RAH Reading Group - The Cat Who Walks Through Walls

[Razorback]

I'm ready whenever the group wants.

[pyan]

And me....

[TTBRAHWTMG]

Well...first of all what did you think of the way he divided the book up into the "typical" Heinlein action in the first two thirds and then the multiverse theme in the final third? One thing I was thinking as I read it is that if one hadn't read a few of his other works (Moon is a Harsh Mistress; Number of the Beast; Methusaleh's Children; even Rolling Stones and Strangers would have helped) that this one would be hard to appreciate. Razor, you mentioned you haven't read some of these, atleast in a while, could you still appreciate the final third?
Another question...what did you guys think about Richard? Was his individuality and eternal skepticism over the top for you, or did you appreciate it? How about the relationship between Richard and Gwen/Hazel...believable? How about in comparison to Sam and Mary?

[Razorback]

It was almost three different books to me. The first part was chock-full of nice quotes, but I thought the story line was a bit sophomoric. I thought the story quality improved immediately in the second part. It was as if he was just going through the motions to set the stage in part one (and distracting us with all the juicy quotes) and then really started the story telling in part two. Then part three took a different tack. I found parts of it interesting, but I didn’t think it held together as a whole. I read Methuselah’s Children earlier this year, but the rest of the connected works were quite a while back for me. TCWWTW jogged my memory enough to get some of the references and connections, but I may have liked it more if I had read the others more recently.

As for the characters, I liked Richard just fine. He may have come across as a bit shallow or flat in a more developed story, but he worked fine here. I thought the Gwen/Hazel character had a lot more depth than Mary did. The interplay between them was one of the more entertaining parts of the book. They reminded me of Nick and Nora in The Thin Man movies.

[TTBRAHWTMG]

I noticed a huge change right when Gwen started trying to convice Richard that she was Hazel and from there out. Where did you see the the other break or change in style?

You really need Number of the Beast to flesh out the ship called Gay and her capabilities. That one would help with Hilda, Jake, Deety, and Zeb, along with his multiverse theory too. Without that one in mind, I would see the final part of the book as you did.

I enjoyed Richard and Gwen too, an obvious example of his uber-capable characters...even with his amputation. I've heard theories that Richard and Gwen were supposed to be overstated representations of Heinlein and his wife...Richard Ames (RA: Robert Anson)...Gwen Novak (GN representing Ginny which is how he referred to his wife). I normally would laugh at these reaches, but after all of the black hats in The Number of the Beast being anagrams of his name and his World As Myth theme...maybe its not such a big stretch after all.

What did you think of Bill? Was he purely a plant to allow him to express his political views? If so, what did you think of those? If not, what was the point of Bill's character? Was he supposed to be purely on that plane, or was he supposed to be a member of the other "Time Manipulator" groups?

What did you think of Richard's thoughts on homosexuality and plural marriage, etc.? What do you think Heinlein's motive was for including this stuff? Did he have a point...or was it purely to titillate the reader?

In hindsight, I'm really wishing I had reread a bunch of Heinlein's other works before pulling this one out again. I wonder how many references to other works I missed beyond the ones that I caught, just because I haven't read them in a while.

[Razorback]

To me the changes in style or approach coincided sharply with the official parts or divisions of the book. For me, the first change started right from the beginning in part two. I just found that the story become more compelling as soon as part two began. I think that was before Hazel entered the picture. I didn’t notice another big change until the beginning of part three.

Bill didn’t make a lot sense to me for quite a while. I think he could have found a more eloquent way to get into his political views. I thought the political views were typical Heinlein. I don’t fully agree with his politics, but I sympathize with many of his views. It finally dawned on me that Heinlein needed a porter for Tree-San. The way the story went in the first two parts, Richard and Gwen couldn’t carry Tree-San themselves and deal with the other calamities and obstacles. Otherwise, Bill struck me as superfluous and unbelievable.

As for the sexuality matters, I wasn’t surprised by the plural marriage discussion. It’s been a long time since I read the other books from this era, but I seem to recall plural heterosexual marriages or other relationships as a common element. The homosexual element startled me. I did not remember that in this or any of the others that I’ve read. Given the relatively limited and shallow treatment, it struck me as intended strictly for shock value. Was this element present in his other works or is it unique to this one? If present in other works, it may have a larger or deeper significance.

[pyan]

Originally Posted by RB

I thought the Gwen/Hazel character had a lot more depth than Mary did.

Don't forget, though, that Mary only appears in one book whereas Gwen/Hazel has a long back-history - The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, Space Family Stone, and I think she pops up at the end of Number of the Beast as well - so she's bound to be a bit more of a rounded character.

Originally Posted by RB

It finally dawned on me that Heinlein needed a porter for Tree-San. The way the story went in the first two parts, Richard and Gwen couldn’t carry Tree-San themselves and deal with the other calamities and obstacles. Otherwise, Bill struck me as superfluous and unbelievable

Nice idea, but surely there must be more to Bill than just that - If Tree-san had been cut from the story, would Bill have vanished as well?
I think he's what I've come to think of as a Heinlein Foil: someone fairly peripheral to the story, but with views that enable the main characters to "bounce" off them. Another example is Duke in SIASL, - there to argue against ideas espoused by the main characters, but not really necessary to the story,

[Razorback]

Pyran,

1. Although Mary was limited to one book, I still think her character was a bit thin. I’ve read some of the other books that Gwen/Hazel appeared in, but too long ago to remember much. While work in other books may have added some dept to her character, I think the biggest difference is that Heinlein just got better at female character in the 34 years between The Puppet Masters and TCWWTW. My comment wasn’t intended as a criticism of Mary. I think she was fine for 1951. I wanted to complement how much Heinlein improved on female characterizations from then to TCWWTW.

2. I concede that Bill provided a foil for some of Heinlein’s views, but it seems like he could have gotten those points out without a character as clumsy and pointless as Bill. I still think carrying Tree-San was his primary purpose, with serving as a foil as a secondary purpose. It may sound glib to say he was just a porter for Tree-San, but I think that would have been the only loss to the story without Bill.

[TTBRAHWTMG]

As far as female characters go, I liked Gwen plenty. A little off TCWWTW perhaps, but which Heinlein character do you think is the most believable as a woman? Which Heinlein character is your favourite woman?

As far as Bill, I think he serves two and possibly even three purposes. First is to display characteristics or an attitude in society which he disliked, which gave him the ability to vent on what he perceived were social ills of his time...specifically in the scene when Gwen and Richard fight and even more so when they make up. Secondly, he was demonstrating a point made by one of his major influences, Twain, who said "If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous, he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and a man." Finally, and this one is FAR less likely I admit, but perhaps he was supposed to be an agent from another group of time tinkerers that Heinlein muses about later in the book, and that he was just playing a role to get closer to Ames and keep an eye on him, kill him if necessary.