Hainlainu es esmu lasījis ļoti maz. Manā bērnībā viņu vēl netulkoja, jo autors neticēja komunisma un sociālisma uzvarai pasaulē. Vēl trakāk - viņa pasaules ir ar netradicionālu ievirzi. Skaidrs, ka ar tādām lietām pionieru prātus nav ko traumēt. Tādēļ labprāt tagad laiku pa laikam izlasu pa kādai šī autora grāmatai.2075. gadā Mēness vairs nav soda kolonija, taču pēc savas būtības Mēness kolonija ir un paliek cietums. Dzīve šeit nav viegla, viss jāaudzē pašiem un vēl jādod pārtika zemei. Visu mēness pasauli kontrolē superefektīvs superdators HOLMES IV. Kādu dienu datortehniķis Mannie O'Kelly-Davis atklāj, ka datoram piemīt saprāts un visnotaļ savdabīga humora izjūta. Varētu jau skriet un ziņot par to iestādēm, bet var arī sadraudzēties. Un galu galā superdatoram ir gandrīz neierobežotas iespējas, tad kādēļ gan neuzrīkot revolūciju un neatbrīvoties no Zemes jūga.Ši ir viena laba zinātniskā fantastika. Viņa aizskar ļoti daudz problēmas, kas savulaik nodarbināja rakstnieku prātus.Kolonijas un mātes valsts attiecības – Zemei Mēness kolonija attaisno savu nosaukumu - cietums. Te nogrūž visus nevēlamos sabiedrības elementus. Nāves sodi jau ir pārāk nehumāni. Risinājums šķiet izcils, pirmkārt, neviens nespēs atbraukt atpakaļ, pēc pāris mēnešiem pazeminātā Mēness gravitācijā neviens neizturēs Zemes pievilkšanas spēku. Koloniju iedzīvotāji ir pilnīgi pašpietiekami, ja neskaita augstās tehnoloģijas, pārtiku un gaisu saražo pāri. Lai neslaistītos bezdarbībā, viņiem ir jānosūta zināms daudzums pārtikas uz Zemi. Un kārtību uz Mēness kolonijām nodrošina Zemes iecelts vietvaldis.Pārapdzīvotība – uz Zemes dzīvo ap 11 miljardiem cilvēku, un galvenā problēma ir pārtika. Autors diezgan sīki un smalki izkritizē pārtikas sadales efektivitāti globālajā tirgū. Jāatzīmē, ka viņa idejas diezgan uzskatāmi var redzēt mūsdienās. Bads, ja pārtikas sadalei pieietu racionāli, nebūtu nekāda problēma. Daudz lielāka ir neefektīva saimniekošana un cenu politika. Spēle ap badu no Zemes tiek izmantots kā arguments apgalvojot, ka Mēness, nesūtot graudu baržas, mērdē badā nevainīgus cilvēkus. Prieks, ka autors pacenšas, lai morāli attaisnotu savus revolucionārus.Politehnoloģija – par to, kā uz līdzenas vietas uztaisīt revolūciju. Masu neapmierinātība pati par sevi neko nedod, vajag nopietnus līderus, kas ir ar mieru uzņemties cilvēku vadīšanu. Ja tāds atrodas, tad cilvēki ir gatavi sekot šim līderim - simbolam, lai cīnītos paši par savu brīvību. Autors diezgan ironiski un skarbi izmanto Profesoru Bernardo de La Paz, kurš ir visas revolūcijas lietas idejas tēvs. Cilvēks, kas gatavs riskēt gan ar savu, gan citu dzīvībām, lai sasniegtu savu mērķi. Ja palīgos ir superdators, tad manipulācija ar sabiedrisko domu ir tīri triviāla lieta. Vēl jo vairāk Maiks (uz tādu vārdu atsaucas superdators) visu šo pasākumu uztver kā spēli, kā interesantu savu prognozēšanas metožu pārbaudes iespēju.Kontrolēta anarhija – kārtējais Hainlaina mēģinājums uzkonstruēt sabiedrību, kurai valdības loma sadzīvē ir minimāla. Spēlēšanās ar to, kā var izdzīvot valsts bez nodokļiem, kur ņemt naudu finansēšanai, un kas nosaka likumu.TANSTAAFL (There ain't no such thing as a free lunch) – nekas pasaulē nav par velti, ja gribi ko dabūt pretī, ir kaut kas jādod. Mēness sabiedrībā šī ideja ir izkopta līdz pēdējam, ja gribi, vari būt kretīns, tikai nebrīnies, ja pēc pāris minūtēm tevi ieliks slūžās un palaidīs vakuumā. Ekonomikā, kur viss tiek ražots slēgtā sistēmā, ir stingri jāizvērtē prioritātes un vajadzības. Tas ir vistuvākais modelis, ko var sasniegt Pareto efektīvajam ideālam.Demokrātijas butaforija – kad vecā vara gāzta, tad nākas ievēlēt jaunu demokrātisku valdību. Skaidra lieta, ka līdzšinējie vadoņi nemaz negatavojas savu lomu zaudēt. Arī te autors ir nopietni izpētījis visas demokrātiskās iekārtas manipulācijas iespējas. Galvenais, lai cilvēkiem šķistu, ka viss ir godīgi. Un kas zina, varbūt viņiem paveiksies, un valdība būs laba!Kosmosa kari – planētu sistēmas kosmiskie kari nav nekās līdzīgs Zvaigžņu kariem. Pirmkārt, karavīru nogādāšana kaujas laukā ir ellīgi dārgs prieks, pasaule, kas visu laiku dominējusi sistēmā,, neuzturēs mirlīgu floti tāpat vien. Kā šajā grāmatā pareizi rakstīts, pie minimāliem resursiem uzvarēs tas, kurš gravitācijas akā atradīsies augstāk. Kuram vieglāk ar lineārajiem paātrinātājiem būs bombardēt savu kaimiņu. Ūdeņraža bumba un prasmīgi vadīts meteorīts pēc savas jaudas īpaši neatšķirsies. Sevišķi, ja akmens bluķis atdos savu kinētisko enerģiju bremzējoties uz nulli no 11 km/s. Prieks, ka netiek pārspīlēta lāzeru nozīme, autors ir zinājis, ka ar attālumu tie zaudē savu jaudu.Informācijas karš – kādam varētu šķist, ka informācijas karš ir kaut kas jauns un nesena hibrīdkara komponente. Tomēr šī lieta vienmēr ir gājusi roku rokā ar konfliktu kaujas daļu. Šeit informācijas karš rit starp Mēnesi un Zemi. Patriotisma stiprināšanā Mēnesim ir priekšrocības, jo Maiks gan ģenerē pieejamo informāciju, gan kontrolē informācijas plūsmu. Taču kā jau katrā cīņā, kur pretinieks ir daudzkārt spēcīgāks, liela nozīme ir sabiedriskajai domai ienaidnieka nometnē. Arī šī grāmatas sižeta šķautne bija labi noslīpēta.Ģimenes modelis – tas jau nebūtu Hainlains, ja viņš nerakstītu par daudzsievību. Viņam acīmredzot tā lieta dikti fascinē, tādēļ uz Mēness, kur liels sieviešu deficīts, ir dažādi attiecību modeļi. Gan klanu laulības, tāds savdabīgs poligāmija un poliandrijas apkopojums vai vienkārši poliandrija. Lai vai kā, sievietes te ir noteicējas partnera izvēlē.Mākslīgais saprāts – Hainlaina dators iegūst apziņu sasniedzot noteiktu sarežģītības pakāpi. Mūsdienu acīm skatoties, superdatora apraksts ir diezgan pašvaks, mobilie telefoni mums ir jaudīgāki. Arī pati ideja par sarežģītību mani lāgā nepārliecina, tas balstīts uz bioloģisko smadzeņu principu ekstrapolēšanu. Ja būs pietiekami daudz kaut kas ar kaut ko savienots, tad noteikti radīsies saprāts. Tas, ka mākslīgais intelekts ir cilvēkiem labvēlīgs, arī nemaz nav standarta gadījums. Kā grāmatā redzams, Maikam cilvēka dzīvība nemaz neko daudz nenozīmē, tā ir lieta, kura ir tīri kvantitatīva vērtība viņa spēles stratēģijā. Taču Maiks ļoti cenšas būt cilvēks un saprast cilvēkus.Galvenais varonis - Mannie O'Kelly-Davis, lai ar labs datortehniķis, tomēr ir diezgan bīdāms radījums. Viņš radīja nedaudz tāda godīga dulbura priekšstatu, kas lāga nesaprot, kas riņķī notiek. Kad vajag, izrāda varonību, spriež saprātīgi, bet nekādas nojēgas par taktiku, kur nu vēl stratēģiju. Viņa galvenais pienesums ir draudzība ar Maiku un stāstītāja loma.Sižets – neparasti dinamisks, tādai visnotaļ nopietnai pasaules simulācijai. Autors spēj noturēt spriedzi, un atkāpes, lai izvērstu kādu konceptu, nemaz nešķiet kaitinošas, jo dod papildus ieskatu notiekošajā. Labi sabalansēta aprakstoša daļa ar darbību. Ja visi rakstnieki spētu rakstīt tik aizraujošas politiskās intrigas! Un jāņem vērā, ka grāmatas sarakstīšanas laikā viņa spriedumi bija visnotaļ ārā lecoši no kopējā zinātniskās fantastikas darbu konteksta. Ko tādu var rakstīt tikai tāds, kurš ir pārliecināts savos spēkos.Grāmatai lieku 10 no 10 ballēm. Tieši tas man arī patīk laika gaitā pārbaudītās grāmatās - viņas ir mānīgi vienkāršas, taču sevī slēpj daudzus slāņus ar idejām. Reti gadās lasīt grāmatu, kur tik labi būtu modelēta sabiedrības uzvedība. Noteikti iesaku izlasīt.
This is a classic SF story of the moon fighting for its independence from Earth, with a lot of parallels to the American Revolution. Heinlein has a political conversation with himself here, definitely coming down on the side of Libertarianism, but also acknowledges & points out the holes in his arguments himself. I've read some rants about Heinlein pushing his politics & I disagree with them. I think he's doing more questioning than pushing & that leads to some fun with the characters, especially Prof.Prof is the Heinlein wise elder character while Manny is the middle aged incarnation. Hazel (who shows up as the grandmother in The Rolling Stones) is the youthful, female version. Yes, Heinlein only has 1 main character, he just changes age & sex to suit the situation. I don't consider this a horrible flaw in his books, though. They're more situational, so a steady character actually helps them out.Prof has a wonderful political philosophy. He's a Rational Anarchist. Actually, that seems to pretty much be his take on life & I dare say it's more honest than most. He'll accept any laws you think you need & obey those he can, when he can, otherwise ignore them, but will pay up if caught. (Come to think of it, that's pretty much how I go through life.) His remarks to the new Lunar Congress on how to pay for government & what laws to make are well worth thinking about & certainly does point out the perennial problem they all have. One suggestion was they start by making laws of what the government could never do. Another was a house devoted to repealing poor laws.Stu's observations on governing were more amusing. He wants to name Prof king because that would protect people from their biggest enemy, themselves. How true! The woman with the list of proscribed items in the early Congress is a perfect example. Anyone with half a brain can't help but make the comparisons to our own society & the creeping repressiveness as we democratically vote away our rights.Heinlein points out another fallacy in government, one that he never explicitly states: What works for a small group often won't for a large one & that needs change over time. He makes this argument as a thread throughout the book: Manny's reflections from the future when Luna is much more populated & his other comments on its early days. The justice system of Terra versus that of Luna of Manny's time. It's important to note that Heinlein offers up no concrete answers, just a lot of questions, & he is pointing them out through a first person narrator. Manny is fairly reliable, but he's human & thus comfortable in the society he knows. There are multiple examples of how poorly this fits others - many of whom wind up paying the ultimate penalty.The language of the book is notable. Sentences are clipped with a lot of polyglot slang & - possibly most important - he popularized the word tanstaafl: "There ain't no such thing as a free lunch". The link is to the Wikipedia article on it. I wish people would use & think of it more. Racial, religious, & national slang names are commonly used & are now considered politically incorrect, but they are used in such a way that no prejudice can possibly be attached. The moon is such a mix that such designations are merely descriptive. Marriage is another institution that receives a thorough cleansing of preconceptions & homosexuality is also briefly addressed. IOW, Heinlein has a lot of fun with Civil Rights. Since this book was originally published in 1966, that's not surprising, especially given his views on the matter, but this book was well before he almost died & he hasn't gone overboard yet.The story is quite dated as far as technology goes, but that didn't hurt it much. There are tape recorders, wall phones, & computer punch cards, but the overall experience of the moon is well done. Mike, the self-aware computer is fun, too. Not particularly realistic, but enjoyable & played his part well.All in all, it's a must-read for anyone exploring SF. It is a classic & is a hell of a lot of fun, but gives plenty of food for thought, too.Wikipedia has a so-so write up on it here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Moon...
Do You like book The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress (2005)?
Personally I think this is one of the best sf novels ever, and clearly one of Heinlein's best. Taking nothing away from Starship Troopers, his writing about AI is first rate, and the characters are equally cool. Glad you liked it.
—Jon
Very disappointing: 2.5* (it's not terrible, but it's weaker than books I award 3*, and I enjoyed it far less).I know of Heinlein as a sci-fi author and had heard of some interesting language-type things that make this novel unique, principally a Lunar dialect. Although it's mostly set in a lunar prison colony, just over 100 years after it was written (and 60 ahead of now), it's more of a political story, and the Lunar dialect is just a slightly stilted pidgin whose most notable features are the omission of articles and pronouns, and the odd Russian-influenced word.GOOD START, BIG IDEASIt starts off promisingly, immediately introducing big issues around artificial intelligence. Mike (short for Mycroft Holmes, Sherlock's brother) is a supercomputer who enjoys jokes and playing pranks, which is an entertaining concept, but does he also have self-awareness, free will, emotions, personality and so on? The other principal character is Manuel (aka Mannie and Man), who is Mike's chief programmer and engineer. Oh, and a stupidly named woman, Why Not (albeit spelt Wyoming Knott, but usually abbreviated to Wyoh).Then it threw in issues of prison, punishment, freedom, civilisation, redemption, and some of the practicalities of living on the moon (low gravity, habitats, air, economics). Oh, and different types of marriage necessitated by a society with a huge gender imbalance: polyandry, clan marriage and line marriage (though the details and differences were not clearly explained). In this community, the scarcity of women gives them more power in relationships, which is a nice idea, but the opposite of what seems to be the case in China, decades after their one-child policy was introduced, with reports of young women being abducted and forced into marriage.Most of the humans living in tunnels on Luna are free: either the descendants of deported criminals, or they have served their time. In either case, they are too acclimated to return to the high gravity of Terra. There is no need for actual prisons, or even laws, because there is nowhere to escape to. The main industries are ice mining, and hydroponic farming; for the latter, they import fertilizer from Terra and then export the grain. But why go to the expense of all the transport to and from Luna, when they could do the same in tunnels on Terra?POLITICS, COLONIALISM and MORE POLITICSUnderstandably, some of the Loonies (as they call themselves) want independence from the exploitation of The Authority and its Warden, sent from Terra.Cue LOTS of socio-political... stuff. It's not a long book, so I ploughed on, assuming it would return to form, but it didn't. Instead, I read endless discussions of political theory and tactics (it's all about the cell system and money laundering), meetings and diplomatic missions, and eventually (view spoiler)[ war (hide spoiler)]
—Cecily
Stranger was pervasive when I was a kid and I knew it by heart along with the crowd. Had I read this then, who knows? I’m almost to sorry to have visited Heinlein again now, as I’ve thought ‘grok’ the greatest of invented words, and I owe him an introduction to Rodin’s sculpture (his descriptions of which I nearly know, still, by heart). As for the gist of the story, strictly I’ve forgotten, but I was in the spirit at the time.I remember I ‘read around’ the women, ignored their presence… I kind of pretended they were pets. That must have been the habit of the day, to cope with such as Heinlein: I’ve lost that trick these days, and have to slap on this book a warning label for Graphic Sexist Content. My God. But let’s move on. Maybe, against any sense or sanity, I’ll go back and find out what that other Mike was about (this book has Mike the Computer, everybody’s favourite character). My very bones rebel in me against what this book was about. But my bones are inarticulate, and I probably should have known better than to read a Heinlein at my age. I was tempted in by ‘prison moon throws off its shackles’ but this was a strangely unimpassioned revolution whose cause was material self-interest and whose slogan, of course, you know. I might have been into his polyamorous families, except that his emphasis is on family values (familiar ones), the single life is despised as usual, and snippets like the information that no male in this ongoing group family has ever washed the dishes, undercut the project for me. I enjoyed the yarn. Rattling along with dialogue; one scene of dialogue straddled three chapters, I swear; I think he even dispensed with stage directions. I’ll happily listen to people talk and interact, for whatsoever page count you like; on the other hand, the equal page count of communications technology was for another audience than me. Living in a convict colony myself, I note the Aussie slang. I did want to see more of Mike.
—Bryn Hammond
