Stranger In a Strange Land

Contributed by readers FooBard and Scrymarch, the pair of reviews below ought to either bring back memories or spark some curiosity. Stranger In a Strange Land may not be everyone's favorite book -- even among Heinlein fans -- but it certainly strikes a chord. If you haven't read it, these reviews should give you a good idea of whether you'd like to.

Stranger in a Strange Land author Robert A. Heinlein pages 438 publisher Ace Books rating n/a reviewer FooBard, Scrymarch ISBN 0441790348 summary Undeniably intriguing, by turns illuminating and infuriating story of life on earth as viewed by a visitor with a special interest.

FooBard writes: "Review of Robert A. Heinlein's Stranger In a Strange Land, unabridged version.

I have read a lot, although not all, of Heinlein's work. Stranger is clearly his crown jewel, and for reasons that transcend science fiction. All great art transcends its genre, and this book is no exception. The story is not merely "robots and rocketships", but uses science fiction for a truly creative look at the human condition: religion, love, sex, money, power, government, relationships... what more could you want?

Footnote: This book is also the origin of the term "grok" (loosely meaning: to have a very deep understanding of), which is used so frequently in computer circles.

The Scenario

The story is based on Valentine Michael Smith (no relation), usually called Mike, or the Man From Mars. Mike is the son of two crewmembers of the first manned flight to Mars, and was born on Mars after that flight crash-landed. His parents died shortly after his birth, and he was raised by Martians.

"Martians?" you might say. "How quaint." Keep in mind that this was written a while ago (when Martians were still trendy), and suspend your disbelief. Just as in all good "classic" sci-fi, Heinlein's methods and situation aren't as important as his goals and ideas. Sci-fi isn't about the "sci" or the "fi", but about what it means to be human.

Mike struggles in adapting to life on Earth, first physically, then mentally. He grapples with his integration into the human race in his own unique way. His journey is sort of a coming of age, yet he really is of age in another society -- a society whose values are often polar opposites to those value that define our humanness. Throughout Mike's process, Heinlein reflects on what it means to be human, which is one of the best and richest themes used in literature.

In a historical context, the book itself also has an interesting history. Back when it was originally published, Heinlein was forced to cut quite a bit of the book, especially the racier parts. This version reflects the manuscript that Heinlein originally wanted. I have previously read the abridged version, although I must admit that I don't remember all the finer points. This version does seem to have a bit more sex and more material that makes fun of the Fosterite church, etc., so it packs more of a punch than I remember from the abridged version.

What's Good

Heinlein makes very interesting choices in his portrayal of Martian society, and specifically contrasts them to what is most human. Religion, love, sex, money, etc. are all missing in Martian society, and this contrast allows for wonderful parody and analysis. We watch Mike stumble through learning such basics as male vs. female, love, communication, why we have religion, how we use humor, death and how we fear it, money, privacy... Each time, Mike's character forces us to question the "why" behind those ideas in society that we take for granted. Religion (in our form) doesn't seem natural to him. He doesn't laugh. He doesn't understand the wonder of sex, nor why we have property. Heinlein deconstructs those ideas through his plot and the character of Mike, and creates a consistent philosophical view of the world. (Whether you agree with Heinlein's ideas and philosophies is a different matter. I happen to agree with most.)

To watch a character struggle through this discovery for an entire book would be painful; no one wants to see that much struggle without a bit of redemption. So Heinlein makes Mike into a very powerful figure, showing the strengths of Martian society: no money, complete power of mind over body (Mike grows muscles by "thinking them", and has strong telepathic and telekenetic abilities), and he has an unquestioning belief and tangible proof of the afterlife. His human friends learn as much from him as he does from them, and, by the end of the book, Mike seeks to remake Earth society with his new viewpoint.

Religion plays a central role in this book. Organized religion is roasted (especially through the device of the Fosterite church), while religion itself is held as uniquely human -- an answer to our mortality and a reflection of our need to understand our world. Towards the end of the book, Mike creates his own religion (in a sense) and actually follows through, in true literary fashion, to his logical ending: Mike is a clear Christ allegory. Mike is the human- who- is- more- than- and- not- quite- human, and comes to Earth to redeem our society, to challenge how we see ourselves in the universe, and eventually to die for our redemption.

Other characters also are mouthpieces for Heinlein. Jubal Harshaw (strikingly and too blatantly similar to Lazarus Long, from "Time Enough for Love") is the older, yet very open-minded mentor to Mike. Jill helps him explore the male/female relationships, and Ben Caxton works to act as a foil to both Jubal and Mike, allowing Heinlein to use those characters to clarify his points. Several other characters interplay with the main character to strengthen Heinlein's philosophical arguments.

What's Bad

I have only a few issues with the book. The story ends in a typically Heinleinian fashion, with all the characters in some kind of group marriage, where free love amongst highly intellectual people conquers all. Nuh-uh. I'm not buying it again -- especially after rereading "Time Enough for Love" not too long ago. His exploration of such a life is just a bit too drawn-out and idyllic.

Also, in Stranger, Heinlein tries to examine almost all of what it means to be human. Few books, even the classics, attempt such a grandiose exploration of the human condition and all that it encompasses. It's a bit too large of an undertaking, even for the unabridged version. At the end of the book, you feel like you've explored a lot of territory, but you don't quite "grok" it all.

What's In it for me?

Heinlein does a wonderful job in giving himself the situations in which to explore those themes, however, and he must be commended in his success in surpassing the "robots and rocketships" so prevalent among his peers. Heinlein is a master of taking sci-fi beyond the plots, and his character of Mike was his best medium for his talent. This book changed science fiction forever, and it's still among the best. Even if you have read this book before (as I had), this book forces an examination of what it means to be human, especially in a world where technology itself -- not the humanity behind it -- drives much of literature, not to mention the very fundamentals of our lives."

Another point of view, from Scrymarch: Thou art God - I mean Hi. If someone had said that phrase once more to me by the time I finished this book, I think I would have struck them. It is bandied about with a smug bantering style that characterizes the problems I have with the novel and I suspect the author himself.

It is the story of a human raised on Mars by Martians. He then comes to Earth and experiences American society, and the resultant culture-shock on the part of both the main character and the reader is the main point of book. Indeed, by the accounts of the cover it is supposed to upset every background assumption that underlies my existence. Why it fails, and the way it fails, I think is a peculiar result of the interaction between when it was written, the ?60s, and R.A. Heinlen.

The 21st or 22nd century, when the book is set, bears a remarkable resemblance to a certain decade in the 20th century. Some extra gizmos like flying cars are about; there is an obligatory world government; but Western society is essentially the same when it comes to things like the sexism that permeates every printed word on every page.

Sexism is in fact one of the themes of the book. Humanity is blessed with our division into opposite and complementary genders apparently, and we should get on with doin? what our sex does best. Sex is another major theme. It?s enjoyable, you see, and by allowing us to "grow closer" to one another all human tragedy and hunger will be able to be solved.

Martian culture, a meditative one which interacts with spirits as its main leaders, is not much of a shock. It is essentially a convenient mix of Eastern cultures and religions, with some interesting embellishments, such as cannibalism (the only idea which really gave me much of a start). The Martians are at least not humanoid in shape. It revolves around a concept of "grokking" which roughly translates as completely interacting or understanding something. After one has grokked, one can act, and waiting for the right moment to act is also fundamental. This approach to existence makes Martians unbelievably wise, of course, and so they have in turn gained tremendous psychic powers. One of these powers includes routinely making objects (usually clothes) disappear completely, which explains where all those Martian cities got to.

Anyway, the grand revelation Mars-boy receives drives him to found a cult (the rise of specious alien cults is one of the few prophetic aspects of the book). The cult hangs around and has sex with one another a lot, while telling each other they art God. Perhaps this was the appeal of the novel 40-ish years ago. It was a little too flippant for me.

Stranger in a Strange Land is a silly, dated book and the first I have ever seriously considered throwing against a wall.

Purchase this book at ThinkGeek.

Comments

Terrible

[Chris Hind]

This book is one of the worst pieces of rubbish it has ever been my misfortune to read. Heinlein is generally a terrible author (try, or rather don't, the fascist paen Starship Troopers or the right-wing gun-nut's wet dream The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress), but he surpasses himself in this caca. From the lame characterisation (the old guy who lives with 3 young girls who fulfil his every whim is a particularly nauseating piece of authorial fantasy) to the thin psychedelia-wannabe plot, this book fails on all points to entertain. This is neither a flame nor a troll, it is my honest opinion.

If you want real golden sci-fi, read Phillip K Dick or Zelazny or Gene Wolfe or Asimov or anyone but Heinlein!

Re:Terrible

[Grab]

Asimov and Heinlein may have respected each other, but that doesn't mean that they believed the same things. You can be friends with someone without subscribing to their beliefs, and without necessarily having much of an opinion of their work (although Asimov was quite eclectic in his choice of what he liked, so he may have).

Oh, and reading 3 of his books does not qualify as excessive. I've read a good half-dozen (and own a couple; the rest were library copies), but I'm not dead keen. If you read a book a year, 3 books may seem a lot. If you get through a typical paperback in an afternoon, as I do, 3 books is a rainy day with nothing better to do, or a week's worth of reading before bed. And I'd not want to make a judgement on whether the guy was a good or bad writer until I'd read several of his books - everyone can have a bad day, after all. :-)

Grab.

Re:Terrible

[stevew]

You still didn't answer the first question. How is the society in "Starship troopers" Fascist? You bandy about the term (as did the reviewers of the movie) without really looking it up to validate that it applies. How does that society fit the definition?

Re:Terrible

[stevew]

Ah - good debating technique - don't like the definition of something, ignore it or merely say it ain't so.

Look, I got the definition from a main-stream dictionary. It includes ALL of the aspects of facism. You don't get points for claiming it isn't any good just because you don't like the definition.

Now - try answering the question posed. How is ST illustrating a fascist government. Use this definition or don't bother answering.

Re:Terrible

[stevew]

Centralized, i.e. a world government. You say it is autocratic - how so? Autocratic implies absolute and despotic. There is a ruling assembly made up of those with a franchise. The franchise is available to anyone willing to do federal service. This isn't a closed system, but one with a particular set of rules for entry. There aren't any other criteria like "you have to own land" or your skin is of a certain color," or your uncle is "The great leader." How is this either absolute or despotic?

A dictatorship of a tiny minority of veterans - Hmm, how do you know that the veterans are a minority? Does it say so in the book? Maybe they are the majority group in this society? (Probably not but the book doesn't go to that level of detail does it?)

Hmm - massive economic and social regimentation. If you look at the first part of the book, it isn't really that regimented. The military aspect certainly is...but what military isn't? Please demonstrate this point from the book?

I'd say you read the book and assigned these additional properties to the government. Now that is certainly a fair thing to do while reading the book, but it also opens up the possibility that others read it and walked away with different assumptions when filling in the details in their own mind.

Please tell me what details in the book beyond the "world government" and the fact that the vote only goes to veterans?

Re:Terrible

[Grab]

I didn't write the original post - I was merely replying ad-hoc to your post. Sorry! But not I've started, I'll get you an answer.

WARNING: The post below makes reference to the Nazis. This is not a failed debating point, but an essential element if we're going to talk about fascist, and compare ST's society to other Fascist societies. Now that's over with...

The society in ST is fascist by disenfranchising those with a different political viewpoint. If you ain't done your service you can't vote, and you can't form any political opposition to constitutionally reject this system. Other fascist societies (Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia both fit the bill as described in your dictionary entry) worked on a similar basis by making voting conditional on Party membership.

This gives all power to those who join up. And if you've joined up, you believe in it, and you'll refuse power to anyone who doesn't believe in it - or there's social pressure to conform. Hence the social regimentation. Oppression of opposition is almost too easy, since there can't by definition be any political opposition. The assembly is restricted to those who were voted in to do what the "believers" want - think of the decisions made in Britain during the Potato Famine to the benefit of the rich landowners who were the only voters. And hence the state is more powerful than the individual in that it only those individuals who support the state's views can _become_ the state.

The real question is whether Heinlein intended it as a parody of a fascist state, whether he intended to support the principles of the state, or whether he just put the state in as the background to some adolescent fiction. I'm not entirely sure, since his standard of writing isn't 100% there and wobbles significantly. I think he probably did intend it as a loose parody, since his other books are very much like ESR's armed anarchist worldview - the "geeks with guns" theory - but I'm pretty sure that any parody is fairly incidental to the teenage male fantasy fiction. He reused the "earn your vote" theme in another book too IIRC, which was kind of a "Survivor with guns and knives on Mars" - that could have been an interesting idea too but went rapidly downhill.

That's the trouble - lots of writers can come up with interesting ideas, but few can do them justice. Michael Crichton's prone to the same problem, except his just descend into stock thriller territory. For Heinlein, his descend into stock teenage male fantasy. Another poster got it dead right - all Heinlein's main characters are too perfect, which gives them nowhere to develop.

Grab.

Re:Terrible

[Grab]

I'm reminded of Monty Python: "That's no basis for a system of government!"

If your voting restriction is on intelligence, then you get an intellectual elite running the country - this may be no bad thing, incidentally, since we'd get the leaders we want instead of the ones we deserve, and stuff might get run right! If your voting restriction is on a test against empathy, you'll get a government run for the benefit of the ppl to the exclusion of defence and other things. These just as a couple of examples.

But if your voting restriction is on those dumb enough to put their necks on the line - well hey, we've got ourselves a government of macho assholes. If any poor dumb sod can join the army as a grunt, that poor dumb sod has a chance of coming out the other side any having a say in politics, so you'll find the politicians catering to the lowest common denominator, ie. that dumb grunt.

Think it ain't so? Well American politics already goes for the lowest common denominator of the WWF viewer - how many TV ads gave any reason to vote for a candidate other than spurious ones? "Candidate X is bad for the environment" when candidate Y is busy setting up chemical factories in his backyard. "Candidate Y is going to tax you more" when candidate X is preparing for fantasy budget predictions. For God's sake, even the news channels are the same - the most in-depth questions were being asked on the talk show interviews, and that's a scarey concept if you believe in unbiased and accurate reporting!

ST wasn't really much of a parody at the time. But looking at the US now - oh boy!

Grab.

Re:Terrible

[Janthkin]

First, just let me say (to stay on topic) that I loved Stranger, for quite a few reasons. As to the above post, though:

If your voting restriction is on intelligence, then you get an intellectual elite running the country - this may be no bad thing, incidentally, since we'd get the leaders we want instead of the ones we deserve, and stuff might get run right!

I would encourage the poster to read Plato's The Republic. If you can get through it, and still think that a philosopher-king is the way to go, bully for you. I'll stick w/a less restrictive system.

But if your voting restriction is on those dumb enough to put their necks on the line - well hey, we've got ourselves a government of macho assholes. If any poor dumb sod can join the army as a grunt, that poor dumb sod has a chance of coming out the other side any having a say in politics, so you'll find the politicians catering to the lowest common denominator, ie. that dumb grunt.

This remark leads me to think you went with the movie portrayal of the story (as a friend put it: it was a movie based on the back cover of a Heinlein novel). Frankly, the military portrayed in ST was much more like the US's modern Air Force: few, VERY well educated & trained, and those that survive are those capable of thought. (And for anyone who's READ The Republic, this is much what Plato/Socrates was suggesting w/the whole guardian class.)

Re:Terrible

[TWR]

try, or rather don't, the fascist paen Starship Troopers or the right-wing gun-nut's wet dream The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress

1. Starship Troopers is NOT fascist. It is, if anything, the opposite of fascism. People have trouble getting this through their heads. It is about why human beings fight. It's a coming of age story. It explores the concepts of what makes a good and a bad government.

Tell me EXACTLY why you think it's fascist. Because the only people who can vote are veterans? First of all, veterans means ANYONE who has completed at least two years in the civil service, not just the military. Secondly, while serving in the civil service, you cannot vote. Finally, you are free to quit your civil service job at any time (except for the military, who can only quit when not actively fighting). How is any of this fascist?

2. Moon is a Harsh Mistress is basically a handbook on how to run a revolution, sorta like the one back in 1776, which is quite clearly referenced. It, once again, is about what makes a good government, and Mike raises all sorts of questions on the nature of being alive.

I'm not going to bother to comment on your comments about Stranger.

-jon

Re:Terrible

[extremely]

Heinlein made it clear in more than one interview that he was deliberately trying to walk a fine line between a Fascist state and a Democratic or Representative one. He also went out of his way to never state what the race of the main protagonist was. He knocked himself out on that book to keep it even handed. His hope was that it would ask questions of the reader that a more heavy-handed approach wouldn't. He quite expected many people to blindly label it without reading it.

And, really, limited franchise isn't all there is to Fascism. More than one modern country today requires the majority of their citizens to have served in their military. (Israel is one) The Government in ST was a Republic much along the lines of the U.S. excepting only that office holders and voters must be veterans of voluntary military service.

The theory behind it was that one of key responsibilities we hand our governmnt is deciding when and why to make war. In the book, the vets felt that the people sending them to war didn't understand the costs. They hoped that putting veterans in charge would ensure that the people making decisions woould know what it meant to fight and maybe die for something.

some of the questions he left for you to ask yourself:

• Is a republic with voluntary enfranchisement more or less free?
• Is a government made up of veterans more or less likely to go to war at the right times? ... the wrong times?
• Does the "brotherhood" of the "fought-together" translate into patroitism or fascism when enfranchised?
• What race was Johnny? Does it matter?

--
$you = new YOU;

Re:Terrible

[brassman]

...the right-wing gun-nut's wet dream...

Ah, someone who either never read Mistress, or conveniently skipped the part where Mannie-the-narrator observes that virtually no one in Luna has a gun. "Though what we'd do with them, I have no idea -- shoot each other, maybe?"

Trying to figure out Heinlein's true core beliefs from his fiction is a fool's game. Just when you're convinced he must have been an arch atheist, Spider Robinson tells you that his favorite short story was Anatole France's "Our Lady's Juggler," a deeply moving story about faith.

Re:Terrible

[mavpion]

You fool... The whole POINT of starship troopers is that the humans are the BAD guys. Did you read it, or just watch the film? Heinlein was obviously being too clever for you. He was damning the fascism you mention, not endorsing it.

Actually, ST the book is quite for all those ideas of only ex-military people voting. Paul Vernhoven basically decided it was a really bad idea, and created a brilliant (though often panned) movie that point by point addressed the issues in the book.

For instance, in the movie, the asteroid wasn't necessarily bug-sent--note how two anti-government pleasure places get destroyed. hmmm... And then there's the Mormon's who get killed by the bugs. Ok, everyone raise there hands who really believe that the government didn't slaughter the Mormons...

Oh, and offtopic, Total Recall the movie was far better than Philip K. Dick's short story that inspired it. The short story merely was ironic and humorous, the movie dealt with complex issues.

Would Mike grok Linux?

[SlickJim]

...watch Mike stumble through learning such basics as male vs. female, love, communication, why we have religion, how we use humor, death and how we fear it, money, privacy... Each time, Mike's character forces us to question the "why" behind those ideas in society that we take for granted. Religion (in our form) doesn't seem natural to him. He doesn't laugh. He doesn't understand the wonder of sex, nor why we have property.

Sounds like Michael Valentine Smith could have been a great Open Source developer.

(-1 Heresy)

[gowen]

"Stranger" is a woefully overrated book. The portrayal of organised religion, for which it is often praised, has always struck me as terriblyo bvious. The subjects Heinlein attacks are badly drawn: their utter lack of redeaming features, or any character and humanity at all, renders them as straw dogs that Heinlein then takes apart with all the skill and subtlety of shooting fish in a barrel.

The sex scenes are just laughably bad, as clumsily written with one eye on the censors and one eye on increasing his adolescent readership and the story, such as it is breaks down towards the end with endless pages extolling free love delaying the inevitable second rate martyrdom that our second rate profit of beatnik pseudo-mysticism so richly deserves.

Re:(-1 Heresy)

[Grab]

"Profit"? Mike is a _prophet_ of beatnik pseudo-mysticism. However, you're dead right - what Heinlein made out of the book could quite accurately be called a "profit of beatnik pseudo-mysticism"! ;-)

Grab.

One of the most overrated books in history

[Reality Master 101]

First of all, I should say that this is not a bad book. In fact, from an "interesting concept" point of view, I rate this book quite highly. It is very imaginative, and quite a good read.

However, those that look at this book as some sort of blueprint for life need to seriously seek psychological help. It is chock full of 60s style hippy philosophy that has mercifully died nowadays (at least for most sane people). Most of the social commentary is incredibly childish. One area in particular--and I think a lot of its appeal for men comes for this-- is its playing to the adolescent man's fantasy for "strong" women that are really subservient (sexually and otherwise) to the men. I hate to sound like a feminist, but it really is bad.

In short, read this novel, don't miss it. It has a lot of great science fiction ideas, and if you read it for that, you will be glad you did. But if you find yourself nodding in agreement with the social nonsense, then it may be time to see the shrink. :)

--

Re:One of the most overrated books in history

[mOdQuArK!]

One area in particular--and I think a lot of its appeal for men comes for this-- is its playing to the adolescent man's fantasy for "strong" women that are really subservient (sexually and otherwise) to the men.

That fits the plot line of a lot of anime stories too - and a lot of guys probably like THEM for the same reason :)

Great book

[seizer]

Despite what people will tell you, this is a great book - it has a good storyline, and brings up (and even deals with) a number of interesting issues.

My main objection is Heinlein's seriously outdated sexual stereotypes. I'm male, btw, but it still bothers me when Heinlein makes one of his female characters spout out the line "Nine times out of ten, when a girl gets raped, it's partly her fault". There are scatterings of these kind of gems throughout the book.

Looking beyond that, though, it's a genuinely great book, and if you haven't read it yet (why the hell not?) try and do so :-)

And finally. This isn't "News for Nerds". It might, perhaps, if you're feeling optimistic, be "stuff that matters". Hmm. Lack of news, methinks.

--Remove SPAM from my address to mail me

The usual criticisms

[CaseStudy]

Sure, it's dated and it's not realistic for most people (various characters say so at the time), but that's an easy criticism and doesn't warrant posting it on Slashdot (why not take a more original approach--e.g., comparing Mike's Nest with the free-love society of Brave New World? It's not like either Heinlein's book or this particular critique is new.

But the book has lasted enough that people are still talking about it. Why? In part because of the ideas in the book; I wasn't around when it first came out so I don't know how readers of that time reacted. The reason I still read it is that, even though his characters are hopelessly idealistic characters and his ideas largely unworkable, he spins a damn good yarn. I'd rather have that than the social genius who can't write his way out of an introductory scene.

The New Bible

[TSAG]

Face it, Stranger in a Strange Land is the new bible. The old story of a cult leader turned martyr was getting old, Heinlein took that and mixed it with the right blend of Sci-Fi to bring us the greatest book of the century. Read it, live it, worship it. Only then will you truly grok your existance.

a certain wrongness

[lee]

The big problem I have with Heinlein is the narrow minded way he deals with gender roles and sexual orientation. The passage in Stranger that grates my nerves the most was the passage on page 303 of my Berkely Science fiction paper back edition where the narrator talks about the "poor in betweens" probably having a wrongness that Mike could sense. The homophobia is sickening. Heinlein explores the 20th century American psyche while failing to extract himself from mores similar to the ones he satirizes.

I much prefer the group marriage as explored by Dian Duane in her Door Into series. It is a much more interesting take on humanity.

Don't have to like a philosophy...

[maroberts]

...to enjoy a book.

I really enjoyed Stranger in a Strange Land, although the philosophy of the book does indeed reflect a sort of 60's true love ambiance that is wholly incredible in todays self serving and AIDs fearing world.

To say Heinlein is a terrible author on the strength of this book is almost incredible; the imagination and scope of this book is vast and in the main it carries it off with style and humour. There are indeed some books written by Heinlein which are awful, this is indeed a masterpiece in any science fiction library.

Whilst again not wishing to flame or troll, I was surprised that the previous /. commenter had gone so far as to read others written by Heinlein. I haven't read Starship Troopers, but I suspect the fascist tone is not intended in praise but is a p**s take of the first order. In terms of "Stranger...", in order to hate your enemy you have to first understand him so well that your hate is almost born out of love.

Re:Don't have to like a philosophy...

[Animats]

substantial essay...

Long, yes; useful, no. It's from some cult in Ukiah that took "Stranger" too seriously.

Besides, the whole Satanism thing in the US is mostly dumb kids listening to heavy metal and dumb cops getting excited about it. LaVey's San Francisco-based "Church of Satan" was somewhere between a joke and a con job; he didn't believe it, and neither did the people running the organization.

Re:Don't have to like a philosophy...

[Veteran]

Every time I read something from a geek about how 'Violence doesn't solve anything' I get this image of a dweeb getting a mammoth wedgie from the captain of the football team - then being dragged into the girl's rest room and repeatedly dunked head first in a toilet while all the cheerleaders laugh at him. Even Ghandi's pious non violence gets wiped out by that sort of humiliation; its only because the British didn't turn some soccer hooligans loose on him that Ghandi is remembered.

What do you do in response? Write an editorial in the school newspaper? Grow up to be John Katz? Or do you contemplate pulling a Columbine in revenge? Thus acknowledging that violence does solve things. The pen is mightier than the sword only if the guy with the pen has enough people with swords protecting him so that he can do his writing.

All law is based on force and violence. Without the threat of violence the law is impotent. In the final analysis everything gets back to the physical.

Live by the sword die by the sword. Don't live by the sword - die by the sword - really quickly, and without even putting up a fight.

Re:Don't have to like a philosophy...

[TheCarp]

This is one of the things that really gets me. Everyone talks about how great kennedy was...how he staved us from war.

What was the entire cold war? A big pissing match. Lots of good came of it (space programs, scientific reasearch) but when you boil it all down, it was a big pissing match.

In truth, the USSR didn't want a nuclear war any more than the US. Trying to put Nukes on Cuban soil was nothing more than a juvenile show of force. It was right on the level of mooning the rival team out the window of the bus.

The kennedy reaction? It was the same thing. "I can piss farther thna you can", lets see whose dick is bigger. Might as well have put kennedy and Kropuchev (sp?) in cars and had them play chicken.

All kenedy did was win a pissing match. The USSR swerved their car first, yeah! Big deal. Those missles were just going to be installed and rot on cuban soil until it was decided to dismantle them.

It just kind of pisses me off that the same juvenile high school locker room attitudes are a driving force behind international politics. I am half surprized that no US president ever offered to meet with the head of the USSR so they could compare penis sizes on national TV to see who the better man is.

It reminds me of sitting in the locker room getting ready for wrestling practice (first guy to go all 4 years at my HS) and seeing a couple of the guys whip em out to compare size. I thought it was one of the silliest things ive ever seen.

-Steve

This reminds me of moving to America

[Malc]

"His journey is sort of a coming of age, yet he really is of age in another society -- a society whose values are often polar opposites "

I'm not trying to be funny, but this reminds me of moving to the US. When I moved there from Britain I was suddenly back at square one in life... in fact it was worse than that. I'd been used to a certain standard of living, and suddenly I couldn't get that anymore.

America is obsessed with credit ratings. When it comes to credit ratings, you're guilty until proven innocent. Maybe it's changing in Britain now, but I felt that it was the opposite... they gave you small amounts of trust to see how you handled it. If you screwed up, then you would be black-listed and be treated as I was when I first arrived in the US. It's very disturbing (and upsetting) when suddenly you can't get an apartment (one place wanted 6 mos in advance), or a credit card, or a telephone without paying a huge deposit, etc. I was used to living in a society where I could get all of these things in the blink of an eye. Damnit!: when I finally got a US credit card, the limit was lower than my first credit card when I was 18, a student, no income, and no intention of working! Now I was a software engineer with a very good income, but that didn't seem to count :(

No it's not my favorite book

[Nidhogg]

First off let me state that I am a Heinlein fanatic.

But this is not his best work. Not by a long shot. It lacks his usual character development and humor.

Having said that though... this book was a major milestone at the time. I've read a lot of social commentary that attributes the beginning of the Haight-Ashbury hippy movement to this book. Which when you think about it you can see the similarities.

The funny part is... Heinlein stated in his memoirs that he didn't understand why. He thought they were missing the whole point. It's my understanding that he wrote the book to debunk the whole concept of religion. Not to promote Free Love.

He related a story in his memoirs that every so often while he and Virginia were living on their ranch in Colorado a 'hippy' would drop by the house and want to discuss the book. He'd be polite, answer their questions the best he could, then merrily send them on their way just as fast as he could get them out of the house.

Bob was not a hippy. Bob Heinlein if you read his non-fiction works was a Commie-Hating Gun-Toting Quasi-Intellectual Paranoid Nut(tm). At the same time that he was promoting his views on sex he was also spouting off about the evils of Communism, how the survivalists were the only sane people on the planet, how government sucked, etc.

No this was not his best work. But it was accessible to the run-of-the-mill non-sci-fi reader. That's why it succeeded.

Re:No it's not my favorite book

[gad_zuki!]

I really don't like how the themes and ideas in a book suddenly become the unchanging life-long testimony of an author. It like there's this need to say, "Yes we agree completely and our beliefs are one and the same." These couple "No Heinlein is actually like this" posts miss the whole point.

Its a book, a work of fiction. Each reader interprets it they way they like. Maybe Heinlein didn't get why it was such a hit in the hippy/counterculture movement, which incidentaly wasn't pro-religion. Unless you consider anything that goes against scientific materism a religion. Is there a reason why he should be an expert on how ideas affect people?

Re:Maiden sung Stranger in a Strange Land

[AndrewD]

More accurately, "Stranger in a Strange Land" is a quote that has been borrowed as the title of all three works.

Homophobia...

[dmatos]

Heinlein always struck me as one of the most reasonable authors when it came to alternate lifestyles. Sure homophobia was expressed in this book, but it was by Ben Caxton, polar opposite to the protagonist. Jubal told him to think about his reaction, and after doing so, Caxton relents.

For other non-homophobic novels, look at the way lesbianism is portrayed in Friday. Just my two cents. I enjoy Heilein as a light read. He has an amusing narrative style, and occasionally his ideas make me say hmmm....

Animal Farm

[Pac]

Animal Farm is actually a very critical, very harsh satire of communism , specially Soviet Union under Stalin. The book was written just after Orwell broke away from the Communist Party (after he realized the real political situation of Soviet Union under Stalin).

If you get familiar the rising of communist ideology since Marx, you can identify one to one relationships between book characters and historical characters. Marx, Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, the whole gangy is there.

"Stranger in a Strange Land" is a quote

[Roblimo]

Heinlein got the title from James Joyce; he did not make it up.

Heinlein got most of his pithy "Lazarus Long" quotes from either Mark Twain or Ambrose Bierce, both of whom are worth reading on their own.

But I still like Heinlein, possibly because I discovered his work when I was nine years old and he was at the peak of his writing form.

A lot of his work was done for "young adults" so he had to limit his vocabulary and keep his characters simple -- aside from the fact that, in those days, science fiction was a literature of ideas, not of character development. The "new wave" SF writers who started employing mainstream literary techniques didn't come along heavily until the late 1960s.

Heinlein was raised before WWII and graduated from the Naval Academy. By the standards of his times he was a feminist, a liberal, and a dreamer -- and by today's standards a hyperpatriot, a warmonger, and possibly an extreme libertarian and a gun nut.

But don't sell Henlein short. He was what he was, good and bad, and most modern science fiction owes a lot to his work.

(I'm talking about written science fiction; by my standards, most film sci-fi is strictly 1930s.)

- Robin

Re:"Stranger in a Strange Land" is a quote

[opus]

Heinlein may have taken the quote from Joyce, but Joyce took it from the Bible (Exodus 2:22, KJV):

And she [Zipporah] bare him [Moses] a son, and he called his name Gershom: for he said, I have been a stranger in a strange land.


--

Re:"Stranger in a Strange Land" is a quote

[Roblimo]

Right! Thanks for reminding me... guess I've read more Heinlein and Joyce than religious works these last few decades.

Maybe it's time for me to take a fast retour of some of the more popular religious tracts, from the books of Moses and Bahagavad Gita to Parke Godwin's "Waiting for the Galactic Bus," a book that is a bit like "Stranger in a Strange Land" crossed with "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy." Except weirder.

- Robin

Re:"Stranger in a Strange Land" is a quote

[magic]

Actually, like many of his quotes, he got it from the Bible. It is fun to note that almost every Heinlein title is also a Metallica song and a Twilight Zone episode, since they draw from the same source.

-m

Limited Devices

[gradji]

'What is human' is a very common theme in literature and science fiction. The fundamental problem in exploring this theme is the lack of contrast: at the base, all human cultures are fundamentally the same. As Noam Chomskey once wrote, all human languages would seem like the same to a Martian. The similarities in our culture/belief point to the features that make up humanity, but the lack of contrast prevent us from getting at the essence. All too often, we end up comparing outselves to animals ... and then concluding that the essence of humanity is the ability to think and reason or the presence of a 'soul'.

Consequentially, writers have used a few different 'devices' to imagine themselves a contrast. One of the earliest involves using time (Rip Van Winkle, Time Machine, Buck Rogers). By looking at how mankind changes (or rather, fails to change) over a large period of time, we can filter out some of the more superficial features of mankind and get at the essence. Here the contrast is between man now and man in the future. But obviously this does not address the fundamental lack of contrast: we are still comparing humans to humans.

The second device often used is the introduction of non-human species living together with humans. Much of the traditional Tolken-style fantasy literature falls into this category. Humanity is contrasted with elves, dwarves, and other non-human races (for sci-fi, replace them with your favorite alien beings). A good writer can imagine an altogether different species but most writers end up disguising different human traits within each race. This of course, in of itself, is not bad. It is a great way to explore different aspect of humanity. But it provides a weak contrast. All too often (especially in hack fantasy) the meaning of humanity ends up being the hackneyed idea of how mankind, faced with a short finite life, strives for greatness (the usual human vs. elf line). You know, the candle that burns the brightest urns the shortest. But I find it troubling that what defines human life lies with its mortality - this is sort of the religious angle to defining humanity.

Heinlein, in Stranger in a Strange Land, uses a modified version of the second device. He doesn't rely on a direct comparison between the human and non-human species (Martian) but rather through an intermediary. Think of it as the 'Tarzan' device: let human children grow up in a non-human environment. (I guess of Lord of the Flies also uses a similar device as well). Although I'm not a big fan of the book (my enthusiasm for ithe book wanes with every passing year), I must admit that Heinlein does a notable job contrasting mankind with a truly alien species. The fact that we think we know but truly do not know the meaning of 'grok' highlights this stark difference between our race and the Martians (a concept that is fundamental to their race, but does not have a true equivalent in ours).

Heinlein is definitely dated. So are most of the great sci-fi stories out of the 50s-70s. If you read sci-fi for the technology and for a glimpse of the future, then I suggest sticking with the new brand of hardcore sci-fi writers. However, if you are looking for an exploration of major concepts in unusual settings, I think Heinlein is not a bad choice. But in the end, remember that it's entertainment. Not gospel. Heinlein's works ends up being a little too preachy for my taste.

Re:Limited Devices

[WNight]

Try _The Fire Upon the Deep_ by Vernor Vinge. It's about a galaxy full of beings, some on their first climb up from animals, some from fallen civilizations, some that have transcended physical being and are in many ways gods... Yet none of them are 'good' or 'bad'.

Besides, it's fun to read a book where one of the main characters majored in 'applied theology'. :)

I like the view of a galaxy full of critters, it seems more realistic to me that we'd be in the middle, fairly good at stuff, but not the brightest, or the strongest, or anything. We didn't evolve in a way that required any one thing above all else, so I doubt we'd be better than a specialized creature.

Great book about bullshit ideas

[Syberghost]

This is a wonderful book about completely unworkable bullshit utopian ideas.

But doesn't that describe *ALL* great utopian books?

One can love this book without following it's ideas, just like one can love Star Trek: The Next Generation without believing we should quit "interfering" in Ethiopian cultural development by giving them food.

-

Re:insert obligatory Heinlein/Elron bet comment he

[Roblimo]

My father always said the bet thing was true; he was a major sf fan in the 40s and 50s, the kind who went to meetings, and he too always said that a religion was the best possible way to make a lot of money quickly -- and tax free.

Hank Frazier, one of my father's best friends, actually started a joke/knockoff of Dianetics called "General Psionics" and ran it -- and made money from it -- for several years.

Much of the Fosterite stuff in "Stranger" was based on Los Angeles preacher Aimee Semple McPherson's "Temple of Love."

Another Heinlein story, "If This Goes On," talks of a future US run by a religious dictatorship. It is similar in ways to Sinclair Lewis's "It Can't Happen Here."

Religion was a popular dystopian theme in late 40s and early 50s science fiction.

Later there was Walter Miller's "A Canticle for Leibowitz," which talked about a post-nuclear war US in which guarding a nuclear facility becomes a religious ritual, not science.

- Robin

Unabridged fascism....

[mat catastrophe]

First off, I should state that I read the unabridged version of Stranger about ten years ago, when it was first published. I "grokked" it well enough, and even thought that it was a decent book. I didn't move on to other books by Heinlein, and I am glad I didn't...

You see, he suffers from the same problems that so many other authors of his time did. They were all very nuts, and right-wing nuts at that. Almost to a man they supported Vietnam, guns, and other very un-HUMAN things (since that seems to be the theme of lots of these posts, the humanity of science-fiction).

Science fiction, and much fantasy, hinges on the notion that the future is a utopia because we overcame war and famine and all that. Of course, it was replaced by a society dependent on machines, and with a highly centralized government. I'm sure that most of us would love to be on a starship, based on Star Trek, but Kirk's bravado was, after all, the exception and not the norm. All other Captains were good little soldiers.

Sorry to rant here, but after reading Michael Moorcock's brilliant essay, Starship Stormtroopers, I just can't look at most sci-fi/fantasy in the same way. Be warned that while I encourage all of you to read this article, Moorcock spares no one, going after not just Heinlein, but also Asimov and Tolkein.

that was my two cents, and you owe me change....

You should read it, but you don't have to like it

[Dixie_Flatline]

This book, while not the best of his books, and not the best of *any* book, is a book that I think is important to read for any fan of the genre.

SiaSL may be overly fanciful, and oftimes offensive or strange or whatever, but it does make you think about what you believe, and often why you believe it. I've read it a couple of times, and I didn't like it either time. But like most Heinlein books, it has this odd pull to me where I don't think I've understood it enough.

For actual fun reading, though, read Friday. It's just an amusing story, and it has a touching plot. It's not deep, it's an adventure, and Friday happens to learn some stuff along the way. 'The Cat who Walked Through Walls' was similar. An amusing adventure through time and space, and the last novel that he wrote that didn't involve people having sex *all the time*.

Not as silly as it seems

[laborit]

For afficionados of science fiction, psychology, and mysticism, -- and especially for those who found Stranger sappy and idealistic -- I recommend an exercise:

Compare Stranger to Dune.

One is full of love, compassion, and freedom, while the other is about hardness, amorality, and discipline. The contrast between water-sharing and water murder is particularly strong. However, at bottom I think they're the same story: a story of what humanity can be when our true will is placed above everything else. Paul and Mike are both superhuman badaasses, but one of their most salient -- and emulatable -- qualities is that they don't get distracted. I think this juxtaposition hardens our view of Mike, and makes the strength beneeath his soft lovieness more evident. That, in turn, makes the story a good deal harder to dismiss as naively utopian.

-----
Go ahead, blame me... I voted for Nader!

Disbelief

[heikkile]

"Martians?" you might say. "How quaint." Keep in mind that this was written a while ago (when Martians were still trendy), and suspend your disbelief.

Wake up, man! They've shot down two of our landers, and you are still in denial about their very existence!

Re:Disbelief

[Ektanoor]

Saying that someone got down those probes is telling only half of the story. But telling that something took them down is as good as telling the first half. However, the Martians are no longer near... But Earthlings are not nearer as they think...

Meanwhile, Truth is out there... Waiting for the next probe...

Heinlein

[naChoZ]

WOW, I didn't expect to read so many "heinlein sux" posts after this review.

Obviously there are far too many people reading the spoon-fed, drivel equivalent to a Danielle Steele version of science fiction to appreciate a true artist. Not that I love each and every single book Heinlein wrote by any stretch, but for someone to simply dismiss it with a "heinlein sux" is unfortunate, at best...

Heinlein did a lot of his writing *50+* years ago. Not only did he have tremendous imagination, but think of the attitudes towards different cultures and sexuality and the like at that point in time. No pun intended, but his writing was many years ahead of its time.

Give credit where credit is due. Heinlein is one of the founding fathers of science fiction and the genre would *not* be the same without him, regardless of whether or not you like his work.

It changed my life.... and made me bitter

[Leareth]

I should preface this by warning every one well in advance that I am one of the gun toting wild-eyed, survival oriented individualists. I am also married to a equality feminist, who is a least as strong willed as I am (probably more!), who has a lusty love of life and in countless ways reminds me any number of female Heinlein protagonists (except for her tendency to get lost.)

I am both a cynic and an optimist; I am alternately conservative and liberal; I am compassionate and cruel; and I am human.

The reason why Stranger made me bitter is in my youth I did not realize the Mike was an archetype for the potential human development. A small group of us who all read the book and theoretically agreed on the tenets (at my urging) formed a water brother group. It was truly a beautiful thing.

For about three months.

When two of the water brothers started dating exclusively, we all smiled tolerantly and were happy for their happiness.

When the relationship ended and they stopped talking the whole fragile chain of brotherhood evaporated as people choose sides and blame was cast.

We weren't mature enough, or evolved enough, or gullible enough or whatever term you wish to choose; but the simple fact that human nature is contrary to concept of water brothers. Which I think what Heinlein was trying to say.

We have the potential... but only if we change.

Both the Dune series and Stranger in Strange Land offer that glimpse into what humans may become, the archetype we can achieve, but mostly only in our dreams.

And that is why I think it is great book. Not because of a free love philosophy, or wild orgies, or a poking fun at established religion. The gift of untapped human potential.

Fascism in Starship Troopers

[llywrch]

If I remember correctly:

* Glorification of military service, esp. from an officer's point of view. Nothing about the terror of warfare, like being in a military barrage so heavy that you swear the buttons on your shirt are making you the highest poiont of land around. Or watching poison gas roll towards you, & cursing in fright because your gas mask is not where you swore it was a second ago.

(Sorry. I was channeling Wilfred Owens there.)

* The enemy was uniformly one-dimensional. The section concerning the raid on the ``Skinnies" read harrowingly like an act of ethnic cleansing.

* The ``We are all brothers in arms" portrait of military srvice. Yeah, right. Life in the military is a daily routine of keeping one's head down, mouth shut, & watching your back & those of a few, chosen others. And when an outsider slips, you take the opportunity to slip in a little payback.

About the same time I read _Starship Troopers_, I read Haldeman's _Forever_War_. A picture of space warfare from a slightly different perspective -- & written by someone who wanted to point out the flaws in Heinlein's book. The tale of a band of intelligent people of both sexes (with the obligatory Heinleinian orgy) drafted into frontline combat where they have the honor of dying under alien skies following the orders of PHBs.

Read Haldeman's book, then decide if ST is worth defending. While not all leaders are as manipulative & venal as those in FW, very few are perceptive as those mentioned in ST.

Geoff

No, you people did not grok this book!

[Steeltoe]

I'm not talking about all of you. Only the loudest ones who clearly didn't want to understand. The ones who cower from fear and fight back at such words as 'communism', 'fascism', 'utopia' and 'love'. Irrational fear or lust causes people to shout and block their minds. Ironically, too often in both camps!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ;-)

Mike DID understand humanity. He understood us, and wept for us in his sleep. Except that he couldn't really weep. Can't you see that? That is what 'grok' can mean. "Get under your skin", not just analyse, prejudice, tolerate or gloat over! Grok in its highest meaning resemble more to love in full understanding, respect and openness to one another. No bondage, strings attached .. Allowing eachother freedom and space to grow.

And WHAT is wrong with sex? Why do we fear so much, we have to own our mates? It causes hurt and suffering because no such thing can really be done. An agreement is fine, but too often we find ourselves devastated over broken promises. Our social rites and expectations are too rigid. Instead of being natural, we are greedy, envious, self-pitiful, self-righteous and right out stupid. Our only defence here is that we are blind and sleeping - no, make that unconscious!

Not only that, the martian society was in no way an ideal or goal for Mike or his companions. He developed a hybrid culture mixed between humans and martian! He also did recognize that the assaults of the martian "defence", was not necessarily the "right thing" to do!

I'm not saying everyone should agree with how Mike setup things in this book, or viewed the world. Hell, everyone agreeing would make us pretty simple minded. Which we are not. However, there's an ocean between even simple tolerance and the display we have here today.

It's a clever book. Not necessarily because of its writing, characters or even plot. It's clever because it dares challenge people. That is why you see so many bad reviews on this site.

Go read it, you might decide to alter your perspective of this world for a little while. This stuff is definately not dated yet!

- Steeltoe

One of Heinlein's Two Best!

[magic]

Stranger in a Strange Land and Starship Troopers were written simultaneously and released the same year. I think they are beyond doubt his two most important books.

Critics of Stranger called him a dangerous liberal, obsessed with free love and radical ideas. Ironically, critics of Starship Troopers called him fascist and ultra-conservative. To understand Heinlein, you need to read both. These underly most modern science fiction. They also exceed most other science fiction-- more than anyone else, Heinlein was the sci fi author who merged human issues, sexuality, and hard core sci fi/sci fantasy into a compelling mix. He's not afraid of anything and puts out his own self consistent morality as a potential model-- or debate piece-- for his readers.

Stranger is too touchy-feely for you? Think about Starship Troopers and ponder what this guy was trying to get across while writing them at the same time. He has strong ideas about love vs. sex, responsibility, citizenship, religion, and how people treat each other. Despite this high philosophy, the guy himself was shameless about making a quick buck and never failed to spin a good story.

Heinlein is the Hemingway of sci fi (apologies to Hemingway). Anyone who writes off Stranger in a Strange Land as a hard-core writer gone soft and annoying is missing a lot. Go back and read the book again (try the excellent, unedited 'Author's Cut' version released a few years ago). There's a reason this is a staple of science fiction.

-m

Re:Super Heroes

[magic]

Also check out 'Tunnel in the Sky', 'Podkane of Mars', 'The Rolling Stones' and his other 'children's fiction'.

-m

A couple of things

[Jiro]

Before another person claims that federal service in Starship Troopers wasn't necessarily military, I suggest reading this link. (pdf format)

As for Stranger in a Strange Land, remember that this book came out in 1960 and had been in progress for a long while. Heinlein wasn't influenced by the 1960's--he *predicted* the 1960's. It was really a prety amazing job of prediction--a lot better than predicting personal jetpacks, wrist televisions, and food pills. Of course, when the 1960's came around, all the hippies jumped on the book, but please do try to remember what order it happened in.

What about the Uncut version?

[tlhIngan]

There is a copy of Stranger in a Strange Land that was the original manuscript (~250,000 words) compared to the published first edition (~150,000 words). Years after Heinlein died, they got permission to reprint it, and it is available.

I'm finding it a tedious read though at times (the uncut version).

A note on "Thou art god"

[randolph]

It's a loose translation of a Hindu tenet, "tat tvam asi," Thou art That, apparently from the Chandogya Upannishad, VI, 8, 7. The whole thing is part of an extended discourse on the unity of the spirit; it is roughly equivalent to the christian saying "The kingdom of god is within you" but there is much more material in the on-line copy of the Upannishad I found.

Science fiction

[LordNimon]

Sci-fi isn't about the "sci" or the "fi", but about what it means to be human.

I wish more people realized this. It frustrates me when I come across people who think that science fiction is only about laser guns and space ships. It's almost impossible to convince them that sci-fi is about "what it means to be human".

For example, the people who created the TV show "Dark Angel" often deny that the show is sci-fi because they think it will turn people off. But after watching one episode, no one would claim it to be anything but sci-fi. I wonder how many of those people would be able to see past the "science" of the show and see the human side of it.
--

How did he know about the Reagans?

[Paul Johnson]

The wierdest thing in SiaSL is Heinlein's send-up of Ronald and Nancy Reagan. The portrait is dead accurate, even down to the semi-official Astrologer to the President's Wife. But it was written back in the 60s when Reagan was still struggling to look like John Wayne on screen.

Wierd, or what?

Paul.

Heinlein and religion

[Enry]

As it turned out, the first time I read SIASL I was at a religious retreat. For those who have a history of religion in their lives, I think SIASL says a lot about faith, beliefs, and other things that religion tries to address. I view "us" as the non-religious type, so much of what he says is lost since it's hard to relate to what he's saying.

The thing that strikes me most about Heinlien is his dialog between characters. Most authors use it to prove that the characters are actually relating to each other. Heinlien uses it to describe the plot and what's going on. I think he relies on the dialog more than some omnipotent view of the world.

Re:Maiden sung Stranger in a Strange Land

[AndrewD]

Thanks, that was bugging the wossnames out of me.