RAH Reading Group - Puppet Masters

[Razorback]

Originally Posted by TTBRAHWTMG

I have a few I've been chewing on that I'll put out there too:

1. By today’s standards, I would have to consider him sexist. But for his generation and for 1951 when this was written, I thought his overall views were on the progressive side. While he may have had a sexist view on the roles of men and women, he often portrays women as capable and wise, and by no means the weaker sex. I believe there were 2 or 3 spanking references, but that may be more of a Heinlein fetish than a sexist view.

2. I’ll confess, I don’t recall what the “life-boat rules” are. As for the one boss view, I sympathize with it, but it’s somewhat simplistic.

3. The nudity views come across as trite today, but they were somewhat racy for 1951. I was more startled that his treatment of recreational drugs wasn’t edited out. I suspect it would have been cut a few years later and then amplified more in the 60s.

[Mollygurl]

Originally Posted by TTBRAHWTMG

The first one that comes to mind is how on a couple of occasions they have people come back to life, already having a tough time remembering (already read a few books since Puppet Masters), but I was thinking of early on when Sam recognizes one of the soldiers in the viewscreen as a guy he killed on his little rampage...but through the whole book this isn't possible...I'm thinking of Heinlein's depiction of "sport" in the redzone, when the Titan's slip off the carcasses as spent flesh.

I agree - this 'hole' jumped out right away and it wasn't a soldier but the TV station manager that Sam had shot (burned his legs off but it killed him all the same). However the very next - there is the same guy sitting there in full view of the viewscreen. I just chalked it up to Heinlein needed a reason for Sam & the other Section men to go back to Iowa.

Originally Posted by TTBRAHWTMG

Another one that bugged me was how traumatizing being controlled is for Sam, and yet the congressman is standing up the day after being controlled making a big speech about how he was under control just the day before, apparently none the worse for wear.

Actually; this didn't bug me because I figured that Sam's issue was more mental that physical.

Originally Posted by TTBRAHWTMG

Yet another, why when Sam was possessed, all the new Titans came from shipped crates, while they seem to be able to replicate themselves quite handily later in the book (although Heinlein atleast made a weak attempt to handle this one).

I agree that it was kind of odd but I disagree that Heinlein made a weak attempt to handle it. I think he made a good attempt by having Sam puzzle over it several times. He kept thinking about the crates and warming cells and such and finally he came to the conclusion that he saw only what he was meant to see and that he was never fully aware of what was going on. Besides...as he was the only 'infected' person in Washington; maybe the Master was unable to reproduce itself quickly enough to infect a large number of people in a short amount of time?

Originally Posted by TTBRAHWTMG

And ofcourse, a big one, these Titans are presented as adaptable...new leathery spiky shells, different versions for Humans versus Venusians, etc...and yet they were killed off by 9 day fever on Venus years ago and haven't adapted to it over a decade later.

This didn't occur to me either and all I really thought was that since the fever was contracted on Venus; perhaps the Titans didn't feel it was necessary to adapt? Maybe all the 'master' that were infected on Venus died?

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

[TTBRAHWTMG]

Originally Posted by Razorback

As for the replication delay, maybe they needed some time to adapt to earths gravity and/or atmosphere before replicating. As for the nine-day fever, maybe no alien survivors go off Venus to provide a vector or clue to the rest as to what adaptation was needed. Overall, I thought the handling of biological issues was pretty good for 1951.

I'll buy the replication delay...I'll even buy the second point, although I think it is a bit more of a stretch. These guys are supposedly from Titan, have taken over Venus, and using them to springboard their attack on Earth. They learn about human physiology quickly enough...if the 9 day fever is Venusian, you would think they would have encountered it.

I was really impressed how he put so much thought into both the invasion and the human response. His working through of the bureaucratic and psychological response of the humans made it very realistic or plausible...as opposed to most "alien invasion" type books.

Wish Heinlein wasn't quite so American-centric on this one though. There was mention of Canada and Mexico and others but nothing about what they were doing, or how they were responding. Part of this I'm sure is the telling of the story through Sam, and his limited view...but even when discussing issues with the President and congress, etc there was no mention of other nations.

[TTBRAHWTMG]

Originally Posted by Mollygurl

it wasn't a soldier but the TV station manager that Sam had shot (burned his legs off but it killed him all the same).

Thanks...even as I wrote it I knew I wasn't remembering it right.

Originally Posted by Mollygurl

Actually; this didn't bug me because I figured that Sam's issue was more mental that physical.

But that's just it...he was showing some physical signs, but otherwise seemed just fine.

Originally Posted by Mollygurl

Besides...as he was the only 'infected' person in Washington; maybe the Master was unable to reproduce itself quickly enough to infect a large number of people in a short amount of time?

That seems logical.

[TTBRAHWTMG]

Originally Posted by Razorback

1. By today’s standards, I would have to consider him sexist. But for his generation and for 1951 when this was written, I thought his overall views were on the progressive side.

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

Originally Posted by Razorback

2. I’ll confess, I don’t recall what the “life-boat rules” are.

Both one and the same...by "life-boat rules", I just meant that shared decision making is fine until in survival mode, then "there can only be one boss".

[TTBRAHWTMG]

Originally Posted by Razorback

I thought springing the Old Man as Dad out of the blue was a fun plot twist.

I loved that little shocker too.

[Mollygurl]

Originally Posted by TTBRAHWTMG

1/ Heinlein has often been accused of being sexist...do you think Puppet Masters contributes to this criticism?
2/ One of Heinlein's recurring themes is "life-boat rules" and "there can only be one boss". What do you think of his commentary on these in Puppet Masters?
3/ Heinlein often discusses his views on the nudity taboo...what do you think about Heinlein's commentary on this theme in Puppet Masters?

1 - I have had this discussion with other RAH fans many times. Being a woman; I am not offended by his remarks or views of women in general. For one; it was 1951 and the world was very sexist back then. In that context; Heinlein was actually very progressive for his time. Any time that I read something that I initially find offensive, I stop and think about it for a second and it usally makes sense for the character in question. I also find that there is usually another character who counters the 'sexist' behavior.

Case in point for PM: Sam, Mary & the Old Man had joined the army at the front lines and Mary wanted to join the battle. Sam said threatened to "break every bone" in her body if she didn't get back in the car. Mary said "Yes Sam" and did so. The young soldier with them responded "In my part of the country we don't speak to ladies that way". Sam growled that he should go back to where he came from then. The thing that initially jumped out at me was not Sam's comment but Mary's reaction. I thought "What? No argument?" and I thought to myself that Heinlein must have believed that women were pretty meek and submissive that they'd go along with whatever their husband/boss said. After more reflection, I realized that it was quite the opposite. Mary reacted the way she did because she was so intelligent and decisive. She simply realized that Sam was right and that there was nothing to argue. It would not swing the battle in any significant way if she did go. Plus it would only draw Sam after her and she'd be risking his life as well. I don't think she wanted to do that after everything he'd already been through up to that point, including saving her from being hag-ridden twice. Besides, I have no doubt that if Mary had felt differently than Sam on the issue; nothing would have swayed her in her purpose.

I've always felt that even though some of RAH's male protagonists may have written in ways that are viewed as sexist; he has also created female characters that are strong, intelligent, capable and quite often - superior to the males in certain ways. Most of the women go along with their male counterparts only when it suits their purpose. And when it doesn't, they simply manoeuvre (sp?) and bend the men to their way of thinking. Happens every time. I think that Heinlein had a better understanding of the nature of men, women and their relationships than most people did - especially for the '50s. Sorry for babbling on about this, LOL, but I've discussed this so many times

2 - Could you outlinethe 'life-boat rules' theme? It's ringing bells but...
In general, I agree with the 'there can only be one boss' thing. If more than one person is involved and a task needs to be accomplished; someone has to take charge. Maybe if we had some context around this one too?

3 - I think that his commentary on nudity underlined how progressive he was in his thinking. He enjoyed nudity at a time when the majority of people were very conservative in thought/dress and he often expressed that fact by stating "skin was skin - what of it?". I also think that he accurately portrayed the varied reactions from the populace when Project Suntan kicked in to effect. The thing that caught my attention the most however was how Sam observed that after a while, he stopped noticing the nudity. Attractive body or not, it quickly became just another part of the landscape around him.

[pyan]

Originally Posted by MG

2 - Could you outlinethe 'life-boat rules' theme? It's ringing bells but...
In general, I agree with the 'there can only be one boss' thing. If more than one person is involved and a task needs to be accomplished; someone has to take charge. Maybe if we had some context around this one too?

I always took the phrase to mean "women and children first":
cf The Notebooks of LL:

As racial survival is the only universal morality, no other basis is possible. Attempts to formulate a "perfect society" on any foundation other than "Women and children first!" is not only witless, it is automatically genocidal.

[Mollygurl]

Originally Posted by TTBRAHWTMG

I agree...I think that he actually insults both men and women a little though with Mary's "testing". If a man doesn't have an immediate physical response to her...HE'S AN ALIEN!

Thought that was pretty funny actually. Didn't offend me personally - he didn't say that this phenomenon happend with all women; just Mary. It makes sense I think, given how she was described. I don't think it was 'the male doesn't have a physical response, ergo he's an alien'. I felt that the way it was written, it wasn't an overt response that others noticed, but something that only Mary sensed. In terms of insulting men & women - I'd say that he's insulting men more by suggesting that every non hag-ridden man that Mary comes in to contact with, responds to her physically.

Originally Posted by TTBRAHWTMG

What did you guys think of his line "Most women are damn fools and children..."

I remember the line but what was the context again - give me the page number

Originally Posted by TTBRAHWTMG

Both one and the same...by "life-boat rules", I just meant that shared decision making is fine until in survival mode, then "there can only be one boss".

I definitely agree with this one.

[Mollygurl]

Originally Posted by pyan

The Notebooks of LL: As racial survival is the only universal morality, no other basis is possible. Attempts to formulate a "perfect society" on any foundation other than "Women and children first!" is not only witless, it is automatically genocidal.

A wonderful quote! Who could argue with that?

[TTBRAHWTMG]

Pyan’s right here, and I used the phrase incorrectly, although there is some of this as well throughout the book. I meant it more as the second point, the “There can only be one leader”, although I don’t think Heinlein thought this was necessary outside times of dire emergency.

Heinlein seems to believe, or repeatedly assert, that in high stress, dynamic, and dangerous situations (which I was probably incorrectly referring to as Life Boat situations) there needs to be a single and clear voice of authority, and that there are certain characteristics that this voice requires. Democracy may work, or be a logical choice for organization of the whole on a regular basis, but it can’t work in times of dire emergency. Military organization, for example, can’t be based on democratic principles. The same applies for humanity when under siege by the Titans.

The entire book seems to be illustrating this in the ineffective response of congress and the political machinery versus the clear and direct steps being taken by “The Section” which is under the utter control of The Old Man. “The Section” must impose their will, or bang bureaucratic heads to get them to react in an efficient manner, in fact to get them to react at all. At almost every turn, bureaucracy is proved to be inefficient or incorrect, and “The Section” needs to come in, figure it out, and guide them to the correct next action.

And even internally, within The Section, once The Old Man’s authority is successfully challenged, the successful challenger necessarily assumes command of the organization. Once Sam challenges the Old Man regarding Mary’s treatment while trying to get at her retained memory, it seems the Old Man internally resigns. When he pulls Colonel Gibsy out in the hall, I imagine that he informs Gibsy of a formal change in authority, a transfer to Sam. After they are through the immediacy of the situation, Sam and the Old Man discuss it further…

“No, Sam, you’ll have to devise a better plan than that.” “I’ll have to? I just work here.” “You did once – but now you’ve taken charge. I don’t mind; I was ready to retire anyhow.” “Huh? What the devil are you talking about? I’m not in charge of anything – and don’t want to be. You are the head of the Section.” He shook his head. “A boss is the man who does the bossing. Titles and insignia usually come after the fact, not before. Tell me – do you think Oldfield could take over my job? I considered it and shook my head; Dad’s chief deputy was the executive officer type, a “carry-outer”, not a “think-upper”. “I’ve known that you would take over, some day,” he went on. “Now you’ve done it – by bucking my judgment on an important matter, forcing your own on me, and by being justified in the outcome.”…..He smiled gently as though he could see farther into the future than I could. I went on, “I don’t want your job – understand me?” “That is what the Devil said to the Deity after he displace him – but he found he could not help himself. Don’t take it so hard, Sam. I’ll keep the title for the present and give you all the help I can. In the meantime, what are your orders, sir?”

[TTBRAHWTMG]

Originally Posted by Mollygurl

I remember the line but what was the context again - give me the page number

The full quote was: "Listen, son. Most women are damn fools and children. But they've got more range then we've got. The brave ones are braver, the good ones are better — and the vile ones are viler, for that matter."
When The Old Man was talking to Sam about Mary, while Sam was pissed off at Mary, thinking that she had manipulated him into being hag-ridden for the second time.
I seem to remember JD making a comment along these lines in another thread when we were discussing women in a schoolyard fight scenario. Men were fighting to assert their dominance or send a message, while women were fighting to kill. I imagine it doesn't fit quite right, but invokes the same spirit of the extremes. JD you care to comment?

[j. d. worthington]

Originally Posted by TTBRAHWTMG

JD you care to comment?

Okay, let's see if I can phrase this to catch what I mean, and still get it across well....

Most of the intelligent women I know seem to have the diverse sides more integrated, especially that between intellect and instinct. So much so that they may not even understand themselves their reasons for their reactions. It isn't just instinct, it's reasoning done so unconsciously -- and with amazing speed -- that it appears an instinctual reaction. However, if you can probe enough, you'll usually find there's a lot of thought below the surface aspect of the mind, but it's so integrated with the emotions and instincts that it appears to be almost without thought. That's when they "feel" this or that way about something -- they've actually calculated the factors, but in a way quite different from men, which is usually more deliberative and conscious. Because of this integration, there's no division allowed in the mind when they take action -- certainly not in a crisis situation. (I realize this is an extreme generalization, not to mention based greatly on personal experience; but it seems backed up by others' experiences a great deal, as well.) So it becomes "no-holds-barred", in such a case; reservations go to the wall. If they act less severely, it's because, on some level, they've recognized a need for a less drastic action. Otherwise, the reaction is total and uncompromising. (This also, by the way, makes for very speedy reflex action -- cf. Heinlein's female pilots in Starship Troopers.)

Now, that's intelligent women. Those who are not -- those who don't particularly use their intellect any more than they must -- don't seem to function quite this way, and as that tends to be the majority of either men or women, what happens is that the thinking is muddy and fragmented, and they react more on an emotional level, but often without any real emotional maturity. Men do this as well, just in a different way. With men, it tends to be an unthinking "alpha-male" syndrome, with women, it seem to result in a dichotomy where they want the independence of action, yet still want to have that gallant shield when things backfire. So, in that way, such women are a lot like spoilt children: they expect the world to go their way and, when it doesn't, they toss a snit.

Those who are more intelligent and more independent, on the other hand, are quite capable of taking it on the chin, even when it's the sort of thing that would cripple most men, I think. That may be because, in most cultures, men have been socialized to put layers between themselves and their emotions, so they really don't quite know how to handle it when something truly emotionally devastating comes along and blows things up. The type of women I'm talking about, being more integrated, seem to have a tensile emotional strength that is quite amazing... but that means they are, to use a Heinleinian phrase, "heap bad medicine" once you get on their bad side.

And, to be honest, I'd say there is a biological component: the instinct not only for self-preservation, but for preservation of offspring. This isn't strictly limited to genuine offspring, either... it often spills over onto those they care about and who, for whatever reason, are (temporarily) at a disadvantage and threatened... then they'll fight like an enraged sabre-tooth to protect them, verbally or physically. Men (thank goodness) do have a fair amount of that, too... but I think to a slightly lesser degree than women.

[Urlik]

Originally Posted by TTBRAHWTMG

Heinlein seems to believe, or repeatedly assert, that in high stress, dynamic, and dangerous situations (which I was probably incorrectly referring to as Life Boat situations) there needs to be a single and clear voice of authority, and that there are certain characteristics that this voice requires. Democracy may work, or be a logical choice for organization of the whole on a regular basis, but it can’t work in times of dire emergency. Military organization, for example, can’t be based on democratic principles. The same applies for humanity when under siege by the Titans.

no, you were correct in referring to that situation as a Life Boat Situation.
in a life boat someone has to take charge and be obeyed without question or everyone will die.
coincidentally I saw an episode of Ray Meer's Survival the other day and he recounted the story of a crew who were in 2 life boats tethered together.
the first mate was in one and the captain was in the other.
the first mate kept everyone in his boat busy while the captain in the other boat didn't enforce any discipline and let everyone just sit there and wait to die or be rescued.
despite both boats having the same supplies of rations, when they were rescued, the crew in the captain's boat needed to be lifted aboard the recue vessel while those in the first mate's boat were all able to board unassisted.
sadly the captain died a few days after the rescue.
the moral, in a life boat, someone has to take charge and be obeyed.
strangely enough, the one thing that almost garantees survival is that the leader believes that survival or rescue is a certainty and doesn't allow despondancy to set in among the others

[Mollygurl]

RE: "Most women are damn fools and children".

Well, I was going to post a long reply as to what I felt this quote referred to and why it didn't offend me but I think that JD did a great job at accurately articulating what I was going to say. So, no need to re-state.

Suffice to say that I took that comment to be reflective of the emotional aspects of women and how some women choose to let their emotions rule them in thought, behaviour, action & reactions.