RAH Reading Group - Puppet Masters

[j. d. worthington]

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

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

[Razorback]

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

[j. d. worthington]

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

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

[Finnien]

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

[TTBRAHWTMG]

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

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

[Liz Pf]

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

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

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

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

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

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

--Liz