Status
Available
Call number
Collection
Publication
Putnam (1991), Edition: 1st, 525 pages
Description
Fiction. Science Fiction. HTML: Stranger in a Strange Land is the epic saga of an earthling, Valentine Michael Smith, born and educated on Mars, who arrives on our planet with "psi" powers�??telepathy, clairvoyance, precognition, telekinesis, teleportation, pyrolysis, and the ability to take control of the minds of others�??and complete innocence regarding the mores of man. After his tutelage under a surrogate father figure, Valentine begins his transformation into a kind of messiah. His exceptional abilities lead him to become many things to many people: freak, scam artist, media commodity, searcher, free love pioneer, neon evangelist, and martyr. Heinlein won his second Hugo Award for this novel, sometimes called his "divine comedy" and often called his masterpiece. This Blackstone audiobook is the "as published" version, read from an Ace paperback published in 1987. The full, uncut text was not made available until 1991… (more)
Media reviews
Los Angeles Times
The great falling off in the quality of Heinlein's work came during the period that brought "Stranger in a Strange Land." Jubal Harshaw--who says things like "What the self-styled modern artists are doing is a sort of unemotional pseudo-intellectual masturbation"--is the first of a series of
Show More
pompous libertarian windbags whose oral methane makes all of Heinlein's later tomes into rapidly emptying locker rooms.
Most of the material added to this new edition seems to consist of speeches by Jubal, and the rest of the new material includes nominally "shocking" sections that, aired in 1990, are glaringly sexist. For instance, lovable Jill volunteers the opinion that "Nine times out of ten, if a girl gets raped, it's at least partly her own fault." Show Less
User reviews
LibraryThing member MeditationesMartini
Everything you'll read in the other reviews for this books is true. Most problematically, it's really sexist and really homophobic even for its era (and then there are many subsidiary issues, like how we're forced to spend hundreds of pages getting meandering "philosophical" lectures from Jubal
But in a way, and very much despite rather than because of Heinlein's intentions, doesn't that almost make this book better? A fable of the coming social upheaval (the novel was written in 1961), of the tension between sexual revolution and feminist revolution? Consider: In a not-so-distant future that's a caricature of those Jetsons-style setups where technology is totally different and people changed not a whit, because human society was perfected when Kennedy was elected--people like to use Mad Men to evoke that era nowadays, so call it Mad Men with videophones--a Man arrives. This Man teaches us that all we have to do to bring on hippie paradise is to love each other (mostly, this means women offering themselves up to the men and the men getting over their clench-buttocked desire to do the Right Thing (whatever that is) and doing the ladies instead--it also means painfully contrived scenes where the men make really clear to each other that loving each other for men means banging the same broads and being connected that way, no homo dracula style. Basically the future is 1) sex, 2) men expounding Heinlein's weird mix of libertarianism and gender (and racial and religious) essentialism, 3) women doing something cute and dumb or cute and smart but buttering up the men so they don't feel threatened, leading to 4) more sex. Oh, and 5) teleportation. It all seems so limited--the spiritual liberation of humanity basically works like an especially functional, new agey commune with unlimited money, circa ... 1970 or so?
The problem with free love from the viewpoint of second wave feminism was men were still in charge; and the problem, one of the problems, with feminism from the viewpoint of "the sixties" was that some women wanted to do something other with their lives than offer themselves up on a platter with many a giggle and an "oh, you." Heinlein clearly feels that Men are Men and Women are Women and the highly culturally conditioned way they behaved with each other in 1961 is transcendent truth, and when his messiah comes it'll just be with the aim of helping us all accept that and not feel insecure (in its limited way, of course, a worthy goal). His book, though, is such an over-the-top caricature of gender relations in that era, representing such ludicrous attitudes, that it pretty much sums up why the radical freeing of humanity--or in the language of the time, "a brotherhood of man"--to be the manliest men and smokingest dames we could--was never accomplished.
Show More
Harshaw, the grating pedant who thinks he's an iconoclast, but let's let all those slide). There's no way around that, and it's weird for a book that's supposed to be about drinking deeply of each other and letting our fears and hatreds melt away.But in a way, and very much despite rather than because of Heinlein's intentions, doesn't that almost make this book better? A fable of the coming social upheaval (the novel was written in 1961), of the tension between sexual revolution and feminist revolution? Consider: In a not-so-distant future that's a caricature of those Jetsons-style setups where technology is totally different and people changed not a whit, because human society was perfected when Kennedy was elected--people like to use Mad Men to evoke that era nowadays, so call it Mad Men with videophones--a Man arrives. This Man teaches us that all we have to do to bring on hippie paradise is to love each other (mostly, this means women offering themselves up to the men and the men getting over their clench-buttocked desire to do the Right Thing (whatever that is) and doing the ladies instead--it also means painfully contrived scenes where the men make really clear to each other that loving each other for men means banging the same broads and being connected that way, no homo dracula style. Basically the future is 1) sex, 2) men expounding Heinlein's weird mix of libertarianism and gender (and racial and religious) essentialism, 3) women doing something cute and dumb or cute and smart but buttering up the men so they don't feel threatened, leading to 4) more sex. Oh, and 5) teleportation. It all seems so limited--the spiritual liberation of humanity basically works like an especially functional, new agey commune with unlimited money, circa ... 1970 or so?
The problem with free love from the viewpoint of second wave feminism was men were still in charge; and the problem, one of the problems, with feminism from the viewpoint of "the sixties" was that some women wanted to do something other with their lives than offer themselves up on a platter with many a giggle and an "oh, you." Heinlein clearly feels that Men are Men and Women are Women and the highly culturally conditioned way they behaved with each other in 1961 is transcendent truth, and when his messiah comes it'll just be with the aim of helping us all accept that and not feel insecure (in its limited way, of course, a worthy goal). His book, though, is such an over-the-top caricature of gender relations in that era, representing such ludicrous attitudes, that it pretty much sums up why the radical freeing of humanity--or in the language of the time, "a brotherhood of man"--to be the manliest men and smokingest dames we could--was never accomplished.
Show Less
LibraryThing member bardsfingertips
I love this book. I truly do.
This is my second time reading it, but my first time as the uncut version of the book. In the first two third of the book, I did not see any real differences. However, towards the end, there are more sexual events taking place and their descriptions are more apt to what
Now, I have to state that I do not feel that many people grok this book and its complexities and social commentary. I still see much of what was written in this book as a problem even in today's society. Everything from our biased prejudice for thing we do not (and refuse to) understand to the misuse of language to Government stooges continuously elected into office. There are also many observations on religion, faith, and truth and how each of those elements are confused for one another and presented as such. The book goes on and on with such musings; and especially in the voice of Jubal, the essential father figure of the book. And, with that said, if you are reading this science fiction book about a Man from Mars expecting a plot, you will be sorely disappointed. This is a philosophical book that uses the science fiction genre as a vehicle much like many of our most important social commentary books.
I need to get something well out of the way. This book is rife with what is considered blatant sexism. If such things offend you, this book will needle at that nerve. However, I think it should be dictated that Stranger in a Strange Land was published in 1961. It is also know that Heinlein spent nearly a decade writing it. That would make the book a product of the 50s, back when sexism was not only prevalent in the United States, it may as well have been a lifestyle altogether that was encouraged because it maintained the status quo. There is even a line about rape that is highly offensive and, paraphrased, it states that 9 time out of 10, it is the girl's fault.
That is not something to defend.
However, attitudes about such things were different then.
I have read many reviews that see such things in the book and dismiss it altogether for the goldmine of anarchist ideas for society and free love for a proclamation of sexism & loathing. On the surface, I can see that. But, we must remember: we, too, are a product of our time. There are things we are doing, publishing right now, that in 50 years will be seen as something completely different, and one can even assume offensive.
Another trend I've noticed is the notion that Heinlein does not write for strong female characters. I believe that in this book, he presents a cast of female characters that are nothing more than pretty faces and bodies that serve their purpose as female counterparts and who do their assigned jobs. However, they grow. They grow from being naïve girls (with sassy mouths) to women with the motivation to make their own choices, to have their own sexual partners, to be as equals among their male counterparts. Because sexual intercourse is greatly involved as the catalyst for such social stepping stones, it's a hard one to swallow for our sexually oppressed society as anything else other than sexist. Even the Muslim character throws away his previous ideals as to what makes a woman a good one and ends up marrying a "heathen" for the sake of love rather than religious purposes.
Stranger in a Strange Land besets the 50s mentality from all sides. Most are very upfront about it from the idea of polyamorous families to a Truth that is taught using discipline & mental training rather than as an absolute that is regarded to only by faith. And I believe the book challenges sexism, though much more subtle. Even though the male counterparts make passing phrases regarding female "fannies" and fun punishments such as spankings, I believe much of what goes on in the book challenges a female's place in sexuality. Here sex is treated as something that brings two people closer, something to be enjoyed by both parties without any such thing as shame. Though the word "fanny" is said often, it is really the context in which they enjoy themselves without restraint that a sexual revolution takes place.
There is much more to this book than what is presented on the surface. I think that is worth exploring, hence my second time reading it.
This is my second time reading it, but my first time as the uncut version of the book. In the first two third of the book, I did not see any real differences. However, towards the end, there are more sexual events taking place and their descriptions are more apt to what
Show More
was going on.Now, I have to state that I do not feel that many people grok this book and its complexities and social commentary. I still see much of what was written in this book as a problem even in today's society. Everything from our biased prejudice for thing we do not (and refuse to) understand to the misuse of language to Government stooges continuously elected into office. There are also many observations on religion, faith, and truth and how each of those elements are confused for one another and presented as such. The book goes on and on with such musings; and especially in the voice of Jubal, the essential father figure of the book. And, with that said, if you are reading this science fiction book about a Man from Mars expecting a plot, you will be sorely disappointed. This is a philosophical book that uses the science fiction genre as a vehicle much like many of our most important social commentary books.
I need to get something well out of the way. This book is rife with what is considered blatant sexism. If such things offend you, this book will needle at that nerve. However, I think it should be dictated that Stranger in a Strange Land was published in 1961. It is also know that Heinlein spent nearly a decade writing it. That would make the book a product of the 50s, back when sexism was not only prevalent in the United States, it may as well have been a lifestyle altogether that was encouraged because it maintained the status quo. There is even a line about rape that is highly offensive and, paraphrased, it states that 9 time out of 10, it is the girl's fault.
That is not something to defend.
However, attitudes about such things were different then.
I have read many reviews that see such things in the book and dismiss it altogether for the goldmine of anarchist ideas for society and free love for a proclamation of sexism & loathing. On the surface, I can see that. But, we must remember: we, too, are a product of our time. There are things we are doing, publishing right now, that in 50 years will be seen as something completely different, and one can even assume offensive.
Another trend I've noticed is the notion that Heinlein does not write for strong female characters. I believe that in this book, he presents a cast of female characters that are nothing more than pretty faces and bodies that serve their purpose as female counterparts and who do their assigned jobs. However, they grow. They grow from being naïve girls (with sassy mouths) to women with the motivation to make their own choices, to have their own sexual partners, to be as equals among their male counterparts. Because sexual intercourse is greatly involved as the catalyst for such social stepping stones, it's a hard one to swallow for our sexually oppressed society as anything else other than sexist. Even the Muslim character throws away his previous ideals as to what makes a woman a good one and ends up marrying a "heathen" for the sake of love rather than religious purposes.
Stranger in a Strange Land besets the 50s mentality from all sides. Most are very upfront about it from the idea of polyamorous families to a Truth that is taught using discipline & mental training rather than as an absolute that is regarded to only by faith. And I believe the book challenges sexism, though much more subtle. Even though the male counterparts make passing phrases regarding female "fannies" and fun punishments such as spankings, I believe much of what goes on in the book challenges a female's place in sexuality. Here sex is treated as something that brings two people closer, something to be enjoyed by both parties without any such thing as shame. Though the word "fanny" is said often, it is really the context in which they enjoy themselves without restraint that a sexual revolution takes place.
There is much more to this book than what is presented on the surface. I think that is worth exploring, hence my second time reading it.
Show Less
LibraryThing member Digsy
There are plenty of problems that make Heinlein’s *Stranger in a Strange Land* an abysmally disappointing novel, but the worst of them may also be the least obvious. That is, it’s quite clear the dialogue is pretentious and stilted (and *endless*—the male characters, in particular, can spout
The plot is this: Michael Valentine Smith, a bastard child and the sole survivor of the first human colony on Mars, is found some twenty years later by the second manned mission to the Red Planet and brought back to Earth. Our world by then has become nation-less, ruled by a single, planet-wide “Federation,” whose military and political leaders are understandably a little unnerved when they learn that “Mike” was raised by Martians, that his education and powers may be significantly deeper and more potent than their own—thus making it unclear if he is actually a “man”—and who, through some convoluted legalese, is the sovereign owner of Mars even though it’s inhabited. This is interesting, yes? Questions of what makes us human, what makes identity, etc. But by page 7, Heinlein has already tipped his hand as to what his real obsession is, and what will become the obsession of most of the novel—sex. “He’s been brought up by a race that has nothing in common with us,” the captain of the mission exclaims, “they don’t even have *sex*.” (7) I don’t know—it seems like the other facts the second mission learned about Martians, like that Martian “[a]dults were huge, reminding the first humans to see them of ice boats under sail,” (91) or that Martians can control their circulatory and metabolic systems deliberately *with their minds*, seems somehow more interesting than that they don’t have sex. Of course, it’s fair to point out that Heinlein published this novel in 1961, a year either right at the beginning , or right on the cusp of, America’s sexual revolution, and maybe this is one reason for his fixation with the subject. But still, since Heinlein has gone to the trouble of richly imagining Martians and Martian life, it’s disappointing to discover eventually that the novel is really just a paean to free love—on Mars, we learn, “There was no possibility of ‘marriage.’” (91) What takes its place instead is something called “grokking”—truly one of the worst words a writer has ever invented for an imaginary language—which means to understand something or someone completely, to “possess” someone or something completely by understanding them completely (as marriage attempts to do?), to drink in, to comprehend, to know, or, of course, to screw.
Thus: Gillian Boardman (Her last name is innuendo!) is a nurse at the hospital where Mike is in recovery from the change in gravity between the planets. Jill has, of course, a nice rack and a nice backside and she’s friends with Ben Caxton, who is, of course, the witty, hard-boiled investigative reporter who thinks the government is hiding something about Mike. Ben likes Jill’s nice rack and backside and has even proposed marriage to her. So when Ben goes missing after asking too many questions, Jill follows through with his command that she save the Man from Mars herself, which she does by taking him into the Poconos, to the home of Ben’s friend, Jubal Harshaw. Harshaw is famous throughout the Federation not just because he’s a powerful doctor and lawyer, but also because he writes—curiously—bad pulp fiction. And even more curious is that he knows it’s bad. Curious. Harshaw lives on a little compound where he has three beautiful women who act as his secretaries, cooks, and pool-loungers. One is blonde, another brunette, the third a red-head, and they all have, of course, nice racks and backsides, which they flaunt most of the time in swimsuits. Like the women of *Mad Men*, they leave the room when the men gather to discuss serious things, they’re good cooks, they never get angry enough to challenge Harshaw (he’s always “Boss” to them), and they rarely speak without using the word “dear.” Yet, of course, Harshaw treats them gruffly but lovingly, as he’s pushing seventy and the novel needs the stock character of the eccentric, but wise—and even unorthodox—old man.
So it’s Harshaw, after pages and pages of monologues about government, leadership, sovereignty, the public good, etc., who decides to act as Mike’s attorney and make sure the Man from Mars gets what’s his and that the Federation government doesn’t swindle him of it. Flush with new-found money and power, Mike stays humble and innocent, which of course makes all the women he meets, including those at Harshaw’s compound, want to jump in bed with him. And once Gillian explains that homosexuality is wrong (Martians don’t have such a concept, since they don’t have sex), it’s game on, and Mike sleeps with Gillian, with Harshaw’s blonde, and then with many, many women after he starts a temple that teaches Martian tricks like hypnotic states and telekinesis—paired with lots of sex with different people—as a means of achieving happiness. You can guess how the story ends just by reading the Table of Contents: five parts, running from “His Maculate Origin” to “His Scandalous Career,” to “His Happy Destiny.” You’ve heard something like this before, perhaps in something called the Bible.
So what becomes of all the discussion of what makes someone human and what creates identity? What becomes of the information Heinlein drops about Mike being a spy for the Martians, that the Martians are considering wiping out Earth? Nothing. Nothing at all, and that’s what’s most maddening about the novel, that lost potential, a problem even more frustrating than Heinlein’s maddeningly formulaic dialogue: A woman says something. A man makes a witty comment and then answers with a long monologue about philosophy, economics, or government. The woman says, “Gee, dear,” or “Shucks, dear.” The man makes a witty comment to close the conversation. What’s ultimately frustrating about *Stranger* is that it doesn’t do any of the things good sci-fi works (or, really, any good work of fiction) should: namely, engaging the larger issues of what it means to be human (turns out it’s not just sex!), how we shape our identity or have it shaped for us, and how we resist or accept the social constructs around us. And most importantly is that they do so sincerely and thoughtfully, not formulaically.
Show More
second-rate philosophy for pages and pages), that its chauvinism is relentless and humorless, and that there isn’t a single original character in the entire 400+ pages, a marvel of probability unto itself—it seems astonishing that in all those pages Heinlein didn’t accidentally create *someone* worth following. But, alas, he does not. Yet what seems most unforgivable is that the novel’s premise had such possibility behind it, with Heinlein dropping hints here and there that we’re in for an engaging, alarming turn, something that will make the story worthy of the kudos the Ace paperback edition (1987) slaps on its cover: “The Most Famous Science Fiction Novel Ever Written.” Yet no such turns ever happen, the most intriguing details are never revisited, and in the end we’re left with what is at best a cheap gimmick, and at worst a story the author didn’t have the skill to truly write. The plot is this: Michael Valentine Smith, a bastard child and the sole survivor of the first human colony on Mars, is found some twenty years later by the second manned mission to the Red Planet and brought back to Earth. Our world by then has become nation-less, ruled by a single, planet-wide “Federation,” whose military and political leaders are understandably a little unnerved when they learn that “Mike” was raised by Martians, that his education and powers may be significantly deeper and more potent than their own—thus making it unclear if he is actually a “man”—and who, through some convoluted legalese, is the sovereign owner of Mars even though it’s inhabited. This is interesting, yes? Questions of what makes us human, what makes identity, etc. But by page 7, Heinlein has already tipped his hand as to what his real obsession is, and what will become the obsession of most of the novel—sex. “He’s been brought up by a race that has nothing in common with us,” the captain of the mission exclaims, “they don’t even have *sex*.” (7) I don’t know—it seems like the other facts the second mission learned about Martians, like that Martian “[a]dults were huge, reminding the first humans to see them of ice boats under sail,” (91) or that Martians can control their circulatory and metabolic systems deliberately *with their minds*, seems somehow more interesting than that they don’t have sex. Of course, it’s fair to point out that Heinlein published this novel in 1961, a year either right at the beginning , or right on the cusp of, America’s sexual revolution, and maybe this is one reason for his fixation with the subject. But still, since Heinlein has gone to the trouble of richly imagining Martians and Martian life, it’s disappointing to discover eventually that the novel is really just a paean to free love—on Mars, we learn, “There was no possibility of ‘marriage.’” (91) What takes its place instead is something called “grokking”—truly one of the worst words a writer has ever invented for an imaginary language—which means to understand something or someone completely, to “possess” someone or something completely by understanding them completely (as marriage attempts to do?), to drink in, to comprehend, to know, or, of course, to screw.
Thus: Gillian Boardman (Her last name is innuendo!) is a nurse at the hospital where Mike is in recovery from the change in gravity between the planets. Jill has, of course, a nice rack and a nice backside and she’s friends with Ben Caxton, who is, of course, the witty, hard-boiled investigative reporter who thinks the government is hiding something about Mike. Ben likes Jill’s nice rack and backside and has even proposed marriage to her. So when Ben goes missing after asking too many questions, Jill follows through with his command that she save the Man from Mars herself, which she does by taking him into the Poconos, to the home of Ben’s friend, Jubal Harshaw. Harshaw is famous throughout the Federation not just because he’s a powerful doctor and lawyer, but also because he writes—curiously—bad pulp fiction. And even more curious is that he knows it’s bad. Curious. Harshaw lives on a little compound where he has three beautiful women who act as his secretaries, cooks, and pool-loungers. One is blonde, another brunette, the third a red-head, and they all have, of course, nice racks and backsides, which they flaunt most of the time in swimsuits. Like the women of *Mad Men*, they leave the room when the men gather to discuss serious things, they’re good cooks, they never get angry enough to challenge Harshaw (he’s always “Boss” to them), and they rarely speak without using the word “dear.” Yet, of course, Harshaw treats them gruffly but lovingly, as he’s pushing seventy and the novel needs the stock character of the eccentric, but wise—and even unorthodox—old man.
So it’s Harshaw, after pages and pages of monologues about government, leadership, sovereignty, the public good, etc., who decides to act as Mike’s attorney and make sure the Man from Mars gets what’s his and that the Federation government doesn’t swindle him of it. Flush with new-found money and power, Mike stays humble and innocent, which of course makes all the women he meets, including those at Harshaw’s compound, want to jump in bed with him. And once Gillian explains that homosexuality is wrong (Martians don’t have such a concept, since they don’t have sex), it’s game on, and Mike sleeps with Gillian, with Harshaw’s blonde, and then with many, many women after he starts a temple that teaches Martian tricks like hypnotic states and telekinesis—paired with lots of sex with different people—as a means of achieving happiness. You can guess how the story ends just by reading the Table of Contents: five parts, running from “His Maculate Origin” to “His Scandalous Career,” to “His Happy Destiny.” You’ve heard something like this before, perhaps in something called the Bible.
So what becomes of all the discussion of what makes someone human and what creates identity? What becomes of the information Heinlein drops about Mike being a spy for the Martians, that the Martians are considering wiping out Earth? Nothing. Nothing at all, and that’s what’s most maddening about the novel, that lost potential, a problem even more frustrating than Heinlein’s maddeningly formulaic dialogue: A woman says something. A man makes a witty comment and then answers with a long monologue about philosophy, economics, or government. The woman says, “Gee, dear,” or “Shucks, dear.” The man makes a witty comment to close the conversation. What’s ultimately frustrating about *Stranger* is that it doesn’t do any of the things good sci-fi works (or, really, any good work of fiction) should: namely, engaging the larger issues of what it means to be human (turns out it’s not just sex!), how we shape our identity or have it shaped for us, and how we resist or accept the social constructs around us. And most importantly is that they do so sincerely and thoughtfully, not formulaically.
Show Less
LibraryThing member danconsiglio
Like the Jesus story only with an alien. Robert Heinlein would like you to know that he is not gay. Memorable characters, interesting take on sexual liberation. Heinlein wants to add that he is totally straight. One of those classics that you look like a tool at the sci/fi conventions if you
Show More
haven't read. Heinlein, by the way, is not attracted to men. Read it and you will finally understand that people who say "grok" when they mean "understand" aren't actually cooler than you. Oh, yeah, and just in case you didn't catch it the first few times it's randomly inserted into the narrative, Heinlein = not gay. Show Less
LibraryThing member comfypants
For the first couple hundred pages, it's a very exciting science fiction story about a man raised by Martians coming to Earth. But about halfway through, the tension is abandoned and replaced with blather about how the secret to all happiness is to live in hippie communes and have sex with everyone
Show More
you know. In addition to that dull, silly nonsense, the book is also sexist and (briefly but bitingly) anti-gay. Show Less
LibraryThing member t1bnotown
A note to start: Okay, this was written in the early 1960s- I get it. Women's lib hadn't happened yet, etc. While I'm fine with the misunderstandings and missguesses about technology and history, the sexism got to me. I know it's from another time, but it wasn't just the fact that every female had
Anyway, what I thought of the book (beyond offensive bits):
I was intrigued at first, but things went from weird to "wait a minute". It wasn't the whole hedonism thing that bothered me as much as the idea that the entire world would become one happy party where everyone had sex all day. If you take out all the jobs, what's left? A life of nothing but fun isn't really a life (Tanith Lee's "Biting the Sun" really expresses this well). Okay, so you get rid of all jobs (they enumerate how to do this in the book), what's left to do with your free time? Well, you could spend all your time having an orgy, or you could spend at least some time trying to create meaning. The way I see to create meaning is through creative acts- like art, music, literature, etc. The thing is, art is about struggle. It's about problems and solutions. If you take away the struggle, you take away art. The only martian art we're told about is about the destruction of a planet. Why? That's the only thing that they could create art about- the past. With no struggle, there's no way to go anywhere, and no need. There's just a sort of endless excitement of nothingness. That's why I didn't like this book- solving all problems is a false solution.
Show More
a subordinate job, I got really mad when Jill said, "Nine times out of ten, rape is partially the woman's fault." It's hard to look past that.Anyway, what I thought of the book (beyond offensive bits):
I was intrigued at first, but things went from weird to "wait a minute". It wasn't the whole hedonism thing that bothered me as much as the idea that the entire world would become one happy party where everyone had sex all day. If you take out all the jobs, what's left? A life of nothing but fun isn't really a life (Tanith Lee's "Biting the Sun" really expresses this well). Okay, so you get rid of all jobs (they enumerate how to do this in the book), what's left to do with your free time? Well, you could spend all your time having an orgy, or you could spend at least some time trying to create meaning. The way I see to create meaning is through creative acts- like art, music, literature, etc. The thing is, art is about struggle. It's about problems and solutions. If you take away the struggle, you take away art. The only martian art we're told about is about the destruction of a planet. Why? That's the only thing that they could create art about- the past. With no struggle, there's no way to go anywhere, and no need. There's just a sort of endless excitement of nothingness. That's why I didn't like this book- solving all problems is a false solution.
Show Less
LibraryThing member paradoxosalpha
This review is of the extended second edition ("Original Uncut") of Heinlein's seminal cultural satire Stranger in a Strange Land. Avoid it. It is inferior to the first edition, having been subjected to reversion of all of the author's edits that had tightened up the original manuscript without
Show More
losing any significant content. (In fact, a few items were added in that edit, and these are consequently missing from the longer edition.) The editorial apparatus of this posthumous reissue falsely suggests that integral content was removed from the manuscript for its first publication, in deference to public mores. The longer book is in fact a crass commercial ploy, intended to get readers of the author's most popular work to buy it a second time, after it had already stayed in print continuously for thirty years. Show Less
LibraryThing member kgodey
Stranger in a Strange Land starts off well. It appears to be a fun science-fiction story about a human raised among the Martians that returns to Earth and has a huge cultural shock while having to deal with all of Earth's bureaucracy. I really enjoyed the descriptions of the Martian civilisation
SKIP THE NEXT PARAGRAPH TO AVOID SPOILERS:
Once Valentine Michael Smith gets accustomed to Earth and its strange ways (or as the book says, once he groks Earth), he takes the logical next step of... starting a cult! Of course, this cult is the right one for Earth's people, one which teaches them awesome mind powers that means work is unnecessary and also gets rid of jealousy and possessiveness. Everyone has sex with everyone else, except of course, homosexuality is utterly wrong. The highest value in his society is "growing closer" through sex, but men get closer with other men by encouraging the women that they have sex with to have sex with other men. (Presumably Michael's amazing mind powers prevents sexually transmitted diseases, since he seems to be able to control his body utterly.) And in the end, after he sacrifices his physical form and his cult eats his flesh, he's revealed to be an incarnation of the Archangel Michael!
END SPOILERS
Okay, so I thought this book was a bit absurd. I did think that it was going to be hard sci-fi, and in my opinion, it wasn't (although I don't think that's what kept me from enjoying it.) Heinlein can write pretty well, as shown by the first part of the book, but the book ended up devolving into preachy philosophical monologues (all delivered by the men, while the women say "I understand now, dear! Can I get you some food?") The character of Jubal seemed like a Mary Sue stand-in for Heinlein; he's a writer who writes "bad pulp fiction" but knows that it is trash, but he's also a doctor and a lawyer and the only person that understands Valentine Michael Smith.
Also, I'm usually very forgiving of old books being representative of the prevailing morals of their time, but still, this book is incredibly sexist. Like I said above, the men always need to explain things to the women, the women spend their days mostly in swimsuits (or later, naked), the women are always concerned about providing food to the men (or are rebuked with threats of "spanking", all in good fun, of course.) There's a disturbing statement about rape ("nine times out of ten, it's the woman's fault") that's said by a woman.
The homophobia was also a disappointment. For a story that preaches free love and "sex isn't just about babies, it's to grow closer to people" to be so acutely homophobic seemed like a huge cop-out. I've heard this book described as visionary for its message of sexual liberation and anti-bigotry, but then it's homophobic! I would've forgiven it if the topic of homosexuality had not been addressed at all.
I'm glad I read it, though. It's good to read books I absolutely don't agree with, once in a while. And Heinlein is still a way better writer than Larry Niven.
Originally posted on my blog.
Show More
and bow it differs from ours, and the plots of the administration to make the protagonist, Valentine Michael Smith, sign over his rights. Unfortunately, this part only lasts for the first couple of hundred pages or so.SKIP THE NEXT PARAGRAPH TO AVOID SPOILERS:
Once Valentine Michael Smith gets accustomed to Earth and its strange ways (or as the book says, once he groks Earth), he takes the logical next step of... starting a cult! Of course, this cult is the right one for Earth's people, one which teaches them awesome mind powers that means work is unnecessary and also gets rid of jealousy and possessiveness. Everyone has sex with everyone else, except of course, homosexuality is utterly wrong. The highest value in his society is "growing closer" through sex, but men get closer with other men by encouraging the women that they have sex with to have sex with other men. (Presumably Michael's amazing mind powers prevents sexually transmitted diseases, since he seems to be able to control his body utterly.) And in the end, after he sacrifices his physical form and his cult eats his flesh, he's revealed to be an incarnation of the Archangel Michael!
END SPOILERS
Okay, so I thought this book was a bit absurd. I did think that it was going to be hard sci-fi, and in my opinion, it wasn't (although I don't think that's what kept me from enjoying it.) Heinlein can write pretty well, as shown by the first part of the book, but the book ended up devolving into preachy philosophical monologues (all delivered by the men, while the women say "I understand now, dear! Can I get you some food?") The character of Jubal seemed like a Mary Sue stand-in for Heinlein; he's a writer who writes "bad pulp fiction" but knows that it is trash, but he's also a doctor and a lawyer and the only person that understands Valentine Michael Smith.
Also, I'm usually very forgiving of old books being representative of the prevailing morals of their time, but still, this book is incredibly sexist. Like I said above, the men always need to explain things to the women, the women spend their days mostly in swimsuits (or later, naked), the women are always concerned about providing food to the men (or are rebuked with threats of "spanking", all in good fun, of course.) There's a disturbing statement about rape ("nine times out of ten, it's the woman's fault") that's said by a woman.
The homophobia was also a disappointment. For a story that preaches free love and "sex isn't just about babies, it's to grow closer to people" to be so acutely homophobic seemed like a huge cop-out. I've heard this book described as visionary for its message of sexual liberation and anti-bigotry, but then it's homophobic! I would've forgiven it if the topic of homosexuality had not been addressed at all.
I'm glad I read it, though. It's good to read books I absolutely don't agree with, once in a while. And Heinlein is still a way better writer than Larry Niven.
Originally posted on my blog.
Show Less
LibraryThing member aethercowboy
This book was my second trip down Heinlein lane. I figured that if I didn't like Number, I'd be sure to like Stranger, his most renowned book.
It was, well, all right.
The story's about a human born on Mars, raised by Martians, and then brought to Earth, and introduced to the general society. He
It was entertaining, for the most part, except I find that I really, really dislike Heinlein's dialogue. It's too... dated. I have no problem, though with his contemporaries, like Asimov or Herbert. But for some reason, the voices of his characters just annoy the heck out of me.
Also, this book, as well as Number seemed to push some idyllic notion of free love and communism/socialism, like the song "Imagine," only with a Martian. I felt like I was reading The Jungle, with a sci-fi twist. "What's this? Meat packing. Okay! Wait a minute! Why is it all about socialism now?"
This was the deal-breaker for me and Heinlein, and I must say, I agree with Michael Moorcock on this one, that authors should leave their authoritarian ideals out of their stories, ruining perfectly good novels with a repeated reader's head-bashing of one viewpoint or another (though, with respect to Moorcock's essay entitled "Starship Stormtroopers," I must say that for as racist, anti-Semitic, and misogynistic as Lovecraft was, at least his work is somewhat interesting).
So, my verdict: Heinlein is not for me. Also, Moorcock knows what he's talking about.
It was, well, all right.
The story's about a human born on Mars, raised by Martians, and then brought to Earth, and introduced to the general society. He
Show More
begins to game the system for an epic win, and learns a valuable lesson or two along the way. Also, he can do things like levitate, transport, and "push" things into nonexistence (don't tell Newton!).It was entertaining, for the most part, except I find that I really, really dislike Heinlein's dialogue. It's too... dated. I have no problem, though with his contemporaries, like Asimov or Herbert. But for some reason, the voices of his characters just annoy the heck out of me.
Also, this book, as well as Number seemed to push some idyllic notion of free love and communism/socialism, like the song "Imagine," only with a Martian. I felt like I was reading The Jungle, with a sci-fi twist. "What's this? Meat packing. Okay! Wait a minute! Why is it all about socialism now?"
This was the deal-breaker for me and Heinlein, and I must say, I agree with Michael Moorcock on this one, that authors should leave their authoritarian ideals out of their stories, ruining perfectly good novels with a repeated reader's head-bashing of one viewpoint or another (though, with respect to Moorcock's essay entitled "Starship Stormtroopers," I must say that for as racist, anti-Semitic, and misogynistic as Lovecraft was, at least his work is somewhat interesting).
So, my verdict: Heinlein is not for me. Also, Moorcock knows what he's talking about.
Show Less
LibraryThing member ursula
Another one of the 1001 Books checked off. I'll just say right away that I'm not a scifi reader. The things I knew about this book before reading it can be summed up as follows: the word "grok," and that Heinlein has a reputation for misogyny in his writing.
It started off well, and I commented to
Here's the general outline of the plot in a nutshell: Valentine Michael Smith, aka the Man from Mars, arrives here on Earth and promptly becomes the prisoner of the government as they try to sort out how best to take advantage of him and keep him from being a giant headache for them. A nurse, Jill, finds him and helps him escape, and they go on the run. He's as naive and helpless as a baby - he can barely walk due to the change in gravity, he speaks very little English, he has never seen a woman before. There is much intrigue, much teaching Mike the ways of Earth, many comical and not so comical misunderstandings due to the conflict between his Martian sensibilities and those of his new Earthling friends. Water is a big deal on Mars, so sharing water is a way of bonding people together for life. Mike makes a number of "water brothers" (both male and female) by sharing water with them. Then he discovers that Earth has an equivalent of that "growing closer" ritual - it's sex.
And right about here is where it went from being the kind of scifi I like to the kind of scifi I don't. I realize that scifi is often a vehicle to explore and comment on the current world, but it's really hard to do that well. If it's done poorly, it just reads as a morality play with a thin cloth of futurism thrown over it. Mike spends some time trying to understand earthly religions, and how they can possibly all be right (or how any of them can be right, for that matter). He explores one that sounded a lot like Scientology to me, and it's a near-miss in terms of "rightness." Eventually he starts his own, though he doesn't mean for it to be a church or a religion, just a way to make humans understand that we're all God. The prescription? Lots of sex, or I mean, "growing closer." The rest of the book (and there's a good 150 pages to go at this point) can really be summed up as: Sex is good, sex with many people is good, jealousy is bad. There's reinforcement of the idea of a noble savage, both through Mike and through a conversation about how Eskimos were living in a non-possessive, wife-swapping paradise before the white man came along and introduced jealousy.
As for misogyny, I didn't really see a lot of it. I mean, the women mostly behave either like men or like a fantasy of what women think and act like, but that didn't really bother me. However, I was stopped short by the main female character saying to the Man from Mars, "Nine times out of ten, if a woman gets raped, it's partly her fault." You put this in the mouth of a female character? In poking around online I see that one interpretation of that statement is that she is a prudish foil for Mike, helping him develop his forward-thinking ideals. I'm not really buying that, especially since I believe Mike's entire response to her was "hm." Anyway, besides that moment, misogyny was less of a problem for me than the heavy-handed allegory to the contemporary world of the time when the book was written, and the sheer boredom of Mike's journey to messiah. Being saintly is boring to read about, even if one of your sacraments is having sex.
It started off well, and I commented to
Show More
Morgan that it's the kind of scifi I like, which is to say, the kind that doesn't get bogged down in explanations about the hows and whys of futuristic life. The newspaperman Ben Caxton has a grass floor in his living room, and it's obviously considered quite the luxury. I don't care why, that tells me all I need to know. The taxis hover and are driven automatically/robotically. I don't need a huge explanation about their inner workings. People have gone to Mars and died there, and now a human has arrived from Mars who considers himself a Martian, since he was orphaned and then raised by the Martians. Cool, premise accepted.Here's the general outline of the plot in a nutshell: Valentine Michael Smith, aka the Man from Mars, arrives here on Earth and promptly becomes the prisoner of the government as they try to sort out how best to take advantage of him and keep him from being a giant headache for them. A nurse, Jill, finds him and helps him escape, and they go on the run. He's as naive and helpless as a baby - he can barely walk due to the change in gravity, he speaks very little English, he has never seen a woman before. There is much intrigue, much teaching Mike the ways of Earth, many comical and not so comical misunderstandings due to the conflict between his Martian sensibilities and those of his new Earthling friends. Water is a big deal on Mars, so sharing water is a way of bonding people together for life. Mike makes a number of "water brothers" (both male and female) by sharing water with them. Then he discovers that Earth has an equivalent of that "growing closer" ritual - it's sex.
And right about here is where it went from being the kind of scifi I like to the kind of scifi I don't. I realize that scifi is often a vehicle to explore and comment on the current world, but it's really hard to do that well. If it's done poorly, it just reads as a morality play with a thin cloth of futurism thrown over it. Mike spends some time trying to understand earthly religions, and how they can possibly all be right (or how any of them can be right, for that matter). He explores one that sounded a lot like Scientology to me, and it's a near-miss in terms of "rightness." Eventually he starts his own, though he doesn't mean for it to be a church or a religion, just a way to make humans understand that we're all God. The prescription? Lots of sex, or I mean, "growing closer." The rest of the book (and there's a good 150 pages to go at this point) can really be summed up as: Sex is good, sex with many people is good, jealousy is bad. There's reinforcement of the idea of a noble savage, both through Mike and through a conversation about how Eskimos were living in a non-possessive, wife-swapping paradise before the white man came along and introduced jealousy.
As for misogyny, I didn't really see a lot of it. I mean, the women mostly behave either like men or like a fantasy of what women think and act like, but that didn't really bother me. However, I was stopped short by the main female character saying to the Man from Mars, "Nine times out of ten, if a woman gets raped, it's partly her fault." You put this in the mouth of a female character? In poking around online I see that one interpretation of that statement is that she is a prudish foil for Mike, helping him develop his forward-thinking ideals. I'm not really buying that, especially since I believe Mike's entire response to her was "hm." Anyway, besides that moment, misogyny was less of a problem for me than the heavy-handed allegory to the contemporary world of the time when the book was written, and the sheer boredom of Mike's journey to messiah. Being saintly is boring to read about, even if one of your sacraments is having sex.
Show Less
LibraryThing member Gail.C.Bull
Set in the distant future, a man raised by Martians comes home to Earth and must learn what it means to be human. This book was first published in 1961, and while the story is beautifully crafted and very thoughtful, it has not aged well.
In its time, it was probably very socially progressive. The
One of the main characters is a retired-lawyer-turned-writer who lives in a luxurious home tended by three "secretaries," all women, in a set up that would make Mad Men's Don Draper proud. One of the three women is fully qualified lawyer and a professional "fair witness" yet she has chucked in her own career to work as a secretary-housekeeper. None of these women -- one blond, one red-head, and one brunette -- have any life outside of their boss' compound. When 2 of the women turn up pregnant, there are only 3 possible suspects: all of whom work and live at the house. These women seem to have no relationships outside of their boss-father's home and approval.
When the man from Mars is beginning to learn about sexuality (Martians are sexless), his friends are careful to not teach him shame about sex (at least when it comes to relationships with women), However, it is openly discussed that he should be "kept away" from homosexuals and not be permitted to learn about homosexuality or bisexuality. Conveniently, the man from Mars himself turns out to be straight. There are clearly no LGBTQ rights in 1961's "distant future."
In its time, it was probably very socially progressive. The
Show More
women in the story are all well educated and sexually liberated, and there is racial diversity (to a point) among the mission crew that brings "the man from Mars" back to Earth. But there's where the progressiveness ends. One of the main characters is a retired-lawyer-turned-writer who lives in a luxurious home tended by three "secretaries," all women, in a set up that would make Mad Men's Don Draper proud. One of the three women is fully qualified lawyer and a professional "fair witness" yet she has chucked in her own career to work as a secretary-housekeeper. None of these women -- one blond, one red-head, and one brunette -- have any life outside of their boss' compound. When 2 of the women turn up pregnant, there are only 3 possible suspects: all of whom work and live at the house. These women seem to have no relationships outside of their boss-father's home and approval.
When the man from Mars is beginning to learn about sexuality (Martians are sexless), his friends are careful to not teach him shame about sex (at least when it comes to relationships with women), However, it is openly discussed that he should be "kept away" from homosexuals and not be permitted to learn about homosexuality or bisexuality. Conveniently, the man from Mars himself turns out to be straight. There are clearly no LGBTQ rights in 1961's "distant future."
Show Less
LibraryThing member deludite
An inspirational read in my early 20's.
Converted me to canibalism as a high form of respect/tribute to those you hold dear.
This causes concern amongst my family members......
Converted me to canibalism as a high form of respect/tribute to those you hold dear.
This causes concern amongst my family members......
LibraryThing member EmScape
Despite it's inherent sexism, homophobia, and somewhat rambling philosophical passages, Stranger is still one of the best books I have ever read. It makes you think, it challenges your worldview, and, most importantly, it entertains. Who of us does not wish they could grok a wrongness and send it
Show More
into another dimension? Who doesn't want to learn Martian? Show Less
LibraryThing member LisaMaria_C
This isn't my favorite Heinlein--who is one of my favorite science-fiction authors, but it certainly is among the most original, imaginative, and thought-provoking novels in science fiction. Almost psychedelic... Also eminently readable--and funny.
The protagonist, Valentine Michael Smith, is the
I love a whole range of Heinlein novels and for the most part I think they age well (with occasional moments of gender fail) It helps he can write. I have to give this one strong marks for imagination and humor, the satire of organized religion and the occult, while frankly disliking other aspects--like some of the sexual/gender elements which involved polyamory--sometimes this got just too weird for me.
So if you like this--or don't--try some of his young adult novels like Citizen of the Galaxy--or the thought-provoking Starship Troopers or Friday (with one of his strongest female protagonists) or my personal favorite, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress.
The protagonist, Valentine Michael Smith, is the
Show More
orphaned child of two members of an Earth expedition to Mars raised by Martians. As one character describes him: "Smith is an intelligent creature with the ancestry of a man, but he is more Martian than man...He thinks like a Martian, feels like a Martian." This creates a often hilarious and fresh perspective as Smith tries to "grok" humanity. I love a whole range of Heinlein novels and for the most part I think they age well (with occasional moments of gender fail) It helps he can write. I have to give this one strong marks for imagination and humor, the satire of organized religion and the occult, while frankly disliking other aspects--like some of the sexual/gender elements which involved polyamory--sometimes this got just too weird for me.
So if you like this--or don't--try some of his young adult novels like Citizen of the Galaxy--or the thought-provoking Starship Troopers or Friday (with one of his strongest female protagonists) or my personal favorite, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress.
Show Less
LibraryThing member kongjie
I'm rereading this for the first time in about 25 years. It's almost unbearable. Heinlein's love for his "Jubal" character is evident in the excessive amount of cleverly gruff dialogue that fills about half of the book. When I read this, the voices sound like sassy film noir characters. The book
Show More
has become extremely dated in a way that someone like H.G. Wells, writing much earlier, hasn't. It's a disappointment, because I remember I loved it so much way back when. Show Less
LibraryThing member leslie.98
4 1/2 stars - although Mike is "the man from Mars", this story is really about human culture & religion. Mike just provides a fresh set of eyes to see Earth & humanity.
LibraryThing member dvf1976
Pretty enjoyable.
Slightly too hedonistic for me.
Assuming that the 'miracles' that John Valentine Smith could be faked, it seems like a blueprint for an abusive cult.
Slightly too hedonistic for me.
Assuming that the 'miracles' that John Valentine Smith could be faked, it seems like a blueprint for an abusive cult.
LibraryThing member jsabrina
I first read this back in high school, where it had a strong positive impression on me. Reading it again, I was primarily aware of the persistent, unpleasant chauvanistic paternalism of the main characters. The women are all gorgeous, smart, intuitive, witty -- and happily subordinate to the men in
Beyond that, the story of Michael Valentine Smith and his idealistic, Martian-influenced vision of what human beings are capable of in terms of both mental powers and staggeringly open hearts, continues to be intriguing.
I'm glad I re-read it, but it's no longer a favorite of mine.
Show More
their lives. Blech!Beyond that, the story of Michael Valentine Smith and his idealistic, Martian-influenced vision of what human beings are capable of in terms of both mental powers and staggeringly open hearts, continues to be intriguing.
I'm glad I re-read it, but it's no longer a favorite of mine.
Show Less
LibraryThing member Alexandria_annex
Heinleins’s Stranger is a Strange Land is a fascinating commentary on our society. Although many of the specifics have changed since the sixties the underlying criticism of our society is as valid as it was almost 50 years ago.
The stranger is a human child who is raised by Martians, stranded on
Many have criticized this book as being dated. In a way I disagree. Saying a book is dated implies it is not relevant. While the characters and situations do reflect the society during which the story was written, the message of the book is as valid today as it was when Heinlein wrote it. In the sixties women were still thought of as secondary citizens. That was changing but the predominant thinking was that women belonged in the home raising children, cleaning the house and cooking dinner for a man who brought home the money. This portrayal of women may not be valid today, but little has changed. Today many think of Hispanics as second-class citizens. Heinlein’s criticism of how we treat certain segments of society stands just as ugly today as it did then.
The portrayal of the government in Mike’s world is an accurate reflection of how our own. It is made up of people looking out for their own interests and willing to do anything to obtain the subject of their desires.
While Heinlein’s writing style does not have action pact adventure on every page there are thought provoking and insightful views of our world.
The stranger is a human child who is raised by Martians, stranded on
Show More
Mars after his space exploring parents die. He is found by a second expedition to Mars and brought back to an earth he has never known. As an outsider he presents a unique viewpoint of our society. Mike, the man from Mars, spends a great deal of time tying to understand religion. Seen from the outside it does not mater what religion you look at they are all the same; each claims to be the only true church. Their theologies contradict and attach each other and collectively have been the cause of more death and pain than any other force in history. Many have criticized this book as being dated. In a way I disagree. Saying a book is dated implies it is not relevant. While the characters and situations do reflect the society during which the story was written, the message of the book is as valid today as it was when Heinlein wrote it. In the sixties women were still thought of as secondary citizens. That was changing but the predominant thinking was that women belonged in the home raising children, cleaning the house and cooking dinner for a man who brought home the money. This portrayal of women may not be valid today, but little has changed. Today many think of Hispanics as second-class citizens. Heinlein’s criticism of how we treat certain segments of society stands just as ugly today as it did then.
The portrayal of the government in Mike’s world is an accurate reflection of how our own. It is made up of people looking out for their own interests and willing to do anything to obtain the subject of their desires.
While Heinlein’s writing style does not have action pact adventure on every page there are thought provoking and insightful views of our world.
Show Less
LibraryThing member dysmonia
I liked this book very much.
I didn't expect to enjoy it so thoroughly, and I'm not sure why. Maybe it was because I haven't been much of a science fiction reader since I studied "science fact" as a major in college (I was too afraid of confusing myself -- seriously). Or maybe it was because the
Ultimately, Stranger in a Strange Land is a fascinating study of humanity, which is probably why it is so popular. Sci-fi fans or not, people, as a race, are narcissistic -- therefore, we enjoy reading about ourselves. :)
I didn't expect to enjoy it so thoroughly, and I'm not sure why. Maybe it was because I haven't been much of a science fiction reader since I studied "science fact" as a major in college (I was too afraid of confusing myself -- seriously). Or maybe it was because the
Show More
book is older, and not all classics stand up to the test of time as well as they claim to. As for the latter, however, Stranger in a Strange Land definitely passes. Once one accepts the premise -- involving a race of humanoids living on Mars (therefore, Martians) -- it's nearly impossible to tell the book was written in 1961. There is some innate sexism among the human characters on Earth that I was surprised to read (the surprise caused by such prejudice being mixed into an otherwise modern story set in the future), but it makes sense for a book written by an American author just before the second wave of feminism in the United States.Ultimately, Stranger in a Strange Land is a fascinating study of humanity, which is probably why it is so popular. Sci-fi fans or not, people, as a race, are narcissistic -- therefore, we enjoy reading about ourselves. :)
Show Less
LibraryThing member zjakkelien
Loved it. The development of the main character is very well done, and his strangeness is very well described. I would have given it 5 stars, but I really have to subtract 1 star for the absolutely disgusting remark of one of the women (!) who states that in most cases, if a woman gets raped, it is
Show More
partially her fault. Really?!? Eugh... It's such a shame, because I really liked almost everything else. Show Less
LibraryThing member paradoxosalpha
This tale about a Gnostic sect in the near future was influenced by Thelema, and has been a major influence on American counter-culture. When I first read it (at the age of 12 or so), it provided my first nominal encounter with Aleister Crowley and The Book of the Law, mentioned when the
Legend has it that this book was composed after a three-way wager among Heinlein, L. Ron Hubbard, and Jack Parsons, regarding which of them could invent the most successful religion. Did Jack spill the beans to Heinlein on certain secret practices of O.T.O.? It's hard for an initiate to read this book and doubt it.
Show More
protagonist is doing research in comparative religion.Legend has it that this book was composed after a three-way wager among Heinlein, L. Ron Hubbard, and Jack Parsons, regarding which of them could invent the most successful religion. Did Jack spill the beans to Heinlein on certain secret practices of O.T.O.? It's hard for an initiate to read this book and doubt it.
Show Less
LibraryThing member HippieLunatic
I was drawn more to the story of Mike as he explored what it meant to be human, and how he learned to appreciate laughter than I was the political nature of this book. However, I am well aware that the story would not have been as complete without this background knowledge of the worlds around Mike
The exploration of humanity, from an insider who was raised as an outsider, is a fascinating read, as there were moments in the book that I found myself having many of the same issues that Mike seemed to be having in dealing with the questions that surround our lives. What is the basis of all of our humor? What role can belief in ourselves and others have for the benefit of everyone? Why do seem to make choices that lead to long-term pain when other opportunities exist for us?
While the relationships between characters are portrayed in a way that is not acceptable to the masses in our society (or in the world created by Heinlein for this tale), I was able to see the beauty of them. An idea that jealousy becomes scarce is one I would love to see happen in this world of high divorce rates and dissatisfaction with our partnerships. Though, there is a reason my handle is HippieLunatic. Perhaps I belong in a commune, too.
Show More
as he built his following. Perhaps I might have blamed Heinlein for not giving enough depth to the setting if that were the case. As it stands though, too much depth is the only shortfall I can come up with for this story.The exploration of humanity, from an insider who was raised as an outsider, is a fascinating read, as there were moments in the book that I found myself having many of the same issues that Mike seemed to be having in dealing with the questions that surround our lives. What is the basis of all of our humor? What role can belief in ourselves and others have for the benefit of everyone? Why do seem to make choices that lead to long-term pain when other opportunities exist for us?
While the relationships between characters are portrayed in a way that is not acceptable to the masses in our society (or in the world created by Heinlein for this tale), I was able to see the beauty of them. An idea that jealousy becomes scarce is one I would love to see happen in this world of high divorce rates and dissatisfaction with our partnerships. Though, there is a reason my handle is HippieLunatic. Perhaps I belong in a commune, too.
Show Less
LibraryThing member flourish_leslie
What is appealing about Stranger in a Strange Land is contained within the title. Simply, a man raised on Mars comes to Earth and learns what it means to be human. First however, he must escape the clutches of government bureaucracy. There's a lot of story in Stranger in a Strange Land, and I'm
Now, in the middle of reading this version of the book, I was admonished for not having picked up the unabridged version. So, please not that these thoughts refer only to the book as in the form of its original publication.
Within the novel, without going into spoilers, Heinlein deconstructs the common codes of Western religion and then ultimately falls prey to them. For example, although the book presents a libertine attitude toward sex and the human body, its praise is reserved only for heterosexuality. In fact, in several passages, characters and narrator outright stigmatize homosexual desires and relationships. In a book so based upon uprooting social conventions, I found its homophobia both undermining and angering.
I'm having a bit of difficulty succintly reviewing this novel, but I'll try to wrap it up here at the end. Stranger in a Strange Land takes a fascinating idea, throws in some readable characters and healthy doses of both cynicism and idealism, and then undoes its earned good will through homophobia and religious cliché.
Show More
wary of giving too much away.Now, in the middle of reading this version of the book, I was admonished for not having picked up the unabridged version. So, please not that these thoughts refer only to the book as in the form of its original publication.
Within the novel, without going into spoilers, Heinlein deconstructs the common codes of Western religion and then ultimately falls prey to them. For example, although the book presents a libertine attitude toward sex and the human body, its praise is reserved only for heterosexuality. In fact, in several passages, characters and narrator outright stigmatize homosexual desires and relationships. In a book so based upon uprooting social conventions, I found its homophobia both undermining and angering.
I'm having a bit of difficulty succintly reviewing this novel, but I'll try to wrap it up here at the end. Stranger in a Strange Land takes a fascinating idea, throws in some readable characters and healthy doses of both cynicism and idealism, and then undoes its earned good will through homophobia and religious cliché.
Show Less
LibraryThing member ladybug74
I really liked the first part of this book. Toward the later chapters, though, it became less interesting. The whole idea of Michael joining the circus was just too much, in my opinion. And the whole thing about all the nakedness with their friends, him sleeping with all the different women, etc.
Show More
If the book had been like this in the beginning, I would not have kept reading it. I did enjoy most of it enough to keep reading through these parts that were just too weird for me. Show Less
Awards
Hugo Award (Nominee — Novel — 1962)
Locus All-Time Best (Science Fiction Novel — 5 — 1998)
The Guardian 1000 Novels Everyone Must Read (Science Fiction and Fantasy)
501 Must-Read Books (Emma Beare, 2006) (Science Fiction)
Language
Original language
English
Original publication date
1961
Physical description
525 p.; 9.66 inches
ISBN
0399135863 / 9780399135866
Local notes
NWC
Other editions
Stranger in a Strange Land by Robert A. Heinlein (Paperback)