Stranger in a Strange Land

Rating:
Summary: An all-time favorite
Review: Question authority. I first read this when I was nine after consuming most of Heinlein's juvenille literature. It seriously warped my religious paradigms and general thinking. It's a wonderful look at ourselves culturaly, theologically, sexually, intellectually, and politically from a totally alien point of view.

I have read this book more than any other piece of fiction and will continue to do so. The Fosterites vividly remind me of what I do not want to become as a Christian.

"Man is the animal that laughs." Do you grok?

Rating:
Summary: Prescient but Immature
Review: Heinlein's [Stranger in a Strange Land] is certainly prescient when one considers the similarity between the 60s' flower children and the cult of Valentine. As such, the book may be considered useful in a historical study, but I did not read it as such.

The focus of this work is much different from other science-fiction works I have read. The focus is not the creation of a world, an envisioning of the future. The focus is not introducing to the reader an ethical or moral dilemma that may arise in the future because of advanced technology. Rather, Heinlein's focus is on ideology, and he chooses to do so through character development. It seems that Heinlein wished to speak from the pulpit, and chose the medium of science-fiction in which to do this.

As a literary piece, I consider this book immature. To speak his ideas he creates a fictional mouthpiece, Valentine Michael Smith. To better flesh out his ideas, he invents Jubal Harshaw, who represents the sum of human learning to that point. Jubal is at once foil for Valentine, deftly earning the title "Captain Exposition", and also Deus ex Machina for Valentine. In addition to such immature literary techniques, Heinlein also resorts to Jesus imagery, making Valentine a Christ figure by making him a martyr, and then having his disciples interpret his final message to mankind. In short, Heinlein wraps a thin veil of a book around his spiel to his readers; you'll not find literary sophistication here.

I recommend this book if one is doing historical research on the 1960s, but for a science-fiction book one could do better to look elsewhere; this is not even one of Heinlein's best.

Rating:
Summary: One of the most misunderstood novels of all time
Review: I absolutely cannot believe how many people misinterpret what Heinlein is saying with this novel. Those people who consider this book 'The Hippie Bible' are completely missing the point of this novel. As Heinlein himself said "...I would never undertake to be a `Prophet,' handing out neatly packaged answers to lazy minds. [...] anyone who takes that book as answers is cheating himself. It is an invitation to think--not to believe." Another important thing to note is that if you pay close attention to his tone, it is blatantly obvious that Heinlein does not really advocate what Mike Smith is preaching, to the contrary, his views are more in line with Jubal Harshaw, which is supported by the tone he takes towards Jubal (if you read other works by Heinlein, it further reinforces the fact that Heinlein is more like Harshaw).

That being said, I can now move on to my opinion of the novel, instead of my ranting about certain moronic readers. This is my third favorite novel of all time (until I read "Atlas Shrugged" and "The Fountainhead" by Ayn Rand, it was my favorite). This novel is both a satire of religion and a glimpse into why we are the way we are. Imagine how weird this culture would look if you were raised by some different species with drastically different values. Now you understand the problems Mike Smith is facing. Much of the novel deals with his attempt to understand why human culture is the way it is. Mike Smith's "religion" develops as his way of combating human culture once he understands how human culture works--and doesn't like it. The "religion" was his way of trying to convert human culture to Martian culture, which was more familiar to him. It seems to me like Mike never really does try justifying why he thinks Martian culture is superior--which probably means he prefers it simply because it is familiar to him. For this reason, I would argue that Mike never does become an adult (but of course by this criterion, most people never become adults). Mike's insistance upon converting everyone else to his views is what killed him--you just can't ask humans to become Martians and get people to accept it.

I have read both the uncut version and the original version, and I think it is horrible that the editors ever asked him to cut out nearly one quarter of the novel. As for length, I can think of several novels from that part of the century that were much longer than the full manuscript of "Stranger in a Strange Land" (like "Atlas Shrugged" from 1957). Much of the cuts were to clean up wordy passages, and I will argue that the language of the uncut version is more lyrical than the original published version.

This novel is one of the greatest representations of the dangers of culture clashes, and is wonderful for getting you to ask yourself "Why do I believe what I believe?" As the librarian once said to me as I checked out this novel for the first time "This is one of those novels that you can either absolutely love or absolutely hate. There is no middle ground." I will argue that those who hate it are those who don't understand the real purpose of the novel.

Rating:
Summary: Science fiction's greatest achievement
Review: Reviewing Stranger in a Strange Land is quite a challenge. Is it the best science fiction novel ever published? I would say yes. Is it my favorite? No; it's not even my favorite Heinlein novel. To add a little more irony to the pot, Heinlein himself insisted that the book is not really science fiction to begin with. Stranger really marks a huge turning point in Heinlein's career. Unhappy with the brand of "juvenile" writer and the editing that position constantly entailed, Heinlein was determined to write a truly adult novel, one with no taboos, no limits, and no restrictions of any kind. With Stranger in a Strange Land he accomplished that in spades, basically taking on the heretofore sacrosanct subjects of sexuality and religion. Heinlein was not sure that anyone would even publish this story that took him 12 years to write; what was published was a mere figment of the original manuscript, 60,000 words having been cut out. Even though Heinlein did the editing himself, it had to have felt like jabbing an ice pick into his own heart to do it. Thankfully, we can now read the complete, original manuscript the way Heinlein intended the story to be told.

The plot is deceptively simple. The first manned mission to Mars never made it home to Earth. The second mission, twenty years later, found Valentine Michael Smith, an infant born on Mars and the only surviving member of the ill-fated first mission. Having been raised by Martians, Smith is literally a stranger in a strange land when he is brought back to earth with "miraculous" abilities and a Martian philosophy of life. The Federation government basically hides him away from prying eyes, partly in fear of the legal and political dangers posed by his unique status. Having been raised by Martians, the human experience is completely new and rather frightening to him. He has never even met a woman until nurse Jill Boardman sneaks into his room to get a glimpse of him. Fearful that the government is going to keep Michael basically imprisoned (or worse), Jill helps sneak him out of the hospital, and the two of them end up at the home of Jubal Harshaw. Jubal is an outspoken, older man who lives a thoroughly individual lifestyle, but he commits himself to helping Michael escape his perilous situation. Michael quickly begins to absorb human knowledge and, less quickly, begins to understand the confusing mentality of human beings.

Halfway through the novel, you may be asking yourself why the book was so controversial; the answer becomes clear as Michael now steps out into the wider world. He and Jill move around incognito, and Michael learns more about people. After a stint as an unsuccessful magician, he eventually decides to become a preacher. He's not preaching a religion, though; he offers humans a new way of living and thinking, one based on the Martian system he grew up in. This new lifestyle involves a lot of nudity, a lot of open fornication, and the constant repetition of a mantra of sorts naming yourself and those around you God. The "I am God, you are God" theme is essentially Heinlein's means of emphasizing the personal responsibility of each individual for his own life. It is not strictly antireligious, but certainly it is not an idea that would go over well among most fundamentalists. I say most because I am a fundamentalist myself, but I understand what Heinlein was saying and recognize the fact that, after all, this is fiction. Frankly, though, the free love theme bothers my sensibilities and causes my viewpoint of the novel to change somewhat. Even though disapproval began to temper my enthusiasm toward the end, I certainly cannot give this book less than five stars.

Science fiction readers had never read anything quite like Stranger back in 1961; its originality, bold themes, and fearless writing hit with the force of a hurricane, and science fiction has never been quite the same. The Hugo Award this novel rightfully won barely begins to give it the honor and acclaim it deserves. I cannot recommend this novel highly enough, albeit I must enclose a caveat with my endorsement. This book has the power to shock readers even today; do not let your own beliefs take away from the wonder to be found in the pages of this novel. Stranger requires and deserves a completely open mind from anyone who would approach it; it also requires multiple readings to even begin to plumb the depths of its riches.

Anyone wanting to understand and get a true appreciation of the genius of Robert Heinlein really must read Stranger, but I would not recommend picking this book up before you have sampled some of Heinlein's other wares. It would be a real shame to let any adverse emotional reaction to the themes of this novel deprive you of the joy and wonder to be found in countless other Heinlein stories and novels.

Rating:
Summary: The most influential book of my childhood
Review: I first read this book in my early teens. It was probably the most influential book of my young life. Much older now, I still find his observations on human nature to be compelling and insightful. Some of his more radical ideas no longer seem so radical (especially his views on human sexuality), but other views still challenge us to rethink our self-image.

When I recently reread "Stranger", I found it to be a bit more pedantic (even preachy) than I remembered but it is still a good read. It has a tight plot and characters you can believe in. By that, I mean the characters may be in extraordinary circumstances and do extraordinary things but they behave as real people with motivations and emotions that make sense. Character development was always Heinlein's best attribute and this was (in my opinion) his crowning achievement.

I recently read the uncut version (an extra 60,000 words or so) and couldn't easily tell what was different. Only one or two extra scenes that didn't change what was most important to me...

Rating:
Summary: Superb
Review: A very enjoyable read. Certainly a little dated, but that in itself is amusing and diverting. It will be interesting to see how dated contemporary Science Fiction feels in 40-50 years time.

The unabridged version is somewhat laboured in places, and I assume that this reflects the fact that we are effectively reading something akin to an un-edited manuscript. Certainly Heinlein pontificates, but you don't have to agree with him to appreciate the strength of his arguments and sincerity of his musings.

I've read most of the other reviews on here and I suspect that many of the detractors are younger readers. Not wishing to patronise, I think you probably need to have acquired a certain degree of life experience to appreciate the humour and subtlely of this work. A number of the issues and concepts raised will live with me for some time to come, and I am sure the book will merit several re-reads in the fullness of time.

Rating:
Summary: I never could see what the fuss was about.
Review: I thought that this book was, at best, mediocre. It is written more or less at about a 9th grade level. The characters don't act like real people, and they are all given to long windy speeches about all sorts of things. The characters are all given to going off on windy, whiny recitations of Heinlein's beliefs on this or that subject. The "Jubal" character in particular never shuts up. I wanted to shoot him by the time I had finished the novel.

Although this book has gotten considerable acclaim from certain quarters, no doubt due to its counterculture message, I personally found it to be a bore. Heinlein has written other, better novels (e.g. Starship Troopers) which offer superior alternatives to this one.

Not recommended.

Rating:
Summary: Examination of our customs and values from a fresh outlook
Review: Many of Heinlein's books lack a definitive "plot" and I belive this is the reason his works are at times misunderstood. For many readers, upon finishing a third or half of the book, are caught up in what is really just a background. When the background changes, they don't know what to do about it.

Stranger in a strange land examines how modern customs look from a perspective without a lifetime of living in that culture, and from the perspective of someone who wants to so completly understand everything, to "grok" everything in fullness to the point that he knows on an intimate level everything that can be known. This makes for many dissertations into philosiphical conversation from various people of varying degrees of social rigididy.

Another reviewer here noted Heinlein's seemingly bigoted view of women and homosexuality. Heinlin, while a master of portraying the human spirit, was still a man of his time with his own biases. His portrayal of women throughout all his books does seem a bit 'old school' but not in a degrading way. Hearing the tone of the 'macho' men and the feminine ladies is a refreshing perspective. Heinlin wrote books in his time to make people think, and examine what they belive, question it. Now, modern readers sometimes take this for granted, since society has changed so much....we read and see a persentation of a simpler time of tradition, even in the midst of questioning tradition.

Also, it should be noted that much of the story takes place in the home of a very cynical, old school man who keeps four beautiful women around as personal assistants(and no, they aren't prostitutes). I think this is just a kind of reveling in the differences of the sexes...and from a hetero outlook of course! Vive la Difference! I don't think this was sexist, merly a different perspective to examine.

It's also interresting that Heinlien tried so hard to examine the depths of human psychology, tradition, religion and love, but dismissed the idea of Guys kissing Guys with little dissertation or discussion. Is this personal bias of Heinlein, or a purposful variation on a theme to make you think even harder? Maybe. I think it showed that some biases were given to Mike, even though Jubal did his best to present a fresh and thoughtfull picture of humanity.

Stranger in a Strange land is certainly a wonderful book, which has influenced our society on some level, and so is worthy of being read at least to understand that.

Rating:
Summary: An incredible story, if a tad too dated
Review: When I first read this book, I was fifteen years old, and while I didn't fully "grok" everything Heinlein was trying to say, the little bit that I understood left me captivated, and I've been re-reading the book ever since.

Now at 23, I can honestly say that, while some of the more politically minded passages in the book still escape my comprehension, the idea of grokking, an alien culture ultimately changing the environment around it, and the hope that there is more to life than just birth and death is still vibrant and feels me with hope, hope that a person who has no faith in any religion oftentimes feels lacking in.

Granted, the book is old-fashioned in its views on homosexuality, and on the issue of women's rights; some of the things Heinlein says makes me wonder if any feminists have had book burnings with this book top on the list. But I simply take it as his own personal views- I have no need to agree or let what he says influence my overall perception of what I believe he was trying to say. After all, an artist is not in charge of how people react to his work. You can read into this book whatever messages you think are there- all things considered, any and every view I've read is valid, whether I agreed or disagreed with those views.
Just don't hate it for the wrong reasons.

Rating:
Summary: Why is this a classic?
Review: This is the first Heinlein book I have read, so maybe I don't know know enough to judge, but after reading this I will not pick up another Heinlein book.

The first three hundred pages are wonderful. I was totally into it and found it very interesting. Then... it completely fell apart and got stupid. He completely lost track of the story and started preaching.

I am not one that is easily offended at all, but Heinlein's views on women and gays (as voiced in this book) I found very offensive and insulting. It goes that one step beyond being cute and funny and witty.

There's no problem with voicing opinions and views, I'm all for that (and a good laugh at someone's expense isn't a bad thing). The man can believe and write anything he wants. But what I had a problem with is that the offensive views have NOTHING to do with the story. So why are they there??? If they had been important to the story, then I would have had no problem at all.

The reason this book is a classic is beyond me. Is it a landmark book? Sure. For the time. It's terribly dated. And I think is best left as a curiosity for those interested in the history of science fiction. I picked it up because I was curious as to why this book has been called the greatest science fiction book ever written. It doesn't compare to Dune, which deserves that distinction.