Knott is a severely damaged piece of goods, mentally and >emotionally. She's obsessed with a personal desire for >revenge against the Lunar Authority whom she blames >for a radiation-damaged child born her.
Everybody that makes real change in this world is a square peg trying to fit into a round hole. That seems to be the way the world we live in works. All the normal people are busy raising their normal children and suffering through all the same conflicts as each other.
It wasn't until I saw Brin's Postman movie that I realized that it isn't just these leaders, it is the way people work with them that makes a difference. If the guy hadn't had an idea they wanted implamented, he would have starved in the woods. They wanted mail delivery, so they encouraged him to make it happen.
In a similar way, she wanted revolution, and bit by bit the people that could make it happen as a win-win crawled out of the woodwork. They shared her desire for change, and that was it.
If she hadn't been in the right place at the right time, it wouldn't have been a story worthy of Heinlein's time. Instead, maybe she would have just been an idea that crossed his mind in the shower one day, or something like that, if anything.
Tian Harter
-- http://members.aol.com/RAHfan147 Sometime this week, a visitor to the above site will clock the number of the beast on the hit counter.
>Perhaps it is a Tuckerism. However, another significant date in TMiaHM >turns out to be October 12 [2076], the date the F.N. forces attempt to >land an invasion force, which is defeated and annilated. October 12, >1492, of course, is the date of Columbus' landfall in the West Indies, >still a National Holiday in the United States, and one of those dates we >memorized as children in Grammar School.
Considering that he personally started the slave trade, this ought to be a day of mourning.
>Perhaps the significance of May 13 is May 13, 1607, the date of landing >of British colonists at Jamestown, Virginia, first permanent settlement >of English-speaking colonists in what was "the New World." That was >another of those dates we did memorize, although not ever a National >Holiday.
Do we know the date the lost Roanoke group landed? I've heard one of their log books was recovered.
>>David Friedman (the economist) pointed out that Heinlein had sketched in a >>working libertarian society. He gives Heinlein credit for his current >>interest in how limited government economy might work. >"Working?" Might it really work IRL? Howso and how long, Dave?
It worked in Iceland for 350 years. Friedman discusses this in "The Machinery of Freedom." I have a hunch that most of these ideas were not Heinlein's own but were suggested by Robert LeFevre (Prof).
>>Catch people in a feeding frenzy where the regulation was too >>minimal, and they scatter like cockroaches. Sometimes I think >>California culture is based on the idea "lets run away as soon as >>somebody says 'government'." >Interesting, my observation has been more like, "if there's not a >government agency to regulate that, why don't we form one, and our >relatives can work in it". > >Really CA govn't is annoying to someone from another state. > >Its not surprising the Libertarian party was formed here.
Sorry, that was in Colorado.
But you're sure right about the over-regulation here. California's urban areas are so infested with socialists they might as well be on the east coast. Our rural areas are saner, but don't have the votes to split the state.
But I sure wish we could deport Hanoi Jane and her ilk to New York.
>Perhaps it is a Tuckerism. However, another significant date in TMiaHM >turns out to be October 12 [2076], the date the F.N. forces attempt to >land an invasion force, which is defeated and annilated. October 12, >1492, of course, is the date of Columbus' landfall in the West Indies, >still a National Holiday in the United States, and one of those dates we >memorized as children in Grammar School.
I would never have thought of Heinlein as a member of the "500 years of resistance" crowd. At least attacking the moon, they really were going to an uninhabited world. At least I think it's uninhabited.
>Perhaps the significance of May 13 is May 13, 1607, the date of landing >of British colonists at Jamestown, Virginia, first permanent settlement >of English-speaking colonists in what was "the New World." That was >another of those dates we did memorize, although not ever a National >Holiday.
Thank you. All I knew about was the 1607 part. Although what "high mountains and limited fertility" have to do with Virginia is beyond me. When I think of Virginia, I think of roads that have been used for a thousand years to trade tobacco that are n