When Simon called me a ‘Heinlein Scholar’ over on Whedonesque. The discussion was around Tim Minear’s Script of Robert A Heinlein’s The Moon is a Harsh Mistress. I would not necessary call myself a ‘scholar’ but I have read everything the man ever wrote, including the so called ‘boys books’ and his essays. I have copies of all of them in our library, most in several different editions and I own several Firsts of his works. I even have Grumbles from the Grave in a First, signed by Virginia Heinlein. (Sidebar, my annoying older brother always says it would be more impressive if RAH had signed it himself. And spooky, since it was published posthumously. As my annoying older brother knows.)
So now I’ve read Mr Minear’s script. So what did I think? I think it could have been an interesting movie. It, however, is *not* Robert Anson Heinlein’s The Moon is a Harsh Mistress.
For those who haven’t read it, a brief plot synopsis:
The Moon is a Harsh Mistress is the story of the Luna, i.e. the Earth’s Moon, revolution. Luna was settled by convicts years before as a farming colony. The grain was shipped back to Earth via a catapult, slinging it into orbit where it was then brought to Earth by a fairly simple tracking/rocket system. However, Luna Authority does not pay a fair price for this grain. And it is discovered that continued production will eventually kill Luna entirely. And so a revolution is carried out. And that revolution partly works because of the leader of it, who is Mike. A self aware supercomputer with bad taste in puns and jokes.
On a much, much deeper level the book is basic instructions on how to lead, run, create and succeed at revolution. Just so long as you have a self aware supercomputer at your disposal. Well, the supercomputer isn’t entirely necessary, but it sure does help! It is also a discussion on what makes a person self aware, what makes someone a ‘man’ or ‘person’ (a familiar theme in RAH’s work, see the novella Jerry Was A Man and the novel The Star Beast) and what makes up a family. Among many other things.
So why is Mr Minear’s script not the book? Because I think Mr Minear went to far beyond what was necessary to make the book adaptable for the big screen.
The first thing that jarred is a section of dialogue where Mannie (the protagonist) is explaining who Mike is. He says, in Mr Minear’s script:
“Mike wasn’t official name. I’d nicknamed him “Mike” for Mycroft Holmes, from a story written by Dr Watson.”
This is almost word for word from the book. Except that the book adds to the end:
“…before he founded IBM.”
Four little words that relay to the reader that this is far enough in the future that: –
a.) Dr Watson was thought real and wrote about Sherlock Holmes, as in the Sherlock Holmes books where Dr Watson is narrating; and
b.) that Dr Watson was thought to have founded IBM.
Those four little words, that Mr Minear left out, always does two things for me, no matter how many times I’ve read them. It made me smile (how silly that Mannie thinks Dr Watson founded IBM!) and it made me think (why does Mannie think Dr Watson founded IBM?). Could we be so far in the future in this story that reality and fiction have blurred? Of course we could be.
However, the biggest thing that Mr Minear changed and, I think, trivialized, and which leads to a *huge* continuity error, is TANSTAAFL as it relates to women. In the book, women are sacred. There are 2M men, only 1M women on RAH’s Luna. So women get to call all the shots. This is seen in Stuart’s introduction to the Revolution, both in the script and in the actual book. It is contradicted earlier in the script when Warden is humiliated by his wife’s infidelity. According to Heinlein, he’d have no say in the matter. So not only did Minear dismiss one of the major points of RAH’s story, he contradicted himself over it.
Finally, there were also little things Mr Minear changed that made no sense to me. Why change the name of Mannie’s senior wife? Or the name of the first wife of his line marriage? Indeed, why make the line marriage something Wyoming has never heard of? Why make Prof her friend and not Mannie’s?
Its this combination of small and large changes that make this not RAH’s book. Or his story. I think this, of all of his books, could have been made into a movie. I just don’t think this is the script that could do it.
I am hoping that the reason this movie has not had the green light is because the RAH’s estate realized the mistake they had made with Starship Troopers and refused to make the same mistake again. But considering that they just announced Starship Troopers 3? I doubt it.
For the record, I really enjoyed Starship Troopers, the movie. But it is even less RAH’s story than Tim Minear’s The Moon is a Harsh Mistress is.