RAH Reading Group - Puppet Masters

[TTBRAHWTMG]

Originally Posted by Razorback

On the other hand, he may have just wanted to tell a flying saucer/alien invasion story. Sometimes, a cigar is just a cigar.

Oh, I definately agree that was Heinlein's primary motivation. I don't know whether communism or WWII were even on his mind when he wrote it, probably not actually. I was just musing on where some of his influences might have come from while he was doing such a good job (in my opinion) of writing about the aliens and their invasion, and some potential reasons why when we read it they feel real and plausible.

[TTBRAHWTMG]

Hey guys...check out the "Drugs may boost your brain power" thread in Science/Nature forum. Maybe Heinlein wasn't that far off with his Temporal Displacement drug in Puppet Masters, or atleast in his belief that our society would make efforts to pursue these types of drugs.

[pyan]

It could also be a start towards the people of The Culture, in Iain M. Banks's novels, with the genetically altered ability to "gland" specific drugs for every occasion.

[Liz Pf]

I think the 1951 edition of RAH (the person) would have been appalled at the current state of education in America.

But then, I just got back from a gifted education conference. I and my kids thoroughly enjoyed ourselves (we had lots of friends there), but I am again reminded how marginalized bright kids have become in our education system.

No bearing on tPM, though.

Though I wonder if he really expected personal aircars in 2007.

OTOH, I think he would have been pleased at the "sexuality" freedom we now have, at least in my corner of the country.

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

[dsmith]

Just finished the book, but I won't be joining in the discussion much right now- I have a really big paper to write for my class. I really liked the book, and look forward to reading more Heinlein. And I don't have any classes this summer, so after April I'll have more time to join in on the discussion!

[TTBRAHWTMG]

Glad you liked the book, and good luck with your paper!

[dsmith]

Originally Posted by TTBRAHWTMG

Glad you liked the book, and good luck with your paper!

Thanks!!

[j. d. worthington]

Okay... I only finished the book earlier today -- the last week has been extremely harried & hectic, and I'm afraid it looks as if it may be that way for a while yet, so I'm not sure how much I'll be around for the next few discussions -- but I'd like to throw out a few thoughts:

1. On Sen. Gottlieb. The way I read this, it did have a psychological effect on him, hence the wild-eyed gunslinging routine. Not crazed, but definitely right at the breaking point (understandably so -- and Sam/Elihu picks up on that and is in exactly the same frame of mind). But as for being ambulatory, etc., I'd also put this down to Heinlein's tendency to have the "competent man" perform in near-superhuman fashion in such a situation. He tended to have his protagonists (especially narrators) not be his genuine "competent man" models, for contrast. They were above the "fools and children", but below the genuine article -- here I think we see the influence of some of Neitzsche and Shaw (and no, I couldn't quote specifics from either, as I've not read either in nearly 30 years, save for bits and pieces). As with many things of this sort in Heinlein, this was more a matter of faith than genuine scientific observation; he had his own philosophical credo, and tended to ignore or override that which went against it, often becoming quite self-contradictory in the process. But, as Asimov said, "he wrote about it beautifully" and made it quite powerful for the reader, and difficult to refute -- because he had such faith in it, it carries conviction, whether it is accurate or not.

2. On Mary's behavior. I'm afraid I still have some problems with this one. While I can agree that she didn't actually argue with Sam because of the points made above, I do think there would have been at least a momentary flash -- barely notable, but there -- as she has been a very independent woman quite used to dealing with such situations on her own, and that's a learned response that doesn't just stop with the flick of a switch -- it's a gradual thing. So I think there really should have been at least some acknowledgment of that aspect, and this is a flaw. However, on the earlier discussion of how women think: "there is nothing wrong with Mary's brain but she jumps logic and arrives at her answers by instinct. Me, I have to worry it out by logic." (p. 237) Even though I had not read that passage when I made my earlier post, I'd say it rather fits.

3. On the Titans' adaptation (or lack of same)... the carapace may be a much easier adaptation for them, something which was acquired over time from exposure to several environments requiring it, or even from some tiny portion of biochemistry we share with other organisms, that the slugs can more easily utilize, whereas nine-day fever was a much more specific thing; it was Venerian in origin, apparently, and did have about a 90% mortality rate. The slugs never tried to regain Venus after the first failed attempt, so obviously word got out somehow... either through an uninfected slug whose host had verbal communication with those familiar with the scenario, or simply by an uninfected slug aware that all of its peers were dying, thus making Venus an undesirable acquisition -- perhaps they decided that this was going to wipe out the entire population, and therefore they would have no food resource. Each of these, I think, given the amount we have of the "slug psychology", would fit: they tended to win by as easy methods as possible, and didn't care for that which was too much of a struggle.

4. I'd like to throw this little relationship out there:

Vargas was insisting that nothing had been proved, while McIlvaine maintained that we were seeing something new to our concepts; an intelligent creature which was, by the fashion in which it was organized, immortal and continuous in its personal identity -- or its group identity; the argument grew confused. In any case McIlvaine was theorizing that such a creature would have continuous memory of all its experiences, not just from the moment of fission, but back to its racial beginning. He described the slug as a four-dimensional worm in space-time, intertwined with itself as a single organism, and the talk grew so esoteric as to be silly.

This seems to tie into some of Heinlein's other concepts -- that is, concepts he plays with concerning spirituality/immortality, etc. I'm thinking particularly of the "pink worm" in "Life-Line" here; but Heinlein's fascination with the concept of memory, other lives, reincarnation (as per Beyond This Horizon/Stranger in a Strange Land, etc.) also seems linked to this, to me. Any thoughts?

[TTBRAHWTMG]

Originally Posted by j. d. worthington

As with many things of this sort in Heinlein, this was more a matter of faith than genuine scientific observation; he had his own philosophical credo, and tended to ignore or override that which went against it, often becoming quite self-contradictory in the process.

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

Originally Posted by j. d. worthington

I do think there would have been at least a momentary flash -- barely notable, but there -- as she has been a very independent woman quite used to dealing with such situations on her own

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

Originally Posted by j. d. worthington

3. The slugs never tried to regain Venus after the first failed attempt

Thanks for this part...I read that section wrong for some reason. Your point made me re-read, and it is much cleaner than my memory had it. I was mixing Titanian people with Venusians for some reason.

Originally Posted by j. d. worthington

This seems to tie into some of Heinlein's other concepts -- that is, concepts he plays with concerning spirituality/immortality, etc. I'm thinking particularly of the "pink worm" in "Life-Line" here;

I turn to Heinlein's own thoughts on this, as stated in The Robert Heinlein Interview...
REGARDING THE 'PINK WORM' in LIFELINE

Schulman: Okay. We might as well proceed to question number two, then.
Heinlein: "I'd like to know more about your theory that 'no matter how individualistic you feel, you are really only part of an evolutionary organism.'"
Schulman: Did I quote you correctly on that?
Heinlein: You've placed a little emphasis in there: "really only a part of." What I believe I said - the book is across the room and I'm not going to dig it out - was that "you are part of an evolutionary organism" not "really only a part of." Difference in emphasis, do you follow me?
Schulman: Yes.
Heinlein: Just as you are J. Neil Schulman and you are also part of the population of an area known as New York City. But it isn't a case of J. Neil Schulman being "really only a part of" New York City. You are J. Neil Schulman and you also happen to be one of that population group called by that name. Now, there is a matter of emphasis here. You say, "Can you prove this?" Well, I can't prove that you are "really only a part of" but I observe that you are only a part of. No emphasis on it, we simply observe it. You have parents. You have at least the potentiality of offspring. I assume that you go along more or less at least with evolutionary theory.
Schulman: To a certain extent.
Heinlein: ...Yes. We simply observe that we are part of this continuing process.
Schulman: Now, I think what I was asking here was the more philosophical question...in other words, I can see that I have parents and come from an evolutionary chain.
Heinlein: Yes.
Schulman: But the phrase "evolutionary organism" seems to suggest that you have one being with central control or something...or at least some central plan.
Heinlein: It doesn't...I don't mean to imply that. Evolutionists differ in their notions as to whether or not there is any central plan or whether the whole matter is automatic, or what it may be. All I really meant is that although we feel as if we were discrete individuals, if you consider it in terms of four dimensions with time as the fourth dimension, you are part of a branch...a branching deal, with an actual physical connection going back into the past and physical connection extending into the future until such time as it's chopped off. If you have no children then it's chopped off at that point. I have no children myself, however I'm not dead yet, either. I think, however, you are more interested in a later part here: "if so but we retain free will, why should we place the welfare of the whole organism above ourselves?" The question as to whether or not you place the welfare of your species - your race - above yourself is a matter for you to settle with yourself and for me to settle with me.

REGARDING 'NOUMENA' VERSUS 'PHENOMENA'

Heinlein: Let me invert these questions a bit. If you've read Stranger in a Strange Land, you've probably gathered what I think of faith. I do not regard faith as a basis on which to believe or disbelieve anything. On the other hand, Neil, there are many things - practically all of the important questions of philosophy - that are not subject to final answers purely by reason. This has been gone into a considerable extent by philosophers in the past, and there's even a term - a technical term - for that called "noumena" as opposed to "phenomena." Phenomena are things that you can grasp through your physical senses or through measurements made with your physical senses through instruments an so forth and so on; in other words, phenomena are things that we can know about the physical universe. Noumena translates as the unknowable things. The unknowable things: What is the purpose of the universe? Why are you here on this earth? What should a man do with his life? All of these are wide open, generalized, unlimited "whys." They are all noumena, and consequently they are not subject - by definition - these things are not subject to final answers simply by reason...(section about Lazarus playing both sides of most arguments cut out)...Now, do you happen to like chocolate malted milks?
Schulman: Uh, yes.
Heinlein: Now, do you like them better than strawberry malted milks?
Schulman: Yeah, I would say so.
Heinlein: Can you justify that by reason?
Schulman: No, I would say that it's a purely subjective judgment.
Heinlein: That's right. That is correct. It doesn't involve faith and it doesn't involve reason.
Schulman: But I'm using internal data; there is data which I am acting upon.
Heinlein: That's right. The internal data tells you that you like it better...but it doesn't tell you why. This applies also to a great many things about the universe: it's your own internal, subjective evaluation of it, not any final answers given by reason or rationality.

REGARDING THE AFTERLIFE

Schulman: Do you have oany opinions on that question? (Whether there is an afterlife)
Heinlein: I usually do not express them in newspapers.
Schulman: Off the record?
Heinlein: I have little or no objective data. So far as subjective data is concerned, I incline to the notion that when we die, we don't die all over. That we do not die all over. That there is something that persists. But even that - because that opens up all of the questions of philosophy and religion - I avoid discussing other than in fiction. You'll find it discussed in fiction endlessly, both in this last book Stranger in a Strange Land and Beyond This Horizon and lots of others.

[Mollygurl]

Originally Posted by TTBRAHWTMG

Do you think that pause...that bright eyed look down the road and short protest of wanting to get a shot or two in, WAS her momentary flash? That it was after Sam reinforced his statement that she did the logic jump? I'm not sure on this one, but it seems to fit both your sentiment and Mollygurl's.

I think you've captured it exactly TT.

Originally Posted by TTBRAHWTMG

REGARDING 'NOUMENA' VERSUS 'PHENOMENA'
Heinlein: I do not regard faith as a basis on which to believe or disbelieve anything… ...Phenomena are things that you can grasp through your physical senses or through measurements made with your physical senses through instruments an so forth and so on; in other words, phenomena are things that we can know about the physical universe. Noumena translates as the unknowable things. The unknowable things: What is the purpose of the universe? Why are you here on this earth? What should a man do with his life? All of these are wide open, generalized, unlimited "whys." They are all noumena, and consequently they are not subject - by definition - these things are not subject to final answers simply by reason.
Schulman: No, I would say that it's a purely subjective judgment…

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

Originally Posted by TTBRAHWTMG

REGARDING THE AFTERLIFE
…Heinlein: I have little or no objective data. So far as subjective data is concerned, I incline to the notion that when we die, we don't die all over. That we do not die all over. That there is something that persists. But even that - because that opens up all of the questions of philosophy and religion - I avoid discussing other than in fiction. ...

Wow! This may be getting off thread from PM but I totally agree with his ‘subjective’ beliefs and had I been the person interviewing him; I would have sat there nodding along like a damn fool! LOL. I think the second part of his statement is the most enlightening to me. He seems to be saying that he sees no point in discussing his personal beliefs because as no one can ever know what is “true” – all discussions/debates simply come down to differences in each individual’s philosophies and religions.

[TTBRAHWTMG]

Originally Posted by Mollygurl

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

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

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

[j. d. worthington]

Originally Posted by TTBRAHWTMG

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

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

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

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

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

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

[TTBRAHWTMG]

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

Originally Posted by j. d. worthington

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

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

Originally Posted by j. d. worthington

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

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

[Finnien]

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

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

[TTBRAHWTMG]

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

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

Originally Posted by Mollygurl

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

put together with this…

Originally Posted by Liz Pf

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

Originally Posted by Liz Pf

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

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

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

Originally Posted by Mollygurl

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

and then I put it together with this…

Originally Posted by j. d. worthington

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

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