Slashdot Mirror
Stranger In a Strange Land
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 ScenarioThe 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 GoodHeinlein 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 BadI 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.
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.
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
'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.
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!
-----
Go ahead, blame me... I voted for Nader!
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!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ;-)
.. Allowing eachother freedom and space to grow.
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
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
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/