Rating: 
Summary: read the first half
Review: The first half of the book has supsense and suprise. It explores themes and gives an occasional new angle to things, even years after it was writen. Which is a major achievement.But you better stop at page 208, when they have made the president of the world the one to manage Valentines hugh inheritence. After that point nothing much happens, and that it takes Heinlein about 200 pages to write that as well... And then of course, there are those things Heinlein is unincorrigible disenchanting in: having again (!) an old man with a series of beautiful young women adoring him; being able to be a homophobe in a book advocating sexual liberation; perceiving the women at best in indigestable paternalistic way. On the whole this second part of the book gives the impression of being a disappointed old mans day dream. You could easily substitute "day" with "wet". But I don't want to be offensive, so I don't.
Rating: 
Summary: I have finally found something I can call my favorite novel!
Review: WOW! Ok ok ok ok, now before I get into this, I want everyone who hasn't read this yet that it starts off slow. In fact, it it downright BORING for the first bit. But just when you're ready to give up, it gets good. This book is great on so many unique levels. It shows that love doesn't have to be an intimate only thing, but a brotherly thing or a friendship thing. I loved Michael in the beginning because of his innocence. Well, not really innocence, but his lack of knowledge about his home world. In fact, I think Michael was often the only character keeping me wanting to read. As soon as Michael and Anne finally got alone together, I really respected Anne as a character because Jubal wasn't threatening to paddle her and she and Michael were speaking on both "brotherly"(read and you'll understand) and intimate levels the way I took it anyway. I appreciated the brief mentions of Kama Sutra and Crowley's Book of Law. I really admire all of Heinlein's work because he spoke out for what he believed in using a subtle tool known as a book. Where as today's youth likes to gather in groups and try to overpower something. It's so much easier to get the point across with a book or a firm understanding of the law and learning how to manipulate it. But anyway, I was actually disappointed in Michael's character by the end because he had become just as cynic as Jubal. Now, Jubal was a great fellow, but he was a bit too cynical for me at times. And Michael went out trying to spread his free love message. I'll tell you, at the end I shed a tear for Michael. The only times I've cried at forms of entertainment are the movie Ghost and when I finished reading "The Elephant Man". But I also cried at this. The way Heinlein made us love Michael. The way Heinlein wrote about Michael's suffering at the end...Heinlein was both tragic and chilling in his writing as he describes poor Valentine Michael's arm coming off. I suggest reading the unedited version. Everyone deserves to read ! it the way Robert intended it to be read. And just when I wanted to really hate Jubal for not at least trying to fight his way through the crowd, I realize he would've gone through the same kind of pain as Michael. And isn't it strange that everyone just sort of accepted the tragedy but him?? I have to admit, I lost respect for all the characters at the end. Except for Jubal. And as Michael changed throughout the book, my respect began to change, but he redeemed himself at the end. The innocent persona of Michael was fine. The beginning to understand persona of Michael was good (I especially liked the scene where he was surrounded by books, trying to "grok" religion and being loving to Anne). But the last persona was just sort of a carbon copy of Jubal. Of course, Jubal had a tremendous influence on him no doubt. I especially felt hurt towards Michael when he continually referred to Ben as "cannibal". I loved this book and I just wish that earlier decades of youth could've experienced Stranger In A Strange Land in the intended version, unedited. Uncut. Now, I'd appreciate it if you Heinlein fans out there would be kind enough to e-mail me and tell me which ones I should read next. This one being my first one and all. If you do decide to e-mail me suggesting something, please specify in the title. I delete most of my junkmail and may get confused. Thank you. I suggest this book to anyone who hasn't read it yet. It's the first novel I can actually call my favorite. I mean, before I thought it was some of Clive Barker's work. But he was too straight forward where as Robert A. Heinlein wrote with a higher class and subtler style I believe. Thank you for your time.
Rating:
Summary: Incredible Book
Review: Incredible Book - that's enough.
Rating: 
Summary: Stranger still is this book's appeal.
Review: This is not the sweeping philosophical work of genius that it was elevated to in the sixties. And even the people who hold it to be so can't defend its goofy plot. Brought to you by everybody's favorite fascist Robert Heinlein, this book follows a the life of Transparent Jesus Figure. (His name doesn't really matter in the long run, but it's Valentine, if you're hot for some kind of symbolism.) This book brought about the REVOLUTIONARY theory that if everybody loved each other, everything would be all right! And you even get superpowers in the long run! (Granted, those were the drug-happy sixties.) Anyway, the crux of the philosophy is "grokking" your fellow man, which is a way to attain a oneness with him. However, this requires knowing the Martian language; it isn't possible otherwise. So in essence Heinlein isn't offering any real answers, but positing how great things would be if we had magic beans. I have to reiterate...an awful, plotless, sexist, and wrong-headed mess. Turn to Vonnegut or Sturgeon for sci-fi philosophy, and steer well clear of Heinlein.
Rating: 
Summary: I grok wrongness
Review: This book started out fantastic, and then ended with a bunch of hogwash. So many people enjoyed this book that I see no reason why you shouldn't try it out, you'll never know if you are one of those people touched by this book. I wasn't one of them.
Rating:
Summary: out-dated attack on the silent majority
Review: Disclaimer: The first Heinlein books that I have read were "Time Enough for Love" and "The Number of the Beast". Both of which I consider trash. Anyways, "Stranger" is somewhat better. The themes that are brought out might have been scandalous in the sixties, but now they are rather ho-hum:Free Love is good, physical possessions are bad, established religions are hokey, Jealousy is bad, you get the idea. These themes are tied together by a messiah/martyr story. This story might offend you if you believe in the literal meanings of your favorite holy book, but otherwise I think it's tame for many readers. I guess I don't really like Heinlein's tone of writing. I always get the feeling that I'm reading from the mind of a 1960's Hippie demagogue. Someone like Timothy Leary. On the surface they might seem open-minded but underneath they are quite autocratic, self-righteous, inconsiderate and closed to other view-points. Also he's always displaying an adolescent fascination with sex and at the same time he is incredibly sexist with his portrayals of the female characters. For a much better messiah/martyr story, check out Frank Herbert's "Dune".
Rating:
Summary: Best Book I Ever Read
Review: No matter what anyone says, this is the best book that I (and my husband) have ever read. You don't have to agree with everything an author says or believes to enjoy a book. I disagreed with many of the sexist comments that were made, but the reader must remember that these were the views of just one of the characters and were not necessarily the true beliefs of the author. To condemn the book because of those views is like hating the movie, "A Few Good Men" because Jack Nicholson's character was repulsive or believing that the writer of that movie believed that there was 'nothing like getting a blow job from someone that you have to salute in the morning' just because he had one of the characters say so. I particularly enjoyed the concept of a "fair witness", a person trained to acurately report things exactly as they were with absolutely no bias. This is something that I find impossible for humans to attain but irrestistibly intriguing to think about. And despite Jubal's attitudes toward women, he still has the utmost repect for his fair witness's professional abilities and she very frequently outsmarts him. As far as the religious interpretations, this is how someone with no basis for Christian beliefs might very well interpret it. Most of us are taught as children that God is in us, Jesus is in our hearts, the Holy Spirit is all around us. Try to teach that to someone with a different spiritual background, and I think Michael Valentine Smith's interpretation is valid. I said valid, not right. Again, it is one character and how he sees things. People who dislike the book because of the views presented are most likely afraid that other people less knowing than themselves will read this book and believe the ideas presented instead of their own. Learning about differing points of view, especially those diametrically opposed to yours, is a good way to strengthen and confirm your beliefs. I think about this book all of the time. It doesn't guide my actions and ! I do disagree with many concepts presented but it is unbelievably effective at getting me to think and rethink my beliefs and my point of view. If it doesn't do the same to you, then you are either closed-minded or afraid that your beliefs are too weak to hold up under scrutiny. Read the book. Enjoy the story and think about what it says. You don't have to agree with it.
Rating:
Summary: Incredible Transitions
Review: "Stranger In a Strange Land" is literature - and by literature I mean something which inspires thought no matter how many times it is read. What begins as seemingly hardcore sci fi resolves into a critique of United States society, and is followed by a suggested remedy. You will read many criticisms of how this book begins well, and then deteriorates into self-contradictory mush. I ask these critics to supply examples of self-contradiction, rather than to make bold statements without foundation. I accept the unexpected transition as a masterful thought-bridge, spanning the gap between the austere environment of scientific optimism (Apollo) to the deeper emotional aspects of a suggested new morality (Dionysis). Few books cover both sides to life with such an equal-handed grip.
Rating:
Summary: As timeless as 1984 as thought provoking as Farenheit 451
Review: I first read Stranger In A Strange Land in the 1970's and I've reread it on numerous occasions. I was 14 the first time and I'm well over 30 now and it still brings old memories together with new insight. To those who have read RAH'S books and enjoyed them as I have may I recommend this as his masterwork . To those who've read"Stranger" and feel they need to criticize every nuance of it I say GROW UP! This is a classic and any comparisons to the real world are an immature effort at finding fault with something you'd have a heck of a time coming close to . Sorry about the lecture . Mcgyver 6/12/98
Rating:
Summary: Put aside all preconceptions
Review: The first time I read this book, like many readers, I was offended. Then a friend asked me if I could put aside all of my preconceptions and read it as if I had no social, political or religious prejudices. That was the hardest thing I ever did. Finding out that I could care about Michael was a shock. But worth the effort. This book is truly a "must-have". Jubal is one of the most well written chacters I've ever seen. To be that laid back about life and death is something most of us long for. Whatever you do, don't just assume something is "bad" or "immoral" just because you have been trained to believe that there is only one truth. Read this book with an open mind and you may surprise yourself. After all, it's just a story.
| 
