What I’m Reading: The Moon is A Harsh Mistress

My first experience with Robert Heinlein's science fiction came when I was that lonely, new-kid-in-town, sixth grader.  I was given Have Space Suit, Will Travel to read and I devoured it.  Read it through three times in a row. I read it on the playground during recess.  Since then I’ve gone on to read more of Heinlein’s books.  Some I’ve loved almost as much as that first, others I’ve had to force myself to finish reading.  

But remaining right along with Have Space Suit, Will Travel in my list of treasured favorites has been The Moon is a Harsh Mistress – Heinlein’s novel of political revolution on the moon.  It was originally published as a serial in 1965 -66 and published as a novel in 1966.  It received the Hugo Award for best Science Fiction novel in 1967.  It is a brilliant book in many ways – but brevity, being the soul of wit, especially.  The novel is not long. It is not plodding (as some of his works tended to be.) The plot moves along briskly but not at the expense of detailed development of the setting.  

Within the relatively narrow confines of the front and back covers, he manages to show the reader a fully developed Loonie (the resident’s of the scattered underground Lunar colonies) culture.  The Loonies are criminals, exiled political dissidents or the children and grandchild thereof, and their revolution is the fight is to free themselves of the oppressive Lunar Authority – whose polices treat the Loonies as slaves , and whose demands and quotas are stripping the moon of its resources in order to feed an overpopulated Earth below.

The story manages to include political discussions (obviously) but also discussions about polyandrous marriages, political history, artificial intelligence, astrophysics, and, and, and etc…  The depth is surprising considering, again, that it’s not a long novel – less than 400 pages.

But in this, my most recent re-reading of TMIAHM, I have to admit, I was not quite as charged by it.  I am, by nature (or nurture (or both)) a bit of a revolutionist. I admire the revolutionary spirit.  And when I first read this book I loved it.  I gushed about it.  I thrilled to it.  But not so much, this time. The Rational-Anarchy of the character Professor Bernardo de La Paz doesn’t interest me nearly as much as it did before.  I don’t believe that :

concepts such as ‘state’ and ‘society’ and ‘government’ have no existence save as physically exemplified in the acts of self-responsible individuals. …  that it is impossible to shift blame, share blame, distribute blame . . . as blame, guilt, responsibility are matters taking place inside human beings singly and nowhere else. 

Perhaps my affection for the book has been blunted by the idiocies of the Libertarian / Tea Party movements. Perhaps it’s because I believe that we (as individuals) are responsible to and for each other- as individuals and as a communal whole.  I am my brother and my sister’s keeper. 

But still, I like the book, quite a bit, even if it doesn’t thrill me as it did before.