Rereading Heinlein: Part Three
Dec. 29th, 2017 12:19 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
bibliogrammaAnd now for my thoughts on a Heinlein book i’d never read before, For Us, the Living. I think I’ve read everything else he wrote, but this was released so late in the game that I hadn’t gotten around to it til now. I’m glad I read it, because it’s in some ways a sourcebook for some of his greatest works.
It’s not actually a novel, of course. It’s a utopian treatise, one in a long line of such works that goes all the way back to Plato’s Republic. The story is the same in every case - dump unsuspecting everyman into your ideal society and find reasons for people to kindly take the time to explain everything about their world in depth. What is interesting is that as one reads For Us, the Living, one sees Heinlein publicly doing the worldbuilding for some of the novels and other writings that would follow. This is the world of Beyond This Horizon, and Coventry. It’s a world that came dangerously close to -If This Goes On, but escaped the theocracy (and tells us everything we needed to know about Nehemiah Scudder).
I like many of the ideas of this Heinlein, from a guaranteed annual income for everyone to the end of marriage as a public contract to compulsory voting to running a society on the idea that religious morality has nothing to do with law. To be sure, Heinlein is still pretty sexist - he thinks women are essentially different from men in some crucial ways and he couldn’t quite imagine a utopia where women are fully half of the politicians and engineers and test pilots and surgeons, though he could imagine some women being among the best in any field. But there are some bits in his utopian musings that are very much at the centre of even modern feminist thinking - such as his analysis of how giving women full economic equality, through the GAI he envisions, changes the entire nature of relationships between men and women. And there’s a bit where he accurately describes the way that male possessiveness turns into controlling relationships that stifle women.
This is the manifesto of the young (pre-Virginia) Heinlein, and it’s important because it shows where his “future history” came from. I kind of wish this Heinlein had stayed around, and avoided the plunge into John Birchism that influenced aspects of his later work.
Having read the first book Heinlein wrote, It seemed somehow appropriate to next read the last book he wrote, To Sail Beyond the Sunset. This is a book I both love and am frustrated by. Maureen Johnson is quite a tour de force of a character, the most vividly presented woman in all of his books - only a few of which are centred on a female protagonist, as this one is. She is everything I appreciate about the feminist Heinlein’s idea of the independent woman, and everything that makes me want to pitch something nasty at the old sexist’s ghost. Maureen is brilliant, practical, she adapts easily to new situations, she earns five or six degrees in subjects as diverse and complex as medicine, the law and philosophy, she is a financial genius, an amazing mother, a sexual free spirit. She also is the ever-ready sexual fantasy of too many entitled man-boys and just loves being pregnant and barefoot in the kitchen. It’s the quintessence of Heinlein’s ideas about the perfect woman, one who is strong but wants her man stronger, one who never says no to the ‘right’ men, one who loves to take care of her men and her children, who is as smart and brave and competent as any man but goes out of her way to make the men in her life feel smarter and braver and more competent. She lets her first husband control her life, make all the important decisions, for over 40 years of marriage, acting for herself only when he decides to ask for a divorce, at which point she outmaneuvers him with impressive ease and goes on to live an unapologetically independent life. She inspires and infuriates me.
She’s also the mouthpiece for Heinlein’s later political views. While his attitudes about sexuality and religion remain pretty constant throughout his working life - he was always in favour of sexual freedom and thought religion was a crock used to manipulate the masses - the man who began his writing career extolling the virtues of socialised medicine and a guaranteed annual income ended it ranting against freeloaders snd governments that gave people handouts.
And then there’s the stuff that squicks. In the course if her long life, Maureen has sex with her cousin, her son, at least one son-in-law (and probably at least some heavy petting with a daughter or two) and tries her hardest to seduce her father. Heinlein puts a lot of incest in both this book and in Time Enough for Love, his novel about the lives and loves of Maureen’s son Woodrow, aka Lazarus Long. He seems quite unaware of, or unwilling to acknowledge, the power issues of parent-child sex, which exist well into adulthood. Never having had a sibling, I’n not really equipped to comment on his insistence that left to their own devices, siblings are going to form sexual relationships, but even as adults, it seems to me that there are some serious complications arising from the intense emotional cauldron that is the family. I don’t believe in sin myself, only in harm, and if siblings or other close relatives who have never lived in the same family and don’t bring that potentially hazardous baggage with them should meet as adults and decide to enter a sexual relationship, the only major objection I have is that of genetic consequences should there be children. But there’s way too much potential for psychological harm if there are already familial bonds established, and you attempt to build sexual bonds on top f them. So Maureen’s willingness to hop into bed with anyone, even her own father and son, as long as she isn’t risking pregnancy, bothers me. And I wonder what brought it to such a prominent place in Heinlein’s ideas about sexual freedom.
The other thing that’s both fun and strange is Heinlein’s quest, in the last years of his creative life, to amalgamate the universes of all of his works - and those of some other authors he admired - into one giant multiverse with multiple timelines. He carefully determined which stories and novels took place in which timelines, and created a Time Corps and a theory of creativity as reality to explain how he brought together not only his own science fiction works, but the fantasy worlds of writers from Burroughs to Baum. It’s fun, in a way - much as Philip Jose Farmer’s Wold Newton family of superheroes is fun - but it also seems oddly obsessive.
It’s a sprawling, self-indulgent novel that never ceases to fascinate and infuriate me.
no subject
Date: 2017-12-29 10:06 pm (UTC)You're sooo right about Heinlein's female characters, both the good and the bad. Just showing a compentent female space engineer was revolutionary in the 40s, but she was a token special case, not a norm. And so it remained. The only real counter-example I can think of is in Glory Road, where the POV male character did his best to see Star, Empress of Twenty Universes, in that way, and she just wasn't able to subsume herself into being his wife. She had twenty universes to oversee, which took precedence. He eventually left, unable to tolerate the position of full-time spouse-with-no-other-job. I don't know if Heinlein did the irony on purpose; it's possible. He could see that women have independent emotions and minds, but he and his characters just didn't want to give up the perks of being a man in the 20thC he knew.
no subject
Date: 2017-12-31 06:09 am (UTC)To fully analyse Heinlein’s attitudes towards women in his writing could fill an entire book! The relationship between the two main protagonists in Glory Road is a fascinating one, and if I remember correctly, it seems to come from a place where he’s acknowledging that it’s hard for men to give up their privilege, and accept the role that wives have slways been expected to hold. I’ll look closely at that aspect when I get to rereading Glory Road.
no subject
Date: 2017-12-30 01:31 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2017-12-31 06:15 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2017-12-31 08:00 pm (UTC)