In a future world, the moon is used as a penal colony for Earth. Some “earthworms” decide to take their chances in this new territory and voluntarily move to the moon for a fresh start, making it something like the new Wild West. There are methods of extracting resources on the moon to send back to Earth in exchange for the materials the “loonies” need. But there is growing resentment among the loonies at being a colony of Earth—the trade is highly unbalanced and loonies struggle to survive in an economy where they are not getting paid enough for their goods. Hence, the idea of a revolution arises among a small few. An engineer, Manuel O’Kelly, is persuaded to join the movement, along with a complex computer system, named Mike, that has become self-aware, or sentient.
This is the starting point for The Moon is a Harsh Mistress.
From a literary standpoint, this book is not highly polished. The writing is a little uneven and the plot is not well-paced. While Part I grabs the reader’s attention with its character development and dynamics, Part II falls flat with its lack of dialogue and action. Part III, the conclusion to the entire book, feels hurried and a little clumsy. Despite being the climax of the entire story, it seems like Heinlein is just rushing to wrap everything up quickly, rather than savoring the tension and drama.
My favorite part of the book is the early chapters, where Manuel discovers that Mike has become self-aware and is reluctantly embroiled in the revolutionary plot. He is persuaded to join the movement by an elderly scholar, simply called the Professor, and by a spirited young woman named Wyoming. These three humans, along with Mike, form the core group of the revolution. Early in the book, much time is spent on forming their relationships and exploring the personal dynamics between everyone in the group.
To avoid giving away the plot, I want to focus on a few of the ideas that Heinlein raises throughout the book, ideas that are highly relevant and worth considering in our own time.
Political Philosophy
Much time is spent in the early chapters discussing the history of governments and revolutions. Naturally, this band of rebels want to know what went wrong in the past and how to form an ideal political state after they throw off the government. At one point the Professor asks Manuel and Wyoming this pointed question:
“When is it moral for a group to do that which is not moral for a member to do alone?”
In other words, when does it become acceptable for a group to kill a person, when this would be considered murder if done by an individual? Or when is it moral for a group of people to take money from others, when an individual would be condemned as a thief?
This, to me, seems the crux of all political questions. Is a group of people free from these moral laws because a majority of people gave them permission? Or because they happened to be born into a certain family? Or because they are the wealthiest? We ought to be very clear about our own thinking on this question because it forms the basis of all other political opinions.
Heinlein also explores the question of justice and arbitration in a very interesting subplot. Manuel encounters a visitor from Earth who has violated a fundamental social code, albeit not intentionally. A group of young men confront him and insist that he must be punished for this gross violation. In their estimation, his offense was worthy of death. But the young men, and the visitor from Earth, ask Manuel to judge the case and determine the just punishment. At the end of all the proceedings, Manuel makes a very sensible decision that satisfies all parties involved. The hot-headed young men are reminded that death is a heavy cost for someone’s innocent mistakes, while the visitor is taught the importance of learning the customs of Luna and respecting their ways.
The arbitration process is fast, simple, and efficient, the seeming opposite of the court system as we know it today! There are no scheming lawyers trying to make a profit from the dispute. There are no byzantine law books and codes that must be studied. Their system was based on social pressure and reputation. And it worked. The young men know there would be social blowback if they killed someone without going through a judge. They had some knowledge of Manuel O’Kelly and trusted his judgement, leading them to request his arbitration. Once the visitor realized the stakes, he gladly accepted Manuel’s judgement in hopes that it would save him from death. It is a fascinating demonstration of an alternative approach to dispute resolution.
Gender & Family Dynamics
Manuel O’Kelly is part of what he describes as a line marriage. Essentially, this is a structured group marriage that ensures perpetuity of the marriage. Assuming that it started with a single man and woman, other individuals were slowly added to the marriage over time, with the unanimous consent of all current members. Younger people would be added as the others aged, creating a permanent family structure. While this arrangement seems unusual and highly unorthodox to us today, it was a logical solution to many problems the early settlers encountered on Luna.
This group marriage provided a higher level of stability and security for both adults and children in the family. Given the harsh conditions and scarcity of resources, group marriage allowed individuals to pool resources more effectively. Homes became a complex, expanding as the family grew, building on the materials and structures already developed. In the case that any one adult became incapacitated or died, there would be enough other adults to step in and take care of the children. The home became highly stable, with the older adults mentoring the younger to slowly take on more responsibilities.
The group marriage was ideal due to another factor: the high ratio of men to women on Luna. Being originally established as a penal colony, there were far more men transported than women. Interestingly, Heinlein concludes that the scarcity of women on Luna would result in greater freedom and power for women. As Manny explains,
“Here we are, two million males, less than one million females…When thing is scarce, price goes up. Women are scarce; aren’t enough to go around—that makes them most valuable thing in Luna…”
Group marriages allowed more men to benefit from the women who did live on Luna. The group marriages were essentially run by the women. They were highly influential in making decisions and managing the household. While any additions to the family were approved by all members, there was a tacit understanding that the women had the final say in things. The men needed the women more than the women needed them.
Beyond the family, women were also in charge in the social realm. In the section above, describing the arbitration process of Luna, the dispute occurred due to the visitor’s offense to a woman. The visitor met a woman in a bar and began flirting with her. Eventually he took her flirtations very favorably and advanced to putting his arm around her waist and attempting to kiss her, as he was accustomed to doing on Earth. The woman was frightened by his advances and the other young men in the bar immediately stepped in to set this visitor straight. He violated their social rules because the woman did not invite him or give consent to physical contact. As Manuel explains, she could have invited him to a hotel room and it would have been acceptable. But it was her choice, not his. On Luna, a woman’s right to freedom and choice is passionately defended by everyone.
“What that means, here and now, is that women are scarce and call tune…and you are surrounded by two million men who see to it you dance to that tune. You have no choice, she has all choice. She can hit you so hard it draws blood; you dasn’t lay a finger on her.”
In this age of crisis about gender roles and power, Heinlein’s story seems particularly relevant. Contrary to the extreme feminism that calls for women to abandon men and all notions of family, women on Luna are able to participate in a family structure while maintaining their personal power. It is a world where families—however unorthodox to our current standards—can uphold stability and safety, as conservatives today desire, yet allowing all adults to explore their personal identity and autonomy.
Self-Awareness & Identity
The book begins with Manuel O’Kelly discovering that one of the supercomputers he does repairs on has actually become self-aware, or “woke up.” Mike, as Manuel nicknames him, finds a sense of humor and begins causing trouble as he uses his extensive responsibilities to play jokes on the government, such as printing out a janitor’s paycheck for $10,000,000,000,000,185.15.
Although narrated by Manuel, this seems to really be a story about Mike. You see him evolve though all these stages of understanding, from his childish pranks at the beginning to his later role in supporting the revolution. He tries on various personalities, like alter egos, and tests the limits of his abilities. He thrives on being challenged and loves to solve difficult problems. Throughout the book he slowly learns the nuances of human emotions and communication. His expansion and maturity is startling to witness.
Mike’s development forces us to wrestle with the fundamental questions of being. What does it mean to be alive? What is self-awareness? To what extent can Mike be considered a person? Does he have an ego? Is he capable of forming ethical judgements?
Concluding Thoughts
As popular novel for libertarians, I had read this book for the first time several years ago. I even used it in one of my high school literature classes. I read it again recently as part of a online collaborative discussion group. Being able to read it this time with other highly thoughtful and curious readers definitely enhanced my appreciation and understanding of the book. Our questions and conversations pulled out many nuances and details that I had missed previously. It was a good exercise in slow and deliberate reading.
The value of this novel lies not in the complex character development nor in the compelling plot, but rather in Heinlein’s ability to capture our imagination with new ideas. The science fiction genre in particular is a powerful tool for us to imagine a different way of life. It inspires us to constantly ask, “what if?” What if there was a better way to create stable family dynamics? What if women had all the power in social and personal relationships? What if people had to figure out their own system of justice in the absence of a strong government? What would the world look like if…?
At a time like this when it feels like we are so entrenched in our ways of thinking, when everyone is so terribly polarized, when it seems impossible to have a rational and respectful conversation about anything, Heinlein’s book is a reminder to stay imaginative, to be willing to ask questions, to see the world a different way.
